He situated Religious Studies in contrast to theology as agnostic on the truth of religious claims but he was critical of Peter Berger for "assuming the non-existence of God". Religious Studies is, however, interested in why people believe that their religious statements or experience is true, thus description, although vital, must "transcend the informative" and engage in dialogue with "the para-historical claims of religions and anti-religious outlooks". It need not be hostile to the type of committed approach pursued in theology "provided it is open, and does not artificially restrict understanding and choice". It is not concerned with evangelising but with elucidating understanding, or meaning. Religious Studies, too, has a vital role to play in combating tribalism, that is, human captivity to its own cultures. Religious Studies as a non-confessional, methodologically agnostic discipline takes its place in the secular academy, where it draw heavily on anthropology, sociology, psychology, history, archaeology, and other disciplines. At bottom, it has a place in the public or state sector because, as an aspect of human experience, it is also the study of people – of what they believe, why they believe and act as they do, both individually and within society. It is a constantly changing field because religions change as religious people adapt to new circumstances. Religious Studies is never exclusively interested in what might be termed orthodoxy—however a religion itself might enforce or police conformity to an official version – but with religion as it is lived, with "religion on the ground," a term he first used in 1978. Responses to modernity, to globalisation, as well as trends towards religious eclecticism, properly concern Religious Studies. Smart did not anticipate a single, eclectic religion emerging but that religions would increasingly borrow from one another and that a global consensus on the value of religion in society would evolve. In interview with Scott London, he said: