Within academia we are told that the science of religion should be free from confessionality. At universities in Sweden also theology should be undertaken unconfessionally. However.

It is my belief that we have to relate to the truth claims of religions as if they were true, rather than veering into the prescribed methodological atheism or agnosticism, because these tends to pathologize just about all religious humans.

If Peter Berger claims that it is our duty, if not as scientists or scholars, but rather as citizens to have state our view, my standpoint and basic sentiment is that humanity does not suffer from a collective decease. If so, this could possibly/only be called “the human condition”, in other words; what it is to be a human.

And a short appendix on pathology. We tend not to diagnose the majority of the population as ill, but rather a minority that doesn’t follow the norm. If this should be the case, then a serious case of atheism is rather pathological, as most people are not strict atheists (most people tend to believe in some sort of transcendence) not even in a western context.

There you have my thought of the day.
Til next time, all the best

/Jonatan