Worldviews: A Comprehensive Approach to Knowing Self and Others 303082490X, 9783030824907

Citation preview

Worldviews A Comprehensive Approach to Knowing Self and Others John Valk

Worldviews “With Worldviews: A Comprehensive Approach to Knowing Self and Others, John Valk persuasively articulates the need for more comprehensive worldview literacy. He presents a helpful framework for introducing people of all professions and disciplines to key aspects of worldviews and how to better understand them. Espousal of the principles therein will lead to more peaceful and productive human collaboration and flourishing.” —Ryan Gardner, Professor of Religious Education, Brigham Young University-­Idaho, USA

John Valk

Worldviews A Comprehensive Approach to Knowing Self and Others

John Valk University of New Brunswick Fredericton, NB, Canada

ISBN 978-3-030-82490-7    ISBN 978-3-030-82491-4 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82491-4 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

An educated person should know about and have a feel for many things, but perhaps the most important is to have an understanding of some of the chief worldviews which have shaped and are now shaping human culture and action. Ninian Smart (1927–2001) Worldviews: Cross-Cultural Explorations of Human Beliefs

New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1983, p. 6

To my mother Sheila (Sijbrigje) Valk-Gerkema (1915–2016) who encouraged reading, knowing that it might open up vast new worlds— even new worldviews.

Preface

This book had its beginnings many years ago, though the idea of it was unknown to me at that time. But after a decade and more of teaching, researching, and writing short pieces about worldviews, it became apparent to me that I was heading in this direction. New territory, thoughts, and ideas were opening themselves up, and they eventually needed a book to spell them all out. For twenty years now I have taught a course entitled Worldviews, Religions and Cultures. In vain I searched for a suitable textbook amongst the myriad on offer. I could not find one. They were often too focused on one theme or another, insufficient either in breadth or in depth, or exclusive of certain important categories of worldviews to suit my purposes. My previous writings on worldviews stressed the need to be inclusive—of both religious and secular worldviews—rather than focus on one category or the other. I sought an approach that would be comparative of both worldviews, so that clear parallels could be seen between the two, rather than see only religious worldviews as having, for example, metanarratives, teachings, symbols, rituals, and more. I sought an approach that would reveal that secular worldviews are far from neutral and are themselves journeys of faith and exploration. I sought an approach—a worldview framework—that would include ultimate questions, ontological and epistemological matters, universal principles, and more. These endeavours slowly developed over the past decade or so of teaching. The result is this book.

ix

x 

PREFACE

An understanding of worldview is no small thing, even though the word is often bandied about as if we all knew exactly what it meant. This is far from the case. An understanding of worldview needs to be nuanced, with a variety of aspects to be taken into consideration, each assisted by insights from a variety of academic disciplines. In this case those aspects actually became chapters, each exploring at considerable length all that is involved in the concept of worldview. As such, this book is a comprehensive approach. Worldviews are also not just something to be studied out there, as it were—frameworks of understanding, perspectives, beliefs, values, and more that may shape and influence a society or culture or that others may hold and can be examined objectively and at a distance. Worldviews are not just something that may define certain institutions or that other people embrace. We all individually or collectively have a worldview—of some kind. We all look at the world, and act in it, in one way or another. We are not just detached observers. We can indeed reflect on the beliefs, views, values, and actions of others but doing so inevitably engages us as well. We ourselves are invariably drawn in—what do we think about all of these matters? As such, this book also invites the reader to explore their own worldview, as they explore those of others. Numerous opportunities availed themselves over the years in presenting certain aspects and sections of this book both nationally and internationally. Presentations on the theoretical justification for a book of this nature were made at both the International Seminar for Religious Education and Values and the Religious Education Association conferences over a number of years. Linking worldviews and leadership were made possible through a number of presentations at the International Leadership Association conferences. Linking worldviews and inclusive education were made possible in annually teaching for a decade now, and in modular form, students in the Inclusive Education Programme at the Protestant University of Applied Sciences (Darmstadt, Germany). I thank them and their instructors for their involvement and engagement as they came to see how worldviews also impacted this area of inquiry. In five workshops over a period of four years I presented aspects of the worldview framework as it applied to Islam to a group of scholars at Ankara University. I thank them for their involvement as we worked collaboratively to see how the framework expanded an understanding of Islam for them, all of which resulted

 PREFACE 

xi

in the book An Islamic Worldview from Turkey: Religion in a Modern, Secular and Democratic State (Palgrave Macmillan, 2017). Aspects and themes emanating from the book were also presented in various other academic settings: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Catholic University of Applied Sciences (Freiberg), University of Bonn, Catholic University of Eichstatt, University of Passau, Goethe University (Frankfurt), University of Heidelberg, University of Helsinki, Diaconia University of Applied Sciences (Helsinki), Umeå University (Sweden), University of South Africa (Pretoria), Baylor University (Waco, Texas); Calvin University (Grand Rapids, Michigan), The King’s University (Edmonton, Alberta), and Dalhousie University (Halifax, Nova Scotia). But contents of the book have been presented most fully to my students at Renaissance College, University of New Brunswick (Fredericton, New Brunswick). It was they who listened patiently, engaged enthusiastically, asked insightful questions, and made critical comments during class sessions over the past twenty years, and as a result sharpened my arguments. To them I owe a great debt and am most thankful. Lastly, I owe gratitude to Renaissance College and the University of New Brunswick for granting me two sabbaticals to do more intensive research and writing that eventually led to this book. The writing of a book can be a lonely journey. One often faces an empty screen, with a head full of ideas but not always finding quite the right way to articulate them. With perseverance, however, words do eventually spill on the screen, and from there something slowly takes form. Yet, while the actual writing of a book can be a lonely experience, it is never done without conversations, engagements, and involvements with others, in greater or lesser degrees and in various ways. In that vein, I owe much to a number of people who listened to what I had to say as I was thinking about and actually writing my book, who invited me to give presentations on portions of my book, who offered helpful questions and comments, who were intrigued by what I was saying and created new possibilities in new areas, who assisted in some of my sabbatical travels, or who simply provided a time and space for me to quietly do my writing. In no particular order, and apologies to those I will inevitably overlook, I would like to thank in particular the following: Anne-Dore Stein, Mualla Selçuk, Halis Albayrak, Aybiçe Tosun, Siebren Miedema, Ryan Gardner, Saila Poulter, David Koerts, Antoni van Dijk, John Rogers (Auckland), Steenkamps (Auckland),

xii 

PREFACE

Anne-Marie Holtzhausen-Visser (Mossel Bay, South Africa), Helen Nugteren (Christchurch), Betsy and Jaap van de Poll (Hattem, Netherlands), Henk Bruggeman (Hattem, Netherlands), and more. I also wish to thank two anonymous reviewers who offered very helpful suggestions on strengthening the manuscript—you are not forgotten. Lastly, I owe a great debt also to my immediate family members (Ellie Valk-Horst, John-Harmen, Nathaniel, Michael, Kieran) who over the years accompanied me in one form or another in my writing journey and who are not yet, I hope, tired of hearing the term worldview. Fredericton, NB, Canada Summer 2021

John Valk

Contents

1 Introduction  1 Worldviews of Today  15 A Comprehensive Approach  24 2 Personal and Group Identity 31 Introduction  31 Personal/Individual  35 Social/Communal  46 Ethnicity, Language, and Nationality  56 3 Cultural Dimensions 71 Introduction  71 Stories: Narratives and Metanarratives  73 Teachings and Doctrines  85 Ethical Principles  93 Rituals and Symbols 103 Social and Communal 111 4 Ultimate/Existential Questions121 Introduction 121 Meaning/Purpose of Life 124 Nature of the Human: Who/What Am I/We? 131 Responsibilities/Obligations 138 What Is Right/Wrong? 148 xiii

xiv 

Contents

A Force, Power, or Being Greater than Humans 155 Life After This Life 162 5 Ontological/Epistemological Questions175 Introduction 175 Ontology: The Nature of Being 176 Epistemology: Sources of Our Knowing 197 6 Universal/Particular Beliefs, Values, and Principles209 Introduction 209 Universal Beliefs, Values, and Principles 210 Sources of Universal Beliefs, Values, and Principles 213 The Particularization of Universal Beliefs, Values, and Principles 220 7 Concluding Reflections245 Works Cited251 Author Index291 Subject Index297

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Quite some time ago an essay published in the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada made some observations that linked the arms of two formidable forces in the Western world: educational and corporate cultures (AUCC, 2003; Bok, 2004; Washburn, 2005). Three things were mentioned in that essay. One, an Ekos Research poll indicated that a “cosmopolitan worldview” was rated by Canadian business executives as “one of the top three skills needed by corporate leaders”. Two, business and community leaders felt that studies abroad would be an excellent opportunity for students to gain such a worldview. Three, a report by Goldfarb consultants stated that study abroad enhanced, among other things, “a more open and tolerant attitude, and increased cross-cultural sensitivity and knowledge” (AUCC, 2003, p.  2). Other reports and studies have further amplified the value of exposure to cultures different than one’s own (Gunesch, 2004; Adams et  al., 2011; Yelich Biniecki & Conceição, 2014). As a result, many universities have implemented study abroad programmes in the past decade or two, recognizing the numerous benefits they bestow on students. Openness, a more tolerant attitude, increased cultural sensitivity, and knowledge of others are today considered a necessity for living in the global world. Universities can assist students in gaining all of these by their study abroad programmes. However, these programmes also run the risk of exposing students to little more than superficial differences in dress, social customs, and cultural preferences, as © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. Valk, Worldviews, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82491-4_1

1

2 

J. VALK

valuable as these may nonetheless be for students, corporate leaders, or others. But to be of real value one must get beyond what Skelton et al. (2002) termed a “foods, festivals and flags” outcome. A “cosmopolitan worldview” must consist of more. Universities through their various programmes educate students for more than corporate leadership; they educate them for life. Higher education is, according to Moreland and Craig (2003), “the single most important institution shaping Western culture” (p. 2.). Educating students in a “cosmopolitan worldview” then becomes essential. But what is a “cosmopolitan worldview”? Of what does it consist? How should public schooling teach a “cosmopolitan worldview”, or any worldview for that matter? Education is about formation as much as it is about information, neither of which is value free (Hauerwas, 2007). According to J.K.A. Smith (2009), “behind every pedagogy is a philosophical anthropology; behind every constellation of educational practices is a set of assumptions about the nature of human persons” (p.  27). Not even science education or research is worldview neutral (Marsden & Longfield, 1992; Kuhn, 1970). Mitroff and Kilman (1978) argue that the “selection of any particular experimental design is not automatic but is a function of one’s worldview as well as a response to particular technical requirements” (p. 47). Hence, the teaching about worldviews becomes important, regardless of the level and the discipline in which students are exposed to them (Valk, 2007; Van der Kooij et al., 2013). The term “worldview” is used extensively in an increasingly wide array of disciplines. It is used in the humanities: in philosophy (Pepper, 1942; Naugle, 2002; Sire, 2004a, 2004b; Marshall et al., 1989), religious studies/theology (Peterson, 2001; Olthuis, 1985; Tillich, 1957), sociology (Smith, 2011), psychology (Nilsson, 2013; Webb, 2009; Koltko-Rivera, 2004), anthropology (Hiebert, 2008; Smart, 1983; Kearney, 1975, 1984; Geertz, 1957, 1973; Redfield, 1952), education (Van der Kooij et  al., 2013; Bonzo & Stevens, 2009; McKenzie, 1991), leadership studies (Chin et  al., 2018; Auxier, 2015; Valk, 2010, 2013; Valk et  al., 2011; Wallace, 2007; Kriger et Seng, 2005; Visser, 2005), and more. It surfaces in the sciences, especially in physics and biology (DeWitt, 2018; Capra, 2010; Goetz & Taliaferro, 2008; Borchardt, 2006; Orr, 2006; Kuhn, 1970), as well as in nursing (Kikuchi, 2003; Fawcett, 1993). It surfaces in economics, where we hear of a capitalist worldview, a consumerist worldview, a socialist worldview, and even a Bhutanese “Gross National Happiness” worldview (Cox, 2016; Loy, 1997; Zsolnai, 2011;

1 INTRODUCTION 

3

Nelson, 2001; Schaumacher, 1989; Wexler, 2006). One reads of worldviews even in newspaper articles and opinion pieces. It is now also a name given to a new constellation of earth observation satellites called WorldView Legion, which is replacing ageing Worldview 1 and Worldview 2 satellites. Hence, worldview is not an unfamiliar term. But it is not always clear what is meant by it for it is often ill-defined, vaguely defined, or imprecisely defined. How then should it be understood? What constitutes a worldview? What does it encompass; what is its scope and nature? What are its implications and applications? Does this term or concept increase our understanding of the human—of human beliefs, values, and behaviours? The term worldview first surfaced in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries in the writings of German philosophers, as David Naugle (2002) nicely illustrated in his landmark book on worldviews. Naugle traced the early history of this term from Kant (1724–1804), who first coined the term Weltanschauung in 1790, to Hegel (1770–1831), who understood it to mean “ways of living and looking at the universe”, to the Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard (1813–55), for whom worldview or life view was “a deep and satisfying view of life that would enable him to become a total human being”, to Wilhelm Dilthey (1833–1911), known as the “father of worldview theory” (Naugle, 2002, pp. 59, 70, 75). The concept of worldviews arose to give legitimacy to the rich variety of cultures within human history. Dilthey recognized that characteristic of humans was a great need to find answers to life’s ultimate or existential questions—meaning and purpose of life, nature of the human, beginnings and endings of life, existence of a power or being greater than humans, and more. He came to realize, however, that people would respond to these ultimate questions from their own cultural or subjective, and hence changeable, perspective. This was seen as an affront to classical rationalist philosophy, which attempted to reduce all cultural and subjective differences, believing that cultural plurality resulted in violence, with one culture inevitably suppressing others. Only a society based on reason, it was argued, would lead to peace and happiness—an implicit promise of progress. Overcoming worldview plurality was deemed necessary to establish “a unified society built on the absolute and general truths of philosophical reason”; different worldview perspectives revealed only narrowness of knowledge and ideas (Marshall et al., 1989, p. 121). But while rationalists “sought absolute and general truths of reality”, they were increasingly challenged by the fact that those truths often conflicted with the “social and political reality of the day” (Marshall et  al., 1989, p.  124). One

4 

J. VALK

overarching picture of reality—a master narrative—became problematic. An absolute, universal metanarrative, or master narrative, even one based largely on the Judeo-Christian story, came to be contested by an emerging historicism. An absolute response to life’s existential questions that was universally applicable could no longer be demonstrated philosophically, nor with ultimate rational certainty (Naugle, 2002; Bulhof, 1980). Dilthey came to recognize that different “life stories” not only set their priorities differently but also competed against each other. Their truth claims could be neither proven nor disproven and, viewed historically, became relative (Marshall et al., 1989). Dilthey began to analyse and compare various life stories in their narrative, doctrinal, symbolic, and ritual forms. Much could be learned from them that rendered insight into the nature of the human and the cosmos. A number of implications can be drawn from Dilthey’s thoughts. First, worldviews are linked to identity; they speak of who we are. Our identity is impacted by our surroundings and circumstances, which influence who we are and how we see the world and act in it. Our familial, social, cultural, economic, linguistic, and ethnic backgrounds shape us—how we view the world and act in it. We are products of our environment and our upbringing, even if we are not defined by them. It is from the world in which we live and act that we first begin to develop a view of that world. Our worldview is our “picture of the way things, in their sheer actuality are, [our] concept of nature, of self, of society. It contains[our] most comprehensive ideas of order” (Geertz, 1957, pp.  421–422). Our view of the world becomes a “framework of understanding” the world in which we live and the way that we live in it (Taylor, 1989). Second, coming to understand our worldview involves some cognition. We think and ponder on our world and our place in it, invariably touching on some of life’s ultimate or existential questions: meaning and purpose, nature of the human, right and wrong, and more. These questions are largely the domain of philosophers, theologians, and writers, yet they do not escape the purview of the ordinary person. We reflect, to greater or lesser degrees, on our living in the world in order to make sense of our lives and to give meaning to what we do. In that sense, our worldview— our view of the reality in which we live—can be expansive or cognitively limited. Third, worldviews lead us to assess, judge, or evaluate the world in light of narratives we embrace, teachings to which we adhere, social institutions to which we belong, circumstances in which we live, and experiences we

1 INTRODUCTION 

5

undertake. They also influence the manner in which we assess, judge, and evaluate others: their situations, their narratives, their teachings, and their social institutions. They aid in the manner in which we respond to crises we face, dilemmas we encounter, and uncertainties we confront. They assist in centring us, in making sense of the world in which we live, and its history, and in giving meaning or purpose to life. Worldviews become the frameworks or sources to assist in recognizing and articulating identities (Taylor, 1989). Fourth, worldviews involve actions and behaviours. The way that people view the world influences the way people live in the world. A worldview shapes the conscious or unconscious decisions and choices people make in their lives. What people do reveal their passions, interests, and emphases, sometimes in spite of what they say. Actions and behaviours disclose what they feel is important; often exposing their preferences, desires, or wishes (J.K.A. Smith, 2009; Harvey, 2013; C. Smith, 2017). It is also known that actions and behaviours can be erratic, irrational, and even unintentional—humans are not always consistent either in their views or in their behaviours. Dilthey recognized that worldviews are comprehensive; they encompass all of our experienced reality. He attributed to philosophy the task of making sense of that experienced reality. Philosophy interprets the experience of life and worldviews are the “interpretations of reality”. The philosopher articulates or brings to consciousness the worldview depicted by religious or secular thought, artistic expression, or cultural symbols (Bulhof, 1980, p. 86). Dilthey argued for a philosophical study of worldviews, one that would look at how various individuals or groups of individuals pictured their understanding of the reality they experience, recognizing that each reality is different. It is here that numerous debates have continued in the last century or more with greater or lesser degrees of intensity. At issue is whether the nature of reality can be comprehended with any degree of certainty or truth using particular methodologies, approaches, or systems. Griffioen (2012) points to the helpful distinction in the German language between weltbild and weltanschauung. Weltbild is a more neutral term that refers to a picture of the world, a taken for granted, common outlook depicting or describing nature or the cosmos. Hence, at various stages of history people have spoken of Ptolemaic, Newtonian, or Darwinian explanations of the world or the universe. Weltanschauung, on the other hand, refers more to a world orientation, a truth claim about the world that cannot be

6 

J. VALK

proven rationally or scientifically, but is ascribed or adhered to as a matter of personal conviction. This leads to a plurality of truth claims, with no one commonly shared fundamental orientation. Dilthey and the Rationalists recognized this would lead to struggles between competing orientations; orientations that can easily develop into political ideologies, such as Marxism, Communism, or Liberalism (Marshall et al., 1989). Enlightenment thinking led to a number of truth claims that sparred with others as well as each other. It marked a radical shift from a worldview that placed God at the centre to one that put humans there—as autonomous selves. Descartes’ cogito ergo sum laid the philosophical groundwork for exploring the mysteries of the universe in order to better control human life within it. A sure means to do so, it was argued, was to dispense with metaphysical speculation and focus on the objectively verifiable, namely the empirical sciences. Hume was one of the first to argue that metaphysics—contemplation of that which might lie beyond or behind the natural world, a transcendent realm, essence, or Being—was little more than futile conjecture, for only through the empirical can any sense of certainty be gained. Only reason and science, it was argued, could generate objective truth about the nature of reality—our understanding of self and the world. Such became the relentless pursuit of Modernism, which rendered other truth claims about the nature of reality and the universe in which we live, such as those advocated by various religions and theologies, to little more than views, opinions, or worse, illusions (Dworkin, 2013; Grayling, 2013a; Myers, 2013; Dawkins, 2006). Theology as queen of the sciences was toppled from an academic pedestal it had occupied for centuries and replaced by science and reason. Science and reason became the new truth claim or “religion” of the modern period, with scientists as the new clergy able to explain human existence and individual behaviours, as most audaciously claimed by the father of  Positivism, Auguste Comte (1789–1857). In essence, reason and science became the new grand narrative, with a new “grand design” able to potentially penetrate even the “mind of God” (Hawking, 1998; Hawking & Mlodinow, 2012; Lewontin, 1991). Postmodernism refuted such notions and claims to truth. It rejected Modernism and its supreme confidence in reason and science. It claimed that reason and science are seldom impartial; scientific theories rest on some implicit or explicit philosophical foundation (Babbage & Ronan, 2000; Landau, 1995). As the philosopher of science Michael Polanyi (1962) put it, “complete objectivity as usually attributed to the exact

1 INTRODUCTION 

7

sciences is a delusion and is in fact a false ideal” (p.  18). According to Foucault and Rainbow (1984), reason and science are frequently in the service of some wider interests, most particularly that of ruling elites. Postmodernism recognized that knowledge has its limitations; a grand theory of everything may just be a modernist illusion. In that way Postmodernism opened the door again for non-rational ways of knowing and a place for the life of the spirit, which in turn paved the way for numerous modern-day spiritualities. It has also given space to an increasing new phenomenon, or category, referred to lately as “nones”—the socalled non-religious, and includes “godless mysticisms”, “religion without god”, atheistic searches for some immanent “life force”, or even those claiming a “deeper worldview”—a kind of “religious atheism” (Gray, 2014; Ehrenreich, 2014; Dworkin, 2013). Postmodernism argued in general against any grand narratives, secular as well as religious. Nietzsche claimed that there is not one truth but rather alternative truths; mutually exclusive approaches to life: “subjective projections, linguistic customs, habituated thinking, and reified cultural models” (Naugle, 2002, p. 102). Social constructionism, as an offshoot from postmodernism, and especially its “strong” version, argues that all of reality and all truth is shaped by our socio-cultural contexts: reality and truth is a human, social construction and our knowledge of that reality is entirely culturally relative (Burr, 2015). To argue that reality and truth are entirely socially constructed—shaped by our social-cultural contexts—is, of course, debatable. What is not debatable, however, is that we are all situated, we all bring to the fore some preconceived notion of the world. We all live by some faith of some kind, whether that be secular or religious, as the postmodernist Jacques Derrida (1993) and others came to recognize (Dworkin, 2013; Wood, 2009). Many postmodernists abandoned the quest for a unified theory of objective reality, yet did not, however, argue for relativism, claiming that one view or way of life is as good as another. While they affirmed that there was no absolute truth, there was truth that enhanced the well-being of the communities to which people belonged. It called humans to a life of responsibility and justice in light of the narratives out of which they lived. The postmodern struggle became one of acknowledging evil and suffering and seeking freedom and justice for all, recognizing that some worldviews do not promote justice, tend towards exclusion, and fuel discontent and greed (Dworkin, 2013). Yet, it is not clear that Postmodernism has escaped its own predicament. While it placed responsibility at the

8 

J. VALK

centre of human living, it has become so mesmerized by the human condition and its penchant for evil and injustices, it is unable to escape it, overwhelmed by the fear that “finally, we live only by Chance, and in the end, there is only death” (Olthuis, 2012, p. 6; Grenz, 1996). So the dilemma continues unabated, if not with even greater intensity. There are still those who claim to be objective, rational, or scientific, as exemplified by the “new atheists”, some of whom are more vociferous about this than others (Silverman, 2015). Yet, they find themselves faced with the same predicament; they have not escaped orienting themselves or grounding themselves in particular philosophical or worldview presuppositions. Richard Dawkins (2006) and Daniel Dennett (2005), for example, are severe critics of the grand narratives of religion. But in reducing religion to its most simplistic form, almost unrecognizable by those who consider themselves religious, they then feel confident and justified in rejecting it, concluding that it can render no truth for it is not sufficiently rational or scientific. They assume, as did others before them, that reason and science will eventually reveal all that is true, yet do they not fail to recognize or admit their own starting points in a rational or scientific worldview (Eagleton, 2006; Midgely, 1992)? But others no less argue in a similar vein. Sire (2004a, 2004b) and Naugle (2002), for example, maintain that a Christian worldview is logically defensible, even in a postmodernist age. While this may indeed be the case, it is nonetheless argued from that very worldview perspective. In all of this a fundamental problem can hardly be avoided: ultimate certainty about the nature of reality or the universe in which we live eludes the human condition. Instead, we are confronted with multiple views or worldviews, as Dilthey earlier recognized. Each argues to the best of their ability the validity of their own perspective: in essence, worldviews are largely argued from rather than argued to. Worldviews lay claim to an ultimate truth. They are rooted in what a person believes to be a true picture of the reality in which one lives: truth about life, existence on earth, what is meaningful, important, and worthwhile, how one judges right and wrong, and more. Yet, ultimate commitments reach inevitably beyond the limits of experience, reason, science, even revelation. Worldviews are inevitably and finally grounded in a faith claim; when reason is ultimately exhausted. No amount of rational, logical, or scientific argumentation will ultimately render the truth of a worldview—it is finally accepted on faith and lived out in faith. No amount of rational, logical, or scientific argumentation will, for example, establish beliefs in the existence or

1 INTRODUCTION 

9

non-existence of God, or of life after this life. Lack of rational or scientific evidence for such beliefs does not establish non-existence, for as the well-­ known British astrophysicist Martin Rees reminded us “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. One ultimately surrenders to such a belief, and lives out of that belief, whether that belief is religiously, spiritually, or secularly grounded. Even though one must necessarily employ rational, logical, and scientific powers in assessing their beliefs and their behaviours, these powers inevitably exhaust themselves in establishing what is ultimately true. Faith itself is required to affirm that reason, logic, or science provides the ultimate framework for understanding all of reality and life’s experiences. A faith commitment to science as the final and ultimate arbiter of truth, for example, must come from outside of science itself: “the one thesis for which there can be in principle no scientific evidence is the thesis that only scientific evidence counts” (Revel & Ricard, 1998, p. xiv). According to Ninian Smart (1983), what is presented as the truth of a worldview inescapably emerges from “what experience can show, what reason can demonstrate and what revelation can uncover” (p. 36), but perhaps ultimately a worldview grounds itself in a non-­rational or extra-rational commitment to that truth. Issues of faith surface most frequently in regard to religious worldviews. These worldviews are expressed and articulated in statements codified in scriptures, doctrines, or articles of faith, affirming that which is believed to be the nature of the divine, of physical reality, of the human situation, as well as moral obligations and responsibilities, and more. But these are no less elaborated also in numerous secular worldviews. Communism, Marxism, Humanism, Nationalism, and Liberalism each have their own doctrines, “sacred” texts, beliefs, rituals, and ways of life, and are at times referred to as  surrogate or quasi religions (Kainz, 2006; Smith, 1994; Smart, 1983). It takes as strong a faith, some might be inclined to say even more faith, to claim these secular worldviews as the only true paths to justice, healing, and happiness for the human community. Humans are creators; we create things, ideas, stories (narratives), experiences, and legacies. What we create also speaks to our worldview. Our creations address or speak to some of the deepest realities of our lives: poetry, art, the novel, architecture. Humans also create, develop, and construct a “worldview”, a “view of life”, something that assists them in making sense of the world in which they live: we all seek to compose/dwell in some conviction of what is ultimately true. We consciously/unconsciously compose a sense of the ultimate character of reality and articulate it in

10 

J. VALK

beliefs or belief systems. Every worldview is composed of beliefs or belief systems that ground it: “beliefs are the building blocks of a worldview” (Olsen et al., 1992, p. 2). Some are well thought out and systematically interrelated, gaining credibility as a result. Others can be quite unrelated and even incongruous, eroding credibility. Worldviews can also lead to emotional anxiety and imbalance in individuals, and socio-economic injustices and oppression in groups, communities, or nations: “worldviews easily become ideologies when they rationalize or disguise injustice and oppression” (Olthuis, 1985, p. 159). Worldviews are not, however, exclusively or even ultimately about views—about beliefs or belief systems of one kind or another. They are also about the kinds of actions or behaviours that relate to those beliefs or beliefs systems, for beliefs are intimately related to behaviours. Here it is difficult to determine whether beliefs influence behaviours or behaviours influence beliefs; whether a worldview, that is, a view of the world, is shaped by beliefs or by other behaviours. J.K.A. Smith (2009) argues that it is best to see what people do, rather than what they say, to determine their worldview. Worldviews according to Smith are more about actions and behaviours than they are about articulated views or visions of life. Graham Harvey (2013) makes a similar claim about religion or religious worldviews; they are more about practice than belief. Christian Smith (2017) argues that religion is primarily about practices and not beliefs. The Abrahamic religions place great importance on ritual behaviours. Reader and Tanabe (1998) make the point that for the Japanese, religious rituals are more central and important than religious beliefs or doctrines. Japanese are more inclined to engage in numerous religious rituals and less inclined to think about or engage in debate or discussion about the beliefs associated with those rituals. According to J.K.A. Smith (2009), people “worship what they desire” and this is exemplified by their behaviours and actions. That worship can as easily concern the God of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam as it can the “gods” of Capitalism (Cox, 2016), Consumerism (Smith, 2009; Miles, 2006; Gill, 1999), Nationalism (Brubaker, 2012), sport (Bauer, 2008), and even psychology (Vitz, 1994). People embrace what they “worship” more in terms of their behaviours and actions than in terms of their espoused beliefs and doctrines, because their worldview speaks or appeals to them, and responds to their desires, innate or otherwise. It is not possible, therefore, to keep the two separate and distinct; beliefs and values and behaviours and actions are inextricably intertwined.

1 INTRODUCTION 

11

While the ubiquitous term “worldview” may lend itself to give more priority to a focus on “views”, the above indicates that more is involved. Viewing the world, whether consciously or unconsciously, is but one aspect of a multi-dimensional way of being in the world. A worldview influences how we live and comes to expression in the way that we live, which is the point argued by J.K.A. Smith. At the same time, how we live our lives in the world finds expression in the articulations, justifications, and beliefs that encompass our view of the world. One might say that one’s life is a “worldview in action”, for humans are as much “viewers” as they are “actors”. Having said this, however, this book will focus largely, though not exclusively, on how individuals, groups of individuals, communities, and cultures articulate their worldviews—their perspectives—as these are derived from the beliefs and values they embrace and how those beliefs and values influence and are influenced by behaviours and actions as they live their lives. As such, emphasis will largely fall on worldviews as perspectives—beliefs, belief systems, tenets, views, and values. Nonetheless, it will in places highlight specific actions that have been a direct result of articulated perspectives. There is a temptation to see the vast array of worldviews as little more than a relativism—multiple worldviews all relatively the same, with one free to pick and choose which fits best, with none more important, true, or relevant than any other. Some may indeed feel that one can simply pick a worldview from an array that presents itself in some smorgasbord fashion “out there”. But such is hardly the case. We do not approach worldviews from a neutral or detached position or perspective. We are already embedded, established, or invested in a way of life, along with a way of viewing it, long before we become consciously aware of it, and certainly before we become able to fully articulate what it all entails. It is also not uncommon for individuals to come to embrace beliefs, values, and behaviours different than those in which they were raised as children. The secularization process certainly has revealed the changing of particular beliefs, belief systems, and behaviours, but that trading in of one system of beliefs and their accompanying behaviours for another is hardly done whimsically, as if it really does not matter. Deliberate choices are made, for even inactive participation in rituals once engaged in is a deliberate choice. Perhaps one can or will opt out more easily than one can or will opt in, but it is hardly the case that one opts out or in because all worldviews are relatively the same. As such, worldview relativism ultimately carries little weight, and it does so for at least three further reasons.

12 

J. VALK

First, at times worldviews are perceived superficially as little more than varying tastes in holy days, rituals, symbols, and teachings, just as cultures sometimes are perceived superficially as little more than varying tastes in clothing, food, or music. As such they are seen as little more than differences relative to or conditioned by culture, time, and place, with one no more able to assert truth claims than another. Yet, we are not satisfied with perceiving differences as merely relative in all instances. Upon closer scrutiny it becomes clear that religious worldviews in their essences are clearly distinct from secular worldviews. Religious worldviews open themselves up to transcendent possibilities, a sacred reality beyond the mundane of the ordinary—a “place of fullness” beyond the “flatness” of ordinary life, according to Taylor (2007, p. 6). They claim that humans are by nature inclined to seek fulfilment beyond the here and the now, even as they affirm the goodness of life in it (Volf, 2015). No doubt religious worldviews are influenced or conditioned by time and place, as are secular worldviews, yet the two are clearly distinct from each other. Secular worldviews are embedded in the saeculum, the here and the now, and seek in it their “place of fullness”, whether that place is sought within oneself, one’s lived experience with others, or within the realm of nature. They too can open themselves up to paradigms of transcendence, going beyond the mundane of the ordinary, those for which Marx and others also struggled, even if those notions of transcendence were of a nature quite different than that of most religious worldviews. Second, perhaps there is an even stronger reason why worldview relativism does not ultimately hold: no one actually believes it. While many may acknowledge that certain practices are culture-, time-, and place-bound, few will argue that their worldview, religious or secular, is no different than others or is simply interchangeable (Prothero, 2010). Consciously or unconsciously, people affirm their worldview by living it, as J.K.A. Smith (2009) makes clear, and in the particular contexts in which they live. Because worldviews can be dynamic, certain changes in views and behaviours are only natural, but that is different than changing one’s worldview wholesale. Most do not readily change their worldview perspectives even if alternatives exist. Hence, those who insist that worldviews, religious or secular, are all relatively the same do not, to blend the sentiments of Prothero and Gandhi, know their worldviews, religious or secular (Gandhi, 1993). Third, worldview relativism or even the strong version of social constructionism collapses under its own weight, ontologically and epistemologically. There is a significant difference between the world in which we

1 INTRODUCTION 

13

live and our interpretation or belief about that world: the two are not the same (Smith, 2011; Searle, 1995; Berger & Luckmann, 1967). Worldviews have to do with our beliefs or interpretations about the world in which we live and the manner in which we live in it. They are therefore powerful and persuasive, and they are defended at great length. Plural societies may include people from a variety of worldview perspectives, but few in those societies consciously switch from one worldview perspective to another without some considerable thought if not turmoil. Of what then do worldviews consist and how do they exercise such influence in shaping our views and actions? We might begin with some preliminary definitions of a worldview. Worldviews have been described as “world hypotheses” (Pepper, 1942; Hayes et al., 1988), “cultural orientations” (Kluckhohn, 1950), “philosophies of life” (Jung, 1954), “world outlooks” (Maslow, 1970), “comprehensive frameworks” (Wolters, 1985), “mental lenses” (Olsen et  al., 1992), “sets of beliefs and assumptions” (Koltko-Rivera, 2004), and more. Worldviews are frameworks by which we understand ourselves, others, and the world in which we live. They are the integrative and interpretative frameworks by which order and disorder are judged, and the standard by which reality is managed and pursued. According to Olthuis (1985), worldviews are views of life. They are the way we view or see the world—“a frame or set of fundamental beliefs through which we view the world and our calling and future in it” (p. 155). Sire (2004b) says they are a “set of presuppositions (or assumptions) which hold (consciously or subconsciously) about the makeup of our world” (p. 17). Huston Smith (2001) speaks of worldviews in terms of “the Big Picture”. Paul Tillich refers to worldviews as framed by our “ultimate concerns”, as one’s highest principles, ideals, or values. Marxists tend to refer to worldviews as ideology and believe that a worldview can easily become ideology (Kearney, 1984). Lewontin (1991) makes the case for “biology as ideology”. Social scientists frequently speak of worldviews as systems of values. Whatever terms or phrases are used to capture the meaning of a worldview, it is generally understood that the term encapsulates some sense of worldview as a framework by which we make sense of our existence. According to J.K.A. Smith (2009), however, worldviews are more than views of life. They are about the way we live our lives. What we do reveals what is important to us; what we are passionate about. The manner in which we live in the world speaks as much, if not more, than about the way we think about the world. Marx argued that the manner in which we live

14 

J. VALK

in the world shapes and influences how we think about the world. Smith’s (2009) criticism of the use of the term worldview is that its focus is largely on beliefs and values or thoughts and ideas about our world as embraced by individuals or groups of individuals. At stake for him is not a set of beliefs but a way of life: “our ultimate love/desire is shaped by practices, not by ideas that are merely communicated to us” (p. 27). He feels that all too often worldview talk “exhibits a fairly ‘heady’ or cognitive picture of the human person” (p. 24). He argues that it is more likely that a way of life will reveal, betray, or even give shape to a view of life—people vote with their feet. Worldviews have to do with the way we act and live in the world. Sire, in his earlier works, focused largely on worldviews as different sets of beliefs and propositions. In his later works, he recognized that because worldviews are also lived out in practice, they also have to do with ways of life, not merely beliefs and ideas. Olthuis (1985) at times places emphasis on worldviews as largely focusing on beliefs, ideas, and faith: “basic differences among people are always in the end reducible to differences in ideas and the commitment of faith articulated in these ideas” (p. 154). Yet, he does link the two, recognizing that incongruities often exist between what we profess our beliefs and values to be and how we live them out in our lives. That is, views of life may or may not correspond well to what becomes ways of life. More precise, therefore, would be to recognize a reciprocal relationship existing between them. Perhaps anticipating Smith’s criticism of the concept of worldview, Olthuis states that a worldview is “fundamentally an activity of faith” (p. 4). It is less about right thinking and more about right living. According to Olthuis (1985), worldviews are individual in nature, but communal in scope and structure when common visions bind adherents together in community (pp. 155–56). Those communities can be highly systematized, organized, and structured, as is often found in religious or spiritual communities, yet they can also be more loosely knit, nebulous and fluid, such as Atheism, Humanism, and Individualism. Worldviews can define a society or a nation, such as Communist China, Buddhist Bhutan, and Islamic Saudi Arabia, yet also delineate a way of thinking and acting that has a larger global reach, such as Capitalism and Consumerism. Yet ultimately worldviews are individual in nature; all individual persons have some view of life intertwined with a way of life that defines or characterizes them, however well they are able to give articulation to their worldview. No two people are the same, however much they may be

1 INTRODUCTION 

15

linked, associated, or related to each other; we are all ultimately unique individuals, possessing our own individual views and behaviours. Comprehending and understanding our own individual worldview may not be an easy undertaking. We are complex creatures. But we are also creatures with reflective powers, seeking to understand ourselves; why we think the way that we do and why we act the way that we do, either individually or collectively. Just as we strive for emotional intelligence (Goldman, 2005), social intelligence (Goldman, 2007), even spiritual intelligence (Zohar & Marshall, 1999) to understand ourselves better, seeking to gain worldview intelligence or literacy is yet one more way to comprehend more fully who we are as individuals, groups, societies, and entities. Coming to a better understanding of our own individual worldview cannot be done in isolation or in a vacuum; it must be done in conjunction with others or as a backdrop to others. The German-born philologist Max Müller (1823–1900) stated that “he who knows one, knows none” (Müller, 1873, p. 17). That is, a more comprehensive understanding and even probing of our own beliefs, values, and behaviours occurs when we probe at the same time the beliefs, values, and behaviours of others. Questions we ask of others in essence also become questions asked of the self. Understanding and comprehending our own worldview is often broadened and deepened when done in comparison and contrast to others. This process serves to question or probe why we do certain things or believe and value them, without simply taking things for granted as if they are self-evident. While clear answers may not always arise or be apparent, it does reveal that we often do things and believe or value certain things because of the circumstances and situations in which we are raised. Reflecting on them frequently gives more awareness, if not clarity. Yet, as worldview reflection brings increased clarity, it also constantly raises more questions that seek further answers. That is part of the uniqueness of the human journey: our ongoing attempt to understand who we are and why we do the things we do.

Worldviews of Today Worldviews can be of a wide assortment and are frequently, though not exclusively, grounded in particular religious or spiritual traditions and are always situated in historical and socio-economic contexts. Worldviews are dynamic. They are always in process and always changing because humans,

16 

J. VALK

who possess worldviews, are also always changing. In some ways, worldviews are ideal types. Yet it is rarely the case that worldviews do not share some common ground with others. Nonetheless, they do differ from one another at crucial points, and hence the need to distinguish important features. All people have a worldview of some kind. Such a worldview might be well articulated, or it might be rather vague, depending on the individual or individuals concerned. A worldview can be specific to an individual or to groups of individuals and may also align with some traditional or well-­ known worldviews, in whole or in part. We know that there are worldviews, for we not only hear and read about them, we also see them in action. But which ones should be distinguished; which ones might be highlighted? Ninian Smart divides the world into “six main blocs of beliefs”: the modern West; Marxist countries; the Islamic crescent; Old Asia; the Latin South; and the multitudinous smaller societies mainly of the South. Each of these geographic blocs has a dominant or major worldview, but they invariably also include minor worldviews, or “outriders” as he terms them. Smart’s worldview types are helpful. He recognizes the influence of other than the traditional religious worldviews and includes Marxism and Secular Humanism (Smart, 1983). He also recognizes that geographic regions can be dominated by one particular worldview, and then recognizes that it can also be shaped by the culture in which it resides. More than thirty-five years after Smart’s “blocs of beliefs”, the world has changed considerably, however. Immigration patterns reveal that certain worldviews formerly confined to certain geographic regions have now spread to many more parts of the world. Islam is an example of this, as is Consumerism and Capitalism, all of which are lived worldviews. James Sire (2004a, 2004b) speaks of eight worldview types: Christian Theism, Deism, Naturalism, Nihilism, Existentialism, Eastern Pantheistic Monism, New Age, and Postmodernism. He analyses them as systems of beliefs, with a focus on ultimate questions, such as: what is real, what is life’s meaning and purpose, what is the nature of the human, the existence or non-existence of a higher being and whether or not there is life after this life. His focus on ontological and epistemological issues is also of central importance to him as he further analyses various worldviews. He has also expanded his worldview inventory. Updated versions of his books include a chapter on Islam and sections on Marxism and Secular Humanism. These two latter worldviews command more attention, as do

1 INTRODUCTION 

17

Consumerism and Capitalism, for all four today have far-reaching global impact. Further, while Sire has also shifted away from a narrow focus on knowledge and recognizes that behaviours play a role, his analysis nonetheless continues to highlight only philosophical ideas implicit in the various worldviews he addresses. Eugene Webb (2009) advances our understanding of religious worldviews by investigating the diversity within them. This rich diversity, he feels, can overcome conflict within the religious traditions by having each individual develop a “critical, philosophically reflective consciousness” (p. 9). This, he argues, resists simplifying them to something that can be easily dismissed, as Dawkins, Dennett, and others are inclined to do. However, Webb tends to focus almost exclusively on religious worldviews and largely from the perspective of psychology. Mark Koltko-Rivera (2004) is more comprehensive and encompassing of worldviews both religious and secular as he investigates what “worldview construction addresses and how it functions within individual psychology” (p. 4). He addresses major approaches to the understanding of worldviews during the twentieth century; yet he too approaches them largely from the perspective of psychology. His concern is whether “worldview” is justifiable as a psychological construct. Stephen Pepper (1942), writing much earlier, spoke of six “root metaphors” or “world hypotheses” (animism, mysticism, formism, mechanism, organicism, and contextualism) as “hypotheses about the origin and development of schools of philosophy” (p.  199). He also investigated the sources of these world hypotheses and concluded that each was grounded in a particular “root metaphor” or comprehensive understanding of the world. Pepper responded to the debates of his time and as such constructed worldviews that are less spoken of today or live on in different forms. Some feel Pepper’s categories and explanations are still valuable today in the area of psychology, sensing that the concept of “world hypotheses” reveals “philosophical sources of current conflicts within behaviour and other psychologies” (Hayes et al., 1988, p. 97). The international journal Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture, and Ecology, established in 1997, focuses on the reciprocal relationship between religion, culture, and ecology worldwide. Its emphasis, however, is largely centred on how religion and culture impact attitudes towards ecology. While broad in its interdisciplinary reach, it largely assumes worldviews without exploring the concept itself.

