But if we are not quite ready for an age of science, and still are haunted by the ghosts of religion (and the Judeo-Christian world) then there are two places, again suggested by Freud, to work. The first is to recognize that “theological theology” is first and foremost necessary if there is to be any engagement with the scientific world. This has two reasons: (1) It allows for a critical evaluation of the role of socialization within its own traditions and can see whether this is either a resource or a hindrance rather than the reconstruction found in religious studies as a crypto-theological science. (2) It speaks its own language at the table of society as a result, and this, in part, also means that it must learn to NOT speak when its language is no longer fruitful for the conversation. Two weak examples suffice here. Clearly, the Judeo-Christian resource on sexuality in distinction of nature is different than what we scientifically know on sexuality and choice. Punishment or cultural restrictions on sexuality as nature then seem to be absurd as if we are only nature, then we cannot easily limit this behavior as expressed. We must account for (and this is indeed a brave new and terrifying world) behavior as a manifestation of nature at some fundamental level in both our social mores and social laws. Second, consider climate change denial and its relationship—undeniably so—to the Christian worldview of the dispensational mind that treats this present earth as a temporary place while waiting on the rapture. Whatever planet remains, will clearly for the dispensational mind (and this is a powerful voting body in the United States and elsewhere) be left for the sinners needing either chastisement (the Jews) or punishment (everyone else) before the end of the cosmos as we know it. In both the above cases, the reality of social politics facing the global world is decidedly pointed in another direction, and yet, the religious viewpoint remains salient and powerful.