Home
Bible
Theology
Apologetics
Society
What's New?
Archive
Bill Bekkenhuis
Morovia
Secular

A Secular Model
For Religious Worldviews

Posted August 4, 1996

Introduction: The following is my interpretation of god's, religions, and secularism. Because it is MY interpretation, I have not qualified my positive affirmations (as I usually do). So you may consider global IMHO set " ON"  :-)

Although I am a Christian, I have not (at least consciously) presented this model from a Christian point of view. And while I have not defended the various points, I believe they CAN be defended from a secular viewpoint without recourse to the Christian belief in revelation.

1.0 A Model for Understanding Human Experience.

    1.1 Human experience is the result of our subjective encounter with an objective natural world; no human experience can be completely subjective or completely objective.

    1.2 The vast majority of human experience is encountered, shared and responded to through cultural symbols - primarily language.

    1.3 While there may be only one objective natural world, there are certainly many subjective human points of view (individual and communal) which encounter that world - giving human experience a pluralistic character.

2.0 The Special Case of Religious Experience and its Conceptualization

    2.1 All human experience (personal and communal) presumably comes to an end in death, as must be the case according to our current understanding of the physical laws of nature.

    2.2 Most humans experience life as value and death as loss of value - otherwise it is hard to imagine our survival  (at least to date :-) of natural selection.

    2.3 Because life is transient and uncertain whereas death is (presumably) forever and inevitable, death presents an ultimate threat to positive human value, meaning and purpose.

    2.4 The word " god" is a cultural symbol used the express the experience of the overcoming of death as a problem - however that overcoming is conceptualized.

    2.5 Because the word " god" expresses an experience whose basis (the overcoming of death) is not possible in the natural world, it invariably (with the exception of pantheism) involves some implied or explicit claim to supernatural transcendence of the natural world.

    2.6 While supernatural transcendence is implied by god-talk, those who use god-talk are restricted to the natural world. This gives god-talk its indirect character: it must use metaphors whose home base is the natural world to express a perceived encounter with a supernatural reality which is nonetheless revealed in that world.

    2.7 The behaviors associated with encountering, sharing and responding to one's god concept constitutes a person's (or community's or society's) religion.

3.0 Types of Worldviews Related to Religious Conceptualizations

[Note: Please let me know if I have grievously misrepresented a particular point of view.]

    3.1 Pantheism: the belief that natural reality itself mediates the experience of overcoming death. Unlike the various theisms, there is no god who transcends the natural realm. It can be distinguished from naturalism or atheism in that it makes use of the god concept and religious behavior.

    3.2 Polytheism: the belief that the experience of overcoming of death is pluralistic. A number of gods are conceptualized as mediating this experience.

    3.3 Monotheism: the belief that the experience of the overcoming of death is monistic. One god is conceptualized as mediating this experience.

    3.4 Weak atheism: Lacking the experience of the overcoming of death, or experiencing the overcoming of death but not expressing this experience through god-language.

    3.5 Strong atheism: A belief that the experience of the overcoming of death is invalid, or experiencing the overcoming of death but believing that expressing this experience through god-language is invalid.

    3.6 Agnosticism: Belief that the experience of the overcoming of death can not be known to be valid or invalid, or believing that expressing this experience through god language cannot be known to be valid or invalid.

4.0 Dialogue Between Religious (and non-Religious) Worldviews.

    4.1 Strictly speaking, disagreement between truth claims can only occur between people who share the same worldview. If the context for the truth claims are not the same, the people are merely talking at cross purposes with each other. An atheist claiming, " there are no god(s)" and a theist claiming, " there are god(s)"  are having a pseudo-argument if they mean different things by the word " god(s)" .

    4.2 There is no independent, objective vantage point from which to accept or reject a religious worldview (or any other worldview, for that matter). Worldviews can only be accepted or rejected based on standards of validity arising from themselves or from alternative worldviews.

    4.3 This implies that absolute truth claims made within a worldview are only absolute to those who accept that worldview. If one seeks to communicate with (rather than convert) people embracing alternative worldviews, then one must accept the relativity of ALL truth claims (including this one, as one may embrace an alternative worldview whose epistemology recognizes absolute truth claims :-)

    4.4 While people do (on occasion) completely abandon one worldview and convert to another, it seems much more common for people to alter their worldviews in incremental ways.

    4.4 Without rejecting the central beliefs of one's worldview, one can still seek to translate those beliefs into the language of other worldviews as well as incorporate the truth within those worldviews into one's own.

Return to top of page.

Return to Apologetics page.

Return to Archive

Return to The Inclusive Christian

Bill Bekkenhuis

Return to top of page.