18 

J. VALK

Clement Vidal (2008, 2012) and others from the Leo Apostel group do attempt a definition of worldview and do speak of religious and secular worldviews. They base their study of worldviews on six important philosophical and existential questions and the disciplines attached to them: what is it (ontology); where does it all come from (explanation); where are we going (prediction); what is good and what is evil (axiology); how should we act (praxeology); and what is true and what is false (epistemology)? They go on to illustrate how four examples of different kinds of worldviews (“scientific”; “religious”; “bacterium”; “society”) correspond to the above six philosophical and existential questions. While the various fundamental questions are important, and reminiscent of Sire’s concerns, much of their work is an apology for an integrated scientific worldview. Jacomijn Van der Kooij et  al. (2013) take a much more integrated approach and speak of both religious and secular worldviews. They recognize the importance that the concept of worldviews plays in education, and especially how it plays out in a religious studies curriculum. Further, they distinguish between traditional or organized worldviews and personal or individual worldviews. Organized worldviews have developed over time into established systems of sources, traditions, beliefs, values, and rituals and entail the formation of groups of individuals. Every religion, they assert, is an organized worldview. Humanism can also be an organized worldview, centred on certain ideals, sources, values, and even symbols and rituals. Personal worldviews are those of an individual’s own views on life, which include beliefs, values, and behaviours. The authors highlight personal worldviews, which they argue have resulted from a decline of traditional religious worldviews. Personal worldviews are often constructed or gleaned from a variety of organized worldviews, religious, and/or secular. But this highlights a problem: from this approach personal worldviews often become beliefs, values, morals, and behaviours that are loosely grounded and shift easily. Nonetheless, their study is helpful in that it recognizes a distinction between organized and personal worldviews and the implications of their distinct character for educational theory and practice. Most important, they recognize the value of worldview education as a way to encourage students to think about their own worldview and those of others. Richard Barrett (2018) advances perspectives on human worldview evolution based on his “Seven Levels of Consciousness Model”, inspired by Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs”. Barrett divides history into seven evolving worldviews: Clan Awareness (prior to 10,000  BCE); Tribe

1 INTRODUCTION 

19

Awareness (10,000 BCE); State Awareness (4000 BCE); Nation Awareness (sixth century); Wealth Awareness (sixteenth century); People Awareness (nineteenth century); Human Awareness (twentieth century). Barrett ranks 145 nations according to this last emerging worldview; his “level of well-being of citizens” scale based on what he considers the advancement of human values and according to an “evolution of human consciousness”. To achieve both personal and cultural transformations, and to achieve “our essential unity”, we must overcome that which limits us. Religious and spiritual worldviews are associated largely with earlier evolutionary epochs and are to be overcome. Richard DeWitt (2018) investigates a number of worldviews in relation to the history and philosophy of science: Aristotelian, Newtonian, Darwinian. His book is very helpful in highlighting the development of science, which has led to numerous insights and discoveries, many of which have revolutionized our understanding of the world and also the larger cosmos. These insights have also changed our view of the world— our worldview. However, to speak of worldviews narrowly focused on science misses the richness of other worldviews, even as these interact with science. It also risks an embrace of an exclusive Scientism. James Underhill (2013) explores the relationship between worldview and language, which is insightful for those interested in metaphor theory and the analysis of worldviews. However, its narrow focus on language theory and metaphor is less helpful for those seeking to explore various worldviews in greater breadth and depth. Each of these studies highlights the importance of worldviews and the central role they play. Each speaks of certain worldviews, with some giving more in-depth descriptions of some but not of others based on the framework they implement. This study seeks to implement a more comprehensive approach that aims to examine and describe a wide selection of worldviews in some detail. It seeks to do so not by being prescriptive, or setting up rigid parameters, or developing competitive models. It seeks to get beyond uncritical assessments that tend to reduce some worldviews, especially religious worldviews, to “museum pieces”, and get to a level playing field that will present all as vibrant and dynamic. It seeks to explore various religious and secular worldviews that are animated with meaning and relevance to those who embrace them. It seeks to present them in ways that will create new knowledge and insight by asking insightful, creative, and even penetrating questions of the worldviews themselves as a way that invites the reader to begin a journey into his or her own

20 

J. VALK

worldview. It seeks to present worldviews as represented by individuals or groups of individuals, and communities and cultures who specifically selfidentify themselves with particular ones or advance notions, ideas, or actions aligned with them. It seeks to present them in ways that enhance discussions about worldviews by asking some important and intriguing questions, those that prompt responses or even lead to new questions that will enhance our knowledge, deepen our understanding, expand our awareness, and enrich us as human beings, leading us to further explore our own worldview as we explore those of others. The worldviews that will be examined in this study are divided into two rather broad and general categories—secular worldviews and religious worldviews. Both are referred to frequently and are not unfamiliar. Secular worldviews are those, as the name suggests, focused on the saeculum—the here and now, “this worldly”. Taylor (2007) regards secular worldviews as a recent and growing phenomenon, constituting “a secular age”, one where humans live their lives focused exclusively on this world. Religious worldviews, on the other hand, have long-standing histories. They go back centuries, some to the first known humans, and embrace notions of realms, beings, powers, or forces beyond this world that impact life in one way or another in this world. Religious worldviews are of a wide variety, continue to hold great sway in the world today, and are embraced by three quarters and more of the world’s peoples. What constitutes a proper definition of religion or a religious worldview has a long history with debates that seem to know no end. It is not the intention here to enter into that debate but rather to risk using some broader categories, with at times some more or less distinct parameters, in order to strike a balance between an inclusivity and an exclusivity. As such, the category of religious worldviews will be further subdivided into monotheistic worldviews and spiritual worldviews. The category of monotheistic worldviews, for the purposes of this study, will include the three Abrahamic traditions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. These three religious worldviews have certain common features. One, they emerged from the Middle East, including the Ancient Near East, but have spread to various geographical areas in the world, in numerous cultural settings, and have left a huge impact worldwide on many aspects of life, history and culture. Two, they were instrumental in developing the notion of history and historical development, individual rights, and freedoms, and paving the way for modern, democratic, and secular states. Three, they embrace a belief in a transcendent, monotheistic

1 INTRODUCTION 

21

God, though they are not the only ones who have this belief. Four, they tend towards institutionalization constituted by regular and formal worship, doctrinal teachings, and observance of divinely instituted laws or codes of behaviour. Five, often referred to as the “people of the book”, they have common roots in the Hebrew Scriptures or “Old Testament”, even as different interpretations developed from it. Those common roots nonetheless shape distinct worldviews in ways that reveal important structural, theological, and philosophical similarities but at the same time also important differences. Christianity and Islam are by far the two largest religious worldviews that dominate the worldview landscape worldwide. None rival them in numbers according to a 2017 Pew Forum study. Out of a total world population of 7.3 billion people, there are approximately 2.3 billion Christians and 1.8 billion Muslims. Jews, however, constitute a much smaller number at around 14.6 million. The category of spiritual worldviews falls under the broader umbrella of religious worldviews but distinguish themselves from the monotheistic worldviews. The term “spiritual” is also used rather loosely here to encapsulate a broad variety of worldviews. They also have a number of common though elastic features. One, they emerge from the Far East, rather than the Middle East or the Ancient Near East, continue to have considerable following in that region of the world, and have shaped the beliefs and values, lives, and cultures of many in that area of the world, yet have to some extent become popularized by a relatively small number of adherents in the West. Worldwide they number as follows: Hinduism (1.1 billion), Buddhism (500 million), Sikhism (30 million), Confucianism (6 million). Two, they embrace a notion of a higher power, being or force but defined or constituted differently than that of traditional monotheism, with some exceptions such as Sikhism. Three, they tend to be less doctrinal than monotheistic religions and lean towards less structure in terms of formal worship, systematic beliefs, and institutional organization, again with some exceptions. A small but growing number of earth-based spiritualities and spiritual movements are also included in the spiritual category. In the modern West, spiritual worldviews have gained more in prominence if not in adherents within the half century or so. Most are distinguished by a lack of interest in or opposition to organized religion and disassociate themselves from what is perceived as traditional, formal, and institutional monotheism. They constitute the growing number today who refer to themselves as “spiritual but not religious”, even though a self-­understanding

22 

J. VALK

of what the distinction between the two might be is not fully clear (Bibby, 2017). They refute the notion of a “personal transcendent god” yet are not firm atheists. They are the growing number who might also identify themselves as “nones” (Thiessen & Wilkins-LaFlamme, 2017). They embrace a belief in some “force” or “being” greater than humans, but one that is largely undefined or loosely defined. Others may embrace the notion of an immanent spirit or gods of various sorts, with Buddhism an exception in most cases. These gods can be multi-various and multi-­ purpose and often more readily in line with an emerging spirit of the times. While their concern is more with this life, they do not refute the notion of something beyond and remain open to mystery. As such, they would fit under the larger religious worldview umbrella, but in the subcategory of spiritual worldviews (Parsons, 2018; Manning, 2015; Mercadante, 2014; Fuller, 2001). Lastly, also included in this category is Native Spirituality, the worldview(s) of Indigenous Peoples. The spirituality of Indigenous Peoples throughout the world suffered greatly by the effects of colonialism, and many today increasingly seek to ground, revive, and enhance themselves through a preservation of their ancient ceremonies, traditions, and heritage. The secular age as spoken of by Taylor has led to worldviews characterized by an exclusive focus on this world and “this age” (saeculum), which Taylor and others often refer to as the “immanent frame”. Exclusive Humanism is a term used by Taylor (2007) to demarcate a secular worldview of the modern or secular age uniquely marked by the view that any notion of God, a spiritual life or an afterlife is of no consequence or concern. Sometimes referred to as Secular Humanism, this worldview is grounded in the autonomy of the individual or the collective, and rejects any notion of a power, being or force beyond the human. In the modern West, secular worldviews have gained in prominence. Yet, adherents still constitute only a small minority of people. They differ from those who are “spiritual but not religious”, in that they are atheists in the real sense of the word—no god (a theos). They also affirm that only the empirical sciences including psychology can determine what is real. Such views are delineated by people of today such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, A.C. Grayling, and more. Some of the vocal atheists of the past were Diderot, Frederick the Great, Nietzsche, Marx, Feuerbach, and Bertrand Russell. They embrace what is often referred to as philosophical naturalism or philosophical materialism: views asserting that the universe and all that exists within it are essentially matter and evolve from matter. Some militant

1 INTRODUCTION 

23

atheists, rationalists, Marxists, and Communists have demonstrated active hostility towards religion, and are averse to allowing worldviews other than those focused on this life to have a voice in the public square. Others have unleashed considerable brutality when in political power. In the Western world, however, most secular humanists argue that humans must take responsibility to live their lives well, have respect for others, and work for the betterment of their societies, and as such would include socialist movements devoted exclusively to these causes. All those within this broader Exclusive Humanist category can also be as awe-­inspired by the beauty of the natural world as those of other worldview persuasions. Consumerism and Capitalism can also be construed as secular worldviews that now exert tremendous influence on Western society, if not the entire world. Gill (1999) speaks of “secular temples” dotting the landscape of major cities that rise far above the steeples of centuries-old churches and cathedrals and are the new symbols of authority, power, and persuasion. Capitalism has often been linked to religion, especially to Christianity, through the works of Adam Smith and others. Weber spoke of an “affinity” between Protestantism and Capitalism, based on his investigation of sixteenth-century English Puritan theology, ethics, and subsequent actions, but his theory has been highly contested by many (Stark, 2005). Yet, it is also the case that Capitalism is firmly embraced by many religious people (Connolly, 2008; Bayer, 1999). However, the essential beliefs and values of the two are clearly distinct. This has been insightfully highlighted by both Kathryn Tanner and the Harvard theologian Harvey Cox, both of whom reveal that Consumerism and Capitalism are all-­ encompassing and compete for the hearts and minds of loyal adherences (Tanner, 2019; Cox, 2016). The reach of Consumerism and Capitalism is worldwide, and they have bestowed benefits and exacted tolls. As with all worldviews, they have articulated mission statements and loyalty statements, encouraged gatherings of the faithful, and offered rewards and profits for loyal members. While it is difficult to ascertain any exact numbers of their adherents, it is clear that their influence has considerable reach. Worldviews Secular worldviews Consumerism Capitalism

Religious worldviews Exclusive Humanism

Spiritual

Monotheism

24 

J. VALK

A Comprehensive Approach No one factor determines a worldview. Worldviews cannot be reduced to one or two aspects of human existence or being, or thoughts or actions; they are multi-dimensional. According to Koltko-Rivera (2004), there are many dimensions that make up a comprehensive worldview. As such, an approach that intends to describe or elucidate a worldview must also be multi-dimensional. It must be sufficiently comprehensive, yet not unwieldy or cumbersome, and it must draw on the insights of a number of key disciplines, such as philosophy, sociology, psychology, theology, religious studies, and anthropology. This study will implement a comprehensive approach to understanding worldviews. It will serve a number of purposes and includes a number of distinct and important areas. First, it will be helpful to individuals and groups of individuals in describing or coming to understand their own worldview. It will explore beliefs and values by raising certain questions in light of them. Neither the approach nor the questions are intended to be prescriptive. Instead they are intended to prompt individuals or groups of individuals to think about their own worldviews and how they might come to a better and deeper understanding of the self. Responses given to questions become specific to individuals or groups of individuals without a need to label or categorize them into any specific type of worldview. Individuals or groups of individuals may, of course, by choice self-identify or align themselves with a certain larger traditional worldview, religious or secular, in regard to some or all of its general beliefs and tenets. In some cases, certain questions may have little or no relevance or importance for individuals or groups of individuals because they do not enter the purview of their understanding of themselves. Rather than rejecting a question or set of questions outright, however, this approach provides an opportunity or invitation for individuals or groups of individuals to do three things. One, it invites them to contemplate how they might respond to particular questions if they have not previously done so, as a means to probe or explore further their own worldview. Two, it invites them to examine how others might respond, as a way to explore the worldviews of others. Three, questions that may appear irrelevant to some, but are known to be relevant for others, may provide a means to examine or explore further questions related to the initial ones. These may then in turn become relevant and specific to one’s own worldview. Such an approach may be of greatest benefit to those interested in exploring their

1 INTRODUCTION 

25

own worldview and coming to a greater understanding of the worldview of others. It may be of great interest to educators, and especially religious educators, who seek a way to assist students in exploring and understanding their own worldview and those of others. Second, a comprehensive approach will assist in an expanded understanding of traditional worldviews, religious or secular. It resists their oversimplification or reduction to narrow doctrinal beliefs, rituals, and practices. Religious worldviews in particular cannot be reduced to these, though this is often done by the unwary, and by opponents. But neither can secular worldviews be narrowly reduced; these too are complex and require in-depth examination. This approach recognizes that worldviews can be all-encompassing, comprehensive, and inclusive. As such, it may be helpful for those who seek to overcome the narrow categories frequently on offer and to explore the vast and extensive reach of worldviews, for worldviews impact various subject areas. It may be of value to those who recognize that behind all research methodologies are paradigms that see the world in different ways, and to those who are at the forefront of exploring and opening up vast new territories that inevitably touch on large questions of meaning, purpose, responsibility, and obligation. Three, a comprehensive approach will level the worldview playing field. It strongly suggests that all people have worldviews, that worldviews have structural similarities, and that all worldviews incorporate basic beliefs, values, teachings, symbols, rituals, behaviours, and more. Further, all worldviews, religious and secular, presuppose a faith by their adherents in their validity and truth. It is not only religious people who have faith, as is sometimes assumed; all people take a “leap of faith” whether religious or secular. As such, this approach will be of value to those who seek an opportunity to expand their understanding of their own beliefs, values, and behaviours as well as those of others. The approach to understanding worldviews used in the following chapters will highlight five important areas, each developed from insights gained from the perspectives of one or more particular disciplines. Each area will flesh out in some detail issues or questions that arise from one or more disciplinary areas regarding human thoughts and ideas, actions, and behaviours. The following are brief descriptions of the five areas/chapters that will assist in a more comprehensive approach to understanding our worldviews, individually and collectively, and coming to a better understanding of self and others.

26 

J. VALK

Chapter 2, “Personal and Group Identity”, will explore family, tradition, community, socio-cultural conditions, and societal institutions that impact personal and group identity, which in turn shapes and influences one’s worldview. Gaining a better understanding of the contextual sources or factors—familial, social, communal—that may have shaped and influenced certain beliefs and values, behaviours, and actions is a first step in self-awareness. These are influential in greater or lesser degrees at particular stages of one’s development and life journey. While the situations and circumstances of individuals and groups of individuals may differ, no one is immune from the impact of these factors. Humans are social creatures. We are born into and live in social and communal environments that shape us. In this way, worldviews are socially constructed; they are not fashioned in social or cultural isolation. This chapter will explore areas such as gender and gender identity, family dynamics and relationships, abilities/disabilities, educational levels, community, ethnicity, nationality, and language, and the impacts these have on shaping and influencing one’s worldview. Academic disciplines such as sociology, anthropology, and psychology give great insight into how various factors shape the worldview identities of individuals and groups of individuals. Chapter 3, “Cultural Dimensions”, will explore yet other matters that serve to influence or undergird our thinking and actions. It will highlight the metanarratives, stories, sacred texts, teachings, and ethical principles we embrace as individuals or groups of individuals. It will explore rituals or symbols that represent or define beliefs, values, and behaviours that play an important role. It will investigate how social and communal gatherings and their activities serve to define, shape, or strengthen our beliefs, values, and behaviours as individuals and groups of individuals. This chapter is influenced by the insights and pioneering work of Ninian Smart and focuses on aspects based on insights gleaned from disciplines such as religious studies, scriptural studies, theology, sociology, psychology, and anthropology. Smart perceptively saw that worldviews, whether religious or secular, had similar structures or dimensions. This chapter will expand on his work. Chapter 4, “Ultimate/Existential Questions”, will explore ultimate or existential questions—those big questions that get at the heart of some of life’s big concerns. They require reflection, contemplation, and response. They are not questions one is inclined to ask on a daily basis, yet they

1 INTRODUCTION 

27

come at us at certain junctures of life. They often loom large in the face of tragedy, imploring some consoling response. They are questions focused on the meaning and purpose of life, the nature of the human, notions of right and wrong, issues of responsibility and obligation, beliefs in a higher power, being or force, and concerns about an afterlife. They are largely the domain of philosophers and theologians, yet they confront us all at some point. Responses given to them derive from beliefs held in greater or lesser degrees of intensity and in turn shape how lives are lived. Disciplines such as philosophy, theology, and religious studies have over the centuries assisted individuals or groups of individuals to explore at deeper levels ideas related to these questions. This chapter will explore these questions that have challenged humankind since the dawn of human history, spawning a multiplicity of different responses. As time unfolds responses to these questions change in nature depending on the situation and circumstances in which people find themselves. Historians shed light on the events (e.g., political, cultural, economic) that have changed the lives of various peoples. Historians of philosophy shed light on shifting thought patterns (e.g., Enlightenment, Modernism and Postmodernism), some of which have impacted these events and others which have been impacted by those events that in turn change how people view the world and live in it. Chapter 5, “Ontological/Epistemological Beliefs”, will highlight the ontological and epistemological factors that play a role in shaping worldviews. It focuses on questions that are largely but not exclusively philosophical in nature. Ontological beliefs regarding the ultimate nature of being, including the material and spiritual nature of the human, may or may not be intricately worked out by all individuals, but they nonetheless become part of one’s worldview. Beliefs regarding the beginning and ending of the universe, or how the universe came into existence, also form an aspect of one’s worldview, however developed these thoughts and ideas might be. At the same time, these beliefs raise epistemological questions regarding our knowing—what we can know with any certainty and what are the sources of our knowledge. Our worldview is shaped and influenced by what we consider viable knowledge because it is on the basis of this knowledge that we make sense of and live our lives. Distinctions between subjective and objective knowledge and subjective and objective truth claims also enter into the discussion as we contemplate what we can know

28 

J. VALK

with any degree of certainty. The chapter is divided into two sections: ontological and epistemological. As with the previous chapter, this one also deals with complex issues but in an even more heightened manner. At certain levels ontological and epistemological questions cannot be avoided when discussing a worldview, for perspectives on the nature of being and the nature of our knowing impact us, whether or not those are sufficiently known or articulated. Chapter 6, “Universal/Particular Beliefs, Values, and Principles”, takes into consideration actions rather than just beliefs, and also how beliefs correlate with actions. J.K.A.  Smith’s (2009) criticism of the concept of worldviews comes to play here. Most discussions about worldviews, he feels, focus on beliefs and values, and less so on actions and behaviours. Olthuis (1985) argues that there can be incongruities between beliefs espoused and actions taken. That there is a link between beliefs and actions can hardly be disputed; discerning that link gives further insight into the nature of one’s worldview. As such, investigating certain universal beliefs and values, such as justice, dignity, equality, and the sacredness of life and how these are particularized or given expression through behaviours and actions within individual contexts, gives further illuminations into the worldview of individuals or groups of individuals. Yet, here discussions regarding worldview relativism surface once again because living out one’s individual notions, for example, of justice and equality, cannot simply be reduced to individual or cultural preferences or proclivities. Discussions about just actions must be open to consideration that certain acts are universally more just and valid than others. This chapter focuses on universal/ particular beliefs, values, and principles. It focuses on those held in common by most, if not all, people. Peoples in all cultures and all places, regardless of the worldviews to which they adhere, embrace these values in greater or lesser degrees. How those common beliefs and values become particularized or concretized by specific actions varies, however, from culture to culture, and even nation to nation. That there are universal beliefs and values is less disputed today than the manner in which they are particularized and expressed in various cultures and time periods. A final chapter will draw some conclusions in regard to the value of this approach to understanding worldviews, submitting that such a comprehensive approach can shed considerable light on worldviews. It will suggest that such an approach engages a variety of perspectives and disciplines in a fruitful manner, raises age-old questions, confronts contemporary challenges, and deepens understandings of self and others. It will reveal

1 INTRODUCTION 

29

that asking questions enhances our knowledge and understanding; that whatever answers are furnished for today prompt further questions for tomorrow. Worldviews are dynamic and certain situations of today may change dramatically tomorrow. This study will entail a comprehensive approach to understanding and describing a variety of both religious and secular worldviews by means of focusing on the above five areas of inquiry to elucidate those worldviews. It will highlight individuals or groups of individuals whose thoughts, ideas, beliefs, values, or actions serve to shed light on those worldviews, and who may see themselves as advocates of those worldviews, at times even vociferously so. This study will raise numerous questions, at times in Socratic fashion, with the intent of explicating, even uncovering, as much as possible insights into various worldviews. A claim made at the outset is that we all have a worldview, which may to greater or lesser degrees be known and articulated. Worldviews are also in and around us; they impact our lives on a daily basis, whether or not we are conscious of their reach. As such, this study is an invitation to a journey of a better understanding of the self—our own beliefs, values, and behaviours—and a journey towards a clearer understanding of others, whomever they might be, as revealed in their beliefs, values, and behaviours. It will constitute an exploration of self and others. It will be a journey of discovery of complex areas of being, of existence in this world and the universe, of God and gods, of the nature of the human, of an understanding of what we know and can know, of sources of knowledge, and more.

CHAPTER 2

Personal and Group Identity

Introduction “No man is an island”, said the poet John Donne. Humans are social creatures. Few of us can exist in solitude totally separated from others, at least not for very long. We depend on others. Therefore, the context in which we live, the environment from which we come, and the families that nurtured us in the early and most formative years of our lives will leave an indelible mark on us. Sociologists and psychologists tell us that our early years, even until the time we leave home or go to university, shape and influence our thinking and acting in ways that may not always be readily apparent. That we are a product of our environment is the view taken by what has often been termed the “nurture” approach to human development. The correlative to the nurture approach is the nature approach, an understanding that we have innate characteristics and traits that unfold in time in the backdrop of the surroundings and circumstances in which we live. Nonetheless, that backdrop can be significant. We are nurtured—reared, raised, shaped, and influenced—by our lived environment, whatever that might be. Of course, we are also independent people, quite capable of making our own decisions and determining our own views and beliefs. We may even push back on the families that raised us, the environments and traditions that impinged upon us, and circumstances that had an impact on us. Yet, our background and our environment play a pivotal role, © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. Valk, Worldviews, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82491-4_2

31

32 

J. VALK

nonetheless. We cannot escape their reach or influence—they are foundational to who we are. Knowledge and awareness of how our backgrounds and our circumstances shape and influence who we are, why we believe and value what we do, why we behave in certain ways either individually or collectively, or why our actions are what they are is helpful in coming to a better understanding of the self—in essence, knowing self or self-knowledge. To the best of our knowledge, humans, above all other creatures, have self-­ awareness; they are critically self-aware. We are able to critically self-reflect on what and who we are and what we do. Depending on our ability, knowledge, power, and opportunity, we are able to amend, alter, and change our beliefs, values, and behaviours. More important, however, is that we can deepen and broaden them. In fact, that may well be the journey of life. A good beginning in that journey, however, is to gain a crucial knowledge and awareness of that which has impacted us. Gaining an awareness of the self—knowing self—cannot be done without gaining knowledge and awareness of others—knowing others—as Müller reminded us. There is all too often a failure to appreciate and understand why others may think differently than we do. The failure can result from an ethno-centrism, or a view that differences are really only superficial, that is, little more than differences of “foods, festivals and flags”. But such an approach does not serve us well and creates more difficulties than it resolves. Reflecting on our personal/group identify is intended as a first step to understand not only ourselves in a myriad of ways, but also others. The personal/group identity approach as a first step in understanding our worldview and that of others begins by taking into consideration three shaping and influencing factors. The first specifically concerns the personal or the individual. Numerous personal characteristics shape who we are: our gender, sexual orientation, abilities or disabilities, individual interests and desires, and not least our “personality type”, the introvert, extrovert, and more categories highlighted in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. All of these are starting points that have a bearing on what we articulate as being important and the beliefs and values associated with what we prioritize; these personal factors influence our thinking and acting. In effect, identity development is linked to worldviews (Nilsson, 2013; Myers et al., 1991). Our learning or education, whether formal or informal, also has a bearing on the way we think and what we hold to be important. Education is

2  PERSONAL AND GROUP IDENTITY 

33

considered the great equalizer, so higher levels of education can open up vast new worlds for us, and vast new worlds of beliefs and values. One might reflect on how all of this has come to shape us—our views and our actions. A second factor shaping and influencing our worldview is the social. The communities from which we come also have a bearing on us. Often there are certain characteristics associated with a rural versus an urban way of living. How might such ways of living affect us? Some of us come from particular religious or spiritual communities; others come from secular communities. In what way do these communities impact us individually, even collectively? Further, is there an appreciation, even an understanding, for those not from our own religious, spiritual, or secular community? Equally influential is the socio-economic environment from which we come. We know that greater or lesser degrees of wealth impact the choices we are able to make, the opportunities that are available to us, the activities we engage in, the places to which we can travel, and the kinds of people with whom we can make connections. How does our socio-­ economic situation affect our view of the world, and then our actions in it? If we are middle-class, with the privilege of attending university, opportunities to travel the world, and access to numerous sporting, social, and cultural activities, then how does all of this shape who we are, even our opportunities to develop a “cosmopolitan worldview”? How might this differ from someone who has always had to work hard, who could barely scrape by, and has had few opportunities to travel and participate in sporting activities and social/cultural events? Certain socio-economic privileges open up worlds for us. We all know that the common saying “it’s not what you know but who you know” has a grain of truth to it, if not more. A third factor focuses on culture and how our culture influences our beliefs and actions. Our ethnicity impacts us. People from different cultures and places in the world think and act differently—we are not all the same. We make huge mistakes in assuming that all people are similar to us or view the world and act in it in the same way. Such assumptions can have huge repercussions. North Americans and Western Europeans often tend to think in individualistic terms, with a focus largely, if not solely, on the individual. They tend to think first of themselves and their individual needs. Consumer culture stresses the importance of focusing on or looking after the self. Hence, mainstream Western culture is more inclined to speak of individual rights and opportunities before it considers individual responsibilities and

34 

J. VALK

obligations. Other cultures focus more on community. Whether one is more individually or communally oriented has consequences, and not least how one views others (Wu & Keysar, 2007; Triandis, 1995). Those from a secular Western perspective often assume that religion is of little or no importance or consequence. This may indeed be the case for them. But this is hardly the case for those in other parts of the world—or in their very own neighbourhoods—who embrace a religious worldview perspective. Secular people make a mistake when they assume that religious beliefs are simply private beliefs and have no (legitimate) bearing in the public square. Such assumptions can easily lead to a distorted view of the other—a result of not knowing others. It may furthermore betray a lack of understanding, a truncated notion of the importance of religious beliefs. It may even be a failure to appreciate that religious beliefs  may open up vast areas of imaginative living that lend richness to human life, and which may be closed to those with secular beliefs. On the other hand, those with religious beliefs may fail to understand the challenges that secular beliefs pose, beliefs that the rational and the scientific should be the measure, the final court of appeal, and the criteria by which all things are given validity. One must also recognize the importance of nationality, and its formative influences. Canadians, for example, are generally well liked in the world and are regarded as easy going, balanced, and caring, with few really negative characteristics, especially relative to perceptions of people from other nations. Canadians also have easy access to almost any country in the world and can travel freely. Relative to many others, they are generally wealthy with adequate healthcare and social services, much of which comes to them inexpensively. As such, they can all too easily assume that all people have these  benefits, and even come to expect certain services when travelling in other parts of the world. But such expectations can be unrealistic, for not everyone has the same privileges as many Canadians, including Canadians living within Canada itself. White, Caucasian, and English-speaking people look at the world in particular ways. Those who immigrate to countries where English dominates often find themselves at odds with its linguistic and cultural conventions. First Nations Peoples of North America have endured the brunt of centuries of European colonization—of their land, culture, language, and more by settlers who invaded and dominated. Such colonization has impacted their worldview, with many unable to withstand the onslaught of Western ways. Yet, what has survived of their worldview—their traditions

2  PERSONAL AND GROUP IDENTITY 

35

and cultural ways—is now seen by some as crucial in combatting the overarching and impinging worldviews of Materialism, Individualism, and Consumerism. Lastly, and not to be underestimated, is the power and influence of language in shaping the thoughts, ideas, and behaviours of a people. Today, due in large part to 300 or more years of colonial activity, the English language has become an international language. This is a considerable convenience for English-speaking people who travel the world, but with it often comes a certain expectation: that all others will accommodate English speakers. This not only gives English speakers a huge advantage over those who may not be fluent in the language, but it may also result in them failing to grasp the notion that other languages are rich in their own cultural, philosophical, and even religious/spiritual expressions. Peoples whose language is threatened with extinction recognize all too clearly that with its disappearance a distinct worldview is lost. Language warriors are adamant that the richness inherent in their language must be preserved. All of this reveals that to greater or lesser degrees our views of the world, our beliefs, and our values, and also our behaviours and actions are influenced by a variety of factors. These factors do not alone determine our beliefs, values, and behaviours, but they certainly exert some influence over and give some shape to them. Knowledge of the degree to which they do so increases knowledge of self. The degree to which we become aware of how they influence and shape others is the degree to which we gain knowledge of others. Together they enhance knowledge of self and others.

Personal/Individual Gender Regardless of the society or culture in which we live, and whether it is more individualistically or communally oriented, our gender plays a role in the way we view the world and the way we act within it. While men and women, male and female, share many common characteristics and may even have similar outlooks, these genders are not the same (Gray, 2012). So how do gender differences affect one’s worldview? Do men view things differently than women, and as such do men act differently than women? How does gender affect how one looks at life, at the world, at other

36 

J. VALK

people? Furthermore, the rise of the LGBTQ2+ community is causing a whole new look at gender in the Western world, but also beyond. The role and status of male and female have changed dramatically in the last century in the Western world. Women have moved from traditional roles of compliance and submissiveness, even subservience, to positions of power and influence in numerous sectors of society. Areas once reserved exclusively for men have now opened up for women: education, politics, commerce, sports, and much more (Conley & Page, 2014). In earlier eras women were confined almost exclusively to the household and to child-­ rearing duties, but today women have gained independence and freedom seldom seen and observed in Western history. That freedom and independence has given them control over their own destinies, where they are able to determine their own futures and are no longer dependent on men (often fathers and husbands). The educational system, as well as many parents, teaches girls and young women that the world is open to them, that they can determine their own life journey. Numerous women have paved a way for them and now serve as models of emancipation and freedom. While a so-called glass ceiling still exists, whether in perception or in reality, women have more than proven their capability to compete with men in terms of knowledge, abilities, and skillsets (Bertrand, 2017; Cotter et al., 2001). Yet, the struggle for many women, younger and older, lingers, for the pressures of conforming to traditional roles, even within an opened-up world, continue to impinge on them (Tannen, 2001, 2007). Freud’s infamous statement “biology is destiny” provoked considerable controversy on many levels, and understandably so because it implied that women could not, or should not, escape the inevitable. But Freud and so many others failed to carefully distinguish between traditional roles imposed on women at that time and the biological reality that women, not men, bear the children. Today biology is not the only destiny for women; childbearing becomes a choice, as do levels of education and career possibilities. Such increased opportunities, and the numerous options that come with it, may be characteristic of women brought up in Western cultures, but we know all too well that this situation is not universal. Women in all parts of the world seek freedom and independence from all that which confines or binds them to strict gender roles in a manner that is oppressive or stifling for them. Traditional roles may impinge on women and girls in many parts of the world, where their destinies are still closely linked to, if not determined by, the men in their lives (Beitler & Martinez, 2010). Yet

2  PERSONAL AND GROUP IDENTITY 

37

at the same time, many women may also see their roles and status from a very perspective from that of women who live in Western countries. They may see raising children not as an option or a burden but as a traditionally important, constitutive role; they bring new life into the world—a role that gains them tremendous respect in their communities. Even so, many may also aspire to more than just traditional roles of child-rearing and seek ways to change their educational, legal, political, social, and economic status (Riggs, 2016; Keddie, 2007). This is increasingly the case for African women in smaller communities who are gaining new positions of power through the micro-economic industries that they are generating. These positions of power and the increased socio-economic status that comes with it create new opportunities for them and their children, and most specifically their daughters, even though all of these may be seen by all too many men as displacing and disempowering their traditional roles (Grigsby et  al., 2015; Asare et  al., 2015). Hence, how women act in the world today, in contrast to the past, has changed dramatically. Yet, it is a question as to whether their worldview has changed or whether it has taken on a new intensity, such that the change is more in terms of an increased breadth via an expanded rather than an entirely new view or vision of women in the world and also in terms of an increased depth via an enriched rather than a merely novel sense of what it means to be a woman today. In all of this, the role of men has also changed over time, and no more so than in the Western world. In tandem with the increases in the place and status of women in Western society are the changes required of men. Former roles exclusively reserved for men are now shared with women. Notions of men as protectors of women, as more rational, stable, emotionally stronger, and more capable, have all but disappeared. While men in the main may be physically stronger than women, statistics clearly indicate that they do not outlive them—perceptions of women as the “weaker sex” have changed. Men themselves have had to be liberated from former notions to embrace a whole new sense of women as being their equals. Certain biological differences undoubtedly remain, but the impact of those differences has waned considerably in modern Western society. This does not mean that women are now perceived to be the same as men. Equality between the genders should not convey the notion that they are the same—there are clear differences—but that there must be equality of opportunity. Again, while the notion of gender equality has burgeoned it is far from universal, even in the Western world. Vestiges of male superiority and

38 

J. VALK

privilege still dominate many cultures and places throughout the world in greater or lesser degrees, and as such the battle between the sexes has not disappeared. East or West, North or South, men still occupy the most prominent and authoritative positions in society—equality is still far from certain. Yet, in all of this, men and women have been faced with changes in their lives—in essence, their worldview. Here again, however, it may be more so that their worldviews have taken on a new intensity. They gain breadth: they gain a better or increased sense of possibilities in society. They also gain depth: they gain an enriched sense of what it means to be a man or a woman today. Their worldviews are experienced as dynamic (Johnson, 2014; Jensen et al., 1991). Today the concept of gender has expanded beyond the male and female binary to include the LGBTQ2+ community: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, two-spirited, and more. As such, the question of how gender impacts one’s perceptions and actions needs to be expanded. To struggle with self-identity beyond the male/female binary comes with its challenges in a society, let alone in a larger world, that for the most part identifies only with two genders (Parker et  al., 2007). Discrimination exists on a variety of levels against those who do not fit into this gender bifurcation, even as a more liberalized and tolerant Western world struggles to minimize it. Those who self-identity as LGBTQ2+ face a hostile world and their oppression and even persecution is increasingly recognized. That persecution can become a matter of life and death in certain non-Western cultures. As such, one’s LGBTQ2+ nature, as with the male/ female binary, while not exclusively determining one’s worldview, can nonetheless give considerable shape to it, in terms of beliefs, values, and behaviours. Through the experience of discrimination and persecution one can view the world as hostile, prejudiced, and unjust. Behaviour can become resigned or confrontational, empathetic or acerbic, understanding or aggressive, and more. Yet, one’s worldview can also become expanded rather than changed, its breadth increased by seeing that a binary gender conception does not capture the manifold genders that characterize the human. It can be deepened by recognizing that the human is complex and cannot easily be confined in narrow socially constructed categories. Some worldview traditions have come to recognize this more easily than others (Chacaby, 2016; Jacobs et al., 1997). The circumstances in which we are raised shape and influence to a large extent our notion of gender and the expectations that come along with it. Yet, while our social circumstances can impinge on us heavily, even

2  PERSONAL AND GROUP IDENTITY 

39

forcefully at times, they do not necessarily determine how we understand gender, whether our own or that of others, nor how our behaviour and attitudes towards it will be lived out. It is only when we reflect on our beliefs, values, and behaviours that we can begin to see at least some of their sources—one of the more crucial being that of our upbringing. Family Relations/Relationships Our family circumstances are also a great influencing and shaping factor for attitudes towards others, our sense of inclusion and responsibilities, the importance of family, respect for others, and more. We all come from families of some kind. Today there are many different sociological models that constitute the family. Some children are brought up in two-parent families, others in single-parent families, still others in extended family circumstances, and even some in communal settings that crudely mimic family. What impact does one’s family situation have on one’s way of believing and being in the world? The circumstances in which we are raised will inevitably leave an indelible mark on our being: our outlook on life and our behaviours in life. The nuclear family has been the dominant family arrangement of the Western world for a number of centuries. The sociologist Talcott Parsons and others argued that it resulted largely from industrialization, when a shift occurred in the role or function of the family unit to that of an independent and self-sustaining economic unit and socializing entity. But others argue that the nuclear family arrangement goes back much further, perhaps as far back as the thirteenth century (Levine, 1985; Laslett & Walls, 1972). The nuclear family unit came to socially construct a world for the children, one in which certain traditions came to be seen as normal: father worked outside the house and provided the economic resources to keep the household functioning and mother assumed the duties of child-­ rearing and managing the household. That division of household labour dominated middle-class North America in the 1950s and influenced the emerging worldview of many children. That “normal” world changed when women began assuming their own careers, and mothers, in addition to bearing and largely rearing children, began to work outside the house. Nonetheless, the nuclear family has been the mainstay of modern Western society (Berger, 2017). While a nuclear family may have come to dominate Western culture, it is not pervasive in it today. Not all children live with and benefit from the

40 

J. VALK

socializing roles of both parents. Single-parent families are a fact, resulting at times from the untimely death of a parent and, towards the end of the twentieth century, of an increasing divorce rate. Other single-parent families result from so-called absent fathers, a growing phenomenon occurring largely, but not exclusively, within the Afro-American community in the United States. Sociologists and psychologists have long recorded the impacts of single-parent families on the well-being of children, and especially that of “absent fathers” (Balcom, 1998). Here again, one can see that children raised in such situations and circumstances would come to view the world, and act within it, in yet other ways. All of this is not to make any moral comments on any of these situations; it is merely to raise the notion that one’s familial circumstances have a potential bearing on one’s perceptions of life. A considerable number of First Nations children in Canada attended Residential Schools. Many were forcefully separated from their parents and their communities, and most were treated harshly. Most had no contact with their families and were forbidden to practise their traditional languages, spirituality, and practices. These were represented/characterized to them as inferior, including their traditional ceremonies, which were often regarded as evil. Many were not returned to their communities until many years later. As such, these children lost contact with their traditional ways of seeing the world and living in it. They came to find themselves lost between two cultures: their original Indigenous culture and the dominant white culture. They were unable to fit into either of them, frequently with traumatic and tragic results. Having been abused in the Residential Schools for misbehaving, many later turned to alcohol and came to abuse their own children. Here again one can see, in a stark manner, how one’s circumstances in one’s younger years can shape and influence one’s perspective and behaviour (Malloy, 2017; Merasty, 2017; Craft, 2015). In some communities extended family relationships are very important, even prominent. The aphorism “it takes a village to raise a child” alludes explicitly to multi-generational communities where children are raised also by grandparents, especially grandmothers, and even others. Some of these are referred to as “intentional communities”, or even “alloparenting” communities, some of which emerged in the communes of the 1960s and 1970s (Johnston & Deisher, 1973). A well-known example of this is the Israeli kibbutz movement, linked to the kibbutz agricultural enterprises that emerged in the early part of the twentieth century (Beit-Hallahmi &

2  PERSONAL AND GROUP IDENTITY 

41

Rabin, 1977). In some more traditional settings, traditional neighbourhoods, or traditional communities, many women are referred to as “auntie”, signifying close relationships to all the children of a village. Within Indigenous Communities extended family relationships are very important, so much so that in “Talking Circles” one often hears participants conclude their statements with the words “to all my relations”. This is an acknowledgement of all that one has learned from one’s extended family members who go back generations. There is high regard and respect for elders in Indigenous societies because of the wisdom and experience they provide. One does not, however, so readily hear expressions of gratitude towards older generations in dominant Western society, where the wisdom gained through the lived experiences of older people is less highly valued, and where one is more inclined to hear that they are “over the hill”, indicating that they are of little value to a society where, for example, technological knowledge is more highly valued over life’s wisdom and experience. We can see in all of this that the family dynamic in which children are raised impacts who and what they are, whether that dynamic is a nuclear family, single-parent family, extended family, or even adoptive family. Whatever the structure, the family can be a fun-loving and caring environment, where a positive, caring view and way of life is modelled to children. It can also be a hostile and abusive environment, which can lead children to exhibit those very same characteristics, often a root cause of bullying. They come to view the world in a very hostile manner and their actions often reflect this into adulthood. Abilities and Disabilities Abilities and disabilities also affect one’s being in the world, and these can be on a number of levels and in a number of areas. We can be abled or disabled intellectually, emotionally, artistically, musically, literarily, and even socially. We are all abled and disabled to certain degrees in each of these areas—some of which impact us to greater or lesser degrees. While a fully able-bodied person might be imagined, in reality no such person exits, at least not for any extended length of time. So, in what ways might abilities and disabilities affect one beliefs and behaviours? Physical abilities and disabilities affect everyone. In fact, much of our lives are a journey towards disability; as we age we become more disabled. Further, we may be very abled today, but tomorrow may easily change

42 

J. VALK

that situation entirely. Nonetheless, many people enjoy good physical health and a life free of daily pain. Some even possess incredible physical fitness and skill and enjoy a life engaged in sporting activities, travel, hiking or climbing in mountainous terrain, and so much more. Today engaging in such activity, especially by the young or young at heart, is often seen as living life “to the fullest”, which for some translates into engaging in “extreme sports” or “living on the edge”. It can lead to a worldview characterized by a carefree lifestyle, throwing caution to the wind, tempting fate, or a belief that this life is all there is, and one must make the most of it. Those affected by physical disabilities of one kind or another on a daily basis may have an entirely different perspective. Those with life-long disabilities live with struggles and challenges others may not recognize, let alone imagine. Such disabilities can impede mobility, hinder access, and create obstacles. A prime example of a life challenged by severe disabilities is Stephen Hawking, a well-known cosmologist and theoretical physicist. Hawking suffered from a slow progressing amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), a motor neuron disease that severely restricted his movement and particularly his speech. He benefitted from rather sophisticated voice enhancers that enabled him to continue his professional work. Others are less fortunate, and struggle with disabilities that cause enduring pain, leading to hardships, frustration, anger, and despair. Physician-assisted dying today has become a legal option for those whose situation has become such that terminating one’s life appears a better course of action. Yet others see physical disabilities in different ways, not as something to be lamented but to live with and learn from—a valuing of life in different ways. They often see the greatest obstacles not the disabilities themselves but those placed in the way of people with disabilities by abled individuals or society in general (Garland-Thomson, 2016, 2017). Cognitive abilities and disabilities may have similar impacts. Those with enhanced intellectual abilities become very privileged in most societies. Educational institutions reward those with superior intelligence, especially where emphasis is placed on knowledge and information. Those of average intelligence may feel they must work extra hard yet are able to attain only medium results. But it is those with cognitive disabilities that may suffer the most, whether that disability is in a mild or even extreme form (Kittay, 2019). It is they who have endured, and in many cases still endure, discrimination of various sorts. Many are neglected, institutionalized, and deprived of a normal life. Increasingly they are devalued, especially in a society that highly prizes productivity. There are those who suggest euthanizing the

2  PERSONAL AND GROUP IDENTITY 

43

most severely disabled, for they do not possess the characteristics of what some regard as constituting the human (Singer, 1985, 1997). Medical technology has also made it possible to detect in  vitro foetuses with various disabilities, giving options to pregnant women to abort. But in some cases, providing options amounts to little more than an encouragement to rid society of those with certain disabilities, Down Syndrome or Chromosome 22 being prominent among them (Taylor, 2014). Societies that define a person by their disability rather than with a particular disability, and then come to devalue them, are societies that can easily eliminate them, as was the case in Nazi Germany (Hudson, 2011). But the overriding question may be one of coming to understand how those with cognitive disabilities themselves come to view the world (Welle, 2014). Those with enhanced artistic, musical, and poetic abilities will convey through the mediums of art, music, song, poetry, dance, and more particular views of life, even advocating particular ways of life; they have done so for millennia. They may see life through a different lens, one that depicts a reality many others may not see so readily. Whirling Dervish dancers, for example, from a Sufi perspective, integrate “reason, form-­ making, and imagining, along with yielding the body and mind to the powers of the earth … the awareness of the overpowering beauty of the world fills the heart with love and opens the mind to cosmic relations” (Erzen, 2008). The late Canadian singer/songwriter Lenard Cohen is one who displayed artistic mastery in reaching the spiritual heights for some of life’s biggest questions. Through his poetry/songs, he revealed his own view of life—his own responses to life’s harsh realities—captured in many of his songs. In “You Want It Darker”, Cohen spoke of his readiness to meet God (Remnick, 2016; Kornhaber, 2016). Education It has been said that education is the great equalizer, that with determination and increased knowledge and skills one can rise from social and economic deprivation to comfortable middle-class status, if not further. In what way might an enhanced education impact our being in the world— our worldview? Do higher levels of education expand and broaden our views, our appreciation for others, our sense of responsibilities and obligations? Public or state-sponsored education has been part of the history of the West since the middle of the nineteenth century, when nation-building

44 

J. VALK

required an educated citizenry. Common schooling in many Western countries seeks to unite a diverse society, by instilling a system of common beliefs, values, and behaviours in the children of the nation. While the schools are to be open to children of all backgrounds, critics argue, however, that the schools of the nation have become governed by particular ways of thinking and behaving, that formal education has been dominated by particular worldviews—Neo-liberalism and Utilitarianism—where education is largely, if not exclusively, oriented towards a Consumerist/Capitalist way of life. Today, higher education is all too often viewed as a ticket to higher-paying jobs, with the purpose or utility of education that of enhancing one’s socio-economic status. One can readily see how the worldview perspective of Neo-liberalism, Utilitarianism, Consumerism, and Capitalism might impact, shape, and influence the minds and the behaviours of the young in particular ways (Tomlinson, 2017; Molesworth et  al., 2009; Olssen & Peters, 2005; Naidoo & Jamieson, 2005; Postman, 1995). Not everyone sees the purpose of schools in this manner, however. Others may advocate that schools should teach students to become responsible citizens, active members in one’s community. But this also begs the question as what it means to be active members of one’s community or, more importantly, the kinds of communities one seeks to build in which one can be an active member. Here again, understandably, different worldviews come to play (Gaudelli, 2016; Miedema & Bertram-­ Troost, 2015). Others view the purpose of education in yet more distinct ways. Indigenous communities traditionally saw as their responsibility the development of their children’s emotional, mental, physical, and spiritual selves. Traditional Indigenous education, which reflects an underlying Indigenous worldview, incorporates these in the education of their children in their community schools, thereby fostering both individual learning and satisfying the needs of the community. When these students transfer to public schools, they encounter worldview differences. For one, public education today has focused increased attention on the intellectual, physical, and emotional development of students but struggles to give attention to the spiritual (Houston et  al., 2007; Jones, 2005; Astin & Astin, 2004; Wright, 2000). It is now recognized that this has caused cultural and spiritual dissonance for Indigenous students. It also creates dissonance for students from other worldview traditions, leading over the decades to an increased

2  PERSONAL AND GROUP IDENTITY 

45

homeschooling movement as well as separate, private, or religious schools. Religious schools, which by and large receive little, if any, public funding in many jurisdictions, have argued that education ought to serve higher callings and that spiritual values should be taken into consideration. Some harshly criticize private, religious schools, assuming that by their very nature they produce students who are very narrow-minded and intolerant. Research has indicated that this is false, however, and that graduates from many religious schools, especially Christian schools in North America, promote community building, support civic responsibility and civic engagement, contribute to strong family lives, embrace hope and optimism about the future, and indicate strong life-direction (Pennings & Wiens, 2011). Rowan Williams (2015) suggests that religious/spiritual communities open up imaginative worlds of the divine and transcendent that are closed to those who insist that the secular—the here and the now—constitutes the extent of human and earthly reality. One can see that such so-called religious schools, which no doubt focus also on how to live well in this world, but not seen from the perspective of Consumerism, may in fact be less narrowly focused than their secular counterparts. Such schools would influence and shape the worldviews of their students in considerably different ways (Valk, 2015). One can also see that an education steeped in the humanities and liberal arts may shape one’s view of the world in a manner different than an education focused on science or engineering. Opening oneself up to the philosophical thoughts contained in the so-called Great Books, or the literary worlds of the great poets and novelists of the past centuries, or the theories of the relatively new social sciences, leads to views of the world that would be different than an education focused largely on the sciences—those that largely explore the biological, chemical, and physical nature of the universe—or engineering, which concerns itself with utilizing materials of this world to build structures great and small. One can readily see that learning in each of these different directions can lead one to develop considerably different perspectives and behaviours. Small wonder that many advocate a mix of interdisciplinary subject areas (Kotsopoulos, 2015). Those who halt their education at lower levels will not have been exposed to wider worlds opened up at higher levels. Graduate levels of education, which become much more theoretically focused, convey to students the clear difference between the realities we experience and reality as it is in itself, a difference between so-called naïve and critical realism, a difference that may not be readily seen by those not aware that we do live

46 

J. VALK

in a symbolic world. Higher levels of education can be subversive, upsetting earlier understandings of how the world functions. Education grounded in different worldviews is a clear case in point, whether those worldviews are Secular, Liberal, Marxist, Capitalist, Christian, or Indigenous. Outlooks on life are not determined only by formal institutional education, however. We can have particular educational experiences far beyond formal education that are so life-shaping that they, in turn, influence our views and actions. Travel, for example, can be enriching beyond one’s comprehension. Experiences from living in other places can broaden one’s views of others. It is often said that we fear what we do not know, and hence we can speak ill of people or groups of people we have never encountered. Our beliefs about others can be quite narrow and truncated if we have never met them or spoken to them, or if all we know about them is what we have heard from the media. Exposure to others, whether in one’s own geographical area or in other places in the world, can readily expose one to different lifestyles, emphases, values, and beliefs. Travel can expose people to differences that penetrate little beyond the superficial, yet it can also do much more, exposing both those younger and older to the world as a place of rich encounters between peoples who, while similarly constituted, have beliefs, values, and behaviours that vary widely—in essence, different worldviews. One comes to learn that it is not a question of which culture may be right or wrong but what in each culture may be right or wrong. Rabbi and scholar Abraham Joshua Heschel (1907–1972) reminded us that “Man’s understanding of what is right and wrong has often varied throughout the ages; yet the consciousness that there is a distinction between right and wrong is permanent and universal” (Heschel, 1976, p. 226). We all agree that there is a right and a wrong; our disagreements are largely over what we regard to be right or wrong. Our societies, nations and cultures impress heavily on us what that right or wrong might be.

