In this response I reply to the critiques from Josh Reeves and Richard A. Peters and argue that, even in light of their objections, my presentation of and critical stance towards the science and religion field remains justified. I will acknowledge the lack of an adequate treatment of evolutionary theories of religion in my paper, but question the way in which this lack would undermine my critiques of the theology-laden discourse of science and religion scholars.
The aim of this paper is to offer a critical evaluation of the field of “science and religion” through a brief description of its academic evolution, of the kind of scholars involved in it, and the publications belonging to it. Some elements of this discourse will be highlighted and criticized, namely a number of eurocentric theological assumptions, and what I will define as a “soteriological rhetoric” which serves as a legitimating device for the field, both ubiquitously employed in the work of the scholars involved in the field. I will argue, moreover, that such a rhetoric is the direct product of confessional interests, which disguise the field’s theological apologetical aims with appeals to the universal welfare of an ethnocentrically limited conception of “humanity.”