“…The cottage industry of envisioning some sort of future for the philosophy of religion has almost uniformly and arbitrarily constrained its imagination to the locus of disciplinary reconfiguration and stylistics (Goodchild, 2002;Trakakis, 2008Trakakis, , 2013Crisp and Rea, 2009;Smith and Whistler, 2010;Wildman, 2010;Hewitt, 2012;Rennie, 2012a, b;Schilbrack, 2012Schilbrack, , 2014aStrenski, 2012a, b;Knepper, 2013Knepper, , 2014Crockett, Putt and Robbins, 2014;Irvine, 2014;McLachlan, 2014;Simmons, 2014;Lewis, 2015;Onishi, 2017;Draper and Schellenberg, 2018;Kanaris, 2018). This imaginative constraint reflects these projects being caught in the ongoing tug of war among anti-disciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and postdisciplinarity, which may have value in its own right for the humanities broadly (Menand, 2010, chaps 2.5-6), but could easily lead to ruin for philosophy of religion due to its departmental dislocation.…”