Social/Communal Social/Communal Environment The Maori People of New Zealand identify themselves not by what they do, but from where they come. From where they come is not simply linked to a town or street address; it is linked to a significant land feature: a river, a mountain, a valley—something that has not changed over the centuries.

2  PERSONAL AND GROUP IDENTITY 

47

In addition, they also link themselves to generations of a particular tribe or people. They may even list significant Elders past and present of their community. In essence, they give an extensive list of features and people that have played important roles in defining and identifying them long before they even begin to speak about themselves. Maori People, and in fact many Indigenous Peoples, are community oriented. Community is very important, and community involves everyone, regardless of who they are—everyone is part of the community. Care and concern for members of the community are paramount; community members look out for one another. The sharing of food and wealth is a common feature, exhibited prominently in the potlatch ceremonies of the Indigenous Peoples of the Pacific Northwest of Canada and the United States. Wealth held in common was also a feature of other Indigenous peoples in places such as Oceania, the Pacific Southwest, and those in the Arctic regions. Perhaps more so in the past than today, exclusion from the community, often a result of behaviour detrimental to the community, would be a severe form of punishment, especially in communities located in more remote areas. Indigenous Peoples viewed community as central to their worldview. Younger members were socialized into these life orientations. One can find such communal orientations also within many religious groupings. Churches are communities of the faithful, who care and look out for the health and welfare of their members. No doubt individual church groupings can be exclusionary. Yet, in times of need or crises those who do belong to such groupings are given assistance. Religious groupings such as the Amish and Mennonites form tightly knit communities, which socialize younger and older members not only in adhering to certain strict views and behaviours, but also in assisting others in their community regardless of the need. A sense of care and concern for others is a prevailing attitude among religious groupings, whether more liberal or conservative on the belief spectrum. Today church communities in various places, whether the local community or the world community, support and/or participate in numerous humanitarian efforts to alleviate the sufferings of others. Care and concern for others is an important aspect of the worldviews of those in these communities. The kinds of social or communal groupings people belong to in more modern and highly individualized secular societies, particular for North American and Western European secular peoples, can be quite different. In the past a person’s church affiliation linked them to a community. In the secular West those affiliations are changing today, but it is not exactly

48 

J. VALK

clear what is replacing them. Individualism is on the increase and has become an orientation for many, with a focus on individual priorities rather than communal concerns. The nature of secular communities is much more loose and fluid. Anonymity, loneliness or even alienation is more prevalent today, which is starkly noted in the most densely populated regions—one is surrounded by people yet only loosely connected to them. Today one can belong to what Bellah (1985) referred to as “lifestyle enclaves”: neighbourhood, sport, work, virtual/online, or even special interest groups. However, they easily become temporary and short-lived, which is why Bellah tended to view them as false communities. Membership changes when one moves out of a neighbourhood, changes jobs, discontinues sports, or loses interest in a particular special interest group. An individualized society also leads easily to a consumer culture mentality, where elevation of individual preferences undercuts commitment to longstanding communities, a concern expressed long ago by De Tocqueville (2010) in his writings on democracy in America. Whether in fact a comfortable fit can be found in democratic societies between individual and community remains to be seen. It is, nonetheless, telling that all too many Westerners, when asked, are indeed likely to mention what country, province, city, or town they are from, in comparison, for example, to Indigenous Peoples. It indicates that community may not figure prominently in what influenced or shaped their thinking and acting. Such influences may become more apparent only when one travels and comes to recognize the cultural, national, and ethnic differences of others. But it may also be the case that a sense of community does not play a formative role. Here it becomes apparent that one can see a difference between what the German sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies (2011) referred to as gemeinschaft (community), which appears most important to Maori and other Indigenous cultures, and gesellschaft (society or association), which appears to be a growing modern-day social/ communal identifier. Religious/Spiritual/Secular Identity In certain cultures, even countries, religion, and spirituality are very important. One is hard-pressed to grasp the essence of a people unless one recognizes also the extent to which religion or spirituality plays a role in their lives. It can be seen in their beliefs, rituals, speech, festivals, rites of passage, behaviours, public policies, and more. It is pervasive and

2  PERSONAL AND GROUP IDENTITY 

49

inescapable, and it continues to play a significant and growing, if not dominant, role. Yet, in other cultures/countries religion and spirituality play a marginal role, and in some no role at all. In the Western world it has been argued that because of the secularization process, religion is declining. This might be the case with certain Western countries, though whether this is in fact the case is still highly disputed (Bibby, 2017). Nonetheless, the overriding question here is how religious, spiritual, or secular beliefs, values, and behaviours impact one’s own worldview. In addition, and perhaps of equal importance, is whether one can be appreciative, or at least tolerant, of the religious, spiritual, or secular beliefs and behaviours of others, even if those beliefs and behaviours are not one’s own. Some view their own worldview perspective as the only right one, and hence there is little appreciation for the views of others. This has been a common feature among certain segments of the Christian and Muslim communities. But it is also a growing phenomenon among certain atheists, whose own “evangelical fervour” causes aspersions to be cast on all who embrace views other than their own. Yet others are more open and appreciative of the views and actions of others, even though they continue to embrace their own belief traditions and actions as the only right or true one for them. How one identifies oneself as religious, spiritual, or secular is itself a complex issue. Sociologists, anthropologists, and historians of religion have debated endlessly how best to define each of these terms. While this has merit, it is not of such great importance here. More crucial is to ask the question how one’s own surroundings and circumstances give influence and shape to one’s worldview. One is hard-pressed to understand the lives and cultures of Indigenous Peoples, for example, the Maori people of New Zealand and Indigenous Peoples of North America, unless one comes to grasp why their religion or spirituality is important to them. The situation is similar with many peoples of the Middle East, where Islam dominates, as it is with numerous sub-Saharan African countries, where the Christian religion was adopted, though at times blended with indigenous spiritualities to create syncretistic religions. In many Latin American countries, religion entwined in unique ways with socio-economic conditions that led to the formation of Base Communities, where a blend of Marxist socio-economic critique and Christian “Liberation Theology” gave many an orientation and resolve that clashed sharply with a Capitalist worldview, which many feel still impoverishes and disempowers them. One can equally see that when one

50 

J. VALK

is raised in a Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist majority culture one is heavily influenced and shaped by, and hence may readily identify with, that particular religion or spirituality. Believing in a Creator, the spiritual connection of all things, reverence for the ancestors who came before them, notions of some existence after this life, high regard for the natural world, the power of stories new and ancient, and participating in various rituals come by and large to shape, if not define, the worldview of those who self-identify as Indigenous. That worldview is challenged significantly when one is a minority culture within a more dominant culture where younger and older are constantly challenged by other beliefs, especially when the young are educated in school systems that do not honour, appreciate, or recognize Indigenous beliefs. In the past, this has been the case for the Maori People of New Zealand and First Nations People of North America, where the educational systems impressed upon the young that their traditional beliefs and rituals were “pagan” and “evil”. It caused no end of difficulties among them and led many to lose respect for their traditional ways. Only within the recent past, as Indigenous Peoples gained more control over their own schools and the right to educate their own children, have changes occurred and pride has again been taken in being Indigenous. In dominant Muslim countries the young are shaped and influenced by the Muslim beliefs and values present in those countries. Those beliefs and values are received from the home environment but no less so from schools and cultural traditions. Religious rituals, such as daily prayers, fasting, and charity, become ingrained in the hearts and minds of younger and older. Self-identifying as a Muslim in a dominant Muslim country or culture becomes, in many ways, a given, almost without reflection. Such is not the case, however, for many Muslims who immigrate to countries where they are surrounded by other beliefs and values. There younger and older alike become more conscious of differences between their beliefs, values, and traditions and that of the dominant culture. This is especially the case for Muslims who immigrate to Western countries, as well as those born and raised in Western countries. Tensions, turmoils, and challenges can arise within families and communities as how best to uphold their traditional ways, especially when host countries restrict some of the traditional ways. Such is the case for Muslims living, for example, in France, where the dominant secular culture forbids certain traditional forms of dress and regards many Muslims with suspicion, if not hostility. This has tremendous impact on the Muslim youth, who struggle to uphold certain

2  PERSONAL AND GROUP IDENTITY 

51

traditions yet become enticed by the glamour and appeal of the host Western culture. It has also created the opposite reaction, especially when rejection and alienation cause some youth to become radicalized and violent. The situation is similar with Hindus, Sikhs, and Buddhists who live in majority cultures. The young easily absorb traditional beliefs, values, and rituals, for they are inundated with them on a daily basis. A Hindu living in India, for example, can hardly escape the influence of Hindu traditions. Such is also the case for Buddhists living in a country such as Bhutan, for example. Each easily adopts or absorbs the worldview dominant in that country. But here again, the situation changes when they become minorities in other dominant countries or cultures. Traditional beliefs and traditional ways can be challenged. This has been the case for Sikhs who struggle to maintain the right to wear distinctive religious clothing and symbols crucial to their identity. They have been quite successful in a country such as Canada, where they are permitted to wear their turbans while serving in the military or police forces, and young Sikh children have been permitted the right to wear the traditional kirpan when they attend public schools. Buddhism has in general found a friendly atmosphere in many Western countries, and especially the United States and Canada. Many Westerners have embraced Buddhist teachings and practices, finding them appealing to a North American culture that tends to be quite individualistic (Blake, 2010). In terms of dress, Buddhists are no more or less visible than others in Western countries. Only when one becomes a Buddhist monk does one become more visible, particularly in regard to the wearing of a traditional Buddhist saffron robe and the appropriation of a name change (Dharma name) to identify with a particular Buddhist school or teacher. Since Buddhism in many ways is an individual spiritual journey, especially as exercised in Western contexts, its shaping and influence on the young may be less distinct than Muslim counterparts, for example, whose rituals require active involvement. Yet, Buddhist teachings and rituals, such as short daily recitations and services before a Buddhist shrine within a family setting, or regular attendance at communal religious services and festivals to receive instruction, would all shape and influence the worldview of the young. Relative to other places, religion and spirituality have largely become privatized in the Western world—something one engages in at home, church, mosque, or synagogue. Within Christian families, religious

52 

J. VALK

teachings and rituals are still important and in many cases of great value to its adherents. Engagement in communal religious activities and even membership in religious communities will have an influence in shaping the worldview of those involved in them. A sense of who they are, what gives meaning to their lives, and their responsibilities and obligations are shaped and influenced by the religious teachings and rituals embraced by individuals and community members. In many cases, both younger and older have a network of community members with whom they associate and socialize. Christian schools are also not uncommon in many Western countries. Children who attend these schools will have their worldviews shaped and influenced even more so by curriculum content and lifestyles associated with it. As can be clearly seen, when the young reach maturity their lives have already been imprinted by certain outlooks, depending on the extent to which parents themselves may have embraced religious teachings and values. Those who do not embrace religious or spiritual worldviews are influenced by other worldviews. Though some refer to themselves as non-­ believers, this is an unhelpful identifier—everyone believes in something or some things. It would be more accurate to say that their beliefs are more of a secular kind, even if this might be seen as a rather broad category. In the public square today, religious debate is at times discouraged, if not avoided. In some cases, certain kinds of religious views and actions are either ignored or heavily criticized in the public media (Cupp, 2010; Wright, 2010). But marginalizing, removing, or silencing religious debate does not make a neutral public square; rather, it makes for a secular public square where Secularism dominates. This has had a great impact on various nations, turning a number of them from dominantly Christian in the past to dominantly secular in the present, where even religious dress is sanctioned as, for example, in France. This cultural shift has also resulted in an increase in the number of “nones”, which may not mean atheism specifically, but certainly a movement away from identifiable or traditional religion or spirituality. In some places, active culture wars have begun, pitting the religious against the secular for dominance in the public square, including the educational institutions of the nations, with yet another result that of a growing religious illiteracy (Levinovitz, 2017; Prothero, 2007). For some this is of great concern and they wonder whether public education has contributed to such illiteracy, or whether in removing the teaching about religion from the curriculum a reverse form of indoctrination has occurred, for example, into a  Liberalism, as Thiessen (1993)

2  PERSONAL AND GROUP IDENTITY 

53

argued some time ago. Others question whether public education actually does create “disbelief” (Green, 2014). Yet, public schools are far from neutral and do convey to students what is important, and in a society dominated by a secular worldview schools may unwittingly promote one worldview over others (Valk, 2007; Van Brummelen, 1991). But schools are not the only educators of the young in a highly diverse and open society. Various kinds of media—news, music, film—have a secularizing influence today, even if certain films and music today may have religious overtones (Romanowski, 2012; Marshall et al., 2009). It is not surprising, therefore, that many younger and older alike today have little interest in religion and have drifted far from involvement in its institutions, even if they might claim to be spiritual (Ammerman, 2013). As such they are shaped and influenced by other views and ways of life, whose offerings may appear more enticing than others (Lawson, 2012; Stearns, 2006). Socio-Economic In most places in the world socio-economic status is of great importance. It is believed that influence, power, and wealth increase standing in society, as well as opportunities. Those of greater socio-economic means have enhanced access to the levers of power and influence, and the subsequent privileges and rewards that come with it (Kimmel & Ferber, 2016). As such, elevating one’s socio-economic status is a huge incentive and driver in the lives of many, with education seen as one of the most preferred and favoured routes to achieve that outcome. It is also highly coveted because of its purchasing power, and the notion that happiness and contentment can come in the form of material goods. While many comforts of life can accrue from material abundance, its pursuit as a specific worldview (Consumerism) is a different story. An unrelenting pursuit of material things—power, influence, wealth—can itself exact an unsustainable toll, not only on individuals themselves but also on families, communities, and the environment. Etzioni (2017), among others, wonders whether those raised, shaped, and influenced in such worldviews might become conscious of other outlooks, ones that recognize the overall impact of such socio-economic pursuits and come to conceive of socio-economic status in an entirely different fashion. It has been said that the higher one’s socio-­ economic status, even one’s education, the more selective one is about people with whom one associates, and the more one associates only with

54 

J. VALK

one’s own kind (Arnell, 2013). In doing so, we easily become unaware of the other, unaware of their plight, their challenges, their hardships— unaware even of their gifts (Taylor, 2014). Newfoundlanders have long had a lower socio-economic status than many of their compatriots in other Canadian jurisdictions. Many have been heavily dependent on the fishing industry, which has always been a dangerous occupation in a harsh maritime environment. The objective of most was to acquire a living standard that supported their families, yet not one where others might conceive of them as “too big for the community” (Davis, 2000). The fishing industry collapsed in the 1990s, through what many felt was mismanagement (Bavington, 2010; Harris, 1998). The livelihoods of fishermen, their families, and others were severely impacted, if not shattered. Unemployment became endemic (Davis, 2000). A collapse of the Newfoundland way of life was predicted. Yet it did not happen. Though some people may be  more economically  impoverished, the Newfoundland culture remains alive and well. This was discovered by many hundreds of people whose flights were diverted to Gander, Newfoundland, during the 9/11 crisis in 2001. Stranded there for four days, they came to see a whole different way of life, and a different side to humanity. They came to see the world through the eyes of Newfoundlanders—through the worldview of Newfoundlanders—and discovered something unique and quite unexpected. They came to see that Newfoundlanders have an intense sense of family and community, one honed through a particular, if not precarious, socio-economic way of life. They came to see in Newfoundlanders a great sense of humour, an intense love for music and singing, an overwhelming spirit of generosity, and a rare gift of hospitality. Those “from away”, as Newfoundlanders call visitors, not only learned a lot about their hosts but, even more importantly, learned about themselves and what they thought was important (Tueff, 2018; DeFede, 2003). Different groupings of people, from quite different socio-cultural situations, from different geographical regions, came to see a different way of being shaped and influenced by quite different socio-economic circumstances: a worldview shaped by socio-economic circumstances is also a distinct, shaping response to those circumstances. First Nations People in Canada experience a socio-economic status that, in the main, is lower than that of the average Canadian. This creates turmoil and hardship and a tension with the dominant culture that has

2  PERSONAL AND GROUP IDENTITY 

55

been long-standing. The poverty experienced by some is extreme, especially by those who live in remote areas that seem to support only one source of work at best. The consequences of this poverty have led to lives burdened by drugs, alcohol, and desolation. Lack of opportunity to escape the hardships of life has exacted a devastating toll, with the result that a lack of hope and a sense of meaninglessness run rampant, especially among the young. Death and destruction touch all too many lives. Yet, in spite of the way of life forced on many due to harsh socio-economic circumstances, First Nations Peoples have an incredible sense of warmth, care, and concern for each other, shown through extended family relationships, and communal gatherings where, in sadness and in joy, hospitality is extended, often by means of abundant food shared with all and by all. Dire socio-­ economic circumstances can teach younger and older alike that hope springs not from the things one possesses but from resilience, from each other, and from a community taking pride in who they are. Economic poverty or deprivation should not necessarily be associated with or directly linked to a lower socio-economic status. Economic poverty or deprivation is only one form of poverty. Countless peoples and communities can undergo economic hardship and deprivation yet experience the riches of life on numerous other levels: social, familial, cultural, aesthetic, and even spiritual. Peoples past and present have done without the conveniences and ease that economic wealth can provide yet have lived enriched lives due to their connectedness to others and also the land. Familial, social, and cultural bonds can be strong and rich and convey a way of being that shapes and influences younger and older to appreciate the values and importance of more than just the economic. Economic deprivation can also be experienced at certain stages of life, for example in one’s youth, can be temporary, or can be overcome, yet can teach important life lessons such as resilience, ingenuity, and creativity. Conversely, one can be economically rich, surrounded by an array of modern comforts and conveniences, yet experience poverty and deprivation on a variety of other levels. An abundance of material things can at times give a false sense of security, preoccupy us with false pursuits, and wreak havoc on the environment, a reality with which all too many in the materially abundant Western world are now confronted (De Graaf et al., 2002). It stems from a particular worldview, one that expresses its character by competing against those that seek worldly dominance.

56 

J. VALK

Ethnicity, Language, and Nationality Ethnic Differences It is almost a given to say that culture influences and impacts a worldview. We all know this. Or do we? When one travels to different parts of the world—whether east, west, north, or south—it becomes apparent that geographical circumstances have a bearing on how we think and act, and on what we believe and value; but in what way does it do so? Our physical environment both restricts and enhances what we are able to do; but how? How do our individual and collective cultural environment and circumstances influence the way we look at the world and the way that we live in the world? We all inhabit a time and place, though perhaps this had more bearing in the past than today. Travel and instant communication via a number of different media have brought people from far and near much closer together. We are, nonetheless, enclaves of people who through the passage of time and place are shaped in certain ways. That particular shaping has resulted in the formation of distinct groupings; people whose ways of life differ in greater or lesser degrees from one another: people who have become ethnically, nationally, and linguistically distinct. Our ethnicity, our nationality, and our language also shape and influence. Even in a globalized world, where travel is ubiquitous and pervasive, and material goods are shipped worldwide, one can nonetheless see that peoples of different places have greater or lesser degrees of differences. Migration and immigration have expanded in the last few centuries, resulting in peoples from distinct places in the world migrating to places that were initially foreign to them. The colonialism of the past centuries saw vast numbers of Europeans migrate to far reaches of the earth, inhabit all the inhabitable continents of the world, and come to dominate in a number of them: North and South America, Australia, and New Zealand. Africans, largely due to slave trading, were transported in vast numbers to the United States, but today also find themselves in various countries in Europe. Middle Easterners, seeking more sustainable or lucrative livelihoods, immigrated to both Europe and North America. In the last century Asians have also migrated to various parts of the world, most notably Oceania and North America. Through all of this, various continents, once largely uniform or homogenous, are now multi-cultural and consist of many ethnic peoples, whose ways of life have severely impacted and altered

2  PERSONAL AND GROUP IDENTITY 

57

the ways of life of Indigenous Peoples. While migration and immigration has benefitted many, it has seldom come without incident. Many different ethnic groupings, even religious groupings, find themselves at odds with the more dominant peoples from Europe, which causes no end of friction. But uglier ethnic clashes have also led to genocide and ethnic cleansing in other parts of the world, a reoccurring phenomenon even in the twenty-­ first century. Ethnic or cultural differences, often linked to the possession, occupation, or identification with the land, will not easily, if ever, be eradicated; they remain with us. Yet, while ethnic and cultural differences can lead to tensions, they can also lead to enriched opportunities. Knowledge and awareness of others— other worldviews—can lead to a broadening and deepening of one’s own worldview, while at the same time leading to the appreciation of the worldviews of others. Huntington (2011) spoke of the inevitable “clash of civilizations” in a global world; yet others fear a homogenization of cultures through a globalization trend (Levitt, 1983). But others argue the opposite, indicating that increased knowledge of the other may not only lessen global tensions but may also lead to greater respect for cultural diversity (Pieterse, 2015; Bhawuk, 2008a). Canada is a country composed of numerous ethnic and cultural groupings. Except for Indigenous Peoples (First Nations, Metis, and Inuit), who comprise approximately 5% of the total population, all the rest are what are now called “settlers”, often also called “hyphenated Canadians”— Irish-Canadians, Dutch-Canadians, Ukrainian-Canadians, Japanese-­ Canadians, and many more—who have taken up their dwelling in this vast country, whether in the last decade, the last century, or the last four centuries. Canada declared itself multi-cultural in the 1970s and officially adopted this through the Canadian Multi-Culturalism Act of 1988, a step that recognized a country enriched by multiple ethnic groups, who retain the uniqueness of their own ethnic heritage as they set out to make a new life in a new country. Canada is an experiment of multi-culturalism on the world stage. It is far from perfect, yet it seems to be a country where ethnic differences can enrich rather than divide. A sense of acceptance of the other, inclusion, and ethnic fairness pervades the land, which can be traced to its very beginnings. This increasingly includes also First Nations Peoples, who are making a slow comeback after years of repression through attempted assimilation (Saul, 2008, 2014; Berry, 2013). Today ethnic differences are celebrated in Canada. Yet, while including foods, flags, and festivals is important as a first step to acceptance, it must go beyond

58 

J. VALK

superficial differences, for each ethnic group comes with its own beliefs, values, and ways of life—its own worldview. That worldviews touch on all areas of life is a notion not readily seen, or accepted, by everyone. But that too is also revealing, for it assumes that there exists considerable neutrality in various areas of existence. It is argued, for example, that science is one of those areas characterized by worldview neutrality, that it is objective and value free, that it can resist the impacts and influences of culture. But one wonders if this is always the case. Perhaps a culture dominated by modern science, and one that has marginalized religious or spiritual worldviews, is unable to be completely free of worldview biases, let alone acknowledge this. But in a culture where religious or spiritual worldviews play an important role, this can readily be seen. Blackstock (2007) recognizes that First Nations spirituality approaches knowledge in ways considerably different from Western science. Odora Hoppers and Richards (2011) see this clearly in the context of African Indigenous knowledge. Bhawuk (2008b) makes this case in regard to India and how an “Indian worldview” differs from Western scientific culture. Mitroff and Kilman (1978) make the case that the “selection of any particular experimental design is not automatic but is a function of one’s worldview” (p. 47). Kuhn (1970) made this case earlier. Recognizing that certain cultures may be influenced more by religious beliefs and values than others also reveals that some see the reach of religious worldviews to be much more extensive than others, that religious worldviews are more than ritual participation or private matters. It is recognition that religious worldviews open up culture, and influence so many of its aspects, including art, politics, economics, and more (Williams, 2015; Goudzwaard et al., 2007). For those raised in such cultures, religion or spirituality is a given and fully recognized as such; it becomes an identity that goes almost without question. On the other hand, for an increasing number of those in Western societies, a secular worldview becomes an accepted and alternative option identity (Taylor, 2007). Cultural differences, whether in regard to entire countries or cultural groups within particular countries, extend also beyond the level to which religion is recognized as important. It surfaces in subtle ways, and almost unrecognizable, because it is often embedded in the casual expressions we use or in an even more serious approach to life itself. Three examples will suffice to make the point. First, in North America, especially Canada, it is quite normal when meeting a person for the first time, to ask the question,

2  PERSONAL AND GROUP IDENTITY 

59

“And what do you do?” While this can be an innocent question, it can also reveal worldview differences. In the North American context, it reveals that a person’s identity is frequently linked to what he/she does, rather than who he/she is. Personal identity is so often linked to what we do. Yet, this is rather ironic, for do we not consider ourselves as “human beings”, rather than “human doings”? Perhaps this a cultural trait, something distinctly North American, where we focus so much on doing things that we lose sight of what it means to be a “human being”. Perhaps we conceive of the human more in terms of what we do, rather than in terms of what we are. This leads to valuing people more by the status they have—by what they do—and less so for who they are. This can have a significant impact for those limited in their “doing”—perhaps as a result of factors such as cognitive, emotional, or physical disabilities or age—and may have their value to society diminished, which can easily lead to marginalization and impoverishment. It can have an impact on how older people are treated. In many Indigenous cultures, older people are dignified, honoured with the title “Elder”, and play important roles in how Indigenous communities are governed. In many Western cultures older people retire from active work, engage in leisurely activities, and begin the slow transition to institutionalized senior assisted living. Second, Véras and Véras (2011) point out that “the more acquainted one is with a culture, the more successful his/her business will become” (p. 77). That is, the more one is aware of the worldview of the other, the greater the understanding between the parties. Cultural differences, especially when it comes to business transactions, may have to do with awareness of a wide variety of matters: recognizing who wields the decision-making powers; knowing what products may sell well in some countries but will fail abysmally in others; being cognizant of appropriate greeting protocol; not engaging in business dealings outside of business hours, at social functions and, in Muslims countries, certainly not during Ramadan; knowing appropriate and inappropriate topics of conversations when first introduced or in casual exchanges; and many more. Further, in some Asian, Middle Eastern, and Indigenous cultures, people will socialize extensively before engaging in business transactions. This is often puzzling for North Americans and Europeans who want to quickly “get down to business”. But the purpose of socializing is to get to know people first—who they are, what is important to them, their character traits, and more. Only after

60 

J. VALK

they get to know a person, and feel they are trustworthy, are some willing to enter into business transactions (Adamczyk, 2017; Véras & Véras, 2011; Hofstede, 2001; Valdes-Fauli & Diaz, 1997). As one can see, each of these cultural differences points to worldview differences—different ways of being—differences that go far beyond “food, flags and fashions”. Language Language is closely connected with the way that we understand the world and live in it. According to Lyle Campbell, director of the University of Utah’s Center for American Indian Languages, “the wisdom of humanity is coded in language” (quoted from Wallace, 2009). The diversity of languages found throughout the world embodies a richness of being—cultural diversity, historical meaning, social nuances, philosophical complexities, spiritual depth, and more. Our understanding of the world, our ways in it, events we celebrate, our identity, and our perceptions of others are all coded in language, in the terms, concepts, phrases, and expressions we all use. Humans are linked to the past through the language they use, which grounds them in a past, orients them in the present world, and propels them into the future. Language has been understood in a number of ways. The empiricist view, as propounded by Locke, sees words as linked directly to the objects of the world we experience. Our ideas of the world are gained by the impressions we have of the world. Our impressions precede our construction of the world through language. According to the hermeneutic view, as espoused by people such as Herder and Humboldt, our language shapes our experience of the world: language is constitutive of a worldview—a symbolic dimension constructed through language (Hewitt, 2016). According to George Steiner (1975), “when a language dies, a way of understanding the world dies with it, a way of looking at the world” (p. 19). The matter of knowledge disappearing once a language dies is of great concern to Indigenous Peoples, especially for those languages that are only spoken but not written. There are approximately 7000 different languages in the world, representing a tremendous amount of wisdom and knowledge. But much of this wisdom and knowledge is at risk of being lost because many minority languages are in serious threat of decline, especially the languages of Indigenous Peoples. These languages contain knowledge of medicines derived from plants, from which some pharmaceutical companies have profited handsomely. Once these languages are

2  PERSONAL AND GROUP IDENTITY 

61

gone all the knowledge associated with them and not yet attained by modern science will disappear, and with it an entire view of the world linked to it. The English language has become an international language. This makes it easy for English-speaking people to travel the world, so much so that English speakers all too easily come to expect that others will speak English to accommodate them. This gives them a huge advantage, and on a number of levels. One, it gives English speakers a greater ability to express themselves, to be more nuanced and articulate in their responses and as a result perhaps more persuasive in their argumentation, than those who may struggle in their communication in the English language. Two, sometimes the mistake is made in equating “broken English” with inferior thinking, and a failure to grasp that other languages are rich and varied in their own expressions. Three, there may be words in other languages that give nuances to aspects or understandings of life that are unknown to those of other languages. The various descriptions and meanings attributed to the term “snow” by Northern dwellers is a case in point. Four, and most crucial, the predominance of the English language brings with it an assumption of an enhanced or superior way of thinking and being, as was the case during the British colonial period. The predominance of the English language in various parts of the world comes with controversy, largely because it threatens to squeeze out minority languages (Crystal, 2003; Pennycook, 1998; Phillipson, 1992). Some languages have already disappeared as a result of colonization, most specifically Indigenous languages. In Canada there are more than 640 different Indigenous Peoples, each with their own particular language. Some of these languages have already disappeared. More are threatened because the young are not learning their mother tongue, and the language speakers and keepers are becoming fewer in number as time passes. Some language speakers are seriously concerned that the loss of a language entails the loss of their worldview, one that is communicated and conveyed through words, terms, and expressions. The Maori People of New Zealand became seriously concerned in the mid-twentieth century with the prospect that their language, and the worldview conveyed through it, was under serious threat of disappearing. They took significant steps, largely through control of their own educational system, to reinvigorate the language. As a result, since 1987 New Zealand included Maori as an official language, Maori children learn their ancestral language at school, and many non-indigenous New Zealanders take Maori language courses. Yet, all of this is nonetheless fragile, for all

62 

J. VALK

too many younger and older Indigenous Peoples, whether in New Zealand, Australia, Canada or elsewhere, come to recognize that socioeconomic success is linked to speaking the dominant English language fluently. This raises yet another concern—a mixing of or confluence of languages, and as such also potentially of different worldviews. Countries with small populations and land mass understand all too well the need to become “international”. They find it increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to ward off unwanted influences from surrounding cultures or countries, but most particularly from the West. Bhutan, landlocked and relatively isolated until recently, has implemented English as the language of the educational curriculum, and now finds preserving the Bhutanese language and culture a great challenge as it strives also for cultural diversity (Thinley & Maxwell, 2013). But it has also opened itself up to the larger Western world through the Internet, exposing its citizens to Western glamour and enticements some feel will erode its Buddhist beliefs and values. Northern European countries, such as the Netherlands and Scandinavia, also with their smaller populations, recognize that with English as the international language their own language will appropriate more and more English words, expressions, and phrases, even as English is now ubiquitous as a second language. The first language of each of these countries is not under threat of disappearing, as is the case with many Indigenous languages, yet those countries with minority languages within  them place an extra burden on their citizens in having to learn three languages, with the Frisian language in the Netherlands as a case in point. While learning a second and even a third language may not come easy, being multilingual is considered an asset in today’s global world. If languages influence and shape one’s worldview, that worldview can be deepened and broadened only when it is enriched by more than one language. According to Peter Frick (2017), “another language is another way of thinking, another way of perceiving the world, another vehicle of expressing a fundamental worldview” (p. 46). Nationality In addition to ethnicity, culture, and language, nationality shapes and influences one’s worldview, one’s beliefs, values, and way of life. Establishing national identity, even national boundaries, is still strongly played out on the world stage. Donald Trump’s “America First”, Quebec

2  PERSONAL AND GROUP IDENTITY 

63

nationalist and First Nations sovereigntist movements in Canada, Catalonian and Basque separatist movements in Spain, Russia’s annexation of Crimea, Israeli settlement land grabs of Palestinian territories, and more are clear examples, and they have considerable consequences. They reveal an incessant drive to nationally self-identify, to establish clear national borders, even to the extent of erecting concrete walls or iron curtains, and at the cost of extensive bloodshed. That people ought to have a say in how they wish to be governed is, however, a modern world phenomenon. National self-determination, including regulating the status of a territory, began, according to Edward Kolla (2017), with the French Revolution. Others locate it more in a late eighteenth century when, according to Gellner (1983), states needed better-educated and organized people to serve a burgeoning industrialization. It also required a significant degree of cultural homogeneity, where in a convergence of political and cultural unity, the state was highly elevated, often destroying differences in peoples as it steam-rolled forward. The potency of national self-identity endures to this day and continues unabated, so much so that some are inclined to call Nationalism a religion. According to Frank Wright, “nationalisms are not merely” like “religions; they are religions” (quoted from Stevens, 1997, p.  1). Gellner (1983) earlier saw the structural parallels very clearly: “In a nationalist age, societies worship themselves brazenly and openly, spurning the camouflage” (p. 56). Others are inclined to call Nationalism a worldview and of this terminology we hear more today. The journalist Max Fisher (2013), commenting on Edward Snowden’s reasons for leaking US state documents, sees Nationalism as a worldview, one where a person is “loyal to the nation over its government”. Sigmar Gabriel, Germany’s Foreign Minister, in reaction to Donald Trump’s nationalistic “America First” speech at the UN on September 21, 2017, was not enamoured, for he felt that such a worldview describes the world as an arena, a kind of battleground, in which everyone is fighting against everyone else and in which everyone has to assert their own interests, either alone or in alliances of convenience. In this worldview, the law of the strongest prevails, not the strength of the law. Ladies and gentlemen, I am convinced that we have to rise against this worldview. We need more international cooperation and less national egoism. (Gabriel, 2017)

64 

J. VALK

Smart (1998) was more inclined to speak of Nationalism as a secular worldview, with many structural parallels to religious worldviews. One can see the rising secular Nationalism of some European countries, beginning already in the nineteenth century, most specifically of French Nationalism, where its brand of secularism was a clear desire for “freedom from religion”. This contrasted with the United States, where a secular constitution stipulated a “freedom of religion” (McLeod, 2015; Roy, 2007; Bowen, 2006). Yet others speak of the rise of religious Nationalism (Juergensmeyer, 2010), pointing to regions such as Asia (Barr, 2010), and India (Kinnvall & Svensson, 2010), as well as nineteenth-century Europe and even a curious mixture of both religious and secular Nationalism in countries such as Indonesia (Elson, 2010), Turkey (Akturk, 2015; Haynes, 2010), and Malaysia (Barr & Govindasamy, 2010). Whether secular, religious, or even a creative mixture of the two, Nationalism is a reality of the modern world and no more so than in the twenty-first century. We are all born, raised, and now live in a national context. Though an increasing number of people travel outside of their own national contexts, only a small percentage (3%) actually experience migration or immigration to other countries according to UN statistics (UN, 2016). While that actual number is significant (244  million) it is statistically small overall, which indicates that 97% of the world’s population is shaped and influenced largely, if not exclusively, by the one nation in which they reside. How then might living in a national context shape or influence one’s worldview, even in a very general way? Three examples might suffice: Germany, the United States, and Canada. A vivid and startling image was displayed worldwide when Germany played Argentina in the final game at the 2014 World Cup held in Rio de Janeiro. Enthusiastic and exuberant fans unfurled a large German flag in an emotional display of support for their team, which was at the same time a demonstration of unparalleled national unity and pride. This was new. Germans as a whole have not been inclined to express pride in their nation, let alone wave or wear their national flag, unlike their counterparts in France, the United States, Canada, and elsewhere, whether at sporting events or national holidays. Germans have been more ashamed of their national past, almost exclusively as a result of the events that took place in a relatively brief, but very destructive, period in the twentieth century. They have not forgotten the devastation inflicted on people and property by the brutal Nazi regime. Neither has the rest of the world allowed them to forget this.

2  PERSONAL AND GROUP IDENTITY 

65

According to Peter Watson (2010), however, this blight on their past ought to be allowed to subside. He feels that the stigma of the Nazi past ought to be lifted, and not continuously overshadow a “German genius”. Germany ought also be known for its great contributions to the world, and these should be taught not only to Germans themselves but more importantly also to those in countries such as Britain and the United States, contributions such as the music of geniuses such as Bach, Beethoven, and Wagner; the erudition of intellectuals such as Kant, Schopenhauer, and Hegel; the scientific discoveries of masterminds such as Humboldt, Mendel, and Helmholtz; and the engineering efficiencies brought to the world by companies such as Mercedes Benz, Zeiss, and Siemens. While all of what Watson brings to the fore testifies to the tremendous contributions of Germany on the world stage, it is doubtful that Germans will ever escape “Hitler’s shadow”, and according to Sontheimer (2005), this might not be such a bad thing, at least for the time being. Children and grandchildren are still discovering, and having to process, what their grandparents, parents, and other relatives did or did not do in the war. Then there is the constant threat of nationalistic uprisings by far-right groups, especially Neo-Nazis, which are all too reminiscent of the past, and which send shivers down the spines of most Germans. Perhaps Germany, more so than any other country, is being made to face up to the horrors inflicted by the Nazis, actions clearly in violation of international law. But, are they the only country that violated international law during the war years? Might the carpet-bombing of Dresden, the rape and murder of German women by advancing Soviet troops, or even the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki also be seen as violations? Yet, there is another side to all of this. One has to do with uncovering the extent of a general indifference to the horrors and the “banality of evil” of the perpetrators, subject areas still debated, or even the resistance to the Nazis regime (USHMM, 2018; Westermann, 2018; Ushpiz, 2016; Nelson, 2009; Van Duisen, 2013). But more important is the lasting lessons those more critically aware have learned from the Nazi period that others may not, lessons important when facing challenges today (Arendt, 2006). Bauman (2001) reminds us that Modernism, which the West has rather uncritically embraced in the last century and more, has the potential to create yet more murder on a massive scale. It is what happens the moment others are distanced, demeaned, degraded, or debased, in essence, less valued even in the most subtle ways, whether they be immigrants, people of different colour, even the disabled (Buber, 1970). Once a

66 

J. VALK

people or a nation becomes indifferent to the plight of others, most specifically the disadvantaged, and justify their actions through questionable ideologies, horrors can easily be unleashed, unless one is well defended and on guard. German Nationalism can influence and shape the worldview of Germans in a variety of ways, one of which might be through a renewed pride in German contributions to the world (“genius of the past”) and the other through a more sober, thoughtful, and quiet reflection on past deeds that remind citizens that the other is not to be alienated but always kept in one’s purview. Perhaps it was a balance of the two that Foreign Minister Gabriel had in mind in his response to Trump’s UN speech. While an “America First” Nationalism may be more overtly expressed today as political rhetoric, Americanism itself has been prominent for centuries. Understood by some early in its history as a special “manifest destiny”—an American exceptionalism—it first became entrenched in the 1776 Declaration of Independence as “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”, sometimes referred to as the “Jeffersonian Trinity”. Yet as it unfolded it left little room for Indigenous Peoples present in the land, or for those enslaved to prop up the lifestyles of the wealthy. Today American Nationalism remains on the world stage as a dominant economic, political, and military force and has for some time imposed its will and desires on numerous other nations worldwide. It continues to exercise its power and influence, though in a diminished role; it is no longer the sole superpower, competing today with a rejuvenated Russia and an emerging China. What is it, however, that captures the essence of American Nationalism today? It might be a sense of the self shaped by crucial events, developments, or even turning points in its history, such as continued turmoil not yet resolved and stemming from years of racial divide and slavery. It might be wars that become permanent conditions, such as the “war on terror”, which former Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld suggested would have no “exit strategies”. These certainly confront and challenge the individual American conception of the self. It might also be the role that religion continues to play at the individual but also at the political level, where religious revivals, movements, and personalities, for example, the Great Awakening, Moral Majority, Martin Luther King, Jr., Billy Graham, have exercised great social and cultural influence to this day, where presidents speak freely about their religious commitments, and where Christianity continues to influence public policy, in spite of the constitutional separation of church and state. However, according to Bacevich (2009), what

2  PERSONAL AND GROUP IDENTITY 

67

shapes and influences the worldview of the average American much above these is the “Jeffersonian Trinity” understood almost exclusively in terms of freedom: it is freedom writ large. But today it is also a freedom unrestrained: “freedom is the altar at which America worships” (p.  5). This “heedless worship of freedom” has become a mixed blessing, resulting in American hubris: “an outsized confidence in American power as an instrument to shape the global world” (p. 7), a sense of freedom “centred on consumption and individual autonomy” (p.  9), a “relentless personal quest to acquire, to consume, to indulge and to shed whatever constraints might interfere with these endeavours”: the “ethics of self-gratification” as “the defining American way of life”, a way of life on borrowed time (p. 16). Bacevich might be harsh in his analysis of American Nationalism. After all, America continues to be a destination country for many fleeing restraint, restrictions, confinement, and injustices, or for those who simply want to carve out a comfortable life for themselves and their families. American philanthropy continues to ease hardship and devastation worldwide. American academic institutions are among the top in the world. American ingenuity gives it technological and entrepreneurial advantage over many others. American freedoms—of the press, of worship, of speech, of association—are the envy of many. Yet the nationalistic “live free or die” motto, proudly displayed on bumper stickers, licence plates, coins, and monuments, reveals that America may well be painfully challenged by the excessive reality of both. Its consumptive habits tax the environment’s ability to sustain itself. Its current gun culture, undergirded by the Second Amendment, seems to be leading to an endless slaughter, with school children as the latest and largest category of victims. A lack of restraint of this sacred “right to bear arms” divides Americans along two-party lines, each with its own powerful lobbyists, media networks, and party funders, to which there seems no end. Police brutality is all too often racially inflicted, as the Black Lives Matter protests have demonstrated. The persistent unwillingness to compromise, on this and other issues, casts a shadow over American Nationalism, shaping and influencing all who live within its bounds— shaping and influencing their worldview. The opposite appears at play with its northern neighbour Canada. In fact, it is argued that Canadian Nationalism today is a result of a long history of compromise; through treaty negotiations with First Nations Peoples, creating room for a defeated people, and the political decision to

68 

J. VALK

become multi-cultural. Consisting of three founding peoples—First Nations, French, and British—Canada throughout its history struggled to be “a fair country” (Saul, 2008). That fairness was plagued at several crucial junctures, through colonizing efforts leading to gross injustices for some, and with harsh treatment of others due to war efforts. Some of this continues to this day, especially for First Nations People, who are nonetheless making a comeback, one supported and assisted today by a majority of Canadians who seek to correct the wrongs of the past (Saul, 2014). The historical turmoil of the past did not, however, come to define Canada of the present, a country with a relatively small population on a global scale and almost boundless land. European immigrants learned important lessons from the First Nations Peoples, who welcomed them to kanata—their village or settlement; after all, there was enough land for everyone. They learned from First Nations Peoples how to survive in a harsh climate. But perhaps the most important lesson learned was that of inclusion—to strive for consensus rather than to perpetuate conflict, to accommodate rather than conquer, to include rather than exclude. Canadians today prefer to negotiate and compromise—to negotiate a win-win situation for all and a compromise to include minorities (Valk, 2015). As a result, Canada has at times gravitated towards some lax or liberal laws on abortion, euthanasia, and marriage. Yet, Canadian freedoms have not resulted in the kind of gun culture facing its southern neighbour, nor the kinds of violence experienced in Mexico. Canadians prefer to be peaceful, restraining themselves for the benefit of all. Canadian Nationalism does include a pride in certain basic freedoms, freedoms well known in other countries, and freedoms bestowed on all regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or cognitive and physical disabilities. It includes the right and freedom to participate. All have the right to freely participate in various aspects of social life: education, religion, the economy, the democratic process, health care, and more. The courts of the land overturn at every juncture any denial of free participation. Canadian Nationalism includes the right and freedom to contribute. It encourages the ethnic, religious, and racial other not to ghettoize but to contribute: to add to the ongoing rich mosaic of society. Diversity is seen as a blessing rather than a burden. Inclusion creates opportunity for everyone to contribute their gifts and abilities, for everyone has been endowed, whether abled or disabled. Yet, Canada lives with blemishes; bigots, racists, climate change deniers, the fraudulent, the intolerant, and the violent also live among its

2  PERSONAL AND GROUP IDENTITY 

69

population. They rear their ugly heads from time to time, but they are forbidden platforms to grandstand their views and behaviours. Openness to the other, and especially today to the ethnic and racial other, has resulted in a multi-cultural mosaic, evidenced on its national holiday—Canada Day. On that day Canadian Nationalism is boldly on display, and Canadians wear it with pride. It was enthusiastically on display on July 1, 2017, when Canada celebrated its 150th birthday. While it celebrated its achievements with pride, it was not unaware of the sins in its past, and all that is still required to provide restitution. In regard to First Nations issues, the Truth and Reconciliation Committee’s report and its Action Plans are guiding efforts towards resolving outstanding matters, a process that is complex in nature and will take time to achieve its goals. Canadian Nationalism comprises a mixture of pride and shame. It is resolutely proud of the freedom and opportunity in the land, of the peace within its borders, of its peacekeeping role in the world, of the multi-­ cultural inclusiveness, and of being ranked the fifth most pleasant place in the world to live. In this way it is much different than its larger neighbour to the south, with which it shares considerable similarities in freedoms and lifestyles but differs substantially in attitude, ensuring that hubris never defines its Nationalism. Yet it is not unaware of its own shortcomings, brutalities, and injustices in its history. Though ashamed of its own dark history, this is not of the same gravity that Germans, and even Americans, face when reflecting on their historical past. Canada avoided genocide in favour of assimilation, yet managed nonetheless to brutalize a people, a consciousness which now propels it forward with healing steps. Such a Canadian Nationalism, proud, yet humbled, shapes and influences the worldviews of those living within its borders.

