When, under the broad influence of science, we ascend to the macro level and in a no-holds-barred manner treat religious inquiry developmentally, we set off a kind of chain reaction. Forced by such a move to consider what stage of development we’re at, we arrive at the surprising conclusion that the religious dimension of human life is still developmentally immature. But if it’s immature, then further surprises follow. For now we have to think in brand new ways about a range of interrelated and culturally important views with a bearing, often negative, on robust religion. The assumption that humanism is best and strongest when secular and the restrictive but seemingly obvious stance of believerism, along with praise of naturalistic belief, derision of religious agnosticism, and a host of popular views about science and religion fostering a negative evaluation of the latter – all these things have to go.