It’s really a bit of oddity to find a modern intellectual animosity against credo, or more commonly called doctrine in traditional Christianity. There is no real good reason for its animosity other than an irrational fear, or hatred for it. It’s a response of pathos than that of logos. Here is why. If credo defines the what of belief, and provides a map, and religio provides a relational context of the belief. Those raising the ire against are more often emphasizing the experiential while they themselves have not experienced it. They are also often not very social, so they’re in a constant longing for a deeper relationship. They have fallen into the trap of believing themselves to have grasped the mysteries, or lost the sense of mystery themselves, so there is no mystery to behold, nor the reverence. It’s a vicious cycle. It’s just like two romantic lovers who wake up to reality after the marriage to find the other person too human. The loss of wonder leads to the loss of the sense of worth they feel for the content. It’s too familiar to them, and often to their loss, they cross the threshold of illusion of having climbed the summit, when they have in fact fallen down the cliff. A leper does not feel not because there is nothing to feel, but because he has lost the ability to feel. They themselves have become the ossified representation of the credo, and what is manifested is a form of self-hatred to rail against others climbing the edifice of the divine, which is supposed to be the object of our worship, or reverence. The source of it begins with a heart that has ossified to hold anything in reverence, or has become incapable of true worship.