CHAPTER 3

Cultural Dimensions

Introduction The previous chapter gave greater explication to the influence of our upbringing, surroundings and circumstances that give shape to our worldview. Sociological, anthropological, economic, and psychological factors are at play in shaping individual and group identity. These disciplines assist in rendering insight into the importance of background, environment, and context in shaping one’s worldview. We are social creatures and as such seek social identity by which to connect with others. That connection with others also comes to us at a deeper level that assists us in giving greater understanding to our thoughts and actions. Indeed, no human is an island and we are all impacted and influenced by ideas and behaviours that swirl around us. Life is a journey and humans are dynamic; changing circumstances change people. But what are some of those things or involvements that change us, or those that impact us so that the more we change the more we stay the same? Shedding light on some of these sources that give grounding to our ideas and actions gives us greater insight into our worldview and those of others. This chapter will focus on insights gleaned from a number of disciplines, including religious studies, scriptural studies, and theology, in addition to further insights from sociology, psychology, and anthropology. Such a focus is best begun by looking first at the pioneering work of Ninian Smart. Smart (1983) recognized that a worldview is influenced © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. Valk, Worldviews, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82491-4_3

71

72 

J. VALK

and shaped by a number of factors or dimensions common to all worldviews, both religious and secular, that is, certain structures similar to all worldviews but whose content differed in greater or lesser degrees. He focused on seven (mythic, doctrinal, ethical, ritual, social, experiential, and material) and spoke of them as cultural dimensions, in the sense that they emerge from different cultures and cultural settings in various parts of the world ( Smart, 1998). The content, that is the beliefs and values, of these dimensions he found to be specific to particular cultures and regions of the world. Not only were they specific to those cultures and regions, they remained so for many centuries, resulting in the fact that the worldviews of those who lived in specific times and places seldom changed. For example, in the Western world prior to the nineteenth century, a Christian worldview dominated, and the thoughts and actions of most people were shaped largely by this worldview. But in the last century or so much has changed, and the Western world is now confronted by a plurality of worldviews, both religious and secular. Further, with the proliferation of modern travel and communication and the opportunities they afford us, the beliefs, values, and behaviours of those in far reaches of the globe have now become well known, certainly more so than previously. Also, the more they are known, the more they also serve to raise questions of why we hold the views that we do and why we act the way that we do. Myths serve as orienting or grounding stories for peoples of the world. They are sometimes referred to as narratives or metanarratives, and often regarded as sacred stories. We are aware of Greek and Roman myths of the past, sacred stories that oriented people of that time and place. There are also some ancient myths or metanarratives that are still with us today, and that continue to orient many people to the world around them. Myths are not necessarily untrue. While attempting to affirm certain details of myths as factually and historically accurate may prove challenging, myths or metanarratives nonetheless convey important meanings and truths about life and how to live it. Our more modern secular world is also not immune to myths. We now see the rise of secular myths, stories that also speak, for example, of the beginnings of the universe and the place of humankind in it. These are often spoken of in more scientific terms and more commonly referred to as the Big Bang or the evolution of the universe. They are, in effect, science creation stories. While these might indeed be regarded as more scientific and based on empirical evidence, and hence more acceptable and believable for the scientific truths they render, they become myth-like when they go beyond telling us how we

3  CULTURAL DIMENSIONS 

73

got here to speak about why we are here. Science cannot really address this larger question. Those who insist that only science stories are plausible can be as dogmatic as those who reject some of the science stories. Regardless, as much as science can tell us how we got here, there nonetheless continues to be a mystery about the universe that eludes science. Explanations of why there is something rather than nothing needs insights from both science and religion. What is needed is a partnership between the two (Sacks, 2011). Stories or metanarratives lead to further teachings that attempt to more fully spell out or explain why life is the way it is and how we should live in this world. Teachings abound from many religious and secular worldview traditions, at times stretching back centuries. These teachings explore at great depth and articulation the big questions of life, the mysteries of the universe, and human activity on this earth. From these teachings, ethical principles and moral codes arise and unfold—to direct us to certain ways of life and living. Ethical principles and moral codes are dynamic, all influenced by particular contexts and time periods. Moral codes especially are prone to change, for times and circumstances may demand reassessing what may earlier have been assumed as eternally fixed. Such is also the case with rituals. Rituals are a formative and constitutive aspect of human living, expressive of what is regarded as most important in life. Some rituals withstand the winds of change, altering little over the centuries, yet others succumb readily to shifts in times and circumstances. As time moves forward, new and innovative rituals may replace those that have become obscure, outmoded, or redundant. What has not changed, however, are the roles all of these continue to play and here Smart advanced insight into their structure and content, recognizing that they continue to influence us. This chapter seeks to shed greater light on these matters.

Stories: Narratives and Metanarratives We begin by looking at some specific sources that influence us and shape our worldview. At times we may be unaware of the extent to which they shape us but unquestionably they have a bearing. They come at us in a variety of ways and impinge on us, informing us of how we ought to think about the world. They often state in simple though not simplistic form what is best told in story form. They are categorized under the broad term “stories”—narratives, metanarratives—and include story books, grounding texts, sacred scriptures, and oral stories handed down through the ages.

74 

J. VALK

Stories have played an important formative role in shaping the thoughts and actions of ancient peoples. Stories of the past continue to play an important role in the lives of Indigenous Peoples today. Ancient stories are also informative for the Western mind and may come in new and varied forms. They contain important truths about the nature of reality and the place of humans in that reality. Stories have been handed down orally from generation to generation, with many of them committed to written form only at certain points in time. Some of these written stories contain what is believed to be revelations from God to a historic people, or of wisdom sayings from sacred or revered beings to a people. These written stories become sacred texts or scriptures, giving authoritative guidance and direction for many peoples. Other worldview traditions embrace writings that are more philosophical in nature yet serve much the same role as sacred texts. This is particularly the case of philosophical writings that have become sacred for Eastern worldviews such as Buddhism and Hinduism. Philosophical writings by ancient Greek philosophers, such as Plato and Aristotle, have been hugely influential in shaping the Western mind and serve as grounding texts for many in the modern academy. These philosophical writings are supplemented from time to time by newer works, as new thoughts and ideas arise through the centuries, yet, as famously put by Whitehead (1979), they are little more than “a series of footnotes to Plato” (p. 39). Writings of a scientific nature, such as the story of evolution—a science creation story—have also served as definitive works for many who embrace a secular worldview, especially Scientism. Novels also have a powerful influence in shaping perceptions of the world in which we live, as is evidenced by the time and attention given to those that become award-winners. Today, however, it is not only written texts that serve to ground particular notions of the world in which we live. Visual media in the form of films, videos, and music videos come with powerful lifestyle messages. The power of advertising, in the form of flyers, commercials, and infomercials, inundate us today and influence the behaviour of countless people and in some cases more so than their thoughts and ideas (Smith, 2009). Monotheism Those who embrace a monotheistic worldview are often referred to as “people of the book”. The “book”—the Tanakh, the Bible, or the Qur’an—is their grounding story. It defines the nature of reality for

3  CULTURAL DIMENSIONS 

75

them—how we came into existence, how we should live, even why we should live. Their beliefs and values are grounded in sacred scriptures, perceived to be revelations from God, variously considered to be God’s direct words to humans, God’s words through humans, or God’s words rendered in human form. Perhaps more so than any other peoples, monotheists regard their sacred texts as authoritative, trustworthy, and reliable, not only for defining the reality they experience, but also for giving guidance and direction to them in the world in which they live. For “people of the book”, study of sacred texts becomes vital, for to gain knowledge of sacred texts is to gain knowledge of and wisdom from God, which from this perspective is vital for living well in the here and now. The sacred books open their adherents to the divine, the transcendent, a sacred reality beyond ordinary, profane reality, which gives meaning, fulfilment, and affirmation to life on earth. Judaism holds in highest regard the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible. It consists of three components: the Torah or “teachings”, the Nevi’im or “prophets”, and the Ketuvim or “writings”. Chief among these is the Torah, the founding story of the Jewish people. Given to Moses by God, the Torah consists of a written and oral version. The Written Torah is believed to have been composed at the time of the Babylonian exile period, around 600 BCE, with its completion perhaps as much as a century or two later. The Oral Torah, which consists of interpretations of the written Torah, was handed down through multiple generations until it too was put in writing, now known as the Talmud and Midrash, both of which are central to Rabbinic Judaism. The Talmud, which contains the teachings and opinions of generations of rabbis on subjects emerging from the Torah, was committed to writing that began around 200 CE. The Talmud consists of the Mishnah, a compilation of legal opinions and debates, and the Gemara, which contains further debates surrounding these opinions. The Midrash is a series of writings on Jewish law, ethics, philosophy, customs, and history. These sacred texts become the metanarrative of Jewish people, grounding their beliefs as a covenantal people of God called to live in accordance with a defined set of obligations and laws. Since Judaism has many faces, various sectors within it approach its sacred texts in different ways. From the orthodox and more conservative to the liberal and more radical, Jews nonetheless recognize the grounding impact of these sacred texts on their lives past and present.

76 

J. VALK

Christianity has appropriated the Hebrew Bible, which it calls the Old Testament, and which contains the story of God’s covenantal relationship with the people of Israel through numerous generations up to the Common Era. To the Old Testament, Christianity has added a New Testament, which contains stories—The Gospels—of the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, and numerous letters written to founding churches by some of Jesus’ immediate followers. The Christian Bible took a number of centuries to reach its final formation and, because most of the original manuscripts have been lost, modern translations are based on ancient copies of copies, which has led to numerous translation challenges. The first English translation of the Bible was the King James Version written in 1611 and based on the Latin Vulgate. Numerous modern translations of the Bible exist today, though some still prefer the Shakespearian language of the original King James Version. The Christian Bible is considered to be the international bestseller of all time, and one of the most influential books of all time. It has had a formative impact in shaping the mindset of the Western world, including its history, literature, music, ethics, education, legal codes, and more. As Western civilization spread to various parts of the globe so did the Christian religion. What has emerged from the Judeo-Christian biblical tradition is a metanarrative that affirms a transcendent dimension to reality as experienced, that the universe was brought into being by a Creator God, that humans are created in the image of a loving God, and that history is the continuous unfolding of God’s redemptive interactions with humans. Christian Smith calls this the “Christian metanarrative” (Smith, 2003). From this sacred story emerges a response to some of life’s big questions: how one should live, what is of ultimate importance, what is worth doing, and more. Even more so, it conveys a path to “salvation”—healing and reconciliation in a world of beauty and grandeur yet at the same time confronted with death and destruction. That sacred story is interpreted in greater or lesser degrees from literal renderings to more symbolic or metaphorical understandings that have come to define a variety of groupings within the Christian traditions, from conservative to liberal. The three main groups within Christianity—Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant— all formed as a result of a variety of theological, historical, political, social, and even economic factors, influences and upheavals occurring over shorter or longer periods of time. The Qur’an is the central and most holy book for Muslims. Muslims believe that God gradually revealed the Qur’an through the angel Gabriel

3  CULTURAL DIMENSIONS 

77

to the Prophet Mohammad, in stages beginning in the year 609 CE and culminating in 632  CE.  The Prophet Mohammad dictated his received revelations to followers who then recorded them without error and compiled them after his death to produce the Qur’an (Al-Azami, 2003). The Qur’an is regarded by many Muslims as the most eloquent piece of literature in the Arabic language. Due to the fact that the Arabic language was used in the revelations from God, the Qur’an is also considered non-­ translatable. Yet, because many Muslims today are not versant in Arabic it now exists in numerous languages, with the original Arabic regarded as authoritative (Nasr, 2013; Al-Azami, 2003). A long and complex tradition of commentaries (Hadith) and divine law (Sharia) have developed and accompany the Qur’an, serving to interpret or explain sayings or meanings that have become unclear or to uncover principles for guidance and direction for living in different times and places. What has emerged from the Qur’an for Muslims is the notion that God is the creator of all things, that humans are to live and devote their lives according to that which is revealed in the Qur’an, that daily prayers and rituals keep Muslims focused on God so that they conform their thoughts and actions to the will of God, and that they will stand in judgement at the end of their lives for the things they have done or not done during their lifetime. Guidance and direction for living well is given largely in general principles rather than prescriptive commands in the Qur’an, with the two most prominent principles that of loving God and being a good person. In essence, the Qur’an serves as the grounding story or metanarrative for Muslims. While the beliefs and values of the monotheistic traditions continue to be grounded foremost in their sacred texts, it is well known that there are other sources that influential and shape their beliefs, values, and actions. Doctrinal confessions formulated by certain sub-groups long after the sacred texts have been written sometimes also become authoritative and provide grounding for beliefs and actions. Philosophical perspectives emanating from particular schools of thought also serve to guide scriptural interpretations and understandings, providing yet greater elaboration and deeper insights into what the sacred texts convey. Science can also serve to deepen insight and understanding of scriptural texts, most particularly their compilation and authorship. Yet, science has also presented huge challenges to certain traditional scriptural interpretations. Not only has it created in some instances tremendous debates and discussions, it has also undermined certain traditional understandings that

78 

J. VALK

have long given shape to individual beliefs and values. Science has given us greater understanding of the natural world in which we live and, as some assert, a greater understanding of the God who created it, yet it challenges those who interpret certain Bible passages in literal ways (Sacks, 2011). Nonetheless, science ought not to be seen as competing with religion or its texts, for science is largely unable to pronounce on the transcendent, which remains the essential focus for the monotheistic worldviews. Monotheistic worldviews will continue to give primacy to their sacred texts, all the while not adverse to enlisting other sources to illuminate their interpretations of sacred scriptures, as new situations require new understandings. Theologians, philosophers, and others within these traditions have clearly recognized this and risk whatever disagreements and contentious debates may result. Disagreements and debates regarding content and interpretation notwithstanding, the sacred texts of the three monotheistic traditions form their larger story or metanarrative. Spiritual Traditions Spiritual traditions outside of monotheism also ground their larger beliefs and values of the world and the universe they inhabit in certain sources. Some of these are written; some are oral. Some have a long history; others have arisen in the recent past as new spiritual traditions emerge. Yet all of them serve the larger purpose of defining the world in which humans live, and as such serve as metanarratives. Eastern worldview traditions such as Buddhism and Hinduism are grounded in sacred texts that are numerous and diverse in their nature, have a long and varied history, and have been formulated over long periods of time. They consist of writings by founders of these worldviews, their followers and disciples, and schools of thought that have emerged from within these worldview traditions. They become sacred texts not because they are divine revelations from a Creator who is external to the created world as in the case of the monotheistic traditions, but because they contain wisdom from beings, divine or otherwise, whose journeys gained them insight, knowledge, and enlightenment regarding the essence of life. They open adherents to the transcendent, a reality beyond that of ordinary life that presents a way of living meaningfully in daily life, recognizing that there is a sacred reality beyond the profane. In Buddhism the Pali Canon, Sutras, and Tantras are central writings containing spiritual, philosophical, and ritual texts generally considered

3  CULTURAL DIMENSIONS 

79

the words, discourses, and rituals of the Buddha and his followers. They are embraced by the three dominant Buddhist schools or branches: Theravada (School of the Elders), Mahayana (The Great Vehicle), and Vajrayana (includes Tibetan Buddhism). These scriptures ground the essence of Buddhist teachings in what is known as the Four Noble Truths: that life on this earth consists of sufferings and anxieties; that these originate in human cravings and ignorance; that humans can be freed from their sufferings; that sufferings will cease by achieving a state of nirvana; and that to achieve this state is to follow a new way of life as taught by the Buddha (Dalai Lama, 2004). This new way of life is known as the Eightfold Path and entails having the right views, thoughts, speech, conduct, livelihood, effort, mindfulness, and meditation. Buddhism has become quite popular in the Western world in the last half-century as Buddhist teachers from the East have travelled to Western countries and spread their teachings. These teachings have adapted to Western ways and the perceived lack of organizational and doctrinal structures appear conducive to a more independent and individualistic oriented lifestyle. They appeal particularly to those who consider themselves “spiritual but not religious” (Blake, 2010; Fuller, 2001). Although Hinduism, like Buddhism, has generated numerous writings throughout its long history, the Bhagavad Gita and the Vedas have become its central scriptures. The Bhagavad Gita contains philosophical teachings from Lord Krishna as told to Prince Arjuna as he was about to go into battle. The Vedas contain truths or spiritual laws revealed to ancient Hindu religious leaders. Hinduism has both dualistic schools, those that regard Brahman as a Supreme Being possessing personality distinct from humans who are earthly spiritual beings, and non-dualistic schools, those that regard the soul or spirit (atman) of every human person as ultimately indistinguishable from Brahman who is the Supreme Spirit. The well-­ known Upanishads emphasize the non-dualism of Hinduism and contain spiritual and philosophical truths teaching humans how to attain their freedom or liberation (moksha) by realizing that their own soul or spirit is ultimately one with the Supreme Spirit. While Hinduism is an ancient, complex, and vast worldview tradition, with numerous schools of thought and a wide array of ritual practices, responses to the ultimate questions nonetheless find much of their source and grounding in these sacred, spiritual, and philosophical texts. While Buddhism, Hinduism, and other Eastern worldview traditions embrace written texts from which their narratives and teachings emerge,

80 

J. VALK

others ground their responses to ultimate questions in oral stories. This has been the case especially for Indigenous Peoples throughout much of the world and throughout much of their history. Oral stories are rich in conveying meaning on a number of levels. A storyteller adapts stories to the listeners and conveys much of himself or herself through the storytelling. As such, no story is ever told orally the same way for the essence of the story lies not so much in the exact words spoken as to that which lies behind them. Oral stories lose some of their potency when they take written form and therefore some Indigenous People are reluctant to have them recorded and written. Nonetheless, responses to the ultimate questions are grounded in these stories which have been handed down through thousands of generations. Stories are not meant to convey historical events with all their empirical facts and details as much as they are meant to convey the meanings behind those events. Questions pertaining to whether or not stories are true in the sense that they actually happened have little bearing for Indigenous Peoples. Such questions are largely considered meaningless for they fail to understand the essence of the power of the stories and of the storytelling. The modern Western mind has great difficulty with such concepts, which is why it has been inclined to call these and other stories emerging from ancient cultures as myths, that is, untrue. This has also been the case for some from the monotheistic traditions who are steeped in the modern Western mindset, and who fail to understand ancient storytelling by which they regard only their own ancient biblical stories as factual or historically true as recorded (King, 2003). Nonetheless, for Indigenous worldview traditions responses to the ultimate or existential questions are grounded in these stories, which may have less philosophical or theological articulation than those of other worldview traditions but which nonetheless convey richness and depth in their creativity, imagination, and meaning (Suzuki & Knudtson, 2006; Valk, 2009; Cheney, 2002). Some ancient stories of gods and goddesses have experienced a revival in certain new forms of spirituality or even served to breathe new life into modern-day religious worldviews dominated by patriarchy (Ruether, 2006; Gimbutas, 2001). Earth spiritualities, neo-paganisms, and some feminist spiritualities have embraced ancient stories of earth goddesses. These stories emerge largely from ancient written sources but are given new life in new contexts, especially as they confront androcentric religions (Hieronimus & Cortner, 2016; Starhawk, 1999; Raphael, 1996). Here

3  CULTURAL DIMENSIONS 

81

too responses to the ultimate questions, especially pertaining to the nature and existence of a Goddess, find their sources and grounding in these ancient stories. Exclusive Humanism Such ancient stories, whether in oral or written form, are largely rejected by secular worldviews as myth in the sense that they are untrue and of little or no value. Terms such as “legends”, “fairytales”, and “fables” are used synonymously to describe them, and then they are often summarily dismissed as stories of previous eras with little significance in a modern rational, scientific, and technological age. Yet, secular worldviews and the responses they give to the ultimate questions are no less grounded or sourced in stories, narratives, and writings, with some acquiring sacred status, though these are of a different sort, kind, or genre. Some even mimic the Bible (Grayling, 2013b). One story that has become extremely powerful for Secularism is the story of human progress. It functions ideologically as the “grand narrative of emancipation” (Lyotard, 1984), what Christian Smith refers to as the “Scientific Enlightenment narrative” (Smith, 2003). While this story is repeatedly being changed and altered as time passes and new discoveries are made, it is nonetheless a story of great persuasion and embraced by an increasing number of people in the modern world. It is largely the story of science—the Big Bang, an ever-expanding universe, biological evolution, social, cultural, and moral progress—and of humans as the most highly developed creatures to evolve from primordial matter (Hawking & Mlodinow, 2012; Hawking, 1998; Dawkins, 1996; Weinberg, 1994). This story is not essentially oral but is increasingly told in oral form. It is not captured in any one particular text though Darwin’s 1859 The Origins of Species serves as one of the grounding texts for this whole new scientific worldview that continues to have tremendous influence in the Western world (DeWitt, 2004). It is also written about in numerous other books, most particularly school science texts, so much so that it is not the texts themselves that become sacred as much as the story they convey—the story becomes a sacred story. While much of the explanation of the Big Bang and the evolution of the species is indeed based on scientific fact, the narrative that surrounds it often goes beyond science itself (Veneziano, 2004; Feyerabend, 1975). When it does so, it becomes a philosophy: a story of Scientism—of the

82 

J. VALK

scientific worldview. From this perspective, it becomes a story that is not to be questioned but embraced, and it is from this story that many responses are given to the ultimate questions. The metanarrative of Scientism, based on an atheistic view, excludes a transcendent God, a life beyond this life, a sense of right and wrong emerging from a transcendent realm, and meaning and purpose embedded in that transcendent realm. Dawkins (2006), one of the chief advocates, if not evangelists, for such a narrative, makes the bold claim that the pursuit of empirical science will invariably lead one to embrace the metanarrative of the scientific worldview. Linked to the story of science is the story of reason and with it the claim of the expansion of knowledge and increases in freedom, equality, and rights for all. Humans are the most highly developed creatures, with abilities to reason; create thoughts and ideas; form logical opinions; communicate in language; create art, music, and literature; produce sophisticated forms of technology and communication; and become consciously aware of and reflect on all of these things, including their own existence, thoughts, and actions. With the use of reason humans have been able to lift themselves up from an animal existence, develop rules and behaviours that advance their individual and collective cause, and that within certain limited parameters become the makers of their own destiny. Through the use of reason, humans have gained great understanding of themselves and the universe in which they live. They have been able to manipulate nature, even their own natures, to achieve desired outcomes. This in part has been the human journey, a journey humans have undergone through the advancements brought on by the use of the human brain and its ability to think logically. Few today deny the advancements attained through the use of human reason. However, what is often conveyed is not essentially the story of reason—it is the story of Rationalism and Modernism. Often referred to as the “Age of Reason”, it led to the so-called Enlightenment Period of Western history, advanced by many philosophers. It gained a strong foothold in the academy, and still enjoys formative influence in the public squares of today. It asserts that reason, rather than feeling, tradition, or divine authority, is the ultimate court of appeal in determining truth from falsehood and right from wrong. It is a story that is asserted as true yet cannot be proven empirically. In other words, it fails based on its own premises. This is not to say, however, that humans have not benefitted immensely by the powers of their own reason. They most certainly have.

3  CULTURAL DIMENSIONS 

83

It is to say, rather, that to embrace reason as the only court of appeal, as the highest authority, is to make statements of faith. In his 1794 The Age of Reason, Thomas Paine was one of the first to argue for the use of reason in assessing religious beliefs and came to reject revelation and institutional religion, though not the existence of God. Yet, many others have concluded that notions of higher beings now belong to the past, that stories about God and gods belong to a more infantile period, and that humans can now through the use of their reason achieve enlightenment or salvation through their own endeavours. The story of reason comes frequently in oral form, often communicated innocently through expressions such as “use your reason” or, to use a Kantian phrase, “dare to be wise” (sapere aude). This metanarrative grounds and serves as the source for responses given to the ultimate questions from the perspective or worldview of Rationalism and Modernism. There are other secular worldviews that have gained tremendous influence worldwide and have grounding texts that have attained a certain sacred stature. Marx’s 1848 Communist Manifesto and Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung became metanarratives, if not virtual scriptures, for the Marxist and Communist worldviews and the millions who embrace them. These texts serve to define the world for them and became standards by which to measure all else, including acceptable and heretical ideas and actions of people. They are taught to children and became the standard texts of forced “re-education” programmes for the wayward and defiant. These and other works serve as sources for responses given by these worldviews to the ultimate questions. Consumerism/Capitalism Capitalist and consumerist worldviews embrace yet other stories and texts though there are no sacred scriptures as such. Nonetheless, it is recognized that both have become metanarratives for a modern way of life. Lyotard (1984) speaks of the “creation of wealth” as one of the “grand narratives” of modernity, one that not only promises freedom from poverty but also challenges all other metanarratives. Bauman (2007) recognized the link between Capitalism and the all-encompassing power of Consumerism. Miles (2006) sees Consumerism as a “way of life”. Smith speaks of the “Capitalist Prosperity narrative” (Smith, 2003). There are texts that have become revered as foundational for Capitalism. Adam Smith’s 1776 The Wealth of Nations has long served as its

84 

J. VALK

grounding text or metanarrative, even if much of it has been grossly misunderstood. But here also different media forms deliver the “good news gospel” of these worldviews, media forms that serve as metanarratives: stories, views, and opinions that come to define the world for Consumerism and Capitalism. For Capitalism, these come in the form of business guru biographies and autobiographies that highlight the business genius of individuals such as Warren Buffett, Bill Gates (1999), T. Boone Pickens (2009), Michael Bloomberg (2001), and George Soros (1995), to name just a few (Cunningham, 2013). “Business Sections” in  local, national, and even international newspapers and the countless self-help books devising “get rich quick” schemes also become narratives defining the world for business entrepreneurs, but in a way that goes beyond business as largely an exchange of goods and services. It conveys stories of wealth and independence, and power and freedom that comes with it. It encompasses stories of “Freedom 55”, of luxury beyond imagination, of limitless powers of purchase, and all the perceived fame and prominence that accrues with it. For Consumerism, narratives come in the form of annual or seasonal fashion catalogues displaying the latest clothing styles; television commercials informing the public of the latest and best products available to make one’s life better or more fulfilled; and fliers stuffed in mailboxes depicting the latest products and sales, which proliferate especially during consumeristic “holy days” such as Christmas and Easter and compete with them regarding what is “good news”. From these varied media sources emerge responses to the ultimate questions from these worldview perspectives, indicating what is most valued and what is most important. Beaujot (2012) records stories written about umbrellas in nineteenth-century England highlighting Victorian fashion. These narratives quickly become metanarratives when “encoded with the most important concepts of Victorian society – tales of progress, industrialization and enlightenment” (p. 106). Belk (1987) speaks about the myth or narrative of Santa Claus and how it encourages a consumer materialism early in the lives of children and recognizes that “it is adults who transmit that myth to their children” (p. 93). It becomes clear from the above that each worldview grounds its view of the world in particular stories, narratives, and texts, some of which take on the sacred status of scriptures and others that become sacred-like. Many present radically different pictures of the world and the place of humans in it. As such they compete. But no person approaches them from

3  CULTURAL DIMENSIONS 

85

a neutral perspective, for we are all steeped in particular worldviews whose sacred stories and texts have already had a formative influence on our lives. Knowledge and awareness of these sacred stories and texts will render greater understanding of the worldview for which they are sources. But we are also influenced by numerous other sources and these too serve to shape our thoughts and actions. They may serve to strengthen commitments to particular worldviews, but they may also serve to erode those commitments. Recognizing their existence, what each conveys and what each promise becomes important as one examines the narratives or metanarratives that ground worldview perspectives. It raises the question regarding the power of such stories, as well as the influence they may have in one’s own perception and experience of lived reality.

Teachings and Doctrines From the stories, narratives, texts, and sacred scriptures that are embraced by various worldviews come some clear teachings on a number of issues in life. These teachings directly or indirectly address the ultimate or existential questions. But they also address a host of other issues in life, some of which may not be well formed or expressed by adherents but have been more thoroughly articulated by philosophers, writers, and theologians. Teachings can also translate into doctrines. Doctrines are more explicitly formulated and framed and are intended to more specifically convey a clear set of principles that emerge from metanarratives. They are intended to set parameters around what constitutes correct thoughts, ideas, and sometimes even actions, concerning particular issues, and include and exclude what is deemed acceptable or appropriate. Doctrines are frequently associated with religious worldviews and their particular institutions, but they are in fact aspects of all worldviews. As such, religious doctrines are no different structurally than Marxist or Communist doctrines, save their content. Teachings can also translate into dogmas. Dogmas are frequently characterized as rigid or narrow formulations of specific issues, with associated pejorative terms such as dogmatic and dogmatism attached to them. Often such renderings are justified, even though an earlier and original meaning of the word dogma refers to matters upon which members of a group or an institution agreed and no longer question or doubt. Dogma originally entailed positions or status of authority and influence. It has largely been associated with pronouncements emerging from religious institutions.

86 

J. VALK

Yet, secular worldviews and even their vocal advocates can be as dogmatic and inflexible in their assertions as those from religious worldviews. Theories upheld in science, for example, can at times be dogmatically proclaimed and rendered beyond question or doubt, even if the evidence supporting those theories is inconclusive. Maoist, Marxist, and Leninist theories and ideas also easily became dogmas. The theologian Niebuhr (1970) asserted as early as the 1950s that these Communist theories were accepted on authority and not questioned, and then dogmatically imposed on the people. The notion of blind faith is often associated with dogma, whether that be religious or secular dogma. Dogma takes on a certain kind of authority so much so that followers embrace them without question. But in most cases doctrines and more specifically teachings are not to be specifically seen in this way. They may express thoughts, ideas, even beliefs, from a particular time and place, yet leave themselves open to continued discussion and debate, recognizing that human articulations may never exhaust a particular teaching. Those worldview perspectives that have a long history, such as the major religious worldviews, have had occasion to discuss and debate a variety of issues over the centuries. Other more recent worldview perspectives may not yet have had opportunity to develop intense teachings as compared to religious worldviews, a point acknowledged by Habermas (2010). One area where teachings abound for many worldviews, religious and secular, is in regard to the notion of a higher power, force, or being (Armstrong, 2007). While many may embrace such teachings of one kind or another, the content of those teachings varies dramatically. Monotheism The monotheistic worldviews assert the existence of a higher power, force, or being and give it the name “God”: Elohim and Yahweh are the two most common in Hebrew and Allah in Arabic. The embrace of a transcendent God is a basic teaching that lies at the heart of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It is declared in their sacred texts, encapsulated in various creeds and doctrines, taught to younger and older alike, and confessed in worship assemblies. In addition, these monotheistic worldviews state that there is only one God, who is Creator of the universe and who seeks a relationship with the earth and its people (Byrne, 2011).

3  CULTURAL DIMENSIONS 

87

Beyond this general teaching, however, differences quickly surface. Judaism emphasizes more an ethical monotheism; Christianity a God who became human through Jesus of Nazareth; and Islam a God who has ninety-nine names. Furthermore, each of these three monotheistic positions has traditions within them that further explore or even speculate what God may be. Jewish philosophy is rich with debates about whether God is exclusively transcendent or also immanent and what that may all entail (Wolpe, 1991). Further, Judaism has lurking at its margins a mystical tradition known as Kabbalah that deviates from its mainstream, as well as Hasidic elements which teach God’s immanence—a panentheistic universe imbued with divinity (Matt, 2010). Christianity has affirmed a triune God who is both transcendent and immanent, yet theologians and philosophers have had endless debates attempting to explicate what all of this means, with some wanting to go beyond the transcendent/immanent binary (Verhoef, 2013; Stoker, 2012; Jensen, 2002; Kim, 1987). Christian mysticism, often connected with more Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, speaks of the mystical union of one’s soul with God. Islam rejects the divinity of Jesus but affirms that all prophets reveal messages from God to humans, thereby giving humans glimpses into the divine nature. Sufism is a mystical strain within Islam that seeks methods by which one can journey in the presence of God. Interestingly enough, mysticism has appealed to adherents of all three traditions, who find much common ground in it. Hence, while the monotheistic traditions can appear quite clear in their belief in the existence of God, much diversity exists in how exactly to understand the nature of that God (Wright,  R, 2009; Armstrong, 1993). Spiritual Traditions Teachings that emerge from spiritual worldviews on the issue of a higher power, being, or force display even more diversity. That there is a higher power, being, or force is not disputed, except in Buddhism, where belief in a creator God controlling human destiny is rejected. But even in Buddhism there is a popular notion of a Buddha who is “past, present and future, ultimately real, eternal and unchanging, and knows no beginning or end” (Mestre, 2005, p. 10). While this hints strongly at some higher power, being, or force, it is, nonetheless, a highly disputed notion (Williams, 2008).

88 

J. VALK

Hinduism more specifically speaks of a Supreme Spirit or Soul (Brahman) who is eternal, ground of all being, possesses personality and with whom humans are connected. Monotheistic elements are strongly prevalent in Hinduism but so are polytheistic, pantheistic, and panentheistic elements (Sharma, 1990; Johnson & Johnson, 1972). Indigenous Spiritualities affirm the existence of God, though they prefer to use the terms Creator or Great Spirit. Their teachings include the Creator as the source of life—of all things that exist in this world and the spirit world. This source of life is perceived to exist in all things and as such all things are spiritually connected. Some names given to the Great Spirit are Wakan Tanka (Sioux) and Gitche Manitou (Algonquian) (Thomas, 2007; Johnston, 2001). Similar teachings are also embraced by numerous ancient religions, ancient philosophies (Platonic demi-urge), deistic religions, and pagan religions. Goddess religions emphasize more a female deity, as a counterbalance to the more male characteristics attributed to notions of what is often referred to as a patriarchal God (Ruether, 2006). But here too a divergence of views emerges, such as whether the Goddess is immanent, transcendent, or both, or even something more. Notions of pantheism and panentheism—the Goddess nature as part of or flowing through individuals and all of nature—surface in these ancient but newly revived spiritual worldviews (Laura, 2011; Christ, 1998; Starhawk, 1999). It is also more evident in the views of many who consider themselves spiritual but not religious. Perhaps the late folk singer Peter Seeger captured what many others also embrace when he said: I tell people I don’t think God is an old white man with a long white beard and no navel; nor do I think God is an old black woman with white hair and no navel. But I think God is literally everything, because I don’t believe that something can come out of nothing. And so there’s always been something. Always is a long time. (Schuman, 2006)

The notion of God as an “old white man with a long white beard” may be a popular childlike image attributed over the years to Judaism and Christianity’s view of God. The rejection of such a puerile image is understandable, but it is not necessarily then a rejection of a Judeo-Christian notion of God, for such an image cannot be found in any of its theological teachings or sacred scriptures. Popular images can easily distort. Nonetheless, as with the monotheistic worldviews, it is clear that spiritual

3  CULTURAL DIMENSIONS 

89

worldview traditions, and no less the “spiritual but not religious” groupings of people, also teach the existence of a higher power, being, or force. The exact nature of it, however, continues to generate much discussion and debate (Needleman, 2009; Peters, 2000). Nonetheless, it does raise the question as to why such different renderings exist in the first place and to what degree time, place, and context influence human perceptions. Exclusive Humanism Secular worldviews teach that there is no evidence for the existence of a higher power, being, or force. The kind of evidence deemed credible from the perspective of secularism is, of course, empirical evidence. No appeal to nature as evidence for the existence of a Creator is persuasive for those who embrace secular worldviews. What secular worldview traditions might teach, and even embrace, is a force or power that operates within nature as its life principle, an imminent life force, but not as a creative force independent from it or above or beyond it, that is, a transcendent force or power. That general life force or principle also operates within humans at the biological level. But it is not a life force that impinges on human consciousness, holding humans accountable for their thoughts and actions. From a secular worldview perspective, humans must take charge of their own affairs. They alone are the force or power that determines their own existence—they are the masters of their own destiny. That view comes clearly to the fore in certain humanist manifestos. The American Humanist Association (AHA) has put one such manifesto in place: Humanist Manifesto II. It has undergone a revision since the original Humanist Manifesto of 1933, written by Paul Kurtz, but the essential teachings remain the same. Rejecting what it considers religious dogmas, the Humanist Manifesto II lists a number of fundamental teachings, which themselves take on a certain dogmatic overtone. These affirm humans as central and reliant on reason and science alone to determine the right courses of actions to pursue. The AHA has also created its own Ten Commandments; commandments that intentionally mimic the Judeo-­ Christian Ten Commandments, complete with “thou shalt not” renderings of King James language vintage. It raises the question why the AHA issued such clear injunctions in such a format, all the while disavowing doctrines and dogmas and encouraging adherents to seek their own path. Another manifesto is the Heathen Manifesto written by Julian Baggini (2012). It also contains clear teachings that reject supernatural religion, is

90 

J. VALK

committed to the truth, and affirms science and reason. Here too it teaches that humans are central. Confucianism, though generally considered a religion by many, is not theistic but is more accurately a secular worldview with a focus on this life, rendering “the secular as sacred” (Fingarette, 1972). It rejects all beliefs in a divine being, a divine will, and a personal god (Juergensmeyer, 2005). Instead it teaches that humans can improve, if not perfect, their lot through conscious personal and communal discipline, self-creation, and virtue. Humans are, in effect, their own gods; humans are the only force or power that will determine how they will live. Similar teachings can be found in Marxism. Marxism reserved some of its harshest criticism for institutional religion and its concept of God, which it felt rendered humans passive. It was humans themselves, it taught, that needed to overcome their oppressive situation, and not rely on a higher power, force, or being to liberate them. The sky was empty; humans alone could free themselves from their bondage. But soon it was the state—the brotherhood of the people—that came to regulate the lives of the people. The Communist State became the higher power or force—Big Brother—and at times required sacrifices great and small from them. All religions, of course, require sacrifices of one sort or another from adherents, but one wonders why the more fervently the State taught the ideals of the revolution, the more repressive it became. Why did the Communist and totalitarian “gods”—Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler—come to devour millions of their own people, and in a manner that knew few limits (Froese, 2008)? For those who embrace a Scientism, humans are again seen as the highest on the chain of being and hence the makers of their own destiny. The idea of a God, a Creator, or a greater being is rejected out of hand (Weinberg, 2008; Dawkins, 2006). Humans have been and are accountable for their own situation and for determining for themselves how to structure their societies and communities. Humans are, in effect, their own “gods”, responsible to determine their own future and accountable only to themselves. Change in the human condition results not from some interactions with a Supreme Being, but from insight gained through new thoughts, ideas, and discoveries surfacing in the course of the unfolding of life, and largely through the investigations of science. These teachings have become a dominant feature of secular society and, as argued by some, a staple of public education (Reuben, 1996; Postman, 1995; Marsden, 1994).

3  CULTURAL DIMENSIONS 

91

Consumerism/Capitalism A Consumerist and Capitalist worldview also seems to embrace some notion regarding a higher power or force, as least as some of its critics argue. Harvey Cox (2016) discovered some of the teachings of Capitalism in business magazines and business sections of newspapers regarding a higher power, force, or being. Using a theological lens, he teased out a “God of the Market”, one that could be seen as paralleling and even competing with a monotheistic God. From these sources Cox depicted a “Market God” that he felt had characteristics often attributed theologically to a monotheistic God. It was omnipresent; it had pervaded almost all of our lives and all our behaviours, offering something to buy and sell for everyone and every occasion. It was omnipotent, or nearly so; it was able to transform wants into needs, and almost anything into something sellable, including human body parts. It was omniscient; its information channels came to know all of our wants and magically provide material things and services beyond measure to supply our every desire. Rightly or wrongly, warranted or otherwise, a popular impression is that the dollar possesses an “almighty” status and that there is considerable reverence of it in Western societies, conveying the notion that monetary or material wealth is the path to “salvation”—to happiness, security, and long life. According to Bok (2004) and Deutschmann (2001), in the schools of Capitalism students are taught the benefits of the “Market”, the need for continued faith in the “Market”, and that the “Market” will eventually overcome every structural hurtle or obstacle put in its way, but only if it is permitted to venture forth unimpeded by government regulations. While some sceptics may not be persuaded by these teachings (Loy, 1997; Goudzwaard et  al., 2007; Schumacher, 1989), Saunders (2007) points to the immense benefits Capitalism has bestowed on the world, benefits few critics wish to do without. The Consumerist worldview may not directly teach or convey the notion that a higher power, force, or being exists, but its “temples” dot the landscape and numerous people are not adverse to gathering at them, and increasingly so on the Sabbath and other holy days (Smith, 2009; Grice, 2006). Belk (1987) notes that the Santa Claus narrative teaches that “we should reward ourselves for doing well by buying something” and that children are taught that they will be rewarded by Santa for being good (p.  95). While the consumption of goods and services has always been part of human existence, the degree to which it is done today at

92 

J. VALK

times reveals that for some it may have become more an end than a means. According to Chan (2006) and Van Brummelen (1991), consumption for its own sake creeps subtly into the education of the young through curriculum materials. The “Consumer God” competes mightily with the Christian God at two of the latter’s holiest of days (Christmas and Easter), with the former gaining in popularity. Few will, of course, admit to revering such a “god” but as J.K.A. Smith argues, behaviours betray loyalties and not a few have graced the doors of these “temples” at these high holy seasons. Demand for consumer choice has invaded religious turf. Today more chose places of worship that meet their own personal needs, feeling less compelled to uphold long-standing denominational loyalty. “Seekers” shop to find the church that is right for them, emulating consumer shopping for spiritual or theological “goods” personally suited to them. And because the “customer is always right”, the client determines which religious beliefs are right for them. But it is no small wonder that such an approach gains in prominence today for it is religion itself that advanced the notion of individual rights, and even individual choice. As the above shows, teachings emerge from the narratives, stories, and sacred texts of various worldviews. These teachings can revolve around a host of different issues and subject matter, including a focus on the existence of a higher power, force, or being. Religious worldview teachings include a higher power, force, or being that is transcendent, immanent, or both and is known generally as God but also as Creator, Goddess, Supreme Spirit, the Ground of Being, and more. Teachings vary considerably from one religious worldview to the next in attempting to elucidate their nature. The variety of interpretations on hand signals in part that humans appear unable to exhaust the nature and scope of such a higher being. Secular worldviews themselves find it difficult to avoid entirely a notion a higher power, force, or being, but confine it to this world and see it emerge in a variety of forms and shapes, human or otherwise (Stambach, 2011). Those who embrace religious worldviews learn or are taught about a higher power, force, or being from the worldview communities from which they come, and these communities come to understand its nature in particular ways. Those who embrace secular worldviews, on the other hand, have little interest in it, and ignoring it has perhaps been the most successful teaching, either in the home or even in educational institutions, where teachings about religion are becoming less prominent. But does this inevitably result in a secular power, force, or being replacing a

3  CULTURAL DIMENSIONS 

93

transcendent one? Could it be that it is in the nature of humans to acquiesce to some kind of higher power, force, or being, religious or secular, and that an understanding of it depends to a large degree on the stories, narratives, and texts embraced and the teachings espoused?

Ethical Principles Ethical principles emerge from stories, narratives, and texts, but also from teachings and in turn they form part of those teachings. They serve to guide and direct the thoughts and actions of adherents, whether these are individuals, groups, or even entities. Ethics has essentially to do with discerning what it means to live a “good life”, that is, what is the best way for humans to live their lives so that they have meaning, purpose, and benefit. In other words, what might be an ideal life; for what good should one strive? What it means to live a good life, or even determining a life worth living, has been discussed and debated for centuries, and no less today. In a modern pluralistic society, with many different worldviews at play, determining a good life or a life worth living can be a complex matter, for many views and perceptions are on offer. Individuals and groups of individuals must determine for themselves what they deem is good, proper, and worthwhile, and that which is not. They must be able to discern for themselves between right and wrong, between what is acceptable and what is not. But how are they to do so? Ethical principles of justice, equality, dignity, and respect—all aspects of a good life and constitutive of becoming human—are shaped and influenced by the context in which we live. The argument made here is that notions of the good life—discerning between right and wrong, what is worthwhile and what is not—is linked to the context, perspective, or worldview in which one is grounded. Ethics cannot emerge from a neutral standpoint. In the section above, the teachings of various worldviews were considered in regard to what might be viewed as the higher power, force, or being to which people might direct their lives. Each worldview teaches different views in this regard, even if some begin from a similar starting point. Deepening the conversation further by exploring what ethics or ethical principles emerge from such teachings will enhance the discussion and give further insight into the notion that ethics is grounded in worldviews.

