Worldview Prototype III: Communally Irreligious

Persons associated with the Communally Irreligious prototype share much with the other proto- types: Even though they discern no higher purpose or ultimate destiny for the human species (#96, +4), they affirm and promote a fundamental core of values (#98, +3) and champion individual free- dom of choice if it is thoughtfully responsible (#100, +4). Believing that one can be deeply moral and compassionate without being religious (#83, +4), they seek to follow a well-defined set of moral principles (#54, #3) and show evidence of being caring and compassionate (#77, +3). This care and compassion, however, does not involve giving substantial amounts of time or money to any religious organisation or cause (#1, -3). Despite the many similarities this prototype has with the others, its own peculiarities deserve attention. Thus, I divide the investigation into three do- mains: rejection of religion, emotional profile, and attention to like-minded company. Let us begin with the second part in the prototype name that reflects the rejection of religion.

Rejection of Religion: When it comes to rejecting religion, persons associated with this prototype

are the most consistent in this regard. Hence, I use the name Irreligious rather than Non-religious. A question may be raised, why not go all the way and call this prototype anti-religious. Both terms capture the rejection of religion. However, irreligion as a term does somewhat more justice to the prototype. Anti-religion refers to plain rejection, whereas irreligion accommodates more nuances. The nuance that I wish to particularly accommodate is the disposition of being disinterested in reli- gion. Clearly, all respondents of this study do have interest in religion, in terms of choosing to dif- ferentiate themselves from it. In the context of irreligion, disinterest in religion is not a neutral dis- position, but has a markedly negative tone. As one respondent put it, religion in itself is personally felt as irrelevant, yet some features about religious institutions cause irritation. It is the combina503 _- tion of disinterest with irritation or rejection of some features of religion that is captured better by irreligion than anti-religion, the latter term being about interested rejection, the former accommo- dating also disinterested rejection.

As mentioned previously, one needs to remember that the following by-item differences between the prototypes are often not large. The distinct profile for this prototype emerges due to the consis- tency in ranking items that discuss religion and spirituality.

JK1029

Persons of this prototype view religion as the illusory creation of human fears and desires (#60, +4). Rejecting religious authorities (#20, -3) as well as religious ideas that conflict with scientific and rational principles (#70, +3), they view religious content as mythic and metaphoric (#87, +3), hence not true (#87, +3; +92, -4). Consistently, ideas of salvation (#38, -3), hell (#99, -3), reincarnation (#90, -3) and divinity (#36, -4; #53, -3; #55, +4; #74, -4; #78, -4; #85, +2) are rejected. The theme of divinity clearly stands out: Persons associated with this prototype have not dedicated their life to serving the divine (#36, -4); they personally find the idea of divinity empty of significance (#55, +4); they do not feel personally protected and guided by a spiritual being (#74, -4); nor are they keenly aware of the presence of the divine (#78, -4). None of these preferences are held only by this prototype, and not by others: it is the consistency and strength in rejecting ideas associated with di- vine that stands out.

In addition, more than the other prototypes persons of this prototype consider religious scriptures of human authorships, inspired perhaps, but not infallible (#18, +3). The interviews of those respon- dents who commented on this item revealed a consistency with the previous items rejecting any on- tological reality of divinity: “inspired perhaps” is understood as referring to how the religious peo- ple probably view the scriptures, not as an actual divine inspiration. This does not come as a sur504 _- prise, considering what we already know about them.

The Communally Irreligious are special in their lack of vagueness and ambiguity while confronting religion and spirituality. Previously, we have seen that different prototypes relate differently to items using the expression “religious or spiritual”. The Communally Irreligious consistently rank these items in a way that more than the other prototypes reflect an antagonistic or disinterested disposi- tion in religious or spiritual matters: They do not view all events in this world within a religious or spiritual framework (#79, -3); they do not centre their life on a religious or spiritual quest (#64, -2), neither is being religious or spiritual at the core of their identity (#16, -1).

