Religious and non-religious worldviews

A useful comparison starts with a question and some evidence. “Why might these two sources encourage care for the natural world?” is manageable. “What do all religious people believe, compared with all non-religious people?” is too broad to answer accurately from a small selection of texts.

This page offers a reusable method, followed by a comparison of two named organisations' public accounts. It does not present either organisation as speaking for every person who shares a broad label.

What is being compared?

The Religious Education Council's explanation treats worldviews as including beliefs, values and assumptions through which people make sense of life. Its Religion and Worldviews approach distinguishes organised traditions from personal worldviews and attends to diversity within both. This is a named professional approach to the subject, rather than a rule that every school must use identical terminology.

Choose the unit of comparison before you begin:

• Two documents: what do their authors say, and for which audience?
• Two arguments: which conclusions and supporting reasons do they offer?
• Two recorded individual accounts: what do those individuals describe about their own lives?
• Two practices in specified settings: what evidence explains their meaning in those settings?

Do not move silently from one unit to another. A public statement of ideals is not the same kind of evidence as an observation of what people do.

Shared questions, different possible answers

Questions about meaning, responsibility, knowledge and belonging can be explored from more than one perspective. The useful comparison is not simply whether two sources contain the same word. Ask what that word means in each argument.

For example, “responsibility” might be connected to a duty to a creator, care for vulnerable beings, a community's agreements or the foreseeable consequences of an action. Sources may combine several considerations. A reader should identify the reasons actually present, rather than allocate one reason to every member of a group.

Likewise, agreeing on an action does not establish agreement about its ultimate justification. Disagreeing about a justification does not prevent people from cooperating on a particular task.

A framework for careful comparison

The boundary is part of the answer. It prevents a limited comparison from becoming an unsupported claim about millions of people.

Worked example: care for the natural world

The question for this example is “How do these two organisations explain a responsibility towards the natural world?” Read the linked sources before extending the comparison.

Source A: Humanists International's introduction to humanism presents responsibility towards other people and the natural world as part of its humanist outlook. It connects that outlook with reason and science and rejects supernatural beliefs. This is an organised non-religious self-description.

Source B: The Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales environment page presents environmental care through Christian stewardship and the value of God's creation. It also discusses humanity's relationship with the natural environment. This is an institutional account from a particular Christian organisation.

The comparison above is our reading of these two sources. It is deliberately narrower than “Christianity versus humanism”. It does not claim to exhaust either tradition or all possible reasons for environmental care.

Diversity within groups

A label is a starting point for enquiry, not a completed biography. To learn about a particular person, ask what evidence that person has chosen to make public and what it actually supports. An interview can illuminate one experience without standing for a whole community.

Avoid these jumps in reasoning:

• From “this organisation teaches…” to “every member thinks exactly…”
• From “this individual says…” to “everyone with this identity says…”
• From “these sources agree on one action…” to “their worldviews are the same…”
• From “these sources disagree…” to “the people involved cannot work together…”

If a textbook offers a broad summary, use it to locate a more precise question. Check whether examples show variation or simply repeat one familiar image of a tradition. The source-evaluation guide gives a method for doing that.

Try the comparison yourself

Using the two sources above, write a short comparison with four parts:

1. Name the shared question.
2. Explain one similarity, with support from each source.
3. Explain one difference without ranking the people who hold the positions.
4. Identify one question the sources leave unanswered.

A useful answer could end: “To find out how these ideas affect a particular community project, we would need evidence about that project.” That is a justified next step, rather than a weakness in the comparison.

For further challenge, distinguish a source's stated reason from your inference about its implications. Use wording such as “the source says…” for the first and “one possible implication is…” for the second.

Teacher notes

The method can be adapted to a question and sources already selected for the school's curriculum. Introduce necessary vocabulary before asking pupils to compare. A two-column list of broad labels should not replace attention to specific texts, practices or people.

Pupils can analyse the published sources without announcing their own religious or non-religious identities. Do not ask a pupil to certify a whole tradition's position. Assess accurate attribution, a supported comparison and recognition of limits.

See teaching non-religious worldviews for planning guidance, humanism for a fuller explanation of one perspective, and ethics without religion for comparing reasons in a fictional decision.