94 

J. VALK

Humans are moral creatures, that is, they are decision-makers. They make decisions at every turn. They choose one thing over another for a variety of reasons but one of the more important reasons is the hope that it will assist them in achieving the good life, or at least a better life. But what is the “good life”: what does it entail, what does it look like, and how does one attain it. In other words, what notions of the good life ground their worldview? Exploring what is regarded as a good life, which certainly concerns discerning right from wrong, what is worthwhile and what is not, will shed light on one’s worldview, especially in regard to what is perceived as the highest power, force, or being to which they are accountable for their ethical actions. It will also shed more light on the relationship between ethics and worldviews. Monotheism The monotheistic or Abrahamic traditions, as mentioned, are grounded in a belief in a monotheistic God: that God is transcendent but is made known immanently; God is revealed to humans and makes known how humans should live. Humans are to discern from God’s revelations—in sacred scriptures as well as in nature—how they should live and how to discern what is worth pursuing, including recognizing good from evil and right from wrong. Hence, the “good life” is connected with God’s will for humans. But what is God’s will for humans? Irenaeus, second-century Bishop of Lyon, stated that the glory of God, that is, what pleases God most, “is the human creature fully alive”. A creature fully alive does not necessarily mean to “live on the edge”, or to live “extreme”, as we hear so often today. Nor does it mean that life must be dull and boring, as some feel religion implies or entails. To be fully alive means to enjoy the goodness that life can bring, to appreciate the beauty in others and the natural world, to be creative in all that people can do, to share with others the joys that they experience. Yet it also entails bearing with others the burdens that can come unexpectedly, to persevere when life takes a nasty turn, and to realize that this life is not the only life. Such is the glory of God and what God asks and seeks of humans. There is also more. The Hebrew prophet Micah states that God asks of humans to “do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with God” (Micah 6:8). That is, humans are to do justice in all their actions, whatever they may be. People are to do the right thing when they interact with others, they must work for just and fair actions for everyone, and they must

3  CULTURAL DIMENSIONS 

95

preserve the life and dignity of all. But they are also to love mercy by putting revenge and retribution far from them, by a willingness to forgive, by giving others a second chance, and by giving a “hand up” rather than a “hand out”. Lastly, humans are to walk humbly with God. That is, they are to recognize that God is creator of all and that humans are not God or gods, that there is much that they do not know or understand, that while they have the potential to be very creative and imaginative, they also have the potential to be very destructive to the environment and very dangerous to themselves. That is, they recognize that while humans are capable of the highest good, they are also capable of the greatest evil: “man’s inhumanity to man knows no bounds”. Judaism is considered an ethical monotheism. Humans are to determine for themselves how they will respond to the situations they face in light of God’s will, as initially laid out in the Torah. But exactly how they are to respond in each situation they face is a difficult matter. God’s will is further explicated in the Written and Oral Torah, as part of the 613 Commandments, which is evidenced in the Book of Leviticus, for example. But each of these commands requires interpretation in light of changing circumstances. Some of the 613 commandments have no bearing in the modern era; others continue to offer guidance and direction. Hence, while humans are given directives by means of sacred scriptures, they are nonetheless to interpret how to enact those directives in light of the situation in which they live (Wright, 2013; Dosick, 1993). Christianity and Islam have similar ethical notions. It is also clear to them that some of these directives were culture specific and may no longer apply today. For this reason, explications outlining the basic ethical principles involved in each of the commandments become so crucial. No surprise then that a vast array of commentaries has been written within the Christian and Islamic traditions, as in the Jewish tradition, to assist adherents in discerning right from wrong and good from evil in the context in which they live, that is, to seek the good life. This is no easy matter but also one from which humans cannot flee. Muslims are commanded to love God and be good persons, but what it means to be a good person must always be discerned in the context in which one lives. What the “good life” for a Muslim living in the Middle East in the seventeenth century differs from what that might mean in the twenty-first century. For example, the Qur’an states that Muslims are to dress modestly. What dressing modestly entails is inherently connected to the cultural situation in which they live, and that may invariably entail, especially in regard to women,

96 

J. VALK

wearing a burka, veil, hijab, or no specific body or head covering at all. Christians have wrestled at length in interpreting the command “an eye for an eye”, using this injunction to both support and reject capital punishment. Moral philosophers within these traditions recognize that a good understanding of the context in which these injunctions were given goes a long way in discerning what kind of guidance and direction they can render for one’s present circumstance today. It also entails using insights from historical, sociological, and psychological sources to assist in giving guidance and direction in moral decision-making. This goes without saying, however, that ethical principles for the monotheistic worldviews are grounded in God’s will for humans and that the “good life” is to live in accordance with these ethical principles in the context in which adherents find themselves. It also asserts that the origin of values and human rights must necessarily be grounded in religion, and more specifically in God (Bucar & Barnett, 2005; Joas, 2000). Nonetheless, a challenge exists for those who embrace a monotheistic worldview of how to interpret for the modern context divine injunctions to live the good life revealed in ancient times and cultures, without resorting to a simplistic authoritarianism (Wright, 2013). Spiritual Traditions Spiritual worldviews find themselves in a similar situation. They too must determine individually what the “good life” entails, recognizing too that this is far from easy and may be different for each person. Hinduism recognizes that the “good life”, or the ethical life, is a virtuous life, but this means different things for people in their various stages (ashramas) of life: student, householder, hermit, and wanderer. In each stage a person prepares himself/herself for the practical (social, economic, familial) challenges of a particular life period, but also the spiritual challenges as one ages. Living the “good life” is a personal challenge and a personal decision, a motive or attitude of the mind, and is grounded in Hindu scriptural texts. Ethical principles include not harming others, telling the truth, giving generously, being honest, observing purity of thought and mind, listening to the wise, studying scriptures, and performing daily worship and meditation. But these too are based on beliefs in God and in sacred narratives such as the Vedas and the Bhagavad Gita and the teachings that come from them.

3  CULTURAL DIMENSIONS 

97

Buddhism’s notion of the “good life” is grounded not in any notion of a God who expects certain kinds of behaviours from people but in the notion of the enlightened life, as exemplified by the Buddha, in the Buddhist sacred texts, and the teachings that emerge from them. The “good life” is then equated with the enlightened life. It is found in The Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path and expressed in the Five Precepts (no killing, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct, and intoxicants). Fundamental is the principle of non-injury or non-violence. These precepts or principles are not seen from the perspective of commandments or mandates, as sometimes expressed by the monotheistic worldviews, but rather from the perspective of the destruction they will cause if they are not followed (Dalai Lama, 2008). Much of Buddhist ethics is embedded in a Buddhist notion of non-violence. The Dalai Lama (2011) embeds it in compassion, however, as an attempt to advance a secular or universal ethics that goes beyond specific religious traditions. Karen Armstrong (2011) similarly calls upon all people to focus on compassion and make this central to their religion and ethics. Indigenous spiritualities embrace the notion of a Creator and recognize that teachings come from the Creator in the form of oral stories conveyed through generations of storytellers and the wisdom of the Elders. Here too a sense of the “good life” emerges that comes from teachings such as the “Story of the Two Wolves”, and has also been captured recently in what has come to be referred to in popular culture as the “Native Ten Commandments”, in many ways a counterpart to the Biblical Ten Commandments. While the origins of these commandments may not be clear, the themes do resonate with Indigenous Spirituality and as such serve well as their ethical principles. Not surprising is that they also resonate with other spiritual worldview traditions. These principles have received further elaboration in a “Native American Indian Traditional Code of Ethics”, with each one grounded in Indigenous stories and teachings of long-standing (Bopp, 1992). Exclusive Humanism Secular worldviews also strive to determine the “good life” but it is not always clear in what or where ethical principles are to be grounded. What is clear is that they are not grounded in notions of a monotheistic God, Creator, or Supreme Spirit (Kitchner, 2014; Epstein, 2010; Grayling, 2003). Kant’s categorical imperative was an attempt to determine some

98 

J. VALK

ethical grounding irrespective of whether God exists. Ethical actions, it was reasoned, should be those that are good in and of themselves, not whether God declares them so. Linking ethical action directly to God’s injunctions, it is argued, opens up the possibility for a “divine might is right” ethical grounding; ethics potentially grounded in an angry and vengeful God (Barker, 2016). It is known that certain of God’s injunctions in the Old Testament are today considered rather unethical. But Kant had, nonetheless, to ultimately concede some absolute truth or criteria that would ground ethics and that held for all time and place and existed outside of humans. According to Exclusive Humanists, however, Darwinism put an end to this kind of thinking; there is nothing outside humans that will ground ethics. In the Humanist Manifesto, Paul Kurtz argues that ethics must be grounded in reason and science, not in irrational, religious dogma. Humanists argue that the use of reason and science will ultimately result in ethical actions for the benefit of all humankind, a kind of utilitarian consequential ethical philosophy that strives for the greatest good for the greatest number. No doubt the use of reason and science should be at play as much as possible, and the greatest good for the greatest number should be advocated, but does consequential or utilitarian ethics run the risk of the powerful determining courses of action for the powerless? In the case regarding, for example, abortion and euthanasia or doctor-assisted suicide, it is not at all clear how science and reason determines the ethics of these difficult and complex matters. Mostly it is left to personal choice, which means that at least in these cases ethics is grounded in individual choice, that is, in an individual’s own personal worldview. A philosophical naturalism ultimately grounds ethics in evolutionary biology, which it asserts is the source of human consciousness, society, and culture. Churchland (2011), for example, in arguing that ethics is linked to evolutionary biology, feels that the chemical workings in the brain— levels of peptide oxytocin and other neurochemicals—create bonds of attachment and empathy, and from there social and cultural engagement emerges, establishing those acceptable and unacceptable behaviours that promote the well-being of culture and its values. Frans de Waal (2013) makes the argument that our ethics and morality is embedded in our biology as a kind of “altruistic impulse”, grounded in our primate past. Though not hostile to religion and the role it can play in a society and culture, he nonetheless rejects a monotheistic “top down morality”—ethics embedded in a divine or transcendent being. But De Waal also takes

3  CULTURAL DIMENSIONS 

99

exception to those who, like Dawkins and others, argue that we reason to our morality. Ethics is not something to which we reason nor something that comes to us. It is rather a “bottom up” morality that has been developed in us as social primates. Such a “bottom up” morality has also led to a biological Darwinism raised to a social level, a Spenserian Social Darwinism. Critics have argued, however, that not as much ethical fruit has been born from such development as its advocates had hoped or claimed. The brutal racism in the nineteenth century and the horrendous bloodshed in the twentieth century were embedded in a problematic Social Darwinian “might as right” ethical grounding, thwarting any claim of human progress as a result of the enlightenment of the modern era (Weikart, 2004). While a shadow side certainly exists in Exclusive Humanism, as in all worldviews, it has nonetheless also led to finding better ways to live together as a human species and that includes according rights to the individual. As such, some ground their ethical principles in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, a major rights phenomenon of the twentieth century. But notions of human rights, and no less individual human rights, did not arise suddenly from the aftermath of the horrors of the Second World War. They had been percolating in the minds of many for centuries. Many consider the UN document to be a secular or humanistic one. But this may claim too much. While this document may not refer specifically to a higher power, force, or being, it is well known that members of the UN Commission on Human Rights, responsible for drafting the UN document, came from a variety of worldviews, and no less from those who embraced a monotheistic worldview, such as the Canadian lawyer, diplomat, and scholar John Peters Humphrey; Lebanese academic, diplomat, and philosopher Charles Malik; and the French Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain. Other members included those who came from Confucian, Hindu, and secular worldview perspectives. Maritain expressed the view that while agreement could be reached on the rights themselves, asking the “why” of human rights would create enormous disputes (Bucar & Barnett, 2005). The decision to drop the phrase “absolute and sacred” in connection with rights and freedoms, in essence “stripping the Declaration text of direct allusions to God, or other metaphysical grounds for human rights”, was needed to gain wider acceptance of the document (Lindkvist, 2017, p. 29). Clearly what grounded the rights and freedoms contained in the UN document differed from one worldview perspective to another, but it might be a somewhat haughty claim to assert

100 

J. VALK

that it emerges solely from the worldview perspective of an Exclusive Humanism. The challenge to Exclusive Humanist worldviews is to account for the grounding of ethical principles; discerning why humans ought to behave in certain ways and not others. Grounding this in legal precepts simply shifts the burden, for legal precepts easily change. It raises the question as to whether people can be held accountable for brutal acts that stem from following orders, a defence used by many at the Nuremberg Trials and by Eichmann at his trial in Jerusalem, but a defence eventually unsuccessful (Arendt, 2006; Bauman, 2001). It also raises the question whether someone can be found guilty of contravening ethical principles without contravening the laws of the land, that is, violating the spirit of the law but not the law itself (Freudenberg, 2016). If no ethical source exists outside of the human then the “good life”—living ethically—must be determined individually or collectively, with recognition that an ethical relativism, or ethics determined by victor’s justice, majority rule and individual preference, lurks close by. Giving recognition to the collective—social or constitutive democracy—as a determinant for values and ethics hints not only at going beyond the individual self as a ground for values and rights but appears to give that collective some status as a higher power, being, and force, at least beyond the individual. For the American pragmatist John Dewey, it was a “sacralization of democracy” (Joas, 2000, pp. 11, 123). Consumerism/Capitalism Within a Consumer/Capitalist worldview, the matter may become easier, but only by degrees. To put it in its most stark and simple terms, what is right in Capitalism is largely determined by the profit motive. In Consumerism, freedom of choice and supply and demand determine what is right. But as in all ethical dealings the matter is not as simple as it often appears. Profit is the backbone of Capitalism; if companies do not make a profit, they do not succeed. However, the extent of profit and the manner in which it is made will usually highlight ethical or unethical behaviour (Pauwels, 2018; Barber, 2008; Klein, 2007; Younkins, 2007; Saunders, 2007; Novak, 2004; Belshaw et al., 2001). Choice, supply, and demand are central to Consumerism, and within these parameters products are created, bought, and sold. Here again, however, quality of products, marketing techniques, and artificial supply and demand will usually reveal ethical or unethical behaviour. But Belk (1987) makes the case that there may

3  CULTURAL DIMENSIONS 

101

also be more at stake. He argues that the Santa myth “teaches us that we deserve what we get and the American ethic that we also get what we deserve” (p. 95) translates into a “self-help philosophy” that has gained a strong foothold in American society, conveying at times not too subtly that “the poor are simply underserving of the wealth of the rich” (Belk, 1987, p. 95). Further, while people may be encouraged to indulge themselves at Christmas time, encouraged by “Santa as the god of consumption”, the poor are placed in a precarious position and may spend far beyond their means to lavish gifts on children and themselves, or feel quite depressed because of the inability to do so. But the overall message is clear: “if you are good, your material wishes will be granted” (p. 95). Belk further notes that when the notion of Santa Claus emerged and grew more popular in the latter part of the nineteenth century and well into the twentieth century, charity and philanthropy declined, leading him to conclude that “a nation that worships a god of materialism has little sympathy for those who do not partake in the appropriate material rituals” (p. 95). Belk could be accused of playing the Grinch of Christmas, though there might nonetheless be a certain ring of truth to what he says. Within the Consumer/Capitalist worldview, it can be argued that ethical principles do indeed have a source in a higher power, force, or being, and the teachings that stem from them, but in a source quite dissimilar to that of the religious worldviews. Belk claims that some “higher power” is indeed operative and makes the case that “Santa is a secular god” (Belk, 1987, p. 95). Cox spoke of the “Market God”, which he argued wielded immense power. The ethical “good life” encouraged by these gods is largely individually determined. Though buying and selling have long been part of human history, consumption as an end rather than a means to an end has, however, exerted a large influence on modern society. Sandel (2012a) indicates that we have almost unwittingly drifted from a “market economy” to a “market society”. While the former is a “valuable and effective tool” to assist us in organizing our economic activity, the latter “is a way of life in which market values seep into every aspect of human endeavour. It is where social relations are made over in the image of the market” (Sandel, 2012b, p. 66). Sandel’s argument is that in attempting to avoid sectarian controversy, moral and spiritual beliefs and values have largely become absent from the public square, which has resulted in a “market triumphalism”, and “market reasoning” (p. 66). But market reasoning does not ask moral questions; it does not pass judgement nor discriminate. Every individual is

102 

J. VALK

left to themselves to determine what value they will place on goods and services. The result is that “it has drained public discourse of moral and civic energy, and contributed to the technocratic, managerial politics afflicting many societies”. Sandel pleads for a “more morally robust public discourse” so that we are able to “grapple more explicitly with competing notions of the good life” (p. 66). Younkins (2007) recognizes the arguments made by numerous critics. He nonetheless claims that Capitalism is a moral system that gives people freedom of choice and requires moral obligations from businesses in that they must respect the rights of individuals. This is indeed a growing phenomenon within Capitalism in the form of corporate ethics or corporate social responsibility. Corporate ethics has attempted to remove the harsh side or raw face of an earlier unbridled Capitalism. Many corporate executives are beginning to realize that good business practices make good companies and that an increasing number of employees seek to work for companies with good business practices. As such, business ethics has in effect become a growing business. In some cases it has been quite successful in reorienting corporations so that they abide not only by the laws of the land but also attempt to be good corporate citizens by serving the communities in which they exist so they are perceived as a vital and appreciated part of a community: “many not only promote ethical business standards and practices internally, they exceed legal compliance minimums and shape future industry standards by introducing best practices today” (Ethicsphere, 2014). Companies known for their high ethical standards over a protracted period of time are Aflac, American Express, Fluor, General Electric, Milliken & Company, Patagonia, Rabobank, and Starbucks (Ethicsphere, 2014). Some even attempt to link religious principles to business practice in order to operate ethically (Chewning et al., 1990; Rundle & Steffen, 2003). Consumerism similarly has incorporated standards to regulate its industry. The shadow side of Consumerism is well known, and these can present themselves in the most negative and destructive ways. But consumer advocacy groups, national trading standards, consumer rights groups, offices of consumer affairs, consumer protection agencies, and fair trade organizations are all part of a modern wave to ensure that advertising standards, customer relations, and organic, quality, and environmentally friendly products are some of the measures being put in place to offer the consumer choice in line with their own personal ethics.

3  CULTURAL DIMENSIONS 

103

The foregoing has attempted to highlight a link between worldviews and ethics, and to make the argument that ethics and ethical behaviour are in fact grounded in worldviews. Notions of a higher power, force, or being, and the stories and teachings that emanate from them, no matter one’s worldview, influence the development of ethical principles and moral behaviour. It is here that immense differences come to light and greater understanding can be gained. While reason is necessarily employed in recognizing or determining “the good life”, it is more fundamentally grounded in what one holds to be ultimate, whether from a religious, spiritual, or secular worldview perspective. That does not necessarily leave one in a relativist lurch, for there can be agreement on some universal ethical principles. It is when the question of the grounding of these principles arise that clear differences emerge. Here worldview differences rise to the surface. If ethical principles do indeed ultimately emerge from worldviews, their stories, and their teachings, as is argued here, then a reflection on worldviews may result in more fruitful discussions of ethical principles and ethical behaviours.

Rituals and Symbols Rituals and symbols reveal and reflect the many beliefs and values people embrace. They reveal what is important and this in turn reflects their worldview. Anthropologists have known this for some time, and many have focused attention on rituals and symbols as a means to better understand what is important to individuals and communities of people. Much study and research have been focused on the rituals and symbols of ancient peoples and those who live in secluded parts of the world, as done by some early anthropologists such as Franz Boaz, Ruth Benedict, Margaret Mead, Bronislaw Malinowski, A.R. Radcliffe-Brown, Clifford Geertz, and Claude Levi-Strauss. Much of this was also mixed with Western colonial and imperial attitudes towards non-Western peoples. A study of the rituals and symbols of the modern world also reveals much about modern people, and no less their beliefs and values, that is, their worldview. Rituals and symbols are generally linked to religious traditions, yet they are not exclusive of these worldviews. Religious rituals and symbols have their secular counterparts. These too serve to communicate, strengthen, and deepen the beliefs and values of those who embrace secular worldviews. That rituals and symbols are still very important today and central to the identity of peoples is illustrated in the turmoil and conflict

104 

J. VALK

that arises when some ban is placed on certain religious symbols such as the hijab, kirpan, turban, kippa, and crucifix in, for example, countries such as France or provinces such as Quebec (Barnet, 2013; Berger, 2002; Gunn, 2004; Steiner, 1995/96). But here, ironically, the ban is not always applied evenly, for some jurisdictions can be rather silent when it comes to Jewish and Christian symbols, including the habits of nuns. Many in France, Quebec, and elsewhere, however, tend to see these symbols as those of a past era, particularly oppressive of women, not befitting of a modern progressive Western society, and contrary to a current and dominant Secularism, a worldview that might value religion but regards it strictly as a private affair, hence relegating religious symbols and rituals to the private realm. What is often neglected, however, is to recognize the secular symbols that dominate the landscape and the secular rituals that have become part of Western secular nations. These differ and may even compete with those of religious traditions. That becomes clearer when we highlight what constitutes some of the rituals and symbols across the worldview spectrum. Monotheism Rituals that reflect the beliefs and values of the monotheistic worldviews are generally well known and are largely associated with worship practices. Hence rituals of weekly synagogue, church, and mosque attendance, daily prayers and scripture readings, celebration of the Eucharist, and more stand out in particular. Other rituals in the form of religious rites of passage such as baptisms, naming ceremonies, circumcisions, bar/bat mitzvahs, and confirmations are important for the monotheistic traditions. Religious days, festivals, and events—such as Passover, Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and Hanukkah for Judaism; Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, and Thanksgiving for Christians; and Ramadan, Hajj, and Eid al-Fitr for Muslims—are all of great significance (Steffler, 2002; Ouaknin, 2000; Cooke & Macy, 2005; Gulevich, 2005; Chebel & Hamani, 1997). Participation in these rituals and rites of passage is intended to strengthen and deepen the beliefs and values—the worldview—of the adherents. Some special kinds of rituals, activities, or events, such as participating in a Eucharist, a pilgrimage to Mecca, or a bar and bat mitzvah, create extraordinary happiness, joy, and enthusiasm, and are events that leave an indelible mark on participants, strengthening the religious faith, beliefs, and values conveyed by those special events.

3  CULTURAL DIMENSIONS 

105

Symbols also abound in religious worldviews and represent or express some of the essential beliefs and values of that particular religion. They point beyond themselves to something that is complex, not fully comprehensible or understood and often veiled in mystery. Symbols are at times regarded as sacred, but more accurately they point towards that which is sacred. Among the biggest symbols within the monotheistic worldviews is the architecture of places of worship. This is quite apparent with the great medieval churches, for example. As one enters these vast architectural constructions, one’s gaze almost automatically goes heavenward. Many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe are in the shape of a Christian cross, which symbolizes the suffering, death, and atonement of Jesus Christ for Christians. That shape and symbol indicates that Christians too at times may undergo persecution for their beliefs, as history has amply demonstrated. The hijab for Muslim women is a symbol of modesty and respect, an important aspect of Muslim beliefs. Contrary to what certain feminists argue, as a religious symbol the hijab is intended to convey submission to Allah, not a patriarchal god or men. As a cultural symbol it can and sometimes does convey a meaning of submission to patriarchal men. The Jewish kippa or yarmulke, worn only by men, is intended to convey respect and submission to Yahweh, that is, “to stand under the Torah”. Spiritual Traditions Spiritual worldviews also have their rituals and rites of passage. Ritual prayers, singing hymns, reciting scriptures, meditations, chanting mantras, and pilgrimages are common in Eastern religious traditions, as are rites of passage such as naming ceremonies, weddings, funeral rites—all serve to link them to spiritual beliefs and values. Indigenous traditions include various prayers, fasting, singing, drumming, smudging, pipe ceremonies, sun dances, and spirit journeys. Rites of passage include birthing and naming ceremonies, puberty rites, healing ceremonies, and more (Gonzales, 2012; Horn, 2011). Pagan rituals include prayers, readings, and dances, especially at the summer solstice. One can see from both the monotheistic and spiritual worldview traditions that rituals and rites of passage are not structurally dissimilar. Though much of the content differs, as does the object of the prayers, they all reflect a desire to connect with a spiritual reality that is greater than they are and beyond them. Symbols that speak of deep religious or spiritual devotion are readily discernible in spiritual worldview traditions. In the Sikh religion, for

106 

J. VALK

example, baptized Sikhs (male and female) wear the following five articles of faith, known as the “Five Ks”, which have both practical and symbolic purposes: uncut hair (ke ̄s), small wooden comb (kaṅgha ̄), circular metal bracelet (kaṛa ̄), small sword or dagger (kirpa ̄n), and special undergarments (kacchera). Interestingly enough, the swastika, now illegal in Germany and banned in many Western countries because of its association with Nazism, has been and still is a symbol of well-being for Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism in India (Quinn, 1994). The symbol Aum or Om in Hinduism is considered the universal name for God. The bindi or red dot on the forehead of women is a symbol of energy and concentration. The eight spoke Dharma wheel, prayer flags, the Bodhi tree, the lotus, and even Buddha images are powerful symbols in Buddhism. In Indigenous spirituality, especially with North American First Nations, the Medicine Wheel, the eagle, the deer, and various other animals are strong symbols depicting spiritual strength and wisdom. As such, spiritual traditions, as with monotheistic traditions, contain multiple symbols, each encouraging devotion and commitment on the part of adherents. Exclusive Humanism Do rituals, rites of passage, and symbols that are intended to strengthen and deepen religious devotion for adherents of religious worldviews find counterparts in secular worldviews? Is it possible that secular symbols also elicit devotion for what is revered in these secular worldviews? If the notion of a higher power, force, or being is focused largely on this world, then where might we find rituals and symbols that suggest or allude to this (Samuel, 2018; Gordon-Lennox, 2016; Engelke, 2014; Cimino & Smith, 2014)? We might find these symbols in situations where a higher force or power is considered to be the state or the nation. Secular rituals such as Fourth of July, May Day, or Orange Day parades point to loyalty and devotion to the nation or state. St Jean Baptiste Day, originally a religious celebration, has now become an annual ritual to stoke nationalistic fervour and independence for the Quebecois in the province of Quebec. Marching in July 1st (Canada Day), July 4th (the United States), and May 1st (May Day—numerous European countries) parades can also give a heightened sense of extraordinary happiness, joy, and enthusiasm, or even elation, frenzy, and ecstasy in adherents. Even gyrating feverishly at rock concerts

3  CULTURAL DIMENSIONS 

107

can bring on certain joy, happiness, and even ecstasy that inculcates faith, beliefs, and values of a secular kind in the participants or adherents. Secular “naming ceremonies” have become common where babies are introduced to a small gathering of secular family and close friends. They have replaced baptisms where babies entered the communities of the religious—God and the people of God. Secular “mentors” have replaced “godparents”. Year-end “Holiday Parties”, secular festivities complete with secular songs and music, have come to replace what was once “Christmas Parties”. Christmas songs, once sung in public schools, have now also been replaced by holiday songs, with secular content replacing religious content. Singing national anthems or pledging national allegiances at the beginning of the school day aligns well with a public educational system more closely linked to serving the interests of the nation. Singing national anthems at major sporting events becomes a secular ritual of devotion to both sport and nation, and an attempt to link the two. The National Hockey League annual draft is an event that determines with which team and in which city younger and older players who have no contracts will be dispensed for the next number of years. Negotiating rites between owners and players, or more commonly, between their lawyers, take place on an annual basis within professional sports (Browne, 1980). These secular rituals parallel the rituals of religious worldviews: the devotion is similar but the content and that to which it is directed are considerably different. Rituals can also take on a more sinister character. Nazis were known to engage in drunken, murderous rituals on the Eastern Front, ceremoniously celebrating with copious amounts of alcohol after they had engaged in the mass execution of Jews in Poland and Ukraine, often boasting of the large numbers they had killed (Westermann, 2016; Lower, 2013; Desbois, 2008; Matthaus et al., 2014). Such ritual drunkenness also occurred in the Rwandan genocide (Hatzfeld, 2006). Symbols play a similar importance within a secular context. National flags become very powerful symbols pointing to the sacredness of the state or the nation. They are not to be stepped on, torn, burned, or insulted in any way. They are paraded on national days, brandished at sporting events, and displayed at official ceremonies, all in prominent places. People wrap themselves in national flags and flags are often draped on the coffins of national figures or heroes. The greater the pride in a nation or state, the more conspicuously a flag is displayed. Americans, hugely proud of their nation and its accomplishments at home or abroad, prominently display

108 

J. VALK

their flag whenever and wherever they are able in their own country. Germans, on the other hand, still reeling from the destructive aftermath of WWII, are more reluctant to display such nationalistic pride. Flags are also proudly displayed in movements of independence, as is the case in Quebec. In each of these cases, the state or nation is revered, with considerable devotion rendered to it. The flag becomes the symbol which represents all that is good and right about that particular state or nation. Other symbols may point to the glorious achievements of humans. London’s Crystal Palace, a structure of cast iron and plate glass built in 1851, was a commercial and technological breakthrough symbolizing the spirit of British ingenuity, innovation, and industrial might. Unfortunately, it succumbed to a slow deterioration and ultimately to a catastrophic fire in 1936 that completely destroyed it. To date it has not been rebuilt. The Eiffel Tower, built in 1889 as a centre piece for the 1889 World’s Fair, also came to symbolize the prowess of humans. Named after the engineer Gustave Eiffel, it marked not only the 100th anniversary of the French Revolution but also a century of industry and science, which Eiffel felt could be attributed to the Revolution of 1789. The automobile has become a modern symbol, variously displaying a sense of freedom, power, wealth, and status (Echevarría, 1993). The Olympic Games have in many ways come to symbolize not only athletic excellence and international co-­ operation but also national pride, and increasingly so of the nations who host them. Consumerism/Capitalism Within the Capitalist and Consumerist worldviews rituals and symbols are also at play and point to or reflect what is essential in these worldviews (Vincenzo, 2018; Belk et al., 1989). A Stock Market day of buying and selling begins with the sounding of the bell, signalling the commencement of yet another day of market activity. It ends with a similar sounding of the bell, after which we come to learn whether the market has had a good or a bad day. A business day begins and ends for most people with a commute from home to the place of employment and then back, a daily ritual intended to enhance one’s economic well-being and status. Other rituals linked to the corporate world include the production of quarterly reports, a kind of public announcement of a company’s state of health. Shareholders’ meetings become annual rituals where corporate directors display detailed reports and charts and give pep talks to renew shareholder faith.

3  CULTURAL DIMENSIONS 

109

Within the Consumerist world the annual Christmas shopping rituals with Santa Claus parades have come to compete mightily with a celebration of the birth of Christ. Santa Claus and reindeer have become popular with children, perhaps even more so than Nativity scenes. Belk (1987) argues that it represents one deity replacing another not in a move towards worldview neutrality or even plurality but in replacing the emphasis and content of one worldview with that of another. Boxing Day shopping extravaganzas have become a significant shopping ritual, just a short day after the Christmas marathon. Black Friday, the day when retailers begin to make a profit, takes place the day after American Thanksgiving, and has become an annual ritual of discount shopping and searching for consumer bargains. Black Friday is followed by Cyber Monday, a new ritual of discounted online shopping. The ritual of the seasonal fashion changes signals that yet another new period is about to unfold, even when all evidence of the old season is still ever present. Symbols depicting Capitalism are also visible and abundant. Perhaps the dollar sign is the most well-known and well-recognized symbol of Capitalism. The Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York, destroyed by Muslim terrorists in 2001, symbolized the heart of the Capitalist world. Terrorists also attempted, though unsuccessfully, to destroy the Pentagon, a symbol of American military might, for it was regarded as the power sustaining Capitalism which they saw as a threat to Islam. McDonald’s Golden Arches, now a universally recognized symbol of fast food, is also a symbol of global Capitalism and big profits. Santa Claus becomes the symbol of “American capitalism and materialism” (Belk, 1987, p. 95). Business suits, BMWs, Mercedes Benz, and private jets are also seen as symbols of the corporate world, displaying a certain power and force that point beyond themselves, in a similar manner as do symbols in religious worldviews. In this case, however, they point to Capitalism as a global power and force with independent status and being. One can also see symbols depicting the power and force of Consumerism. Coca-Cola symbolizes life, as the advertisements proclaim, but in this case not spiritual life but consumptive life. Shopping malls are depicted as the modern-day consumer temples, symbolizing freedom and choice for the consumer. The Hummer vehicle symbolizes the power and extravagance of Consumerism but also that of the individual consumer who feels empowered by owning such a mammoth vehicle. The Universal Product Code (UPC), used widely in Western countries, but increasingly also in others, symbolizes speed, accuracy, and ease for the manufacturer and the

110 

J. VALK

consumer, with its instant price recognition. The “lowest price is the law” was once proclaimed by the store chain Zellars, together with the assertion that “the customer is always right”, catapulting the buyer to an elevated, if not sacred, level (Craven, 2002). Branding and brand loyalty have become powerful Consumer symbols where consumers pay less attention to the item itself, or where it is made, and more to who makes it (McEwen, 2005). Nike, Calvin Klein, and BMW and more become much sought-­ after symbols of status, bestowing special or sacred eminence on those fortunate or wealthy enough to possess it. The iconic blue jeans, designed initially for rugged outdoor work, have come now to symbolize worldwide something entirely different—freedom and liberation from traditional cultural and even religious dress (Sullivan, 2006). Each worldview has its own rituals, rites of passage, and symbols. Similarities exist between many of them—most specifically they point to, express, or even worship something. But there are also huge dissimilarities between them—what they exalt, deify, or venerate is considerably different. The rituals, rites of passage, and symbols of religious worldviews (monotheistic or spiritual) point or relate to or worship some force, power, or being greater than the human: a spiritual entity that is transcendent, immanent, or both. The rituals, rites of passage, and symbols of secular worldviews (humanist, capitalist, or consumerist) point or relate to or worship some force, power, or being that is regarded as human or focuses on the human, an aspect of the human, a human activity, or a human creation. Whether religious or secular they are powerful and convey strong messages. As such, rituals and symbols can also create controversy, if not reveal contradictions and confusions. Some secular countries ban certain religious rituals and symbols in public places, often in an attempt to create a perceived neutral public square, all the while applauding, if not supporting, certain secular rituals and symbols. France is an interesting example of a nation with conflicting worldviews—religious and secular—most visibly concerning rituals and symbols. In its attempt to promote Secularism, it forbids public servants from wearing religious symbols: hijabs, burkas, niqabs, kippahs, turbans, and crosses. It has also banned burkinis, traditional yet stylish Muslim beach wear, yet freely permits bikinis, symbolic of free, liberal, and unrestrictive Western society. Yet, it is also ironic that France mourned the damage caused by fire in 2019 to Notre Dame Cathedral, one of the world’s most well-known houses of prayer and devotion to God, and vowed to rebuild it as soon as possible. Many Catholic

3  CULTURAL DIMENSIONS 

111

educational institutions also receive support from the State, and a majority of the French still call themselves Catholic, even if they may not believe in a traditional notion of God. All of which lend support to the view that while France is officially a secular State, few wish to see religion eliminated from the nation, at least not the Christian religion (Alicino, 2018). Many Canadian politicians, in contrast to those in the United States, are loathe to make public displays of their religious faith, let alone admit to having one, or be seen entering places of worship, all for fear of being branded as religious, perceived by a growing secular population as embracing closemindedness and intolerance. On the other hand, they participate in annual Gay Pride parades, perceived by a growing population as embracing acceptance, openness, and tolerance. Christmas crèches, symbols of devotion to the incarnation of God into human history, have all but disappeared from public places due to public pressure, yet the annual Santa Claus parades, symbols of a commercialized Christmas, are annual occurrences in many cities, and often involve city dignitaries, block main traffic arteries, and are funded by retailers and endorsed by local tourism offices. The dominant or most powerful worldviews determine to a large extent which rites and symbols are permitted or tolerated and which ones are not. Worldview neutrality or even worldview plurality appears difficult to achieve. Yet, just as worldviews are dynamic so are rituals and symbols— they too can change or fall out of favour. Some symbols change in importance (Kemp, 2012). Sociologists often measure the religiosity of a nation or of individuals by focusing on rituals such as church attendance, daily prayers, or scripture readings. While these do convey certain information, they are not necessarily the prime indicators of a worldview. They may change but are not the only means of conveying or reinforcing a worldview.

Social and Communal As important as rituals, rites of passage, and symbols are in transmitting or conveying to adherents the importance of their worldview, there is often more at play. The importance of attending church, synagogue, or mosque; participating in spiritual ceremonies or consumer shopping bargain days; or the glorification of science or reason does not stand simply on their own, as important as these are. Humans are social creatures; they seek support and confirmation for their views of the world and their actions and behaviours as they live out those views, regardless of what those views may be. This does not preclude individuals from living their worldview outside

112 

J. VALK

of a community of support, and as the bonds of community grow weaker, this is increasingly the case, as Robert  Putnam (2000) revealed. But as much as people live individual lives and lives of loneliness, they are seldom completely isolated; even social media can serve as surrogate support communities (Driskell & Lyon, 2002). In general, social networks and communities of whatever kind play a formative and important role in reinforcing certain beliefs, values, and behaviours. The French sociologist Emile Durkheim shed considerable light on the social importance of religions, which he acknowledged served to create solidarity and cohesion. Religious gatherings serve to socialize both younger and older members into some form of community. The same can be said of secular gatherings, which equally serve to enhance social cohesiveness, however tightly or loosely constituted, formally or informally, explicitly or implicitly, and thereby strengthen certain beliefs, values, and behaviours. Monotheism The formation of community is quite apparent in monotheistic traditions. It is clearly evident within Christianity. Churches may be perceived by many as the ornate buildings on streets and street corners, but a church is really the community of people that gathers in those buildings. “Going to church” is less about going to a building on a Sunday morning and more about joining with a group of people in communal worship, devotion, and involvement. Within the Christian tradition, adherents in general worship not in isolation but in community, even if certain meditations and devotions may also be done additionally in solitude. Furthermore, there are also activities that take place in these buildings in addition to communal Sunday worship. Weekly activities such as youth group meetings, catechetical instruction, adult study groups, church dinners, social gatherings, film evenings, support groups, and more serve to bring people together for mutual encouragement. Such a community is also known for emotional, social, educational, and even economic support of its members. All of this serves to strengthen beliefs and values advocated by the entire community, but it also serves to encourage certain actions and behaviours including, for example, matters such as voluntarism (Idler, 2008; Park & Smith, 2000; Regnerus, 2000). Of course, this sense of community is not for everyone. Sometimes it can become too closely knit or too demanding, overbearing, and stifling

3  CULTURAL DIMENSIONS 

113

for some. Sometimes it advocates certain beliefs, values, and behaviours that become contentious and controversial, especially in light of changing social trends. Statistics have clearly indicated that church membership and participation in rites of passage and worship services have decreased in the last half-century. Many younger people no longer see church membership, even life-long membership, as important. They are even less likely to see denominational loyalty as important, a marked difference from their parents or grandparents. Instead they are forming social networks of support in entirely different places. As a result of this shift in demographics, many local churches have amalgamated, downsized, and even closed, most visibly among the larger mainline denominations in North America and Europe, many of which have come to be seen as “greying churches” (Clarke & Macdonald, 2017). Yet, the opposite seems to be the case within the evangelical world where mega-churches are a growing phenomenon. Within these large church bodies, organized smaller groupings serve to create strong social support networks, where individuals are connected to others and a sense of community is developed that remains relatively constant. Through the socialization process community members develop their beliefs in God, meaning and purpose in life, life after this life, and more (Bibby, 2017). One can find a similar phenomenon within Judaism, and within its various communal or national expressions. A particular community may gather for Shabbat (Sabbath worship), Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year), Sukkot (Festival of Booths), Hanukkah (Festival of Lights), the annual Passover Seder, or other communal Jewish festivities and activities that draw family and extended family members together. They similarly serve to support members of the community in different ways but chiefly to reinforce the beliefs and values advocated by the religious tradition (Ochs, 2017; Eisen, 1997; Prell, 1989). Friedmann (2012), for example, makes the case for the social function of synagogue music and  song. Using a Durkheimian approach, he reveals how those who gather to participate in the singing also develop a greater sense of community. Within Islam a similar phenomenon is at play. Daily prayers, communal Friday Prayers, births, marriages and funerals, Ramadan, Eid al-Fitr, hajj, and many more rituals serve as gathering occasions for communities to give support to each other (Curtis, 2017; Valk et al., 2017). Such gatherings and more may take on specific functions and are not all defined by

114 

J. VALK

worship. Some may be more socially focused, as a time for members to gather together to simply socialize. But when this is done exclusively with members of a particular religious community it tends to solidify the beliefs, values, and behaviours of the group. Spiritual Traditions Spiritual traditions experience similar phenomena. In Indigenous communities in North America ceremonies of various sorts will draw members together. But Indigenous people also strengthen community when they gather together for communal meals, powwows, clan meetings, births, funerals, and more. While each of these may have their special focus, they also provide a communal environment that supports, reinforces, and even rejuvenates traditional teachings, beliefs, values, and ways of life (Cajete, 2015). Among the Maori in New Zealand, the marae is a communal gathering place for members of a community. It serves many purposes and functions, but most important “it is the cornerstone of Maori culture … the genealogical and spiritual repository of Maori spirituality as well as a forum for discourse and discussion and centre of teaching and learning” (Wilson, S.-A., 2015, p. 103; Simmons, 1997). In each of the gatherings support is given to the members which in turn reinforces a particular set of Maori beliefs and values and a certain way of life, in essence, a worldview. A Whare Tapere—a Maori social event featuring storytelling, traditional games, meals, theatre, and music—serves the purpose of binding members together to support and reinforce a Maori worldview (Royal, 1998). Within various Eastern religious traditions social gatherings of various sorts also bring community members together to support certain ways of life and certain beliefs and values. Mazumdar and Mazundar (2009) argue that religion’s sacred places “not only express a group’s religious identity, they can also play a significant role in the formation of community” (p.  312), and especially in diaspora communities (Singh, 2006). Sikh gurdwaras, Buddhist wats, and Hindu mandirs, whether in Eastern countries or in diaspora, are not only places of worship but also places of assembly. These directly or indirectly reinforce traditional ways of life linked to essential beliefs and values stemming from the particular religious tradition and then embraced by community members. In this way gender roles, social expectations, morals and ethics, cultural mores, and more all serve

3  CULTURAL DIMENSIONS 

115

to support and reinforce a particular way of being in the world. But it is important also to note that a distinction exists between what a particular religious or spiritual tradition teaches and the cultural expressions of those teachings. These are not necessarily the same and therefore require constant discernment. Those who see these distinctions clearer than others and act on them sometimes face considerable opposition, if not ostracization, within a religious community. Exclusive Humanism While social reinforcement of the beliefs, values, and behaviours of the religious worldviews can be rather apparent, is it possible to also detect similar phenomena at play in the secular worldview traditions? With secular worldviews focused exclusively on the secular realm are there social mechanisms at work that support or reinforce a secular way of looking at the world and acting in it? How do secular communities support younger and older alike in their particular secular beliefs, values, and behaviours? Does a dominant secular society succeed in supporting and reinforcing in its members secular beliefs, values, and ways of life? Important aspects of this are communicated through public educational systems. An educational system conveys to students more than just knowledge and information. It also socializes them into a learning community. Sometimes what is conveyed in this learning community occurs through formal teaching but more often than not it occurs informally or even subtly. In the Western world most schools supported by government funds and operated by government Ministries of Education have become secular or public in the last century or more. These schools were once anchored in and operated by religious institutions, where children were taught religious beliefs, values, and behaviours that accorded with them. That has now all changed. In a former time, the school day would begin with a prayer, but these have now been removed. At most, schools may begin with a moment of silence. Some schools do teach about religion, yet the message is not lost on students that religious rituals and teachings—beliefs, values, and actions—are private matters. As such, the school becomes the handmaiden of a secular worldview. By default, humanist, atheist, scientist, and even rationalist worldviews replace former religious worldviews.