Whereas the other prototypes think frequently and deeply about religious or spiritual questions (#31, +2 and +3), the Communally Irreligious is just slightly open to such engagement (#31, +1). At the same time, they take no interest in religious or spiritual matters (#24, +2). Taken together, these two statements may seem somewhat puzzling: on the one hand, thinking of religious or spiritual questions is not rejected; on the other hand, there is no interest in religious or spiritual matters. I decided to explore the interviews to gain insight into how the respondents themselves discussed the relationships between these items. Six respondents addressed the issue in various ways. While all six held that they have no personal interest in religious or spiritual matters, they mentioned how such topics would nevertheless intrigue them.

JK1013; JK1046; PN1005 FP1001; FP1002; FP1005

One theme was the dominance and influence of religious institutions in the public sphere, which caused irritation to the extent that the respondents were therefore instigated to think about religious or spiritual matters. This attitude is captured in the following statement by one respondent: 505

...I have not engaged in criticising religion, it has not mattered. Later I have turned more critical towards organised religion, mainly institutions; individual persons’ religious experiences are not subject to criticism. When people create power structures, it is annoying. 506

Others held academic interest in religion: It would be intriguing to study and try to understand why some people are believers, or to study the history of the Bible or religions as an academic pursuit. 507 Some respondents did nevertheless acknowledge that they like to ponder over the ultimate ques- tions, even though to call such reflection religious or spiritual may not be the best word to describe it. Jussi ponders over how he as an atheist may hold interest in ultimate questions just like believ508 _- ers do, without having a religious framework:

It is a fact that I have no interest in religious questions, but they are interesting to discuss, but I have no interest to be religious personally… ”Thinks frequently about spiritual and religious questions” - I interpret it that I often ponder over the big questions out of a non-religious perspective...For an atheist it may mean that one finds comfort in that we are all made of the same substance, even though it is not that one believes that a fellow is waiting on a cloud...one can have spiritual thoughts that matter a lot. 509

I have explored the curious combination of clearly expressed disinterest in religious or spiritual matters combined with openness to thinking about topics related to religion. The Communally Irre- ligious was the only prototype for which item #24 (Takes no interest in religious or spiritual mat- ters) was placed amongst the 25 most agreeable items. This was apparently contradicted by another item expressing openness to thinking about religious or spiritual questions. The puzzle is resolved when we keep in mind that for most Communally Irreligious, there is no personal interest in reli- gion or spirituality, but as sociological, political or psychological phenomena they deserve attention. The conclusion remains that the Communally Irreligious consistently reject religion and spirituality. Since irritation with religious phenomena came up in some interviews, let us explore in more detail, what the emotional landscape of this prototype looks like.

JK1029; JK1074 505 JK1029 506 JK1046; FP1001 507 JK1040; FP1005 508 FP1005 509

Emotional Landscape: Previously, we saw how the Communally Irreligious prototype ranks higher

than the other prototypes in those items where rejection of religion and divinity are emphasised. Of- ten, the differences between the prototypes are not profound, and it is the consistency by which the Communally Irreligious engage in such rejection that makes the profile of this prototype stand out. This picture is slightly complicated with some items, where the rejection of religion or divinity is accompanied with emotional qualifiers. To begin with, the Communally Irreligious respondents feel angry at or distant from God or the divine (+1; -1 for the other prototypes). There are some other items which none of the prototypes agree with, but where the Communally Irreligious prototype disagrees less than the others is: feeling uncomfortable or fearful in turning to the divine (#39, 0; -1 for the others), feeling abandoned or rejected by God (#71, -2; -3 for the others) and feeling anxious about their fate in the next life (#68, -2; -3 and -4 for the others). This is puzzling, since one might assume that the religion-rejecting tendency of this prototype would lead to a strong rejection of these items. There is a more pronounced feeling of anger or distance towards God or the divine, and feelings of being uncomfortable, fearful, abandoned, rejected, or anxious are not rejected as strong- ly as in the other prototypes, even though the object of these feelings belongs to a realm that in the respondents’ minds does not exist. Is it possible that the negative emotions expressed in the state- ments have an effect?

