Common Ground Shared by the Prototypes

By investigating the factor arrays, the common ground shared by all prototypes could be divided into three distinct domains: alienation from religion, secular humanism and experiential dimension. I will elaborate on each, based on the items in the positive and negative ends of the factor arrays. The statements will be referred to with item-numbers provided in brackets, followed by the number indicating the score in the factor array. When I present the common ground for all prototypes, I pro- vide the scores for all prototypes, the first number representing prototype one and the last one stand- ing for the third prototype. I will present the prototypes separately right after.

Alienation from traditional religion. As already indicated by the interviews, the Finnish affiliated

non-religious individuals do not feel at home with traditional religiosity. This is evidenced by the statements placed at the negative end of the board, indicating disagreement. All three prototypes do not identify with any holy figure, human or divine (#66; -2 -1 -2). Unsurprisingly, personal God is rejected: they do not serve (#36, -4 -4 -4), turn to (#46, -2 -2 -2), or believe in (#53, -3 -2 -3) a per- sonal God. One respondent elaborated on it in the following manner:

Some time ago when we discussed with some friends, I just noted that I do not think that I have had in my life even the faintest religious experience. So, perhaps the area where that illusion is born i s missing in my brain. Well, I firmly believe that the fact that I have to have something differently from a strongly religious person, just something, or simply a chemical-biological difference because, because some idea, some such intuition about that something like that could be possible...I do not have that sense at all, it is an altogether ab surd idea. 472

JK1046 472

It is likewise no surprise that religious ideas that conflict with scientific principles or rationality are rejected (#70, +2 +2 +3) : there is neither anticipation of a life hereafter (#52, -3 -1 -4) , salvation (#38, -3 -2 -3) nor hell for heretics and criminals (#99, -2 -4 -3). Religious content is seen as mythic and metaphoric (#87, +2 +3 +3) , religion itself being the illusory creation of human fears and de- sires (#60, +2 +3 +4). Hypocrisy is considered to be common in religious circles (#101, +2 +3 +3). Some respondents, however, pointed out that hypocrisy is not the prerogative of only religious peo- ple:

I would say that in many secular worldview communities it is the same thing...I would not underline specifically religiosity.473

The non-religiousness of these respondents is not a simple rejection of something; rather, a disposi- tion of clear secular humanistic characteristics could be discerned, which will be outlined next.

Secular humanistic disposition. Even though atheism, scepticism, secular humanism and the like

focus on different features of non-religion and can be analytically separated for theoretical reflec- tions, practically these dispositions nevertheless often overlap within a personal worldview. As a matter of preference, one person may emphasise atheism over humanism, whereas another one may have it the other way round: humanism or agnosticism is preferred over explicit atheism. With 474 the respondents of this study, the negative common ground, which is dominated by rejection of di- vinity and its associated doctrines, is combined with shared support for secular humanistic ideals, characterised by the following FQS statements that were placed at the positive end:

JK1053

473

Many Finns who say they do not believe in God nevertheless do not identify themselves as atheists: According to

474

Taira (2014), in 2011, 21% did not believe in God, whereas 13% identified as atheists. This is the highest percentage of atheist identification ever, probably due to the fact that multiple choices were allowed. Previous to this, percentages as low as 3% have been found, whereas at the same time the percentage of those who do not believe in God have been higher. Eller (2010) has claimed that secular humanism is a natural concomitant for an atheist. “...not all humanists are atheists, ...but presumably all atheists are humanists, since what else could they be?”

Even though the individuals associated with this outlook do not discern any higher purpose or 475 ultimate destiny for the human species (#96, +3 +2 +4), they nevertheless affirm the possibility of human progress on a worldwide scale (#95, +3 +2 +2). Rejection of religious doctrines does not lead to a vacuum of values. Believing that one can be deeply moral and compassionate without be- ing religious (#83, +4 +4 +4), they seek to follow a well-defined set of moral principles (#54, +3 +2 +3). This is not only something internal. On the contrary, showing evidence of being a compassion- ate person (#77, +4 +2 +3), being active to relieve the suffering of others (#29, +4 +2 +2) and mak- ing the world a better place to live (#51, +4 +2 +2) are important ideals. Persons of this viewpoint embrace a spiritual outlook that actively seeks to change societal structures and values (#56, +3 +2 +2), which is in line with participating in organisations dedicated to promoting ideals and affecting change in society. At the same time, there is respect for the stance of others, even when different from one’s own: Individual freedom of choice, if it is thoughtfully responsible, is valued and cham- pioned (#100, +3 +4 +4).

There is one more topic that belongs to the common ground. This is the role of experiences in the worldview. Instead of prescribed religious practices, rituals, scriptures and experiences, the Finnish non-religious derive sustenance and inspiration from other sources. Let us see how the experiential dimension of their worldview looks like.

Experiential dimension. FQS has several statements that allow for expressing sources of inspiration.

The respondents made use of these statements. Their experiential dimension involves music, art or poetry, which give them nourishment and sustenance (#33, +2 +4 +3). Feeling most attuned to spiri- tual realities in the midst of the natural world (#11, +2, +3, +1), they feel at home in the universe (#59, +3 +4 +2) rather than anticipate a life hereafter (#52, -3 -1 -4).

These characteristics are shared by all prototypes, even though there are differences of degree. The following prototype descriptions reflect these kinds of differences. At times, differences are more pronounced, and perspectives opposite to one another can be observed.

Referring to the preferences shared by the respondents as a group