116 

J. VALK

Governments also often become purveyors of secular worldviews. The separation of Church and State, central to many modern democracies and intended to keep two institutional powers apart so that the State would not be seen to enhance nor impede any particular ecclesiastical institution, resolved a lot of tension and turmoil of past eras. But while American presidents are still heard to invoke the words “God bless America”, government business as usual is certainly not free of the influences of other worldview powers and interests. The beliefs and values of the National Rifle Association, for example, exert tremendous influence on American politicians, which in turn have influenced younger and older alike to interpret the Second Amendment of the US Constitution in ways that today results in the kind of carnage that could hardly have been intended, let alone imagined, by the framers of that constitution (Shusterman, 2018; Epps, 2018). The American Humanist Association began by holding annual conferences to engage in philosophical discussions regarding the meaning and implications of a humanist worldview, as an antidote to religious worldviews. But the association has become much more and ironically mimics much of what is done by religious organizations, complete with information, documentation, and resources for Humanism as a worldview. It also promotes the formation of local groups (affiliations and chapters) and lists those currently in existence. These groups engage in social activism and community-building events to enhance Humanism as an alternative to religious worldviews. That this association recognizes the sociological and psychological importance of communal support for maintaining and strengthening the Humanist views of isolated individual members becomes vividly clear in an article written by Joseph Sommer (n.d.) entitled “Purposes of a Local Humanist Chapter” and reprinted on their website. To that end, it lists information, suggestions, and strategies on how to start and maintain a group, the best locations at which to recruit new members, the best places to hold initial meetings, how to make new members feel comfortable, and to remember to bring food, all reminiscent of strategies honed by religious organizations. It is also apparent, however, that secular organizations suffer the same declining memberships that some religious organizations experience. Long-standing community service organizations, such as the Kinsmen Club, Orange Lodge, Lions Club, Rotary Club, Elks, Shriners, Masons, as well as organizations for women such as General Federation of Women’s

3  CULTURAL DIMENSIONS 

117

Clubs, Daughters of the American Revolution, and more, contributed in a similar manner as religious organizations to community endeavours, involving themselves in activities that enhanced community, what some have called “civic engagement”. De Tocqueville noted as early as the 1830s that Americans had a propensity to form associations of various sorts, all of which serve to create a strong democratic country and a strong civil society. Such a civil society and the community service associations that enhanced social capital have, unfortunately, weakened in the past decades. Many now largely consist of retired people, with membership in each of these down significantly since the 1980s and 1990s. There is some increase in membership in organizations such as the Sierra Club but, according to Putnam (1995), these are often only in writing annual membership cheques and reading occasional newsletters. Few, he says, actually attend meetings and actually encounter one another. Their connections or bonding are more to “common symbols, common leaders, and perhaps to common ideas, but not to one another” (p. 71). Green (2016) sees similar patterns surfacing with women’s organizations. While Putnam speaks largely in terms of the American context, similar trends are observable elsewhere. In general, while younger people continue to volunteer in their communities, they seem less interested in membership in any particular organization. What formerly created strong social bonding now seems to be occurring in a different manner and in different contexts, with social media changing the way community is perceived and enhanced. Atheists are one group that tend largely to create community online. The Internet and social media play a large role in creating virtual atheist communities, where discussions proliferate. The glue that holds many atheists together is the criticism of religion and the promotion of reason, empiricism, and naturalism (Smith, 2013; Smith & Cimino, 2012). That sense of community was also generated through two prominent atheist publications, the Free Inquiry and the American Atheist, both of which served as initial “coming out” platforms for many atheists (Cimino & Smith, 2011). The Internet and social media also served to mobilize large gatherings such as the annual World Atheist Conference, the American Atheist Convention, and the 2012 “Reason Rally”, dubbed the “Woodstock for Atheists”, an event that communally bonded thousands of atheists on the National Mall in Washington, DC (Fearon & Woods, 2012).

118 

J. VALK

Consumerism/Capitalism The above indicates that for secular organizations, as for religious and spiritual institutions and organizations, each promoting their particular worldviews, communal and social support is crucial to attain and maintain the loyalty and commitment of adherents. This also becomes important for capitalist and consumerist worldviews. But in what situations or forms do we find social and communal networks supporting and even promoting Capitalism and Consumerism? One example of bonding experiences might be Chambers of Commerce in many cities across the land. Annual shareholder meetings of various corporations might also serve a similar function. While the primary purpose of such gatherings is economic and would involve financial matters, they could also provide a social networking opportunity. Accompanying gatherings, receptions, and dinners might further social and communal support and reinforcement of capitalist beliefs and behaviours (Duggal, 2009). The annual meeting of Berkshire Hathaway, a corporation headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska, becomes a multiday affair that overtakes the city and includes social gatherings. The annual meeting of Hormel Foods Corporation, conducted in a high school auditorium in Austin, Texas, becomes, according to its CEO Jim Snee, “the social event of the year in Austin”. Companies are also known to host annual social events, such as year-end parties or summer barbeques, complete with prizes and awards offered, not only to create a sense of community among employees but more importantly to promote company loyalty. All of this continues to occur in spite of an increasing number of companies who are opting for virtual annual shareholder meetings because of low attendance at such annual meetings (Kennedy, 2017). In the era of COVID-19, virtual social gatherings became a new phenomenon, all to preserve some form of social connectedness. Shopping malls work diligently to promote a welcoming and supporting community for consumers by providing gathering places for socializing and social interaction in the form of shops and food courts (Chaker, 2018; Hopkins, 1991). Some of these gathering places are referred to as a “third place”, a phrase coined by sociologist Ray Oldenberg (1989, 2002)—a place to gather “outside the home and the office” for building community. Starbucks promotes itself as such a community building “third place” (White, 2004). McDonald’s was the first fast-food chain to install play areas that provided excitement for children, while parents or

3  CULTURAL DIMENSIONS 

119

caregivers could gather and socialize. McDonald’s and Tim Hortons provide places for lonely community members to gather and socialize (Arnade, 2016). Apple stores have branded themselves as “town squares”, seeking to “offer more events to create a community around its line of products” (Campbell-Dollaghan, 2017). Sceptics may wonder if such consumer/capitalist endeavours to create social and communal spaces will really succeed in the long term. Nonetheless, their existence testifies to the desire for humans to find such spaces to gather, and they may indeed continue to compete with more traditional “third spaces” such as churches, community libraries, and community associations. Their attraction to date seems to indicate relative success.

CHAPTER 4

Ultimate/Existential Questions

Introduction A YouTube video on the “Introduction to Philosophy” begins with the words “Time to ask questions”. With Scottish musician Annie Lennox singing her hit song “Why” in the background, big questions scroll past on the screen: what happens when I die; why is there poverty in the world; why doesn’t God stop natural disasters; why is there evil in the world; and more. These and others are the big questions of life, the so-called ultimate or existential questions and concerns. They are humanity’s oldest philosophical, religious, and spiritual questions. University of Chicago theologian Paul Tillich (1957) called these our ultimate concerns. He included other questions such as meaning and purpose of life, nature of the human, and what are our responsibilities. James Sire (2004a, 2004b) included other questions: what is real, is there a God, and is there life after this life? Clément Vidal (2008) included yet more questions: where does it all come from; where are we going; what is good and what is evil; what is true and what is false; and more. More questions could be included but they all point to those that are complex and furnish no easy answers. Yet these questions are raised, and they concern everyone in greater or lesser degrees. Nash and Murray (2010) recognized that these questions are also important to students and called these their “quarter-life” questions.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. Valk, Worldviews, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82491-4_4

121

122 

J. VALK

These ultimate questions often come to us at crucial junctures in life— when we are faced suddenly with a crisis: a serious illness, death of a loved one, or even financial ruin. They may also arise when we take time to reflect or think about our place in the larger scheme of things, or in places conducive to deep-thought or reflection: in churches, mosques, synagogues, sweat lodges, or meditation centres. They can also surface when we watch a stimulating film, read a thoughtful book, or engage in deep discussions with others. They are at the forefront of the perplexing question, “Why do bad things happen to good people”, the title of Rabbi Harold Kushner’s (2004) best-selling book. The YouTube video mentioned above ends with the words, “Can religion give us any answers?” Religion has indeed responded to these questions. Theologians and spiritual and religious leaders throughout the ages have struggled to find the right words, expressions, or language to furnish articulate responses to these perplexing questions. Much has been written about them: in books, tomes, encyclicals, and commentaries. Many have followed the writings and teachings of well-known religious leaders past and present and continue to embrace what they have advocated, even if some of the contexts in which they lived and wrote have changed considerably over time. Much of what they have written may not have achieved full consensus, nor been unanimously accepted. Hence the divisions within various religious traditions. Others have also responded to the ultimate questions. Philosophers, novelists, poets, and others of authority or influence have contributed their thoughts and ideas. These responses also vary, if not more so than those of religious leaders. Nonetheless, they also carry certain weight, by both religious and secular people. Sometimes we accept what others have said or written because they do so more eloquently or articulately than we can or could. Sometimes short and brisk answers are given, but mostly responses to these questions require considerable elaboration in order to gain greater depth and clarity. Nonetheless, the questions remain and resurface, for each generation deals with them anew. Ultimate questions presuppose as well as generate beliefs of some kind. Responses to these questions come from somewhere but they may not initially be well developed. The further one journeys with them, however, the more pronounced the responses may become. Yet, they are seldom final, for every new generation, experience, or insight lends itself to

4  ULTIMATE/EXISTENTIAL QUESTIONS 

123

further perceptions and discernments, and often to even further questions, for final or definitive answers escape the human condition. Ultimate questions also lead to faith statements. These are accepted on faith for we never have absolute certainty that our responses to the ultimate questions are ultimately the case. Responses to ultimate questions reveal what we believe or hope to be true; we have faith that what they say or claim is indeed the case. But we can never know with absolute certainty, even if we use our reason to gain as much understanding as possible about that which we believe. Faith is something we invoke when all others means of establishing something as true is exhausted. Faith is not irrational as much as it is non-rational; that is, it is beyond the rational; it is not something embraced without some rational justifications. But at a certain juncture even reason is exhausted. Reason cannot reason everything out. Reason has its limitations. At that point faith takes over, and for the religious and spiritually minded, that faith may be in divine revelation as the last court of appeal. Humans place faith in beliefs they hold to be true, even if they cannot “prove” with absolute certainty that something or some being exists or not. Humans have faith because ultimate or absolute certainty escapes them. This holds for those who embrace secular worldviews as much as it does for those who hold religious worldviews. They all involve a faith of some kind. Some argue that faith is blind faith. But faith itself is not by nature blind. People who affirm traditional religious beliefs, or conversely deny these beliefs, do so often based on particular personal experiences or for their own personal and sometimes very profound reasons. Faith does not presuppose that one has not thought and reasoned about complex matters. A lot of reasoning, thought, and contemplation may have gone into a person’s affirmation or denial of, for example, the existence of God. But neither science, reason nor faith can establish the existence or non-­ existence of God. It can only be eventually accepted or rejected on faith. Blind faith is that which accepts premises without engaging in thinking about them. There are those on both sides of the religious/secular divide who simply accept beliefs without thinking. There are people who have faith in something or some being, God, for example, without ever questioning that belief. But this holds also for those who reject a belief in God without ever giving this much thought. It also holds true for a belief that only money, success, and fame count. This chapter will focus on six ultimate or existential questions: the meaning and purpose of life; the nature of the human; notions of right and

124 

J. VALK

wrong; issues of responsibilities and obligations; beliefs in a higher power, being, or force; and concerns about an afterlife. The questions are largely philosophical and theological in nature. These questions have generated numerous responses throughout the ages, and continue to be a challenge today, regardless of the situations or circumstances in which people find themselves. Responses given to these large questions become beliefs held in greater or lesser degrees of intensity by individuals and groups of individuals. So often we live out of those beliefs, consciously or unconsciously. In what follows, a number of worldview perspectives will be highlighted in regard to the responses they give to these questions. The responses will not be exhaustive but will be general and representative of those worldviews. Each will also be challenged by certain unanswered questions. Each section will end with questions that remain; questions that will continue to challenge us as we deepen our thoughts and ideas about them.

Meaning/Purpose of Life Albert Camus (1955) concluded that “the meaning of life is the most urgent of questions” (p. i). While not everyone may be inclined to regard it as so urgent, it is nonetheless a question that demands our attention from time to time. It is linked to so many aspects of human thought and behaviour, from the most desperate of situations concerning life and death to even the most mundane matters concerning daily routines. What is it that gives meaning and purpose to what we think and do? Humans are “meaning makers”, says Sharon Parks (1991, 2011). We need and desperately want to make sense of our world. In fact, to be human is to want to make sense of things, to be oriented to one’s surroundings, and to seek to understand the fitting connections between things in life—to compose a sense of the ultimate character of reality. Since life can be difficult, and full of suffering, pain, and evil, how do we make sense of these things? How do we make sense of what we often experience as meaningless (Pihlström, 2007)? George Steiner (1999) says that we seek “real presences: transcendent instances of value and meaning, impervious to both the ravages of time and the seductive blandness of fashion” (p.  8). According to Nash and Murray (2010), meaning helps to make sense of what can otherwise seem like chaos around us: “what is human to all of us is our universal quest for meaning and purpose” (pp. xxx).

4  ULTIMATE/EXISTENTIAL QUESTIONS 

125

The question of the meaning of life can imply a variety of concerns. It can be a question regarding why the universe exists, that is, why there is something rather than nothing. It can be a question about human life, whether there is some purpose for human existence in general but also that of individual existence in particular, that is, both why we exist and why I exist. It can be a question that concerns the meaning of suffering, death, or evil; why do these exist? All of these, and more, can be contained in that larger question of the meaning of life. Different approaches or perspectives render different responses to these meaning questions. Meaning is linked to worldviews. According to Nash and Murray (2010), “meaning is all about those interpretations, narrative frameworks, philosophical rationales and perspectives, and faith and belief systems that each of us brings to the various worlds in which we live, love, learn, work and worship” (p. xx). But what do the various worldviews say about the big question, “What is meaningful/purposeful in life?” Monotheism It is with the monotheistic worldviews that a sense of ultimate meaning and purpose receives clear affirmation. This is linked to a belief in a greater universal being or force (God), who through creative powers fashioned a universe with intrinsic meaning and purpose. That larger inherent meaning and purpose exists in addition to or apart from that which humans individually or collectively bring to it. Ultimate meaning and purpose exist because of the creative acts of God in fashioning the universe: the universe is here not by accident but by purpose (Collins, F., 2006). It has objective meaning because it exists, even if humans may not fully comprehend the scheme of cosmic meaning and purpose. Monotheistic worldviews begin generally with a notion that meaning and purpose have to do with gaining a closer knowledge, understanding, and relationship with God. Desmond Tutu, former S.  African Anglican Archbishop, states that meaning and purpose of life are to “Give God glory by reflecting his beauty and his love”, which is to be done through human actions in this world (Friend, 1991). As mentioned earlier, Irenaeus declared that “the glory of God is the human fully alive”, which not only raises the question of what it means to be fully alive, but also opens up vast opportunities for positive human thought and action. As such, meaning and purpose reside in unfolding the creative potential that lies within each unique human, giving artful expression to the divine and the human,

126 

J. VALK

unleashing creative energies, striving for peace and restoring justice, nurturing loving relationships, seeking equality, appreciating the beauty around us, establishing harmony with the earth, in acting locally but thinking globally, and in being stewards of the earth and the resources contained in it. In essence, meaning and purpose reside in living well, in the complex and varied dimensions of human and earthly life (Valk, 2012; Eagleton, 2007; Gottlieb, 2006; McFague, 2000; Wolterstorff, 1987). Some of these meanings and purposes may resonate with those of other worldview positions but the clear link to God is what differentiates them from existentialists, atheists, and agnostics. Christianity in particular links human becoming to the divine purpose. Thomas Hobbes’ (2010) frequently quoted pithy phrase that “life is nasty, brutish and short” appears to convey a rather pessimistic view of the meaning or consequence of life (p. XIII, 9). But Hobbes (2009) uttered this rather terse statement in regard to life as it might be in the raw state of nature or in war. A strong believer in legitimate government, he feared people might resort to brutish behaviour and do whatever pleased them without the constraints of governing bodies, ultimately leading to a “war of all against all” (p. 72). A sceptical theist, Hobbes nonetheless affirmed a belief in God and hence a sense of some greater purpose, even if his beliefs were considered rather unorthodox by some (Duncan, 2013). Islam similarly states that the meaning of life is linked directly to a belief in the existence of God: the purpose of life is to know Allah as humans know themselves. For Muslims, the purpose of the creation of life and of death is to see people do beautiful, purposeful, and beneficial things: to strive towards the good that is in all that exists. Human life was created so that in their actions, humans can focus on that which is good (Valk et al., 2017). Meaning of life questions in Judaism are similarly linked to a belief in the existence of the Divine. According to Buber (1970), this is an “inexpressible confirmation of meaning. It is guaranteed. Nothing, nothing can henceforth be meaningless” (p. 158). Meaning is derived from the Divine-­ human encounter, whether the Divine is at times perceived to be felt near or far. But even more so, according to Emil Fackenheim, meaning is derived from Divine commands to the human as a human and human responses to the Divine: “Man must remain human because in commanding him as human, God accepts him in his humanity, and makes him responsible in his very presence” (Klemke & Cahn, 2018, p. 24). Humans must also be capable of deriving meaning from such a command-response

4  ULTIMATE/EXISTENTIAL QUESTIONS 

127

encounter with the Divine. Therein lies meaning with the Divine, a Divine essence that is not deistic, leaving humans to sort things out for themselves, but one that encounters the human through a mutual covenantal relationship. As any study of the biblical history of the Jewish people soon reveals, however, it is humans that have often broken that covenantal relationship. But this does not render the covenantal relationship broken, and hence further meaning is derived from the realization that Divine love “has made the covenant indestructible” (Klemke & Cahn, 2018, p. 25). Yet Jews, Christians, and Muslims realize that questions nonetheless abound. We inhabit a vast universe; whose boundaries are almost incomprehensible. The question of an objective meaning and purpose of such a vast and what might be considered a superfluous universe, with humans occupying only a miniscule corner of it, does raise questions. Is the assumption of universal meaning focused on the Divine-human encounter too anthropocentric? Why such an expansive universe, one too vast for humans to comprehend fully, let alone discover? What about the possibility of sentient life elsewhere in the universe? Will meaning and purpose be the same for it? These questions beg for further theological responses, and increasingly so in light of new cosmological discoveries. Spiritual Traditions Spiritual worldviews deviate from monotheistic worldviews in general when they assert that meaning and purpose are linked to some spiritual essence that exists and has being beyond the human yet is not readily linked specifically to a monotheistic God. Various spiritual traditions speak less of a transcendent God and more of a universal force, power, or being, which may or may not be regarded as creator and sustainer of life yet is a spiritual essence. That spiritual essence is regarded as immanent yet also transcendent, pervades all of life, and gives it meaning and purpose. Human purpose from the perspective of these spiritual traditions is to connect with that force, power, or being so as to seek enlightenment. Worldview traditions such as Taoism are less inclined to speak of a creator yet indicate purpose and meaning as achieving balance and harmony with all living things, which is often referred to as the Tao (Lao Tzo, 1990). Buddhism insists that meaning or, rather, happiness, fulfilment, and contentment are attained through the Four Noble Truths. Overcoming human desire for earthly things that lead to suffering and then striving to

128 

J. VALK

live a truly good and moral life free of hatred, anger, intolerance, pride, greed, and more give true meaning to life (Gowens, 2003). Indigenous Peoples speak of meaning and purpose as linked to honouring the Creator, becoming spiritually connected to all living things, and walking gently on the earth so as to leave a small footprint (Suzuki, 1997; Suzuki & Knudtson, 2006). This is succinctly captured in the Native “Ten Commandments”, analogous to that of the Judeo-Christian Ten Commandments. For the Wolastoqey First Nation People of Canada, meaning is derived through the connectedness of all things, and purpose is to “grow in wisdom and knowledge and to live in harmony with all of creation” (Valk, 2009, p. 280). Exclusive Humanism While monotheistic and spiritual worldviews also link meaning and purpose to life in the here and now, secular worldviews make that link exclusive, explicit, and unequivocal. Meaning and purpose for Secular Humanism, according to Taylor (2007), are solely focused on this world and this age; there are “no final goals beyond human flourishing, nor any allegiances to anything else beyond this flourishing” (p. 18). Humanists find meaning in relationships and in making this world a better place, striving for “a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence” (Humanist Manifesto III). Some humanists may admit to some religious inclinations and even form institutional churches such as the Unitarian/Universalist Church. Yet, humanists in general make it quite clear that their philosophy of life—meaning and purpose—excludes theistic and other supernatural beliefs (Kurtz, 2000). Some responses to the question of meaning and purpose can be captured in rather brief and terse statements, exposing certain identifiable worldviews. The terse statements of philosophers such as Sartre and Santayana reveal clear secular, atheist worldviews. Sartre held that humans are alone in a universe that has no external source providing direction or purpose. An existentialist, he denied the existence of a God who provided ultimate meaning. Meaninglessness ultimately prevails, he stated: “it is meaningless that we are born; it is meaningless that we die” (Baird, 1985, p. 117). Life had no a priori meaning according to Sartre. As such, humans are now free to create their own meaning in life. With that freedom, however, comes a burden—they are now ultimately responsible for everything

4  ULTIMATE/EXISTENTIAL QUESTIONS 

129

they do. Human are “condemned to be free” in that sense (Sartre, 1969, p.  677) and must live with the rather helpless recognition that “every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs life out of weakness, and dies by chance” (Sartre, 1965, 25, II). George Santayana (1922), a Spanish philosopher, poet, and novelist, held similar views: “there is no cure for birth and death save to enjoy the interval” (p. 97). Humans must create their own meanings and purposes and make their journey through this life as pleasant as possible. Santayana comes to this understanding by way of a philosophical naturalism or materialism rather than the existentialism of one such as Sartre. He similarly rejected any belief in God as existentially real and one who gives meaning and purpose to life. His atheism is “like that of Spinoza, is true piety towards the universe and denies only gods fashioned by men in their own image, to be servants of their human interests” (p.  243). Religion held values for Santayana but only in its “imaginative compensatory construction”: “in its poetry, in the breadth and bearing it gives to life, in the vistas it opens, and the new directions in which it points” (Ratner, 1923, p. 460). Viktor Frankl adhered neither to the atheism of Santayana nor to the existentialism of Sartre. Humans, he felt, did not simply have to endure the objective meaninglessness of life, a sentiment often expressed by existentialists. Rather, humans can create subjective meaning, by making the best of the harsh realities in which they find themselves, convictions he came by largely from experiences in a concentration camp. Frankl (2006) recognized that there “are forces we cannot control that can take everything away from us, except one thing: your freedom to choose how you will respond to the situation” (p. 66). For him “the meaning of life is to help others find the meaning of theirs” (p. 165). Further, he could affirm some greater purpose even if he believed that it surpassed human capacity to comprehend it rationally: humans long for an ultimate meaning. He spoke of a “Supermeaning”, as something that could parallel a “Superbeing, something that could be called God” (Scully, 1995). Frankl seems to hint at a deistic worldview. Consumerism/Capitalism Meaning and purpose in worldviews such as Capitalism and Consumerism often appear rather straightforward for many people: the pursuit of wealth, material goods, and services. These are seen as the highest good and that which gives meaning and purpose to life. According to O’Leary (2011),

130 

J. VALK

Capitalism is a means to gain wealth, power, influence, and even freedom and independence. For him, it becomes life’s most important pursuit. Without doubt, the meaning and purpose of these worldviews have seized the Western world and now are rapidly spilling over into non-Western worlds in the form of a global Capitalism and Consumerism. Adam Smith recognized the value of Capitalism, indicating that the free exchange of goods and services could create economic opportunity for everyone. Individuals pursuing their own interest would create prosperity and wealth opportunities for everyone, more so than benevolence and charitable acts. Therein, according to Smith, lay Capitalism’s meaning and purpose: It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. (Smith, 1904, p. 1:2:1)

Many others recognize the same meaning and purpose in Capitalism. According to Catholic theologian Michael Novak (2004), the business corporation creates new wealth and new jobs: “it is the main creator of wealth that makes the works of civil society achievable” (2004). No other institution is able to match what it does—provide career opportunities, job training, pensions, health care, even friendships, according to Novak. Saunders (2007) and Younkins (2007) feel that Capitalism is both good for the soul and the only moral system, in that it gives opportunity for individual freedom of choice, movement, and expression in ways that no other system can. Again, herein lies its meaning and purpose, according to its proponents. Bumper stickers often depict Consumerism’s meaning and purpose rather succinctly—“he who dies with the most toys wins”—and the phrase “keeping up with the Jones” is well known to everyone. But it is also affective, and the accumulation of the latest consumer goods occupies the time, energy, and money of many, with particular days in North America now designated specifically to what has become consumer “holy days”—Boxing Day, Black Friday, and Cyber Monday. These events impact both rich and poor alike, even if they affect each differently: “the poor, driven by discontent and envy, may be as consumed by what they do not have as the rich are consumed by what they do have … it is living in a manner that is measured by having rather than being” (Neuhaus, 1992, pp. 52–53).

4  ULTIMATE/EXISTENTIAL QUESTIONS 

131

Nonetheless, meaning and purpose can take different routes. While overconsumption can be problematic few wish to do without the goods and services on offer today. According to Saunders (2007), even the harshest critics of Consumerism consume its latest products and appear happy to do so. Production also spurs further developments in fields such as transportation, communication, and healthcare. For Consumerism meaning and purpose can entail a variety of things and take a number of different directions. All of this leaves us individually and collectively to reflect on meaning and purpose regarding various life views and orientations connected to them. It also leaves us to ponder on meaning and purpose regarding the views we embrace individually or collectively and how we live accordingly. Meaning and purpose is what we individually or collectively understand it to be, whether it is something we believe is writ large within the greater universe and in which we participate by what we do, or whether it is something each individual produces only by their individual or collective actions. No scientific or rational proof exists that will ultimately establish objective or even subjective meaning and purpose. It is what we individually or collectively understand and believe it to be.

Nature of the Human: Who/What Am I/We? The question why there is something rather than nothing has been posed by philosophers, theologians, and scientists alike for centuries. That question pertains to the universe in general, but it can equally apply to humans. Why are we here; why do we exist—individually and collectively? Are we a cosmic accident, an evolutionary fluke that would not occur again within the universe? If cosmic history was played over again, would humans likely appear again? In other words, are we here by randomness and chance? Or, did the universe know we were coming? Is the universe so finely tuned and programmed that humans are the inevitable and purposeful outcome of a long evolutionary process that, in spite of a number of dramatic twists and turns, arrived as planned? These questions stimulate reflection and lead to different and even opposing worldview responses. The question of what constitutes the human is becoming increasingly important today. According to Ray Kurzweil (2000), “the primary political and philosophical issue of the next century will be the definition of who we are” (p. 8). But what and who are we? What distinguishes humans from other creatures? Modernism stressed the importance of reason as the

132 

J. VALK

distinguishing feature of humans—Descartes’ famous cogito ergo sum. No doubt reason is an important, if not a crucial, feature of the human, but did Descartes’ famous dictum not lead to reducing the human to a rational essence? Steven Reiss (2002) in asking the basic question “Who am I?” devises sixteen basic human desires that motivate people’s actions. True, humans have many desires, but does he reduce what is uniquely human to a number of basic desires? Psychology has devised numerous personality tests to determine distinct personality traits and characteristics. These are all very helpful, but do personality traits and characteristics define the human? Neuroscience is examining the biological functioning of the brain, and we are gaining great insights in that process. But does it tend towards a biological reduction of the human? Medical technology is rapidly advancing the ability to replicate or redesign the human. This comes not only with fear and trepidation but also with the question, What kind of human should we design, or redesign? To what kind of model of the human will we aspire? For these reasons and more our understanding or conception of the human becomes imperative; the question “who are we?” is not trite. Various worldviews offer different versions of what constitutes the human and thinking about these responses, and their implications, becomes an important matter, for much is at stake. This section will explore some of them. Monotheism The opening narrative in the Hebrew Scriptures contains the grounding story for the three monotheistic worldviews. It speaks of humans as spiritual/physical entities brought into earthly existence through the creative endeavours of a loving God whose image they bear (Gen, 1:26). They are part of a larger cosmic story. How the universe came into existence is the story of science, which continually investigates the evolutionary history of the universe, the earth, and all things in it (McFague, 1993; Marshall, 1998). That it came into existence in whatever manner is due to a creative act of God. What it means to be created in the image of God (imago dei) has preoccupied theologians and philosophers for centuries. While it may have been argued by some in the past that human physical form or shape is related to the image of God, this interpretation is largely rejected today. Other interpretations, however, are given more serious consideration and they include the following: the ability to think, reason, and create; a sense of

4  ULTIMATE/EXISTENTIAL QUESTIONS 

133

self-determination, personality, and self-consciousness; a capacity for relationships and moral decision-making; an awareness of eternity; a jurisdiction over all other creatures; a soul; and more (Smith, 2011; Clines, 1968; Berkouwer, 1962). While these interpretations do vary, it can be concluded that from a monotheistic perspective, all humans image God regardless of their physical form, their race, colour, gender, rational abilities, and moral capabilities. Also, regardless of what they do or what they have done they do not stop being image-bearers. Further, image-bearing is related to having stewardship responsibilities over all living and non-­ living things: humans are to be “earth-keepers” (Bouma-Prediger, 2010; Gottlieb, 2006; Berry, 1988). The nature of the human from the monotheistic perspective is that they individually and collectively are relational beings: with God, with all other humans, and with the earth. They are related to God not so much ontologically as existentially: “it comes to expression not in the nature of humans so much as in their activity and function” (Clines, 1968, p. 101). The earth is the place of human activity and humans are to enjoy life and living on the earth that is their habitation, even though they will often struggle with pain and hardship (Valk, 2013). Through individual and communal activity, humans are to provide for themselves and others. They are to nurture, guide, and direct the unfolding of their creativity and potential, for the benefit of all and the protection of the earth. They are to increase the common good and enhance relationships with each other; the human is the subject of all activity: not money, prestige, or material things (John Paul II, 1981). Becoming fully human lies in the individual and collective unfolding of human co-creative capacity and potential. As image-bearer of the Creator, the human is sacred; special among all creatures and created life. As image-bearers all humans are to be treated with dignity and respect, regardless of their situation, circumstance, or station in life. Humans are not to be sacrificed, exploited, or manipulated for purposes of personal, national, or even international prestige, gain, or whim. Protecting the most vulnerable, giving a “hand up rather than a handout”, dignifying the physically or cognitively challenged, and not allowing even the most hardened criminals to languish in prisons reflect the view that even the least are still image-bearers of the Creator. The monotheistic traditions recognize, however, that people do not always live well. They are social creatures, dependent on one another for their livelihood (Smith, 2011). Yet, it is within the nature of the human to be prone to thoughts, behaviours, and actions that result often in death

134 

J. VALK

and destruction—of their fellow humans, of other creatures, and of the environment on which they are dependent for their existence. Hubris, greed, and power-lust lie in the heart of every person in greater or lesser degrees. This leads all too often to dominating or exploiting others or the earth for personal gain, a constant theme in the story of human history. Such activity can be held in check, though not eliminated, through good government and self-control, even social control, for humans have the capacity to rule themselves. Feuerbach asserted that the monotheistic idea of God is merely a projection of the ideal human. Monotheistic traditions reject such a notion. Nonetheless, monotheism is challenged by the fact that all language about God, including language regarding the belief that humans are created in the image of God, is essentially human language. We can only articulate in terms with which we are familiar that which cannot be fully comprehended—that which is beyond human words to fully grasp and understand. Postmodernists have become acutely aware of this, perhaps more so than others. As such monotheists are continually challenged in their understanding of what it means fundamentally to be created in the image of God, and they are challenged to find the right language to make this comprehensive for theists and non-theists alike. Spiritual Traditions The monotheistic story stands in contrast to other narratives of other ancient and even modern spiritual traditions regarding the nature of the human—but sometimes only in degrees. From Indigenous and modern spiritual traditions, in particular, emerge stories of humans as creatures of the earth connected to a greater power or force. That power or force is understood largely as immanent, not specifically as something transcendent and monotheistic. Humans are ultimately and collectively connected to this immanent power or force, often referred to in a number of differing ways: Creator, Gaia, Life Force, or Energy. When that life force is more specifically referred to as Mother Earth, it is explicitly recognized and acknowledged that humans are directly dependent on the earth for nourishment, sustenance, and survival. From this perspective, humans are also sacred creatures but not because they stand in any dominance or hierarchical order over other creatures or the earth. Their uniqueness comes by way of their particular skills and abilities—the advanced powers of reason, thought, and self-reflection.

4  ULTIMATE/EXISTENTIAL QUESTIONS 

135

They are creatures of the earth seeking spiritual enlightenment. Yet, their specialness is not to be construed as an anthropocentric supremacy over or in competition with a biocentric environment. Humans are to live in harmony with the biosphere for they are dependent for survival and flourishing on the flora and fauna of the earth to a more heightened degree than all other creatures. Human and non-human life, therefore, are to be treated with care and concern, for all things hang in a “sacred balance” (Suzuki, 1997). Spiritual traditions assert a spiritual connection to all things, but the nature of this connection is not always clear. It also raises numerous questions. What is the continuity or discontinuity? What spiritually distinguishes humans from all other living entities? What is uniquely human? Further, what is the human connection to that higher power or force that gives life to all things, a connection different than that experienced by all other living matter. Perhaps this is the monotheistic challenge to spiritual traditions. Exclusive Humanism Religious worldviews, monotheistic or otherwise, recognize that humans are connected to one another, to other life forms, and to some larger divine life force or being that spiritually links them all: humans are essentially religious or spiritual beings. Secular worldviews, on the other hand, reject, deny, or minimize this essential nature of the human, and especially the link to a divine force or being. From this worldview perspective, humans regard themselves as the most highly developed of all other creatures with which they share the earth. Humans are products of a long, though random, evolutionary process; infinitesimally small beings dwarfed by the enormous magnitude of the universe. They are wonderfully and complexly made, if not miraculously so, through the process of natural selection, which has given to them enhanced powers of reason and self-­ reflection, and advanced social organization and survival skills. Humans are biological, social, cultural, and intelligent beings, autonomous yet alone in the known universe. As autonomous beings, humans determine their own future. There is no being or entity greater than themselves to which they are responsible: they are answerable only to themselves. Humans are the highest on a long evolutionary chain of development, of which the end goal or point is largely unknown.

136 

J. VALK

As autonomous and independent as they are, humans are nonetheless essentially material beings. In other words, they are very sophisticated evolved “stuff” of the earth, ultimately reducible to physical, chemical, and biological properties. Consciousness and self-reflection, unique to the human, is largely understood from this perspective to be essentially a matter of biological brain functioning: “it’s all biology” (Searle, 1990, 2013). For this reason, much effort is being devoted today to neurological research, on the assumption that “we are our brains” (Swaab, 2014). Human free will from this perspective is not a divine gift but reduced to biology and brain functioning (Harris, 2012). So are religion and human values. From this perspective both are products of human evolution, explainable by actions in the brain, and can be uncovered by the workings of science (Wilson, 2012; Harris, 2011; Hamer, 2004). Neither do these views conflict with rational choice theory, which accepts the biological, psychological, and sociological origins of behaviour, yet argues that individuals will make the most logical choice for “maximizing their benefits and minimizing their costs”, whether in economic, criminal, or other actions. What it means to be human is also at times reduced to other factors or characteristics. Humans indeed have chemical, biological, and physical features, but so do animals. Animals also have brains. As is argued by some today, they can also engage in some rational thought processes, able to make choices between alternatives. They have memories, and even some very long-term ones, as has been displayed by elephants. We know that some animals are also social creatures, staying within social groupings. Hence, the line between humans and animals has been shifting as more is discovered about the characteristics of animals. While the uniqueness of the human is recognized as a cosmic wonder, it still remains a cosmic accident. Humans develop their potential and meaning through the socialization process and make life more enriching for self and others. Ultimate cosmic freedom is theirs to embrace, albeit as cosmic orphans. Consumerism/Capitalism Humans may indeed utilize rational choices, be self-conscious and self-­ reflective beings, but from the perspective of Consumerism and Capitalism what really defines the human is that they are wealth-generators; beings who seek prosperity, freedom, and new possibilities. Advocates of

4  ULTIMATE/EXISTENTIAL QUESTIONS 

137

Capitalism argue that creativity, enterprise, and ingenuity comprise essential aspects or characteristics of human nature (Wehner & Brooks, 2010). This worldview perspective asserts that humans by nature are driven by self-interest and seek to improve their condition. Pursuing a natural tendency to enhance our own good can also lead to advancing the common good, and to a more prosperous and humane society. Generating individual wealth can lead to the distribution of wealth (Wehner & Brooks, 2010). Adam Smith recognized that self-interest was a dominant feature of human nature, which led to entrepreneurial activity. Yet he believed that self-interest needed certain harnessing parameters—certain rules and boundaries—in order to lead to a more prosperous and humane society. The generation of wealth itself was not a means to develop community; it could not be an end in itself (Weinstein, 2013). Some of Capitalism’s proponents view human nature in ways similar to that of the monotheistic worldviews: humans are capable of the greatest good but also of the greatest wrongdoing. There is recognition that what has long been regarded as human vices or failings has a way of being transformed into economic virtues and benefits, and seen as economic drivers: covetousness becomes ambition; envy converts into competitiveness; gluttony is a natural desire for more; temptation is good for economic growth and consumer confidence (Seabrook, 2009). While these may generate some wealth, they can also create individual or social problems. As such, human nature needs constraints, as Adam Smith recognized. Capitalism is dependent on political and social institutions such as government, education, religion, and the family to harness its excesses so that human progress can ensue (Novak, 2004; Wehner & Brooks, 2010). Consumerism regards humans largely as clients or consumers. The retail world is intended to enhance the freedom and creativity of humans as consumptive beings. Human value and prestige increase with the degree and extent of consumption and human culture increasingly becomes associated with consumption (McCracken, 1988). While the human as self-­ indulgent was once regarded sinful, this is no longer the case. In fact, it may now be actively encouraged; as McDonald’s “you deserve a break today” puts it (Ritzer, 2000). The notion of the human as consumer and client is increasingly assumed in places other than the world of shopping malls. One finds it in higher education where students are now sometimes regarded as consumers, with education a consumer “product” and a consumable item. According to Bok (2004), universities find themselves challenged to deliver a product to

138 

J. VALK

the satisfaction of the client, and at competitive prices. One finds it also in religion, where religious beliefs become consumable items, with the religious person “church hopping” for a place of worship that best suits individual needs and desires. While the religious consumer may still be a “sinner”, how those sins will be dealt with will now be determined by the consumer. Church authorities failing to embrace this new reality risk “going out of business”, that is, facing declining membership and increased costs, failing to retain or increase their “market share”, as is the case of some mainline churches (Bibby, 2017). While the Consumerist and Capitalist worldviews view the human more in terms of a client, it has also changed the perception of living a meaningful and fulfilling life. For some this may focus entirely or exclusively on material prosperity as the route to human freedom. For others the material goods and services now available to an increasing number of people have increased a view of the human that regards these as important; humans do strive to improve their situation, economically and otherwise. Whether the generation of material wealth ultimately satisfies the longings of the human soul and brings ultimate peace and rest will be determined by individuals and groups of individuals, but it is now clear that the Capitalist and Consumerist worldviews provide considerable competition. As seen from this section, who we are as humans varies widely according to different worldview perspectives: from humans created in the image of God, to humans as integrally and spiritually connected to all living things, to autonomous, rational, self-conscious, and self-reflective beings highest on the evolutionary chain, to wealth generators and consumers. Each perspective stresses a different aspect, grounded in a particular but larger view of life. What influence might they have on one’s sense of responsibility and obligations?

Responsibilities/Obligations According to Smith (2003), humans are social creatures who form communities large and small that bind individuals together. People gain much in the form of benefits and securities from membership in those communities, some of which may go underappreciated or even unrecognized. Membership in our human communities also comes with responsibilities and obligations. We take much from these communities, but at certain points we are also obliged to give back. Citizenship comes with

4  ULTIMATE/EXISTENTIAL QUESTIONS 

139

responsibilities, exercised at a variety of levels, by which people can make their communities, and by extension the world, a better place in which to live. Humans are also earth creatures, one among a vast array of flora and fauna that inhabit the earth. Our being and livelihood are intimately dependent on the survival and well-being of the earth and all in it. Our rational and technological prowess has created potential for great advancements for people worldwide, but it has also created the possibility for dominance and exploitation. As such, we bear added responsibility as specially gifted among all other creatures of the earth. Commonalities can be found among various worldviews regarding human responsibilities and obligations. Yet, each in its own way stresses how those responsibilities and obligations must be exercised in regard to care and concern for others and the earth. These can be gleaned from sacred writings, narratives, and even manifestos. The so-called Golden Rule, universally understood and acknowledged, reveals that people are indeed their “brother’s keeper”. But agreement as to how it is to be understood and to whom it all applies differs from worldview to worldview, if not from nation to nation and culture to culture. Monotheism The monotheistic worldviews speak of humans being ultimately responsible to a higher power or being. It is to God that humans owe their ultimate allegiance; it is to God that they are ultimately answerable for their thoughts and actions. As creatures brought into existence by a Creator God, it is to God that they are ultimately responsible for the life that they have been given. This was made clear by the Hebrew prophets who in no uncertain terms stated that God would judge the people of ancient Israel in terms of their neglect and disregard of divine directives. Behaviours resulting from arrogance, greed, self-indulgence, and decadence would not go unnoticed. The nation of Israel was also obliged to care for the most vulnerable among them. In all their dealings, they were to “act justly, love mercy and walk humbly with their God” (Micah 6:8). Indeed, to be human according to the monotheistic worldview traditions entails responsibilities and obligations: to God, to fellow humans, and to the earth. Humans are to do something with their lives, and this necessitates unfolding responsibilities and obligations.

140 

J. VALK

In our modern societies, responsible action according to monotheistic traditions means giving priority to humans and the earth (Berry, 1993). Corporate and entrepreneurial success and profitability are not to be denied or shunned but they do come with an obligation to treat those in the workplace in a fair and just manner and to treat the earth with care and caution. Humans are not to be sacrificed on the altar of corporate efficiency or expediency, nor are they to be treated merely as a commodity or a cost. The earth is not to be despoiled, desecrated, and ravaged for the insatiable appetites of the enriched few or the consumptive middle class (Bethke Elshtain, 2004). In essence, responsible human action entails leaving a softer footprint on the earth, by striking a sustainable balance between human activity and nature’s needs. Fellow humans are to be treated with dignity and respect, especially the most vulnerable, from foetal life to palliative care. Humans are obliged to strive for equality and fairness between genders and generations, communities and cultures, ensuring just relationships, seeking openness and opportunity, and sacrificing so all have according to their needs. Those embracing a monotheistic worldview may sometimes find themselves obliged to go against the grain of powerful social, economic, and political forces so that justice is done. William Wilberforce felt a responsibility to those who were enslaved and argued vehemently against those in the British Parliament who felt the Empire could not survive without slavery (Belmonte, 2002). Dorothy Day battled against established economic powers to help establish the Catholic Worker Movement as a way to assist the poor and homeless of her day (Day, 1996, 2017). Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1997), a German theologian living in New York, returned to his homeland in an attempt to halt the Nazi reign of terror and sacrificed his life in doing so. Tommy Douglas argued that one’s wealth should not determine the extent to which one can access healthcare and battled those with parliamentary power who felt that the economy could not sustain universal Medicare (McLeod & McLeod, 2004). Martin Luther King Jr. dreamed of a better way of life and marched for the freedom of fellow African Americans and also sacrificed his life doing so (Lischer, 1995). These Christians acted out of a sense of responsibility and obligation towards their fellow humans so justice could be done, sometimes at great personal risk and with some paying the ultimate price for doing so. Within the Islamic world there are numerous examples of struggles for justice, especially for Muslim women. Amina Wadud, an African American woman who shocked the Islamic world when she led a mixed-gender

4  ULTIMATE/EXISTENTIAL QUESTIONS 

141

Friday prayer in New York, struggled not only for racial justice but also for gender equality in Islam (Wadud, 2006). Nadia Murad, a Yazidi refugee from Iraq, worked with human rights lawyer Amal Clooney to bring the Islamic State to justice. She was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for her endeavours (Murad, 2018; Quest, 2017). Malala Yousafzai, who survived a brutal shooting by the Taliban, became a human rights activist, and especially for the education of women and children in her home country of Pakistan. She too was awarded a Nobel Prize (Yousafzai, 2013). Azza Basarudin interviewed numerous Sunni Muslim women activists and scholars in Malaysia. She fought against religious authoritarianism, reinterpreted classical Islamic doctrine, and struggled to develop a feminist interpretation of the meaning of community grounded in Islamic teachings (Basarudin, 2016). All of these Muslim women acted out of a sense of responsibility and obligation to self and others to seek justice and equality. Within the Jewish world there were also numerous individuals whose sense of responsibility and obligation encouraged them to struggle for justice. Two in particular come to mind. Elie Wiesel, a Noble Prize laureate, writer, and later university professor, wrote of his experiences in Nazi concentration camps in a book entitled Night. As a camp survivor, he felt a particular obligation to teach the world about the meaning and legacy of the Holocaust, and especially the consequences of denigrating humans so it would be easy to eliminate them. As difficult as his experiences were in Auschwitz, Wiesel (2006) connected his responsibilities and obligations to a higher power and indicated that in spite of the horrors he witnessed he could not bring himself to reject a belief in God. Simon Wiesenthal, founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Foundation, was a tireless crusader for bringing to justice those responsible for the atrocities of the Holocaust. He documented the war crimes of numerous Nazis who escaped Germany after the war. He felt a responsibility and obligations to those who died in the Holocaust to bring to justice those war criminals who had managed to avoid prosecution. But he also connected that responsibility and obligation to a higher power. As he neared the end of his life Wiesenthal was asked if, in spite of all that he had witnessed during his time in the death camps, he still believed in God. He stated, “I believe in God and life after death. When I come to the other world and meet millions of Jews who died in the camps and they ask, ‘What have you done?’, I can say, ‘I did not forget you’” (Farnsworth, 1964).