The Communally Irreligious persons also find belief in a benevolent god difficult in the face of evil (+2; 0; 1). It is not a surprise that the problem of theodicy would be acknowledged by non-religious persons, but out of the three prototypes, only the Communally Irreligious placed this item amongst the top 25 agreeable statements. I examined further, whether persons of this prototype would be more sensitive towards evil than persons associated with the other prototypes. More than the other

prototypes, the Communally Irreligious feel threatened by evil forces at work in the world (#61, +1;

0 for the other prototypes). The distinction, however, is small and takes place in the neutral middle section of the board. It does not motivate characterising this prototype as being particularly sensi- tive towards evil. 510

There is one item, however, that more clearly distinguishes this prototype from the others: Whereas the Content Altruist and Experientially Spiritual prototypes firmly deny feeling adrift, without di- rection, purpose, or goal (#35, -2 for these prototypes) the Communally Irreligious place this item in the neutral middle column (0). It is difficult to make out the significance of this. It would be dif- ferent, had the item been placed amongst the three most agreeable columns. Instead, placing the item at 0 does not allow for conclusions without other hints to aid the interpretation. To find further hints about the emotional disposition of this prototype, I will next explore items with positive emo- tional content.

The third FQS item that has the word evil in it (#63: Battles with inner impulses that are experienced as dark or even

510

evil) is placed at 0 by all prototypes, making it irrelevant both self-referentially, as it is placed in the neutral section of the board, and inter-prototypically, as the differences between the prototypes can only be seen by examining the z-sco- res. The CI prototype has a slightly higher z-score than the others.

Less than the other prototypes, persons associated with the Communally Irreligious prototype feel

attuned to spiritual realities in the midst of the natural world (#11, +1; +2 and +3 for the others), feel closer to the ultimate in certain places (#3, -1; 0 for the others) and have experienced moments of profound illumination (#89, -1; 0 and +2 for the others). Spiritual realities, ultimate, and illumi- nation are all expressions where the consistency of ranking them lower could be attributed to this prototype’s profile of rejecting religion and spirituality, rather than having to do with emotions per se. If the conclusion were to be that the Communally Irreligious are emotionally more tilting to- wards the negative, there would have to be further evidence found amongst such items which have no religious or spiritual connotations.

The examination of such items reveals that the Communally Irreligious feel at home in the universe (#59, +2), feel moved and deeply sustained by music, art or poetry (#33, +3), feel a sense of peace even in the face of life difficulties (#75, +1), face the prospect of death with courage and equanimi- ty (#80, +2), and take delight in paradox and mystery (#91, +1). It would therefore be misleading to characterise the emotional life of the Communally Irreligious as lacking positive content. However, when all items that discuss emotions and feelings are examined, the Communally Irreligious has an overall tendency to score higher on negative emotions. Since many of these items have religious or spiritual wordings, the religious rejecting tendency rather than a general emotional disposition might be the cause for the distinction discussed here. We need to separately examine items without religious or spiritual content. This examination reveals the following distinctions between the proto- types: Unsurprisingly, the Experientially Spiritual prototype has a higher mean rank on items which discuss positive emotions than the Content Altruists and the Communally Irreligious. There is no notable difference between the Content Altruist and Communally Irreligious prototypes regarding these items. When we examine items without religious or spiritual content that discuss negative emotions, the Communally Irreligious has a higher mean rank than the other prototypes. When 511 this observation is added to what we know about this prototype’s emotions with religion or spiritu- ality, it would seem that this prototype is less inclined, than the other prototypes, to reject the state- ments about negative emotions. It is important to keep in mind that this distinction is visible when the three prototypes are compared with one another. There is no claim made that the Communally Irreligious would be somehow particularly prone to negative emotions, even though it is clear that with religion, this is a possibility that cannot be ruled out. I will return to this later when I examine the interviews by prototype. At this point, it seems that the information I have presented about the emotional life of this prototype so far presents a puzzle: a hint for further research, where additional interviews or other instruments that assess emotional well-being might resolve, whether the emo- tional life of persons associated with the Communally Irreligious prototype is or is not characterised by heightened awareness of negative emotions, even outside a religious context.