142 

J. VALK

Spiritual Traditions Those embracing spiritual worldviews may well find themselves linking arms with those who embrace a monotheistic worldview. They may struggle together in common causes and feel similar responsibilities and obligations but may do so for different reasons. The just causes for which spiritual worldviews struggle are varied and include care and concern for the earth, respect for the spiritual nature of the earth, enhancing the well-being of fellow humans, the protection of animals, and more. Indigenous spiritualities acknowledge a deep responsibility to care for the earth. They feel humans should take only what they need, not what they want, and that they must find ways to give back to the earth to ensure its survival (Stonechild, 2016). While their ecological practices are not unblemished (Krech, 1999), many Indigenous People do feel they have the responsibility and obligation to remind and instruct others how to be more environmentally conscious. The Indigenous paradigm of sustainability is a “healthy environment, healthy culture, healthy people” (Cajete, 1999, p. viii). Many consider themselves “caretakers of Mother Earth”. For them environmental wisdom entails knowledge and awareness of practices that are sustainable, and therefore reviving traditional knowledges and practices becomes paramount. Environmentalists with spiritual roots feel that the modern Western world is shirking its responsibilities and obligations and that its actions and behaviours are detrimental to the earth. Such environmentalists have long struggled to broaden education, so concern for the earth is given high priority. That priority will be realized when a greater understanding of the rich and complex biodiversity of the earth is grasped and how dependent humans are on that biodiversity (Suzuki, 1997). They have struggled to instil in the hearts and minds of many, but especially children, environmental responsibilities and obligations. While the origins of the “reduce, reuse and recycle” phenomena are not clear, these actions are certainly embraced by those spiritually connected to the earth. Such responsibilities and obligations are further highlighted when a divine nature is conferred on the earth and a deep spiritual connection with it is affirmed. Bestowing a sacred nature on the earth as, for example, the “body of God”, as advocated by theologian Sallie McFague (1993), entails that abuses heaped on the earth are at the same time seen as abuses heaped on God. One can thus see that ecological irresponsibility can

4  ULTIMATE/EXISTENTIAL QUESTIONS 

143

become a modern-day sin, with greater priority given to environmental transgressions than the traditionally emphasized seven cardinal sins, even if they are all related. The notion of the earth as a living entity can be traced back to Greek philosophy. Plato believed the earth to be a living organism. The Greeks named the earth Gaia, the divine mother of gods and men. That idea stuck with many over the centuries, especially after the Enlightenment, which rejected the Cartesian notion of the earth as cold mechanical matter in favour of the earth as a living organism. James Lovelock (1998) picked up on this notion and promoted his Gaia hypothesis, proclaiming the earth as a living entity and for which humans must live a responsible life. He was also willing to defend a notion that Gaia was a spiritual as well as a scientific concept—“God and Gaia, theology and science” (pp.  206, 212). Margaret Midgely (2001, 2007) argued that Lovelock’s notions had deep religious overtones linking science and religion. From both of these we can learn of our responsibilities and obligations in regard to threats to the planet caused by our modern lifestyles, especially those lifestyles that lead to global warming. Spiritual or religious worldviews also strive to enhance the well-being of humans and feel responsibilities and obligations in this regard. Here commonality can be found with both monotheistic and secular worldviews. Yet, enhancing human dignity may be done for different reasons. For example, Gandhi, from his Hindu perspective, stated: “My consolation and my happiness are to be found in service to others, because the Divine essence is the sum total of life” (Durant, 1932, p. 84). Buddhism, on the other hand, does not speak of humans created in the image of God or of a Divine essence from which responsibility for others emerges. It does, however, speak of the causes of suffering, for it is from suffering that social evils unfold. Buddhists have a responsibility to eliminate actions which cause suffering and harm to oneself and to others. For Buddhism, ultimate freedom is to achieve full release from the root causes of all suffering: greed, hatred, and delusion, which clearly are also the root causes of all social evils. Their malicious forms are harmful and devastating to others. To weaken, and finally eliminate, them in oneself, and, as far as possible in society, is the basis of Buddhist ethics. Compassion towards others is recognition of their suffering as a reflection of one’s own pain and an obligation to respond to and eradicate that suffering. Buddhism emphasizes meditation but meditation is not intended to be a means to escape from the harsh realities of life. Rather, meditation allows one to be

144 

J. VALK

fully immersed in life, but not to cling to it. Clinging to life is what brings suffering; meditating is a means to become free from all that causes suffering. Eradicating one’s own suffering includes a responsibility to eradicate the suffering of others through social action, recognizing all the while the interconnectedness of all of life. Confucianism also speaks of responsibility for fellow humans (Leys, 1997). Low and Ang (2013) argue that social obligations flow from Confucian ethics, and these ethics can be implemented to attain positive dealings and achieve harmonious relationships between management and labour in business organizations. Within the Confucian context, everyone is considered part of a greater whole and as such there is a responsibility to the family and the community, a marked departure from an increasing individualism that is leaving its impact on the world. Exclusive Humanism Secular worldviews may have many similar notions regarding responsibilities and obligations, yet here we do encounter different viewpoints from those of religious and spiritual worldview traditions. There are important nuances to consider in the secular worldview perspectives that distinguish them from other perspectives. Exclusive Humanism, with its sole focus on this world, would orient responsibilities and obligations exclusively to the life being lived here and now. In this way it has affinities with Confucianism. But Confucianism resists the individualism so rampant with the Western world where Exclusive Humanism has taken such a strong foothold. Individualism notwithstanding, Exclusive Humanism has a strong sense of responsibility towards improving the human condition but also that of the environment in general. Increasingly, one hears also of a great concern for the rights of animals (Korsgaard, 2018; Singer, 1975). Injunctions and means to improve those conditions come not from divine instructions but exclusively from insights gained through experience, the use of reason and science, or simply a universal sense that we have obligations towards others. As Einstein indicated, “only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile” (New York Times, June 20, 1932, p.  17). Through the efforts of those embracing a secular humanist, individualist, or utilitarian worldview, the rights and freedoms of people throughout the world have improved significantly, as have the educational, health, nutritional, economic, and social situations. They also indicate that it is

4  ULTIMATE/EXISTENTIAL QUESTIONS 

145

irresponsible, immoral, and unethical to continue to accumulate material comfort while many others in the world face increased poverty. While those embracing an Exclusive Humanist worldview are not always at the forefront of movements to improve the lives of people, they are nonetheless supportive of them and devote personal and public resources to them (Stewart, 2004). Yet, those who embrace worldviews such as Secular Humanism, Individualism, Atheism, or Utilitarianism face a dilemma. Responsibility to improve the human condition is no doubt paramount, but how and where this responsibility is exercised or encouraged can be highly controversial. Improving the human condition depends, of course, largely on a definition of what constitutes improvement, and here there is considerable incongruence. The most egregious examples had dire consequences for millions, and these are now well known. Nazi Germany felt that eradicating Jews, homosexuals, and those with physical and cognitive disabilities would improve the human condition in general, but especially that of the Aryan people. During the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976), China sought to reorganize and improve itself politically, socially, and economically according to Communist principles. However, those not willing to cooperate were sent for “re-education”, or simply eradicated. Similar national “improvements” were carried out in Cambodia during the reign of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, resulting in the deaths of almost 1.8 million people from 1975 to 1979. What constitutes human improvement can have disastrous effects of great magnitude for some, especially when carried out by powerful entities exerting responsibility for advancing their view of nation-building. Most abhor those practices today, and with good reason. Yet the dilemma remains. Eliminating those deemed undesirable continues today, but in a much more subtle way—in utero. Aborting unwanted foetuses, and particularly those suspected of having Down Syndrome or other disabilities, is now taking place in numerous countries throughout the world, and they have reached into the millions worldwide. Responsibilities and obligations not to place personal, emotional, and psychological burdens on individuals, and economic burdens on society, have led to such practices, often based on a utilitarian notion of the greatest good for the greatest number. Fierce debates continue today as to whether laws should permit or restrict some or all of these practices. Nonetheless, in a society heavily influenced by an individualist worldview, with a focus on the rights and freedoms of the individual, the ultimate decision from the worldview

146 

J. VALK

perspective of Exclusive Humanism rests upon the individual. But no less does it when the ultimate decision rests with the collective, responsible for ensuring the greatest good for the greatest number. Consumerism/Capitalism Consumerism and Capitalism take a considerably different approach to responsibilities and obligations. While some argue that Corporate Capitalism has a prime responsibility to generate wealth, within the corporate world the dominant view is that a corporation has a responsibility primarily to the shareholders and then specifically to maximize profits. The widening disparity between incomes of those in the high echelons of the corporate world, especially CEOs, compared to those who work in its corporate trenches, indicates that in general responsibilities and obligations are more narrowly focused. One certainly gets that sense from O’Leary (2011), who argues that one does not have any responsibility or obligation to anyone other than the self, and that responsibility or obligation is to get rich. Neo-liberalism, with its “trickle-down theory”, is often successful in eliminating barriers that restrict free markets, but according to Collier (2007), it is much less successful in raising the standards of the “bottom billion” whose lives are a constant struggle for basic survival. Responsibilities and obligations within Consumerism can be said to be focused on giving the customer “what s/he wants”. As such, it strives for a society in which individuals have the freedom to choose for themselves how to live and how to spend their resources. It feels obliged to continually provide goods and services to what it believes will improve the lives of people. But some argue that Consumerism promotes consumption as a way of life, as another “great transformation” (Polanyi, 2001) that elevated Western society, and increasingly non-Western societies, from simple consumption—meeting basic needs—to consumption as a purpose of existence. Campbell (1989) argues that it has generated a “culture of eternal dissatisfaction: an apparently endless pursuit of want” (p. 37). According to Passini (2013), “satisfaction is substituted by the eternal search for it … we need ever higher quantities to obtain the same boost of satisfaction” (p. 370). Products come to define who we are and define our identity (“at Speedy you are a somebody”), which necessitates ever-changing fashions and products (Kilbourne, 2006). Passini feels this has led to a “binge culture”, where rich and poor alike become addicted to consumption, with the latter hopelessly and perhaps incurably swimming in endless debt.

4  ULTIMATE/EXISTENTIAL QUESTIONS 

147

There are those in the corporate world who are beginning to recognize, however, what they have created, and a certain sense of corporate social responsibility is beginning to take hold (Chatterji, 2011). While some question whether this is too little and too late, others argue it is a movement of the future—reorienting the social and environmental situation in general while saving a consumer/corporate lifestyle in particular (Shamir, 2011). Exceptions notwithstanding, corporations can and do play a role in improving the lives of all humans and do give back to the communities that enrich them (Besser, 2002). One company that has recognized the need to improve healthy living for consumers is Voortman Cookies of Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. When his daughter, a naturopathic doctor, stopped eating the company products for health reasons in 2002 in light of the trans fats they contained, CEO Harry Voortman stopped using them, becoming the first cookie manufacturer in Canada and one of the first in North America to do so (CBC, 2003). In 2017, Voortman Cookies further removed all artificial colours, flavours, and high-fructose corn syrup from its products (Klara, 2017). The Lego Group of Denmark is another high on the list of socially responsible companies, promoting its ethical, fair, transparent, and environmentally sustainable products, and supporting worthy causes (Strauss, 2017). Just Us! Coffee Roasters Co-op from Nova Scotia, Canada, takes its social responsibility seriously and has become a “certified fair-trade leader”, not only promoting quality products but also engaging in partner exchanges between the Global North and the Global South to foster equality and communal well-being. Numerous other companies are implementing socially responsible policies and actions, from environmentally sustainable product use to employee mental health awareness to gender diversity. Today lists of the top companies are published annually for all to see. From the above we gain a considerable perspective on how different worldviews assess notions of responsibilities and obligations. There are few worldviews that deny some sense of obligation beyond the individual. Perhaps this is a recognition that responsibilities and obligations to self and others are part of what it means to be human. A sense of what those entail, however, varies noticeably, including the sources in which different worldviews ground their notions of responsibilities and obligations. Traditional worldviews, including Indigenous worldviews, embrace a high degree of communal responsibility, where the needs of the community outweigh those of the individual and hence the individual is obliged to work for the greater good of the community. In modern highly

148 

J. VALK

differentiated and anonymous societies, where individualism dominates, the reverse is often the case and anonymity and alienation are not uncommon.

What Is Right/Wrong? Discerning the good from the bad and the right from the wrong is premised largely on the values we hold and, in that way, follows in the main a course similar to that regarding responsibilities and obligations. The large issue here concerns criteria used to determine these matters. In brief that may include notions that humans are the sole arbitrators of right and wrong, with right and wrong rationally or culturally determined and culturally specific, or that no universal or objective truth criteria exist by which to measure right and wrong, as argued from a postmodern perspective. Other positions, such as those of the monotheistic traditions, argue that it is necessary to posit a higher power or being or universal truth in order to escape an otherwise descent into a cultural or legal relativism. These monotheistic worldviews, while they do not regard humans as the sole arbitrators of right and wrong, nonetheless face the conundrum of working out those principles in culturally specific ways. This raises questions regarding the degree of influence of any culture or tradition on determining right and wrong actions regardless of the worldview one embraces. That includes sources which are influential in one’s decision-­ making, such as sacred books, scriptures and texts, reason and science, cultural traditions, family and “in groups”, and religious, political, and community authorities. Monotheism Within the monotheistic traditions, what is right are attitudes or notions such as kindness and generosity. These are displayed in what some have categorized as “random acts of kindness”, a phenomenon that has become less apparent in modern, fast-paced societies and hence surprising to many when it does occur. It also surfaces in actions of charity, whether this is of a monetary, material, or “hands on” kind. What is right are also actions that emerge from the injunction to “love your neighbour as yourself”. As such, care and concern for others and the earth, and actions that lead towards justice and equality, are highlighted. In essence, the injunction is for humans to live well in relationship with God and others.

4  ULTIMATE/EXISTENTIAL QUESTIONS 

149

The monotheistic traditions well realize, however, that while the human heart is capable of great good, it is also capable of great evil. History is replete with the destructive tendencies of humans, unleashed on each other and on the earth. These destructive tendencies result from what has traditionally been called the “seven deadly sins”: greed, anger, lust, envy, pride, sloth, and gluttony. While not monotheistic, Buddhism recognizes also that these lead to great sufferings in the world. The sources of right and wrong action and behaviour for the monotheistic traditions come largely from their sacred texts. Jewish, Christian, and Islamic scriptures play a central and guiding role in discerning proper actions, but so do religious communities and places of worship (church, mosque, synagogue). These are places where one is reminded and encouraged to continually discern right and wrong behaviours, not necessarily in a judging or condemning manner even if it is so often presented in this fashion, but more as a way to give guidance and direction. That guidance and direction does not just surface from one’s own immediate community. It stems also from the wisdom and expertise of multiple individuals, schools of thought, and extensive writings and commentaries that have surfaced over the centuries and that highlight appropriate behaviours and actions in a wide array of different settings and on a wide array of issues. That wisdom and expertise has been exemplified in the thoughts and actions of individuals in each of the three monotheistic traditions. Abdul-­ Matin (2010), for example, writes about right behaviour towards the environment grounded in the Islamic tradition. Elizabeth Cady Stanton argued strongly for the abolition of slavery, as well as the right of women to vote, based on Quaker theology of spiritual equality (Ruether, 2005). Well-known Jewish theologian Abraham Joshua Heschel discerned right action in regard to the American civil rights movement based on the teachings of the Hebrew prophets. He marched arm-in-arm with Martin Luther King Jr. in Selma, Alabama, in 1965 (Kaplan, 2009). Discerning right and wrong behaviour and action is a complex matter, changes over time, is not an exact science, and can also lead to the making of mistakes that can have dire consequences. Two examples will suffice. One, Proverbs 13:24 states that “to spare the rod is to spoil the child”. Many interpret the word “rod” literally as a stick and that this statement supports corporal punishment. This has been a standard interpretation and as such implemented by many throughout the history of the modern world (Geltner, 2014). But that has now begun to change. Corporal punishment has been outlawed in most educational jurisdictions, and often as

150 

J. VALK

a result of initiatives by secular people. Few parents use it today, even though some religiously committed people argue, in the name of the freedom of religion, for the right to use this harsher method in the disciplining of children. But that argument holds little water today. It is well known that ancient writers often used metaphor and that the word “rod” did not literally refer to a stick to be used as physical punishment. More accepted today is to understand “rod” as a “standard” of acceptable behaviour. That is, according to the Proverb text, when parents do not expect children to meet a certain standard of acceptable behaviour, the children will indeed be spoiled. The manner in which parents guide and direct their children into appropriating a certain standard of acceptable behaviour, however, need not involve physical punishment at all. In fact, there are probably more effective ways in convincing children to comply. Modern child-rearing practices have moved far away from physical punishment, recognizing not only the dangers of physical violence but, more important, the deep psychological scars that can remain as a result of it. Two, Exodus 21:24 speaks of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”. This passage is often used to support capital punishment, with the argument that when a person commits murder that person forfeits the right to live. Most Western countries moved away from capital punishment in the latter half of the twentieth century, with the United States as the exception. These countries cite not only its barbarity, but also recognize the potential for the miscarriage of justice. In the United States, innocent people have been put to death and a disproportionate number of poor and people of colour receive death sentences. Gandhi says that “an eye for an eye” makes the whole world blind, as the case may well be when capital punishment becomes revenge or retribution rather than justice. But revenge was not what the ancient Hebrew text had in mind. In ancient cultural settings where an accidental death often resulted in major bloodletting, this injunction intended to seriously limit revenge and retribution by stating that the maximum punishment that could be exacted was one life for another, yet not even that was demanded. Monotheistic traditions grounded in scriptural texts must be diligent in interpreting principles given in those texts in order to give proper guidance and direction for right and wrong actions and behaviours. Their track records have not always been very good, as history clearly reveals. As such, remaining open to new interpretations becomes paramount so that what was once considered right or even wrong may become more acceptable in another time and place. In that sense, monotheistic traditions often serve as a conservative

4  ULTIMATE/EXISTENTIAL QUESTIONS 

151

brake, reluctant to move forward on modern trends without thorough discussion and debate. Abortion, same-sex marriage, and euthanasia are clear examples where agreement has yet to be achieved, if it ever will. Spiritual Traditions Spiritual worldviews generally assert that right is that which enhances peace and harmony and wrong is that which harms or injures others and the earth. While such assertions are quite general, they nonetheless serve as important guiding principles. Yet each worldview within this subset will understand and articulate these general principles in their own particular manner. For the Wolastoqey people living in the eastern part of Canada, discerning right from wrong is connected to the treatment of fellow humans, other living things, and the earth. To do right is to treat others with respect, to take only what one needs to live, and to give back to the earth. It is to assist others and provide for those who are in need; to “pull together” when people find themselves in times of difficulty. As one Native Elder explained, “giving assistance to others, respecting the medicines, striving to be happy – this is to do what is right” (Valk, 2009, p. 281). Sources for such beliefs come from stories handed down from generation to generation by Indigenous leaders and stories tellers. One finds similar views expressed by proponents of ecological spirituality, but with a particular emphasis placed on treatment of the earth. Here one often finds figures such as Thomas Berry, Matthew Fox, Mary Evelyn Tucker, and Brian Swimme, all who are also steeped in or have emerged from monotheistic traditions but with a view that actively promotes the sacredness of the earth and the place of humans in an unfolding cosmic journey. Thomas Berry (1988), in rethinking the whole earth-human relationship, argued that right action is to work towards seeing humanity not as the centre of the universe but as an integral part of a complex ecological web. Matthew Fox (1963), ex-Dominican and now Episcopal priest, advocated for a spiritual relationship between humans and the earth, drawing from the wisdom of numerous spiritual traditions. Mary Evelyn Tucker (2002), one of the individuals in the forefront of the Earth Charter movement, recognized that right action towards the environment also entails right action on numerous other fronts such as democracy, respect for human rights, eradication of poverty, and more, basing her views in the wisdom emanating from numerous worldviews. Brian Swimme (2002),

152 

J. VALK

influenced by the writings of Berry, argued that right action is to see the place of humans in the greater story of an unfolding cosmic journey. One finds such sentiments and much more also in the works of the Dalai Lama (2001). From the perspective of Buddhist teachings, he speaks of bringing love and compassion into our daily lives. Exclusive Humanism From an Exclusive Humanist worldview position, one also finds many of the same sentiments but approached from different perspectives. Right action from these worldview orientations involves efforts to promote individual freedom, justice, equality, generosity, and more. Wrong action is that which impedes these. Sources that ground these notions include the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, national constitutions, and the writings of individuals promoting these efforts. Feminists from a number of religious and spiritual traditions have promoted gender equality by advocating for equal rights for women based on sources, including scriptural sources, from their own tradition (Ruether, 2005). But many have been overshadowed by more strident secular women and men, some of whom distanced themselves from religious traditions because of perceived misogynist tendencies (Ali, 2004). Secular women, such as well-known Simone de Beauvoir, Betty Friedan, and Gloria Steinem, have fought long and hard for equal social, political, economic, and educational rights for women. Grounded in a number of different worldview perspectives—existentialism, socialism, humanism—they have been at the forefront of advancing the position of women in terms of abortion rights, employment equity, and access to equal education. In addition to women’s rights, secular men and women have been supportive of many other movements that strive to change what according to them have been decades or centuries of wrong policies, laws, or traditions. They have made strides in improving education, maternal health, animal rights and welfare, environmental protection, and more. For them, right action or behaviour involves increasing individual freedom and opportunity and protecting animals and the environment. One major challenge that emerges for this worldview tradition is the tendency to emphasize individualism at the expense of communalism. When individual choice becomes paramount, and trumps all other concerns, society can easily become a collection of individuals pursuing their own interests with limited concern for the welfare of the collective. Right

4  ULTIMATE/EXISTENTIAL QUESTIONS 

153

action and behaviour can easily be reduced to that which is right for me, a great threat to developing a more integrative society (Putnam, 2000; Bellah et al., 1985). When a society is devoted to increasing an array of individual rights and freedoms—a hallmark of Liberalism—an increasing array of laws is required to protect those individual rights and freedoms. The ironic end result, according to Deneen (2018), is that those laws actually begin to increasingly restrict individual freedom—an unintended and even unanticipated consequence of striving to do the right thing. Consumerism/Capitalism Discerning right from wrong from Consumerist and Capitalist perspectives is controversial. What is right are all laws, practices, and policies that are beneficial to wealth generation, and capitalist development and expansion. Hence free trade, open markets and competition, low taxes and labour costs, and minimal government intervention are all regarded as right and good. This neo-liberal perspective has been advanced by economists such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, supported by the “Washington Consensus”, embraced by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and infamously implemented in nations such as Chile under Augusto Pinochet, England under Margaret Thatcher, and the United States under Ronald Reagan. It advocated the protection of property rights, privatization, and argued that the corporation should be regarded as a legal entity. Neo-liberalism in the late twentieth century led the way to a global Capitalism that now holds pervasive power and influence around the world, especially in developing countries (Gore, 2000; Williamson, 2004). But many critics have pointed to the negative impacts of global Capitalism and the concern that whatever benefits corporations are deemed right. According to Drohan (2003), for example, global Capitalism is known to persuade governments to use force to carry out its business. Klein (2007) argues that free trade policies, propelled by numerous American governments for decades, have resulted in disaster for many developing countries. Juhasz (2008) and McQuaig (2001, 2006) contend that oil corporations have gained huge global power, manipulated governments, supported wars, polluted the environment, and persuaded millions that the automobile led to achieving that American dream. Carroll (2004) asserts that corporate elite power extends even beyond its own domains to influence and shape views and behaviours in the public sphere. Critics feel

154 

J. VALK

that from this worldview perspective, all of this is seen as “part of doing business”, and that as long as it is legal it is seen as right. Yet the public, and even governments, have now begun to see some of these matters differently. One example is in regard to “Big Tobacco”. Governments have long received substantial tax revenues from large tobacco firms, which added to their tax base. When it was recognized that governments were now facing enormous health costs due to tobacco-­ related illnesses, they attempted to curtail smoking throughout the country. Tobacco corporations fought against any legislation attempting to curb smoking, long arguing that they were offering a product that consumers wanted, even though it was no secret that they had also been deceptive regarding their products (Wolfson, 2001; Apollonio & Bero, 2007). While “Big Tobacco” may be the most egregious example of a corporation with a skewed sense of responsibility, other large corporations generally comply with new government regulations that protect people. For example, since the 1970s, governments have continued to put automotive safety measures and fuel efficiency policies in place, with car manufacturers generally following suit, albeit at times reluctantly (Meyer, 2018; Rugabera, 1975). Further, car manufacturers have also clearly seen the writing on the environmental wall and have moved towards designing more environmentally friendly electric vehicles, recognizing that this is now not only the right thing to do, but it may also be the economically smart thing to do. From the perspective of a consumerist worldview, what is right are matters such as freedom of choice, abundant choice, low prices, the free flow of goods and services, and ample opportunity to consume, which is now possible 24/7 through online shopping. However, critics such as Sandel (2012b), Campbell (2004), and Barber (2008) argue that the consumer lifestyle has come to permeate most, if not all, social and cultural activities, so much so that public discourse concerning the reach of the market society tends to exclude moral and spiritual convictions and voices. Yet, governments feel that consumer activities stimulate the economy and provide opportunities for growth and employment, and readily provide for its expansion as the right thing to do for the consuming public. Discerning right action and behaviour continues to be a challenge regardless of the worldview perspective one embraces. While there are certain clear principles that should guide all right actions—equality, justice, and dignity for humans and respect for and protection of animals and the environment—how these are to be understood in each particular

4  ULTIMATE/EXISTENTIAL QUESTIONS 

155

context is a more difficult matter. Scholars and others continue to discuss and debate moral actions and the contexts in which they emerge. It is through these discussions and knowledge of the worldviews that ground them that more insight is gained. Considerable agreement can be achieved regarding certain right and wrong actions, even if those right and wrong actions are grounded in considerably different worldview perspectives.

A Force, Power, or Being Greater than Humans The question of a higher power, force, or being in the universe, which has been alluded to earlier, has been a captivating aspect of the human journey. Since the Axial Age spawned a new universal religious and philosophical consciousness, human understanding of that higher power, force, or being, and the implications of that understanding, has taken many different forms and eventually led to many different worldview perspectives (Armstrong, 2007; Jaspers, 2003). Investigating worldview perspectives in regard to what that higher power, force, or being might entail, if it exists at all, gives great insight into human understandings, longings, and imaginations (Wright, 2006). What is clear in all of this, however, is that the question of a higher force, power, or being is not settled at all and continues to surface, but often in considerably different ways. It is clearly there within the monotheistic tradition. Here, however, the question is not whether such an entity in monotheistic form exists, but more so the nature of that monotheistic entity and its interactions with and demands of the human. Within the spiritual traditions, attention focuses more on gaining a clearer understanding of that entity, in whatever form it does or could exist. The Exclusive Humanist tradition rejects notions of a higher force, power, or being independent of the human, especially as might be understood by the religious worldview traditions, yet it is not free from having to consider or confront an altogether different concept of that which replaces a religious or spiritual understanding of such a being. Consumer and Capitalist worldviews are also not spared from having to consider or confront such matters. Affirming or denying the existence of a higher force, power, or being is not the end of the matter. Perhaps it is more a question of what it is that one affirms or denies.

156 

J. VALK

Monotheism The monotheistic worldviews assert the existence of a force, power, or being greater than humans. Such a being is commonly referred to as God. This Supreme Being is creator of the universe, transcendent and immanent, all powerful and knowing, concerned with human lives and seeks their reciprocating love. Neither a being that is nebulous or vague, wrathful or vengeful, God is personal and loving, both troubled by and concerned with human activity, and seeks the restoration of human relationships (Ward, 2008; Nouwen, 1994). God is made known to humans through revelations, scriptural and otherwise, human understandings, and the created universe. God is neither male nor female, though God is often referred to in terms of gender-specific language that has arisen historically and culturally. Understood largely as theistic rather than deistic, God is a mystery beyond comprehension, not subsumed within nature but transcending it, a spiritual force that gives life and breathe to all that exists, and the “ground of all being”, as Tillich (1957) phrased it. The monotheistic traditions in general assert that God is not of our own (patriarchal) making. God does not symbolize the ideal of humanity (Feuerbach, 2004), is not the power of the ideal (Dewey, 1934), nor a “fully natural God” who is the “very creativity in the universe” (Kauffman, 2008, p.  6). God is unseen but not without witness, beyond knowing but not unknowable, powerful but not impersonal, and freedom-granting but not controlling (Valk, 2012). One of the greatest challenges confronting the monotheistic traditions today, however, is the issue of theodicy—why is there so much suffering and evil in spite of the existence of a good, all powerful, and loving God who cares for humans? It is not a new issue; it has existed for centuries, as the ancient Hebrew book of Job testifies. It has perhaps surfaced with more intensity today, especially as we become more aware of the extent of global tragedy, calamity, disaster, and suffering. Theodicy is often presented today as an argument against the existence of an all-powerful God. So much evil in the world appears to be logically inconsistent with an omnipotent, omniscience, and wholly good God. The existence of evil in the world, it is argued, makes it illogical, impossible, and improbable that God exists. This is known as the probabilistic argument. While the existence of evil in the world is indeed a problem for monotheistic religions, it does not necessarily entail the non-existence of God. French philosopher and WWII prisoner of war Emmanuel Levinas,

4  ULTIMATE/EXISTENTIAL QUESTIONS 

157

for example, rejected theodicy and argued that humans must take responsibility for making the world a better place, rather than attempt to justify the existence of God in light of the existence of evil in the world (Mayama, 2009). American philosopher Alvin Plantinga (1974) advanced a “free will defence” argument, stating that an omnipotent, omniscience, and wholly good God is not inconsistent with the presence of evil. In creating humans with free will, God created the possibility that humans might do evil things; the existence of evil is one possible consequence of creating free creatures. God may have reasons for permitting evil that have not been revealed to humans. The problem of theodicy is no less of an issue within Islam but here too it does not lead to a rejection of the existence of God (Abu-Rabi, 2010). A second challenge to the monotheistic religions today comes in defending the existence of God in light of modern science. Arguments for and against the existence of God have been debated in the past from a number of different perspectives (cosmological, ontological, teleological) and these arguments continue unabated and persistent if not with renewed vigour into the present. Many scientists and others have asserted that there is no proof for the existence of God and as such this belief should be abandoned, a view that has held increasing sway among scientists and others. But several scientists, theologians, and philosophers, and even those who are not religious, have successfully countered such views. Plantinga (2011) argued strongly against a naturalism that precludes a possibility for the existence of God, asserting instead that biological and cosmological fine-­ tuning suggests a creator. McGrath (2007) decried the atheistic assertions of Dawkins that suggest that science inevitably leads to a rejection of a belief in the existence of God, stating that Dawkins’ atheistic assertions themselves are based on rather flimsy scientific evidence. Polkinghorne (1995) and Barbour (1997), both noted scientists as well as committed Christians, speak about the compatibility between science and religion. Agnostic evolutionary scientist Stephen J. Gould (1999) spoke of a “non-­ overlapping magisteria”, recognizing that science and religion are two distinct fields each with their own authority and that science simply cannot pronounce on the existence of God. As such, more are concluding that science and religion are compatible, and that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Anything said more than this is venturing into the domain of philosophy or theology, with particular views grounded in particular worldviews.

158 

J. VALK

Spiritual Traditions Spiritual worldviews, in contrast to monotheistic worldviews, speak less of a theistic God and more of a divine entity that can take many forms. This is the case in Hinduism where descriptions of the divine nature can be linked to cultural place and time. In Buddhism the divine nature is both affirmed and denied, depending on the particular school of thought as well as the time and place. Non-theistic worldviews emerging in the modern West encompass also a wide variety of notions regarding a higher power, force, or being. Common among them, however, is a decline in the notion of non-material divine beings and an increase in the sacredness of nature (Taylor, 2009). Indigenous traditions speak of God more as Creator, the source of all things that exist in this world and the spirit world. Creator is “two-­ spirited”, with no specific gender but both male and female characteristics, and dwells in the spirit world but also with presence in the physical world. The wisdom of Creator is important and highly beneficial for humans— “key to living well”—and can be heard by those gifted to discern “words” from the Creator (Valk, 2009). While Indigenous spiritualities for the most part make a distinction between a Creator and the created, this distinction erodes in numerous environmentalist worldviews which tend to deify the earth. James Lovelock (2010) regarded the earth as Gaia, so named after the Greek goddess of the earth, and argued that the earth is a living organism, a self-regulating, living system. Nature (Mother Earth) is alive as much as it is mystical, with humans and all other creatures as “partner species in the great enterprise of Gaia” (p. 6). That sacred reverence for the earth, or the earth goddess, is also found in Wiccan spiritualities and in some feminist spiritualities, which have a long history that goes back to ancient cultures. The goddess can be understood in a variety of ways—transcendent, immanent, nature personified, and indwelling presence—but clearly in a way that is empowering and uplifting and distinguished from patriarchal views of God as possessing male characteristics, especially that of power (Christ, 1998; Starhawk, 1999). Exclusive Humanism The belief that there may not be a higher power, being, or force in the manner perceived by the religious worldview traditions has, as Taylor

4  ULTIMATE/EXISTENTIAL QUESTIONS 

159

(2007) mentions, gained an increasingly stronger foothold for the first time in human history. A secular option now competes with the more traditional understandings and an increasing number of people worldwide live their lives as if such a being did not exist. Pascal’s Wager no longer seems to hold sway as this more modern social or cultural default option begins to supplant earlier notions. While atheistic voices have existed for centuries, they seem to surface more frequently today, and more vociferously. Statistics reveal that their numbers may also be increasing. Yet, discussion remains whether it is atheists or agnostics that are increasing in numbers. McGrath (2004) argues that atheism flourishes most when religion is beset with public scandals, but that the “twilight of atheism” has come as its flaws are being exposed worldwide. That might well be the case in the world’s two largest officially atheist countries: China and Russia. In China religion is on the rise, and most dramatically so in regard to Christianity, so much so that some predict it may have the world’s largest population of Christians by 2030 (Albert, 2018; Yang, 2012). Less dramatic, but no less interesting, is the rise of religion in Russia, where Orthodox Christianity, outlawed and suppressed in the Soviet era, has now in the post-Soviet era become state-sanctioned, with 71% of Russian now identifying as Orthodox, even though a large discrepancy exists between identifying as Orthodox Christian and church attendance (Smolkin, 2018; Froese, 2008). In the Western world, however, the number of those who embrace an exclusive humanist worldview is increasing. Yet the question of the existence of a higher power, force, or being from a secular worldview perspective does remain important. For those who do reject the notion of a God, even a Creator, there is nonetheless clear recognition that the universe is a most wonderful, complex, and even mysterious system, but it is one that is self-organizing. It operates according to its own physical laws; laws that have sustained it from its own earliest beginnings and laws that will continue to hold for the entire cosmos. Such a self-organizing universe neither reveals nor requires the existence of a higher power, force, or being. The self-organizing principle is operative on Planet Earth through the laws of natural selection, as explicated by numerous Darwinian theorists. Natural selection has, according to some, become the god of Darwinism. With science becoming the “new religion”, this self-organizing principle is the view that has increasingly come to dominate. Yet, there is more at stake. Those who deny the existence of a transcendent power, force, or being continue nonetheless to speak of such an

160 

J. VALK

entity, albeit largely to render it a different meaning. Educational philosopher John Dewey (1934), for example, suggested that the term “God” should no longer refer to a transcendent deity but to “the unity of all ideal ends arousing us to desire and action” (p. 42). Physicist Stephen Hawking (1998) initially spoke metaphorically about God: speculating that the unified theory of everything would allow us to know the “mind of God”. Nonetheless, Hawking and Mlodinow (2010) has largely concluded that the universe is governed by the laws of science and there is no need for a creator to explain its existence. Robert Wright (2009) noticed how human understandings of God have changed. Those understandings, he argues, point to human moral progression rather than the actual existence of God. Richard Dawkins (2006) has been most vocal, if not most vociferous, about belief in God. He feels that such a belief is repugnant and that those who hold them are delusional, infantile, and intellectually suspect. In general, it is argued that Darwinian science and the problem of evil and suffering make the argument for the existence of a monotheistic, theistic God impossible. It is best that humans accept this and recognize that they are the highest on the evolutionary chain. It is they who shoulder the considerable individual and collective responsibilities that come with this elevated status. Such views would suggest that humans are the highest power, force, or beings in the universe: there is no God, gods, or any other spiritual beings or forms. Does this then render them “gods of their own making”, a kind of elevation or deification of the human? In the ancient world the deification of kings and heroes was commonplace. But an apotheosis (a quintessence or deification) of the human continues to surface even in the modern period—in music, art, literature, even pop culture. Certain advances in modern medical technology have prompted some to say that “we are playing God”. Architectural wonders, space travel, instant and rapid communication, and more appear to know no bounds. Horizons of human capability, creativity, and imagination continue to expand, suggesting a divine-like pedestal upon which humans appear to have ascended, as Harari (2017) hints at in his book Homo Deus. Yet, there is also the shadow side of human nature, and all that humans have produced. The devastation and destruction they have unleashed over the centuries, especially due to their technological prowess, might warrant some reticence. As humans advance the frontiers of science, they also risk unleashing calamities not initially anticipated, as is the case with the

4  ULTIMATE/EXISTENTIAL QUESTIONS 

161

splitting of the atom and developing nuclear energy. Humans are still quite far removed from achieving the ideal humanity, which Feuerbach insisted constituted their perception of God. Consumerism and Capitalism The Consumerist and capitalist worldviews may not deify the human as such, but they may in fact deify and regard as sacred material objects and things. These in turn exercise great power and persuasion, have tremendous attraction and allure, and exact considerable demands and sacrifices from humans, individually and collectively, and even from the environment. Some deified and sacred objects or things are reflected in some common everyday language. The “almighty dollar”, “the market god”, and “temples of consumption” reveal what have become objects of considerable devotion, veneration, and even worship. The automobile is another such object. Vandana Shiva (2016) feels that the sacred cow, long held as special within Hinduism, has now become the sacred car in India, altering the human as well as the environmental landscape. Belk et  al. argue that the automobile has reached sacred status in the Western world, but so have numerous other items including “icons, clothing, furnishings, artifacts” (Belk et al., 1989, p. 11; Belk, 2004). Loy (1997) argues that Capitalism mimics religion and demands the same kind of obedience and adherence. According to Belk (1987), Santa, the god of consumption, makes his annual appearances in streets and shopping malls. As mentioned, Cox (2016) has skilfully highlighted how the “market god” emulates three key characteristics Reformed Protestantism has attributed to the transcendent God: omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence. Others may be much less inclined to speak of Consumerism or Capitalism using religious language. They may also be less inclined to assess the impact and effect of Consumerism or Capitalism in such a critical manner. While they do recognize the power and influence of these two worldviews, they see them much more in terms of the benevolence they bestow. If there is a deity or spirit of Capitalism it is one that seeks, as Michael Novak (2004) puts it, “to create new wealth; to generate new industries and new jobs; and to inspire new generations who will invest for the future and sacrifice in the present”, so that the world may be led “into a freer, more prosperous, and more virtuous future”. Jay Richards (2010) argues that it is Providence, not the market god, that is the real invisible hand of Capitalism. Nonetheless, the challenge presented to the spirit or

162 

J. VALK

god of Capitalism, and its advocates, is to discern between creating wealth for all and creating wealth for the privileged few. It is clear from the foregoing that considerably different perceptions exist regarding a higher power, force, or being in the universe. Its existence is affirmed based on faith, and in many cases on reasonable faith, by those in the monotheistic traditions (Plantinga & Wolterstorff, 1983). Many in the scientific world assert that there is no evidence for or against the existence of such a higher power, force, or being, or whatever others argue the nature of it may be. Nonetheless, questions still arise regarding such a being, how it is perceived, and its impact on those who embrace it. Since all language is human, descriptions of such a being are cast necessarily in words that are limited and cannot by their nature fully describe a being beyond human perception, understanding, and language. The writings of mystics clearly reveal this. Those who embrace a divine being always do so with limited knowledge of it. Further, the plethora of descriptions and understanding of such a being create a huge challenge when perceptions are compared and contrasted. Questions of which one(s) are correct can be argued ultimately only on reasonable faith. But reasonable faith is also what is ultimately left to those who deny the existence of such a being. Might a more interesting approach be one that no longer argues whether or not God exists, but one that considers what the divine might entail? Each worldview perspective has a notion that aligns itself with other aspects of that worldview and from these we begin to discern more clearly the distinctiveness of each worldview. Here too some circular reasoning is inevitable. One begins with a particular worldview which in turn is supported by evidence deemed to be reasonably sound by that particular worldview, which then confirms the particular worldview perspective with which one began. Ultimate certainty of one’s assertions is ultimately grounded in a faith of some kind.

Life After This Life Humans continue to develop an incredible array of knowledge and technical capability. We can peer microscopically into the depths of the biological cell and macroscopically into the depths of the universe. Advances in medical technology have permitted the extension of life in ways previously never imagined. Humans continue to extend the frontiers of life and

4  ULTIMATE/EXISTENTIAL QUESTIONS 

163

living. As incredible as our reach and prowess is, however, there is one frontier humans have not been able to penetrate—that which may lie beyond death. Death brings an end to individual human life. It is that harsh reality we are all forced to accept; no one escapes it. No matter what we do, achieve, accomplish, gain, accumulate, or undertake in this life, we all meet the same inevitable future. Death is the great equalizer. We are all made of “the dust of the earth, and to dust we will return” (Genesis 3:19). We live and we die. But the big question is whether this spells a complete end to our existence—individually or collectively. Is this life all there is—as grand, glorious, difficult, and harsh as it may be? Or might there be something more, something beyond that seemingly impenetrable barrier? Statistics indicate that a large percentage of people around the world believe that there is something after this life. A World Values Survey of 2000, involving seventy-five countries, found that “61% said they believed in life after death, while 28% indicated they did not; the remaining 11% were unsure” (Bibby, 2017, p.  183). In other words, because death remains an ultimate reality for all, a significant number of humans believe that there is something beyond the curtain that ends life in the here and now. The notion of something beyond this life has preoccupied humans through the centuries. Ancient cultures had various notions about what that afterlife might entail and how one needed to live in this life to gain access to it. Many of those beliefs continue into the present and are reflected in the major religions of the world, and not only the monotheistic worldviews (Sumegi, 2013; Segal, 2004; Obayashi, 1992; Johnson & McGee, 1991). Nonetheless, such beliefs also come under great scrutiny today. Some search for ways to understand and interpret some of the ancient beliefs in light of modern physics (Peters et al., 2002; Polkinghorne & Welker, 2000). Others challenge those traditional beliefs as incompatible with the findings of modern science yet feel that modern science will attain for humans some future immortality through a computer mind that will augment the current human mind (Kurzweil, 2005). Still others reject the traditional beliefs because they reject religion out of hand, yet here too they may retain a latent desire for longevity, if only for a desire of personal immortality or continued life through the existence of offspring (Weiner, 2010; Hall, 2003; Post & Binstock, 2004). A closer look at several traditions will reveal a plethora of views, each grounded in a particular worldview.

164 

J. VALK

Monotheism In general, those who embrace a Christian worldview affirm a life beyond this life, often referred to as heaven. This belief is grounded in the Christian New Testament writings and pivotally connected to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Contained in the Gospel writings is the story of the bodily resurrection of Jesus, which is then confirmed in some of the other New Testament writings. “Resurrection of the body” is affirmed in the Apostles Creed and other later church writings. As such, Christians believe that the life they live now will sooner or later come to an end but that it will continue in some form in a next life. They believe that it constitutes some kind of stepping-stone to the next and that what is done in the here and now has some connection to what may unfold in the next life. There is a link between this life and the next, a continuity/discontinuity between this life and the life to come. All of this is grounded in what some argue is a reasonable faith, even if what that existence entails is largely unknown (Wright, 2008; McGrath, 2003). Christians believe there is a dimension of existence beyond our own physical space/time continuum and death signals a transition into a new realm of being and existence (Segal, 2004; McDannell & Lang, 2001). A veil that is difficult to penetrate, let alone comprehend from the perspective of the here and now, separates us from that new realm (Wright, 2008). Yet, there is the belief that human life is a journey into God. That journey begins in this life and continues into the life beyond and does not just concern individuals. The next life entails a transformation or renewal of this world, where peace and justice will reign (Peters et  al., 2002; Marshall, 1998). Such beliefs give Christians hope and give purpose to activity in this life and its orientation towards the future. Yet, while hope springs eternal in the hearts of humankind it must be more than wishful thinking. For it to be ultimately meaningful, it must be grounded in something that survives death. It is hope for the future, captivated, for example, in the imagination of one such as Martin Luther King Jr. His famous “I have a dream” speech, delivered in a context filled with injustices, was based on the vision of the Hebrew prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 11: 6–7) for a future state realizable only partially in the here and now. All human attempts in this life to “beat swords into ploughshares” (Isaiah 2:4) are premised on the belief that those actions are not futile, foolhardy, and fruitless, but anticipate a future of shalom.

4  ULTIMATE/EXISTENTIAL QUESTIONS 

165

Christian belief in “a new heaven and a new earth life” is also premised on the trust that light ultimately triumphs over darkness. Death will not have the final word. Neither will evil, for the great injustices in this world will not go unheeded. It is also a response to lives cut short, unrealized potential, and relentless suffering, for each of these also defies what it means to live a full human life (Wright, 2006). Yet how all of this might unfold seems incomprehensible, inconceivable, and even inexplicable (Hick, 1976; Kung, 1985). Nonetheless, these views are embraced by Christians worldwide. Some of these beliefs are substantiated by so-called near-death experiences, growing accounts of people who have undergone a death experience and have had a brief glimpse or journey “into the beyond”. These experiences, though controversial and especially so within the science community, have been life-­altering for those who have undergone them and who speak of a reality of peace and serenity (Alexander, 2012; Neal, 2012; Valarino, 1997). Numerous similarities exist between a Christian worldview perspective and that of Islam regarding life after this life. Muslims consider death as a natural phenomenon and an aspect of this life, but it is not considered the end of the human journey. The next life (ahiret) is about living in a different dimension. It is conceived as a going back, a return journey: humans come from and return to God. For Muslims, belief in a life to come assists in meeting death more calmly. It also gives one strength and courage to fulfil ethical obligations. Achieving goodness and justice cannot be fully accomplished in this world but the next life is where God’s goodness and justice can be perfectly implemented. According to Islam, a sense of eternity is ingrained in the human heart. Humans cannot conceive of an ultimate end to their existence—a time or state of non-existence. According to Muslims, this is the most remarkable evidence for life after this life. The terms “life” and “next life” are used only to identify and distinguish two kinds of existence, but for Muslims there is actually only one existence: a life that starts at birth, journeys through this life, then through death, and continues into the next life— without interruption. Death is but one of the phases of life. For Muslims, faith in the life beyond has the potential to relieve and even eliminate the horror and intolerableness of death.