#35: Feels adrift, without direction, purpose, or goal. (CI: 0; CA and ES: -2);

511

#69 Is burdened by a deep sense of guilt and personal inadequacy (CI: +1; CA and ES: 0) #61 Feels threatened by evil forces at work in the world. (CI: +1; CA and ES: 0)

#63 Battles with inner impulses that are experienced as dark or evil (all prototypes: 0; CI has the highest z-score, but differences are small)

There is, however, one important aspect to experiential and emotional life, where the tables are turned: more than others, the Communally Irreligious recognise and appreciate those who share their worldview.

Communal Orientation: This prototype pays more attention to likeminded association than the oth-

ers. Considering how this prototype rejects religion, it is no wonder that Communally Irreligious persons are not active, contributing members of some religious community (#97, -3). Neither is be- ing religious or spiritual at the core of their identity (#16, -1). These features, however, do not mean that group-orientation would not be important: Persons of this prototype feel closest to those who share their outlook (#47, +2), and mainly associate with persons of the same worldview (#76, +1). Even though the original wording of the item #76 talks about associating mainly with persons of the same religious tradition, persons of this prototype have ranked this item almost at +2. The z-score examination reveals that the rank-order of this item is 26th, which is the highest ranked item in +1, or the first item that did not make it in +2. The contrast to the other prototypes regarding these two items is clear: The Communally Irreligious rank item #47 (feeling closest to those with the same outlook) at the 14th place, which is the first item that does not fit into +3-category. The Content Al- truists rank the same item at 28th place, and the Experientially Spiritual at the 41st place. Likewise, whereas the Communally Irreligious rank #76 as the 26th most important - almost +2 - for the Con- tent Altruist the same item ranks as 67th, and for the Experientially Spiritual as 43rd. In this in- stance, the investigation of the z-scores reveals a more marked difference, than merely investigating the column-differences in the factor arrays would have indicated. Since the rejection of religion is important for this prototype, it is safe to conclude that in line with the sorting instructions, persons of this prototype interpret the wording of this item (#76) to accommodate association with other people with irreligious inclinations. Clearly they do not mean association with religious people, as they themselves are alienated from religion.

Sometimes this alienation was with them already from early childhood: they describe their world- view being like one or both parents (#58, +2). The group-orientation gets indirect support by ob- serving that this prototype is least opposed to moving from one religious group to another in search of a spiritual home (#72, -1; -4 and -2 for others). The contrast between the Communally Irreligious and the Content Altruist is particularly striking. Since it is clear that we are not talking about a spiri- tual or religious quest (#64, -2), the conclusion seems to be that persons of this prototype are orient- ed towards a group more than the other prototypes. Therefore, moving from one group to another to satisfy the social needs is not strongly rejected.

For the other prototypes, the relationship to groups is different: For the Content Altruists, involve- ment in or engagement with a religious organisation is sometimes possible, if the focus is on help- ing others. Philanthropic activities are important for the Content Altruists, and other people are seen as objects or recipients of help. This consideration sometimes overrides their non-religious sensibil-

ities. For the Experientially Spiritual, personal autonomy is important, and hence ideas that involve doing things mainly out of social reasons are rejected. This is not so for the Communally Irreli- gious: parental influences, likeminded association and feeling close to those who share their world- view all indicate that more than the other prototypes, they find relationships with people of the same worldview meaningful.

The examination has revealed sometimes small yet consistent distinctions that differentiate between the prototypes. It is now time to summarise the conclusions about the FQS results.