166 

J. VALK

Similar to a Christian concept, Muslims seek an existence beyond the cruelty, injustice, and suffering of human history. Righteousness and justice always seem incomplete in this life. Having experienced cruelty, injustice, and suffering in history, humans might naturally seek an infallible justice and peace and seek to work towards achieving such in this life. Faith in the life beyond corresponds to these expectations and the desire for justice. For Muslims, the next life is a place of reward and punishment. On the “Day of Reckoning” all persons will need to account for their actions and behaviours in this life. Human follies will be revealed, as will God’s justice, benevolence, mercy, and grace. Islam recognizes that one becomes humanized through enacting good deeds, in this way adding value to all of humanity. The more one does so, the more this world becomes a better place in which to live. Though one will be rewarded in the next life, actions in this life belong to this life and as such one should experience the beauty of each moment to the fullest. Some references in the Quran appear to give greater significance to the life to come than to this life. However, such an interpretation would not be an accurate reading. Stressing the life to come is for the purpose of increasing or enhancing human actions and behaviours in this world that accord with the purpose of creation. The primacy of the next life is not to be misconstrued as an ontological comparison to this life. In light of these views, however, the monotheistic worldviews face considerable questions, if not challenges. Who will populate the new heaven and the new earth remains a thorny theological problem. What will a future existence constitute? What does eternal life mean and imply? Questions pertaining to whether the “gates of heaven” are narrow or wide, the basis on which one gains entry, and what those who live in the presence of God will do for eternity have challenged philosophers and theologians alike for centuries. Some responses that have been given often border on conjecture, for few scriptural texts are sufficiently explicit to be conclusive and definitive. The Hebrew Bible is particularly silent in this regard, which is why the next life is not given as much time and attention within the Jewish tradition. Yet the prophet Isaiah speaks about a future time when “the lion shall lay down with the lamb”—a reference to a future time when peace and justice shall reign (Isaiah 11:6). Some within the Christian and Islamic traditions have quite conclusive and definitive views about what the afterlife will entail and contain. Their

4  ULTIMATE/EXISTENTIAL QUESTIONS 

167

uncompromising stances frequently create havoc and unleash punitive actions and behaviours that cause considerable strife, division, and discrimination against those who do not abide by the same beliefs. All of this is unfortunate for such certainty is unwarranted in light of so much uncertainty regarding life after this life. While the monotheistic worldviews incorporate a belief that an afterlife awaits the human, what it will all entail is largely speculative. Nonetheless, if nothing else, the religious worldviews offer hope in the face of death. Spiritual Traditions Spiritual worldviews are at times less distinct and clear in their prediction and characterization of a life after this life. They may not only regard some of the monotheistic renderings of a “heaven” as misconstrued and metaphoric but prefer to turn attention more to action in this life. That is certainly the case with eco-spiritualities where, if life beyond this life is even acknowledged, it is less well articulated. In some cases, life beyond this life entails little more than being absorbed into Mother Earth—death is a return to the ground from which human life originally sprang. Others speak of various dimensions or planes of the universe, with the vital energies of the physical body released into the universe at death but the non-­ physical soul or spirit goes to one or more of the various non-physical dimensions of the universe. Indigenous spiritualities assert the existence of a “hereafter” or a “beyond” and in ways similar to the monotheistic worldview. Death is the passing from this life to another way of living—from life in the physical world to life in the spirit world. The life beyond is the abode of the ancestors; the place of the spirits of previously deceased family members. It is a place of peace and is eternal and beyond time. In some Indigenous traditions, the spirit world consists of various dimensions or levels and those who enter into the spirit world ascend through these different levels. Yet, they can also maintain connections with the living. The spirit of the newly deceased can still be felt by those who have spiritual gifts to “hear and see” them. Sometimes the recently deceased may seek to resist death, and desire to return to the land of the living. The recently deceased can also send messages or instructions from the ancestors to those who are still living. The life beyond is where spirits come into direct contact with the Creator. Some Indigenous traditions also incorporate notions of rebirth,

168 

J. VALK

for when spirits connect with the Creator they can still be sent back to be with the living. At certain stages, however, the spirit of the deceased enters into full communion with the Creator and remains there (Valk, 2009; Tassell-Matamua, 2013; Buckova, 2009). Buddhist and Hindu worldviews also embrace notions of an afterlife and these can be quite specific. While these worldviews affirm an afterlife, they differ sharply from a monotheistic worldview in that they embrace a belief in reincarnation. Existence in this world is understood as ephemeral, transient, and even illusory. Permanency and eternity belong only to the spiritual world. Individual souls or spirits journey through the physical world for a time and are encouraged to become enlightened and seek the welfare of others. At death an individual’s soul or essence reflects on the deeds, desires, and aspirations of the life just lived. At a certain point an individual is reborn in a higher or lower state contingent on the deeds (karma) of their previous life. They are given another opportunity to enhance their knowledge of the essence of life and rid themselves of all the follies and sufferings that result from envy, greed, pride, and jealousy associated with the ego. Reincarnation cycles can occur as often as is essential before the spirit of an individual enters into permanent union with Being itself, an eternal state of pure bliss. Exclusive Humanism The musical group Kansas popularized the song “All we are is dust in the Wind”. While such a belief is not affirmed worldwide, according to statistics, it nonetheless exists. Freud (1957) argued that we “invent” a notion of the afterlife to deal with our fear of death; immortality is the universal wish of humankind. But according to Freud, it is just an illusion. The vociferous atheist Christopher Hitchens vowed he would not have a death bed confession as he faced his own premature death. He affirmed that there would be no God to receive his confession and no afterlife to receive his soul or spirit. Phil Zuckerman (2014) stated that we just need to realize that everything dies. According to him, accepting this fact fosters “a greater appreciation for life”, which in turn makes “living all the more urgent, love all the more important, authenticity all the more urgent, and time with friends and family all the more precious” (p. 199).

4  ULTIMATE/EXISTENTIAL QUESTIONS 

169

Secular worldviews deny the existence of a life beyond this life. This denial is based largely on a philosophical naturalism asserting that humans are in their essence material entities. Their coming into being as humans is the result of a long biological, physical process that did not entail the insertion of a soul or spirit from an outside source. From this worldview perspective, the death of an individual spells the end or termination of that person—there is no soul or spirit that survives the death process. Death does indeed have the final word and humans must simply accept that fact. An individual has one life to live and it is the responsibility and choice of that individual to live that life as he or she sees fit. A meaningful, responsible, and fruitful life can, of course, be lived in the face of the inevitable reality of death. The denial of a spiritual essence that did not or could not have emerged exclusively from the “dust of the earth” does nonetheless pose a problem for many who embrace a materialist worldview: how can an immaterial entity like the soul, or even human consciousness, arise from something purely physical, especially when matter is perceived to be inert or passive? This question, heavily discussed and debated in the seventeenth century, opened the door for the notion that an outside source injected the material human with spirit or soul. Some physicists today argue that matter can have its own inner dynamic; it can evolve on its own to produce living things. This can also include consciousness. However, this claim is still highly contentious and, as Popper called it, a “promissory materialism” (Midgely, 2011; Beauregard & O’Leary, 2007). Nonetheless, those who do embrace this notion argue that it then follows that spirituality, the soul, and even notions of an afterlife could also arise from this consciousness, even if all of these are an illusion, as Freud reminds us. Humphrey (2011) claims that consciousness adds spice to life and infuses us with all kinds of beliefs including religion and its notions of a soul, spirituality, and even life after death. While these beliefs have real impacts, they are nonetheless at bottom illusions—“soul dust” as Shermer and others affirm (Shermer, 2018; Melville, 2011; Bering, 2011). Such materialist views also lie behind all rejections of near-death experiences, asserting that scientifically an afterlife is absurd. Invoking materialistic principles from biological sciences and the latest medical technology, such experiences are reduced to little more than neurological traumas or the last gasps of the biological brain. These experiences may have an effect

170 

J. VALK

on the lives of those who have them, but provide no evidence for an afterlife (Churchland, 2013; Nelson, 2011; Bering, 2011). Cave (2012) also questions whether anyone would actually want to live forever. Even the Templeton-funded “Immortality Project” is giving more attention to the psychology of beliefs in the afterlife than to whether that life actually exists (Bering, 2013). With the inevitability of death as stark and real, and no belief in anything beyond it, those who embrace this worldview perspective still take some minimal measure of comfort in the face of such a harsh reality. One can still speak of a form of life after this life, even if it does not offer it specifically to the individual. Sherlock (2013) speaks of “digital resurrection” where new opportunities exist for a celebrity’s posthumous career, one which might even exceed that of their living career. According to Shermer (2018), there are “cryonicists, extropians, transhumanists, Omega Point theorists, singularitarians, and mind uploaders, and they are serious about defeating death” (p. x). Scientists are “considering singularity-­level technologies to engineer immortality by, among other things, transferring your soul—the pattern of information that represents your thoughts and memories as stored in the connectome of your brain— into a computer” (p, x). Apart from these scientific speculations, others assert that some sense of immortality can be gained simply by the fact that one lives on in one’s progeny, which is indeed a biological reality. Just as one bears the DNA of one’s ancestors, especially parents, one in turn passes their own on to their children and grandchildren, who may remember or attribute certain physical traits or characteristics to parents or grandparents. If one is not fortunate enough to have offspring, this form of “life after this life” offers no option. One must then be content with the inevitable reality that one’s body and its cells will be recycled into the earth and, as with all dead and decaying matter, will provide it nourishment. It is not surprising that in a secular age, with exclusive focus on this life and the denial of any form of existence that survives this life, ageing, death, and dying can become individual threats, to be warded off at every possible juncture. A culture that defies, if not denies, death begins to accentuate youth, limit or even eliminate the ageing process, becomes troubled with personal restrictions, and embraces a rampant materialism. Bumper stickers proclaiming “eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die” become the motto for a culture attempting to cheat death as best as

4  ULTIMATE/EXISTENTIAL QUESTIONS 

171

possible even if it will nonetheless ultimately succumb to it. For others who embrace secular perspectives, however, death becomes largely the sad reality of a loss of life, including a loss of rituals surrounding death. Newspaper columnist Margaret Wente (2009) reflected dolefully after a celebrative memorial: “Something’s lost when people get together and have a party and pretend the loved one has done nothing more than move to Cleveland”. Consumerism/Capitalism Those who embrace the Consumerist and Capitalist worldviews also confront the reality of death and the possibility of an afterlife. But they may see more opportunity than lament and may be more eager to assist people seeking to fend off as long as possible the inevitable, offering a happy eternity in the here and now, rather than in the hereafter. Their concern is with this life, for as we are made starkly aware, we cannot take our material things with us—there is no U-Haul behind a hearse, as some have frivolously remarked. Nonetheless, dying offers a lively business. While funeral companies can do little to ease a person into the afterlife, they can at least make life as comfortable as possible for those left behind. Death has also been sanitized. Funeral homes, in spite of their morbid atmosphere, nonetheless attempt to make as pleasant as possible an unpleasant experience. Few people need even touch the remains of a loved one who has passed from this life, for funeral personnel take over the task of properly preparing the body to make it most presentable for viewing. Even graves no longer need to be dug or filled by family members. Yet, one can still detect some concern for a life after this life from these secular worldview perspectives. One sees efforts focused on legacies, remembrances of individuals and their great achievements, an immortalization in this life that lives long after individuals may have died. Many successful capitalists have linked their names to universities (Cornel University), concert halls (Carnegie Hall), scholarships (Rhodes Scholarship), philanthropic foundations (Rockefeller Foundation), businesses (Ford Motor Company), and more. Within the consumer fashion world, a similar immortalization occurs, yet with a risk that because fashions are so fickle and its cycles so short, an individual may well outlive whatever legacy had been generated. Nonetheless, names have been

172 

J. VALK

immortalized in certain products: clothes (Calvin Klein), perfumes (Coco Chanel), fashion houses (Christian Dior), engines (Rudolf Diesel), galvanized metal (Luigi Galvani), airships (Ferdinand von Zeppelin), and more. A further sense of immortality is inherent in the Consumerist and Capitalist worldviews. Shermer (2018) points to numerous CEOs that invest millions of dollars in the pursuit of immortality. But even more so than the endeavours of individual capitalists, the entire capitalist system— the modern economy—is itself premised on an assumption of immortality, that is, a constant and indefinite need for and expectation of growth; it pursues creativity and imagination to generate endless growth. According to Harari (2017), “capitalism encourages us to seek immortality, happiness and divinity” (p. 33). This may seem like an elusive endeavour, but as Harari argues, we nonetheless continuously buy the latest product, seek new experiences, push human boundaries, and pursue new horizons, all in “quests for immortality, bliss and divinity” (p.  33). Immortality on this earth or in this universe, rather than some existence beyond this life in some ethereal realm, becomes the new pursuit. Using the ever-expanding power, creativity, and imagination of science (nanotechnology, biotechnology, artificial intelligence), and supported by bold and imaginative venture capitalists, the goal is not to be with God in some afterlife but to become homo deus in this life, by overcoming the limitations of homo sapiens if necessary (Harari, 2017). As one can see, resolving the issue of the existence of life after this life may be an impossible task—views and opinions vary drastically. As is often the case, however, it appears that most argue from a worldview position to the evidence rather than from the evidence to a worldview position. Nonetheless, considerable questions do remain for all involved. The monotheistic traditions, in order to remain credible, ought not to neglect the numerous questions and criticisms that arise in regard to their professed beliefs in an afterlife, especially those that arise from modern science. The notions of a resurrected body, a new heaven, and a new earth may all be embedded in theological beliefs and treatises, but they do raise endless scientific questions regarding how, when, and where these developments might all take place. Since empirical evidence for an afterlife is rather scant, these questions will continue to challenge those who affirm an afterlife existence. Lack of empirical evidence for an afterlife is not, however, conclusive evidence that there is in fact no afterlife. Life is a mystery. While science

4  ULTIMATE/EXISTENTIAL QUESTIONS 

173

can and has unearthed many of these mysteries, it is not clear that science can be relied upon to uncover and resolve all of them, let alone assert conclusively that the essence of all things is material. Science has its limitations. Denial of an afterlife is a view grounded in a philosophical materialism, which is itself a leap of faith and no more or less capable of rendering absolute certainty than any other worldview—religious or secular. Yet, while our individual existence in the foreseeable future will surely come to an end, not to be discounted is the long-term future of human existence itself. Will the imaginations of futurists and science fiction writers remain just that—secular aspirations? Or, will those imaginations become real in some currently unimaginable manner?

CHAPTER 5

Ontological/Epistemological Questions

Introduction When we are young, we are raised in situations and contexts where others—parents, family members, teachers, authority figures—come to define our reality and the world for us. They shape our beliefs and values and influence our actions and behaviours. We also come to believe that the way that we see the world is largely the way it is. When we grow older our knowledge and our experiences begin to change. We come to realize that what we were often taught about the world, or about ourselves and others, or what we thought about the world, about ourselves, and about others, needed to change—our new experiences informed us that reality was not exactly the way we initially thought, or were told. The world we began to experience and witness as we grew older seemed to be more complicated than we recognized, more multifaceted than we could imagine, more intricate than we could even understand, and more complex than we could ever comprehend. We become confronted with our human limitations, our capacity to know, and our ability to understand. Yet, the human drive to expand knowledge beckons us on the life-long journey of discovery, of expanding our horizons, in the search for yet more knowledge and information, even wisdom. We begin to discover the world for ourselves and we come to see the nature of being, including the nature of the human being, differently. We also come to see that others think differently. We

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. Valk, Worldviews, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82491-4_5

175

176 

J. VALK

come to see that people base their knowledge on different sources. We come to think more critically, and we come to think more individually. We are awakened to our own being. In previous chapters we have examined how our view of the world is shaped and influenced by our situation, including our upbringing and our socio-economic environment, as well as our ethnic, cultural, and national contexts. We came to realize that our worldview is shaped by the metanarratives that inform us, the teachings that emerge from them, our views of right and wrong, the rituals in which we engage, the symbols that speak to us, and the experiences we have. We also come to realize that we have views and opinions on the ultimate questions and how these inform our behaviours. As we have journeyed thus far, it has become clear that others—in our society, nation, continent, and other parts of the world—hold different perspectives than we do. And now we are beginning to understand why this is the case: they embrace different stories, sacred text, teachings, ethics, rituals, social contexts, and so forth. There are yet more matters that we need to pursue in order to deepen our understanding; an additional layer to expand our knowledge of others, and ourselves—one that is largely, though not exclusively, philosophical in nature. That layer can be very complex, one that has engaged philosophers for centuries, and for which answers are multiple and for which questions are never ending. Yet that layer is never far removed from aspects of our everyday lives—it confronts us in the decisions we make, or the ones we need to make, as we face the challenges of today and tomorrow. This chapter will investigate ontological and epistemological questions that will give more breadth and depth to our understanding of worldviews—our own and those of others. We begin with ontology.

Ontology: The Nature of Being Ontology is a branch of philosophy preoccupied with the nature of being or existence. Concerns about the fundamental nature of existence stretch back to the time of the early Indian and Greek philosophers of the first centuries BCE. In the Western world, the Greek philosophers, beginning with Parmenides, focused on being as unique and unchanging, and wondered whether existence was eternal, for it was argued that nothing could come from nothing. Yet others, beginning with Anaxagoras, focused more on becoming, arguing from a more atomistic view that while atoms form an unchangeable basic structure, they are in a constant state of flux leading

5  ONTOLOGICAL/EPISTEMOLOGICAL QUESTIONS 

177

to the dynamic nature of existence. In attempting to come to terms with the eternal and the dynamic, Plato proposed a background world of eternal, unchanging forms or ideas and a foreground world in which those universal forms or ideas, sometimes referred to as prototypes or exemplars, are given particular expression. Plato began largely with the universals, which he felt existed apart or separate from the particular, and then proceeded to the particulars. Aristotle, a pupil of Plato’s Academy in Athens, took distance from his teacher. He proposed that universals exist within the particular—“instantiated” in the particular—as the essence of things, and hence his interest in the study of particular phenomena. In contrast to Plato, Aristotle began with the particular and proceeded to the universal, and his natural philosophy focused on a study of the phenomena of the natural world, which over time came to include what we now see as the domain of the natural sciences. Both Plato and Aristotle played a formative role in the development of philosophy in the Western world. Of Plato, Alfred Norton Whitehead (1979) stated, “the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato” (p. 39). Aristotle is often referred to as the “Father of Western Philosophy”. The famous early sixteenth-century fresco The School of Athens painted by the Italian Renaissance artist Raphael uniquely depicts these two titans of Western philosophy discussing the essence of their philosophical differences, albeit captured in the classical spirit of the Renaissance, complete with some Renaissance figures portrayed as ancient Greek philosophers. To this day the thinking of both Plato and Aristotle continues to impact Western philosophy and especially ontology. Ontology has developed into its own sub-area of philosophy and has encompassed many complex subject matters. While its reach is vast, only two questions will be of concern here. The first will be the question of the nature of the universe in which we live, and particularly its essence. It will focus on the interplay between the physical and metaphysical, and particularly as it relates to the human. But in so doing we quickly encounter two basic philosophical or worldview positions or orientations—Physicalism and Metaphysicalism. Each claims that the nature and essence of the universe and the human lie in different places. Using some rather broad strokes these two will be highlighted in some detail for they accentuate the great divide between the two broader worldview categories of the secular and the religious, a divide that continues to challenge both camps. While some common ground can be achieved

178 

J. VALK

between the two, the divide is difficult to overcome. All too often, the divide reveals that a particular position is argued from rather to, inevitably reflecting a worldview stance. The purpose here is not to resolve a long-­ standing debate but to highlight some of the components of what is a complex matter, components that lead some to embrace one or another of these two broad worldview positions. Some implications as well as challenges and questions raised by each will also be highlighted. The second question will focus on cosmology, specifically on the origin and future of the universe, both of which in turn again raise philosophical and religious questions. In terms of both the origin and future of the universe, an attempt will not be made to answer these questions in themselves but rather to present the two basic worldview positions (secular and religious) on each of them. Here again, some complex ideas will be raised that reflect these worldview positions or are the consequences of them. Again, some implications as well as challenges raised by each of these two broad positions will be highlighted. The Universe in Which We Live  hysicalism (A Secular Worldview Perspective) P On the level of everyday experience, we encounter the physical components of the reality in which we live, move, and have our being. We observe the physical things around us, we experience our own physical bodies, and interact with those of others, we create things from the material of the earth, and we recognize the finiteness of the physical human body—we live and we expire. But is the physical world all that there is? Is all that exists, including the human, essentially physical material? According to the proponents of physicalism, the physical universe is the essence of all things; there is nothing apart from it, behind it or beyond it. Science has assisted us greatly in understanding the physical world and all that exists in it. Through the investigative endeavours of science, we have advanced our knowledge and awareness of the minutest sub-atomic building blocks of life to the vastness of a cosmos that is almost beyond the comprehension of the human mind. And the frontiers of our knowledge also continue to expand rapidly, so much so that current theories are quickly replaced or developed by new insights, as the physical universe yields more and more of its vast mysteries to us. So enthralled have we become with the insights gained that some are inclined to state that we are

5  ONTOLOGICAL/EPISTEMOLOGICAL QUESTIONS 

179

close to generating a “grand theory of everything”—in essence, discovering the secret of the physical universe, which Stephen Hawking quite optimistically equated to discovering “the mind of God”. From the perspective of physicalism that “grand theory” will revolve around matter for the essence of all things is physical matter, causally dependent on matter for its existence, or reducible to matter—to their physical, material, or natural properties. Mental, biological, and social states are also all seen in terms of the natural; anything that impacts the natural realm must itself have a natural cause, and all that is natural is governed by natural laws, by the laws of physics. The physical is the essence of all that exists and contains nothing beyond the physical—nothing supernatural. This is essentially the argument of positions also referred to as materialism, physical materialism, naturalism, physical naturalism, or methodological naturalism, though each of these has greater or lesser degrees of nuances. When it comes to determining the fundamental categories of the physical universe, a wide array of views surface. Carlo Rovelli (2017) believes that quantum fields are the most fundamental categories, that all things derive from it, and that the very complex can emerge from the very simple. Sean Carroll (2016) speaks of the universe as a quantum wave function, with many smaller wave functions. Anthony Aguirre (2019) feels that a wave function is information and that information or patterns of information are the essence of reality; information is the core unifier of the most fundamental aspects of reality. Alva Noë (2009) asserts, on the other hand, that the fundamental category is the person. A person is not a brain, not even a brain and a body but an agent, a living entity with thoughts, feelings, memories, and more. These may be regarded as non-physical, but that implies only that physics is unable to tell us precisely what they are or how they work. Consciousness is a natural phenomenon and humans have no soul, nor is there life after death. Ned Block (2007) also argues that everything is explainable in natural terms and that human thoughts, ideas, and beliefs are reducible to brain functioning. While he does not close the door entirely to something supernatural, he sees no good reason to believe in it now. As can be seen from the above, physicalism or naturalism in its various forms is atheistic in its worldview orientation. There is no dimension outside, above or beyond the physically known universe—it is a closed system of cause and effect. The universe is self-organizing and unfolding according to some very precise natural, physical laws that emerged at the time of

180 

J. VALK

the Big Bang. Humans are part of a long evolutionary unfolding of the universe, though with a much shorter history. They are the most evolved and most sophisticated of all creatures, separated from other species by a highly developed sense of self-reflection and self-consciousness—the universe essentially reflecting on itself and conscious of itself. The emergence of human consciousness, however, creates a problem for proponents of physical materialism. It is linked to the mind-body problem. Are the mind and body two distinct entities, though with the mind dependent on the body? This is often referred to as a substantive dualism. Further, is the mind similar to or synonymous with human consciousness? Can human consciousness be linked to the soul with the possibility of the survival of the soul beyond death? Or are the mind and the body integrally connected in a way that does not permit the separate and distinct existence of the mind or the body? Such a position is often referred to as a monism. John Searle (2005) is aware of the mind-body problem, and the concern of the existence of human consciousness. But from the perspective of biological naturalism he argues that human consciousness, though ontologically distinct, nonetheless arises and is inseparable from brain functioning. Consciousness is a result of neurological brain functioning. It can all be explained materially or neurologically; “it’s all biology”—you are your brain. There is no room for a soul that is distinct from the body. Dean Zimmerman (2010) rejects the substance dualism that emerges from Descartes. He argues that the physical brain generates consciousness, and this in turn generates what he regards as false beliefs such as the existence of a soul. Susan Blackmore (2011), leaning heavily on Daniel Dennett, feels that humans evolved from the material properties of a physical universe. She rejects all notions of the soul and belief in an afterlife; arguing that there is no evidence for such beliefs. The writer and philosopher Rebecca Newberger Goldstein (n.d.) similarly rejects such notions, arguing that they add nothing explanatory. She feels that once physicists discover a theory of everything, there will no longer be room for ideas that generate from religion, including the belief in a soul, God, or the afterlife. Physicalism can perhaps be summed up to include some of the following basic premises. First, the focus is exclusively on the here and now—the saeculum. The material universe is the fundamental category. Everything originates from matter, from the material substance of the universe. In this sense, physicalism is reductionistic. Second, human consciousness is a product of the brain. All human thoughts, ideas, imaginations, and beliefs

5  ONTOLOGICAL/EPISTEMOLOGICAL QUESTIONS 

181

are a result of neurological functioning—all arise from and have their origin in the physical brain. Humans in their very essence consist of material substance. We are our bodies and we are ultimately physical. Third, spirituality and religion may result from brain activity, but they have no relationship to anything beyond the here and now. There is no spiritual dimension beyond that which emerges from the material world. Religion is a human invention arising at a certain point in time to grasp at and attempt to make sense of the unknown. God, as Feuerbach argued, is nothing more than a projection of the human ideal. Fourth, materialist philosophers from various sub-disciplines of philosophy align their thinking closely to science, especially physics. They affirm that science offers no proof or evidence of anything beyond the physical universe, and true knowledge comes only from science; anything more is speculative. Some may take a more agnostic position but indicate that if there is something more, we cannot know much, if anything, about it. Other well-known philosophers and scientists who embrace physicalism in its various forms are Daniel Dennett, Stephen Hawking, Michael Tooley, Michael Schermer, Brian Cox, David Lewis, and more. Some of what is asserted from a physicalism perspective does, however, create some philosophical if not scientific problems. Physicalism is grounded in science but one of the biggest questions is whether science can gain access to the spirit world, for example, or cosmic consciousness, gods, or God, all of which have been embraced by many people from the historical past and into the present. If it cannot, does this entail that such worlds or beings exist only in the mind, which is then reduced to human brain functioning? Kuhn affirmed that just because we cannot know something does not mean it cannot be there (Leslie & Kuhn, 2013). Those who believe in the existence of a metaphysical reality see limitations in the perspective of physicalism.  etaphysicalism (A Religious Worldview Perspective) M Metaphysicalism states that there is something beyond just physical matter; something beyond what we can directly access with our senses; hence metaphysical. It argues that the physical material of the earth is infused with something that is not ultimately grounded in or arises from physical matter itself. It accepts that non-material causal forces can play a direct role within the physical world. It affirms a realm of the mind and conscience, a dimension of reality outside the system of physical cause and effect; a non-material component to reality—a spirit world. Metaphysicalism

182 

J. VALK

does not reject science. It embraces the findings of science, but it is quite sceptical of the claim that science will at some point be able to explain all of reality. Metaphysicalism is inclusive of theism but not exclusively so. Thomas Nagel (2012), for example, caused the ire of fellow atheists when he challenged the reductionism of the dominant scientific naturalist claim that conscious humans are simply a product of natural selection and purely physical process. Nagel, a self-declared atheist, “thought it useful to explore possible alternatives”, and called into question materialism and, in an ironic quip, a “Darwinism of the gaps” (p.  127). David Chalmers (2003), also a non-physicalist and a non-theist, similarly called into question the merits of an exclusive materialism, indicating that it failed to take into account the existence of consciousness, proposing instead a “natural dualism”. Fred Alan Wolf (1996) also calls into question the view that materiality is fundamental and that all human thinking and consciousness can be explained neurologically. From the perspective of quantum mechanics, he speaks of a non-material “focuser”, which he calls “spirit” and postulates a “spirit world”, one more fundamental and primary to the material world. He links this to the “dream world” spoken of by more ancient peoples, especially the Aborigines of Australia, which contains creation stories of the evolutionary unfolding of the earth (Wolf, n.d.). Wolf, a non-theist, feels that here one can speak of a Creator; a being that created a universe that unfolds according to the laws of nature yet one that unfolds purposefully. Wolf was a member of the Fundamental Fysiks Group, formed in San Francisco in 1975. It included a number of physicists who were enamoured by quantum mysticism, the link between quantum mechanics and philosophical/mystical ideas. Some of their ideas were popularized by Fritjof Capra in his book The Tao of Physics (Capra, 1975). Not unexpectedly, many critics regarded science linked to a mystical worldview as pseudoscience (Kaiser, 2011). Other physicists are more receptive to the notion that there is more to existence than physical materialism. They speak also of a transcendent divine Being. John Eccles (1994) postulates a dualism that is the bane of materialists, asserting that mind is independent of the brain. A theist, Eccles believed Divine Providence guided the material unfolding of biological evolution. John Leslie (2001) postulates a mind behind the universe and affirms that reality is essentially mental. Theologian Keith Ward (2017), in developing his own philosophy which he refers to as personal idealism, states that mind is the basic reality of the universe and that the

5  ONTOLOGICAL/EPISTEMOLOGICAL QUESTIONS 

183

nature and purpose of mind progressively unfold all of the universe; mind is the ultimate reality out of which physical things are generated or constructed. Alvin Plantinga (2008), in response to biological naturalists such as Searle, makes a distinction between the self or the mind and the body. He invokes Leibnitz’s Law, arguing that while there may be a causal link between the two, they are not the same. He recognizes that mental functioning is dependent on the brain. Yet dependence and identity, he argues, are not the same. He further embraces the notion of some being or entity beyond the material universe, and for Plantinga that being or entity is a mindful Creator God. Paul Davies (1993) states that he “belongs to the group of scientists who do not subscribe to a conventional religion” (p. 16). He believes that a divine entity created the universe for a reason and that humans are part of that reason, even if they are not always fully cognizant of what that reason might be. He acknowledges that consciousness emerges from the universe, yet this does not preclude that there might be something beyond the universe, of which the human mind can have some awareness, however partial or imprecise. Davies (1984) feels information is the primary content of the universe and that matter is derived from it. He feels that the universe is hardwired and that the laws of physics, which are not imposed on the universe from the outside but inherent in and emergent with the universe, are the software. According to Davies, God can work with the software to intervene in the world, but that intervention is never contrary to or a suspension of the laws of physics (Davies & Gribbin, 2007). Metaphysicalism has the following features. One, it affirms that there is more to the world than what we can directly access with our senses, that there is a reality beyond the physical, a realm of the mind and conscience, a dimension outside the system of physical cause and effect, a non-material component to reality. Two, it asserts that humans are not exclusively physical, material beings, but that they also have a spiritual side; a spiritual dimension. Hence, it is receptive to a spiritual “world”, a numinous (Otto, 2012). Three, it accepts that non-material causal forces can play a direct role within the physical world. It argues that there is “something more”: a great mystery, a transcendent reality, God, a Creator, or a Spiritual Being that transcends the physical universe, is not bound by time and space, and has an interest in humans and in how they live their lives. Four, it states that there is a larger story, one that humans cannot quite comprehend, but have become aware of nevertheless.

184 

J. VALK

The Cosmos in Which We Live Humans have been on this earth for a relatively brief time, but the sun and planets, including the earth itself, have a much longer history, perhaps some 4.5 billion years. The universe in which we live has an even longer history. We speak about the universe coming into existence with the Big Bang, estimated by physicists to be about 13.7  billion years ago. Most scientists, philosophers, and theologians are quite comfortable with such a general view, admitting some nuances once one explores these issues further. Others, and mostly religious fundamentalists, however, refute such a view, favouring instead a younger universe or younger earth theory. Nonetheless, whether one embraces a longer or a shorter view regarding the age of the universe, questions pertaining to its beginning and ending are still debated vigorously. It is here also that one can discern various worldviews—ranging from the secular to the religious, with the latter incorporating both spiritual and theist worldview traditions. It is to these that we now turn when contemplating both the beginning and ending of the cosmos. The most widely embraced story is that of Big Bang Cosmology. It speaks in general about the beginning of the cosmos, but also recognizes that an expanding universe may also collapse and hence end at a certain point. Both secular and religious worldview positions intertwine on this subject matter but see the implications differently. Further, a number of cosmologists and physicists prefer to speak of when the universe started rather than when it began. Speaking of when it began often presupposes an absolute beginning that poses certain challenges, which some feel is very difficult to ascertain. Speaking of when it started shifts the nuance to the universe’s unfolding and what has occurred since the beginnings. In the Beginning(s) Aristotle assumed an eternal universe; one that had no beginning and no end; what would be referred to much later as a constant or steady state universe. That view clashed with the Judeo-Christian Creation Story, as recorded in the Book of Genesis, and which theologically was understood as God creating the universe ex nihilo. While an early Greek notion of a heliocentric universe had surfaced, it was eclipsed by the more dominant Ptolemaic geocentric theory, which held sway until Copernicus established his heliocentric view, a view confirmed by Galileo and his newly invented telescope. But even though postulating a heliocentric universe challenged

5  ONTOLOGICAL/EPISTEMOLOGICAL QUESTIONS 

185

Church doctrine at the time, it did little to challenge the concept of an eternal universe. That challenged surfaced near the beginning of the twentieth century. It was even seen by some as supporting the earlier Judeo-­ Christian Creation story. In a 1949 BBC radio broadcast, British astronomer Fred Hoyle first coined the term “big bang”, but he used it rather pejoratively. Hoyle (1994), a man who despised organized religion, felt some scientists were beginning to latch on to the notion of a temporal beginning of the universe because it aligned nicely with the Genesis Creation Story. He called big bang cosmology “a form of religious fundamentalism” (p. 413). Hoyle preferred, as Aristotle had centuries before, the “steady state theory”, which understood the universe as eternal and essentially unchanging. In contrast, Belgian priest and physicist George Lemaitre had theoretically proposed earlier in 1929 a universe in which the galaxies where moving further away from each other and at tremendous speeds. This was confirmed two years later by Edwin Hubble’s infrared shifts discoveries, which came to be known as Hubble’s Law. Projecting all of this now back in time, Lemaitre postulated a singular event as the beginning of the universe, which he called the “hypothesis of the primal atom” (Soter & de Grasse Tyson, 2001). For this he became known as the “father of the Big Bang”. Yet Lemaitre, though religious, discouraged Pius XII from appropriating his theory on the origin of the universe to validate the Catholic faith. He always felt religion and cosmology were two distinct realms that should not be mixed (Holder, 2012; Singh, 2005). Owen Gingerich (2006), writing many years later, felt somewhat the same way as did Lemaitre—that religion and theological beliefs need to keep their distance from science: each are of a different calibre. Scientific naturalism is needed for good science to be done. Yet, Gingerich, a theist who sought to open up “a theistic space”, was receptive to God playing an interactive role—unnoticed by science, yet not excluded from it. He criticized Dawkins for confusing science and an atheistic scientism. Nonetheless, Gingerich was also willing to go a step further. While rejecting Gould’s non-overlapping magisteria—that science and religion are two different realms—he recognized that culture, including religious and atheist beliefs, does in fact play significant roles in influencing science. From his own theistic worldview, Gingerich (2014) felt the amazing discoveries of science propelled him to stand in awe of God’s handiwork. This did not, however, prevent him from postulating about the origins of the cosmos. He felt it did not have a precise beginning as much as it did an age. He said

186 

J. VALK

that when we look out at the expanding universe, we are at the same time looking back. Elements do not appear instantly but had to be built up in stars, and because of evolution, things are not static but always changing. The idea of a universe created ex nihilo, whether conceived from a physicist or theological perspective, is not embraced by everyone. J. Richard Gott proposed that the universe is not created ex nihilo, but is actually made from itself, through a time loop. Through inflation and accelerated expansion, an initial universe branched off to create many universes with the possibility of one looping back to itself (Gott & Li, 1998). Gott, a theist, faced the same challenge as other theists, that the origin of the universe as a legitimate physics question can lead in many different directions. Yet, when removing one’s science hat these also impinge on one’s own beliefs, whether theistic or atheist (Neimark, 2007). Alan Guth (1997) developed a theory of cosmic inflation in 1971 that argued that the universe was constantly expanding and that galaxies move further and further apart in an expanding acceleration. But he too rejected any notion of a creation ex nihilo, let alone a Creator. Instead, Guth, an atheist, postulated multiple universes as an explanation of beginnings. So too did Brian Greene (2011), as did Paul Steinhardt. Steinhardt (2011) felt that the science is not clear regarding a beginning, only that the universe is expanding today. While he too postulated many big bangs and that our universe was not a creation out of nothing, he came to position himself against Guth, arguing that Guth’s inflation theory is non-falsifiable, terming it the “unlikeliness problem”. Steinhardt (2011) stated that “a theory that predicts everything predicts nothing” (p. 42). He spoke more about a cyclical universe (Steinhardt & Turok, 2007). Steinhardt does not readily reveal his religious leanings, only to say, “it is a demonstrated fact that successful physicists can believe in God” (Horgan, 2014). Richard Swinburne (2010), a theist, is equally sceptical of the multiverse theory. According to him, it claims too much to explain too little; “To postulate a trillion, trillion other universes, rather than one God in order to explain the orderliness of our universe, seems the height of irrationality” (p. 68). The inflationary theory, along with the notion of a multiverse or multi-­ universes, continues, however, to hold wide appeal. A multiverse becomes more acceptable scientifically because of its explanatory powers, even though it is highly speculative and there is little to no evidence to support it. It has attracted many cosmologists, regardless of their worldview. A multiverse appeals most particularly, however, to atheists, who see it as an alternative to a natural theology that postulates a Creator. They state

5  ONTOLOGICAL/EPISTEMOLOGICAL QUESTIONS 

187

emphatically that there is no evidence for the existence of a Creator, yet ironically, they embrace a multiverse for which others state emphatically that there is also no evidence. Nonetheless, the matter of a multiverse emerges most particularly when the question of the existence of a fine-­ tuned universe that permits life, including human life, surfaces. S omething Rather than Nothing? Physicists have long realized that our universe developed in a particular way that resulted in the abundance of life we now see on the earth. But how does one explain this rather rare and unique phenomenon? How does one explain a universe that is so finely tuned that if the constants were only infinitesimally different it would not permit its emergence, let alone that of plant, animal, and human life? A number of possibilities emerge, each of which aligns with particular worldviews. One argument for a fine-tuned universe stipulates simple randomness. It simply accepts the way things are; we are here because we are here, a postulate advanced by many who embrace a variety of atheistic worldview positions. Of all the billions of galaxies, stars, and planets that exist in our universe, it should not be surprising that one emerged teeming with life. It could simply be a random cosmic fluke. The Big Bang created endless possibilities and by chance one planet emerged supporting life. Well-­ known atheist Anthony Grayling (2013a) affirmed that the physical constants are the way they are because they simply are. To postulate anything more, especially the argument regarding design, according to him, requires an ontological leap, a leap outside the range of physics. It violates Occam’s Razor; one should strive for simple (physical) solutions rather than complicated ones involving an ontological leap into other (theological) realms. The argument from a simple randomness, however, receives decreasing support today because it begs too much. The laws of physics, with their various constants, are so precise and so finely tuned, it is argued, that they allow virtually no possibilities for life to eventually occur, unless something else was at play. According to Robert Spitzer (2004, 2010), it is an extreme cosmological coincidence that a single universe would have generated life merely by chance. William Dembski (2001) called this the “chance of the gaps fallacy”, a push back to those who invoke the “god of the gaps fallacy” in resisting supernatural explanations. Dembski feels scientists need to guard against an equally unqualified use of chance in explaining why things are the way they are. Some physicists still hope to uncover a grand

188 

J. VALK

theory that will explain why our universe is so finely tuned, but most sense that no such theory exists and hence they look elsewhere. A second view postulates multiple universes rather than just one, as mentioned above. With many possible universes, it is plausible that one is sufficiently fine-tuned to permit life. Here one finds a variety of worldview positions, though more so of those who embrace atheism. Alan Guth (1997) advocated the multiverse theory, as previously mentioned, which he feels allows for the Anthropic Principle and solves the problem of fine-­ tuning. He also allows for the possibility that only “our universe is fine-­ tuned but this is not necessary for all universes” (Guth, n.d.). Not all universes need to be fine-tuned; only ours so that it permits life. A multiverse theory allows that every possible situation will occur somewhere and that the universe we see is just a small piece of the whole, and in it we see a universe open to life. Alexander Vilenkin (2013) embraces the concept of a multiverse and further explains how the universe can originate from nothing by referring to what he terms as quantum tunnelling. Quentin Smith argues that God is not necessary to postulate a beginning. He also embraces a multiverse yet struggles to answer the question of why there is such a fine-tuned universe (Craig & Smith, 1993). Sean Carroll (2016) finds a theistic argument problematic and argues for eternal inflation and the multiverse. Leonard Mlodinow states that the multiverse theory was not developed to explain fine-tuning yet finds that it does so. If this theory is rejected, he argues, “then one is left with accepting the existence of God”, which he does not, or of a singular fine-tuned universe that just happened by chance, and all too many physicists and cosmologists reject both (Mlodinow, n.d.; Hawking & Mlodinow, 2012). Most problematic with a multiverse thesis at this point, however, is that it must remain a hypothesis out of necessity; it is impossible to prove—no evidence exists to confirm it. It is based entirely on speculation and probability. As such, some are gravitating towards a third position. This is one that seeks to explain a fine-tuned universe that is not a result of pure randomness and chance, and also one not grounded in an atheistic materialism. It seeks explanations for a fine-tuned universe by postulating some greater intelligence or mind, but without reference to a theistic God. It also does not necessarily reject a multiverse theory. Brian Josephson feels that “life and mind did not emerge first in our universe but are rather a background to our universe”. It is this “primordial life or mind that develops the fine-tuning to promote the further development of life” in the universe. However, Josephson is quick to point

5  ONTOLOGICAL/EPISTEMOLOGICAL QUESTIONS 

189

out that this primordial life is not the God of philosophers and theologians and while it might be the object of reverence for some, it is not so for him (Josephson, n.d.). Josephson was linked with the Fundamental Fysiks Group in the 1970s and embraced a more Eastern quantum mysticism (Josephson & Conrad, 1992). Bernard Carr (2004, 2009) argues from a Buddhist perspective and embraces a multiverse theory. This theory, according to him, made the Anthropic Principle acceptable again: “out of many universes there could be one with life and human life” (Carr, n.d.). Fine-tuning is the best evidence for the multiverse theory. But Carr admits that the same problem arises: these multiverses cannot be seen. At best there is only indirect evidence for their reality based on theories that predict them. Stuart Kauffman (1993, 1999) uses Occam’s Razor to refute the possibility of a multiverse and refutes materialism as an explanation of life because it is reductionist. He speaks of finding order in a self-organizing universe, and of “ceaseless creativity” within the biosphere selecting its own possibilities of the future. He argues that the qualities often bestowed on God—those of creativity, meaning, and purposeful action—are really the properties of the universe itself. Kauffman (2008) postulates not a supernatural God but a “Creator” that is really the natural creativity of the universe itself—“God” as the face of Mystery. A fourth position is embraced by physicists and cosmologists who more freely postulate the existence of a theistic God as explanation for the fine-­ tuning of the universe. Some are unabashed theists, though others are more reticent to embrace this worldview position. Paul Davies belongs to the latter group. As mentioned above, Davies (1993) rejects a secular materialism and the view that the universe is “a purposeless accident” or merely “a brute fact”. He indicates instead that “a deeper level of explanation” is required, and invokes a teleological argument: “I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact” (p. 16). However, Davies is reluctant to give more specificity to that explanation other than to refer to that deeper level as “mind”: “whether one wishes to call that deeper level ‘God’ is a matter of taste and definition” (p. 16). Though raised in an Anglican tradition, he has left behind organized religion and does not invoke theism, though he is not disinclined to frequently use the term “God”. According to the late physicist Ernan McMullin, there are really only two basic choices when it comes to explaining fine-tuning. The first is to

190 

J. VALK

start with the universe as a given and not ask why it is here and why it is fine-tuned; this is generally where science stops. The second is to begin with a Creator who created the fine-tuned universe; this is where religious people stop (McMullin, n.d.). Postulating a multiverse becomes more acceptable scientifically, even if there is no evidence for it, than postulating a God, which would bring more issues into the equation for which there is also no scientific evidence (Allen, 2006). Philosopher and theist Peter van Inwagen (2014) insists that the best explanation for a fine-tuned universe is an Intelligent Being who wanted life to emerge—an external designer of the universe. Robin Collins (1999, 2006) similarly speaks of a fine-tuned universe that gives evidence for the existence of God. The universe is fine-tuned for beauty and elegance but also for life and intelligence, which he argues would make much more sense under theism; a God who would want life would also want beauty and elegance. Collins speaks of the “surprising factor”: “it is not a surprise under a God-hypothesis, but it is a surprise under an atheist model” (Collins, n.d.). Within this position are also physicists who recognize the attractiveness of the multiverse theory yet recognize that it really does not resolve the problem of a fine-tuned universe. Scientist and Anglican priest Rodney Holder (2013, 2014) accepts that a multiverse theory might be a viable alternative explanation and that it might even reduce the need for postulating the existence of a God. However, the philosophical question why there are multi-universes still remains—“why there is something rather than nothing” (Holder, n.d.). The dilemma has not disappeared. Richard Swinburne (2010) is sceptical of a multiverse theory, though he accepts the possibility. Yet, he indicates that some meta-laws must be in place for multiple universes to occur, and not all universes then need to be fine-­ tuned. From his theistic perspective, he argues that “God could bring about many universes; a multiverse theory does not refute God” (Swinburne, n.d.). In fact, he feels that the scientific questions surrounding a fine-tuned universe provide good grounds for belief in God. Robert John Russell (2008) agrees that God could bring about multiple universes. He does not use the fine-tuned argument to postulate the existence of God, however, but more as an illumination, demonstration, and glorification of God. Don Page (2007) feels that a multiverse theory does not undermine the existence of God. Multi-universes could be designed in such a way by God that only one universe brings forth life. Francis Collins

5  ONTOLOGICAL/EPISTEMOLOGICAL QUESTIONS 

191

(2006), nominated by President Barack Obama in 2009 to become the Director of the National Institutes of Health, was initially an atheist, but converted to Christianity while in graduate school. He is similarly receptive to a multiverse hypothesis, but finds it requires even more faith than a belief in a universe purposefully designed. Robert Spitzer (2004), Jesuit priest and philosopher, also feels that a multiverse model is possible yet remains agnostic on it for a lack of evidence. Nonetheless, such a multiverse would still require both fine-tuning and a beginning of some sort. He feels that a multiverse model only moves the design argument a step back; it does not eliminate a Creator or some greater Intelligence—the designer argument is back in vogue (Spitzer, n.d.). Theist and physicist Stephen Barr (2016) makes a distinction between what is logically possible and what is plausible. He argues that the universe appears to be fine-tuned, and whether this is a result of a multiverse is not something that is observable; it cannot be empirically proven. While Barr leans towards a multiverse hypothesis, he admits that religious people really do not have a stake in it. He also indicates that some atheists dislike the multiverse theory for the same reason they dislike the God hypothesis: both are empirically untestable (Barr, n.d.). From his Catholic perspective, however, Barr is not hesitant to postulate a Creator. Niels Henrik Gregersen, a theist, states that from a scientific perspective God is not needed for a self-organizing universe; all that is needed are the right conditions. A fine-tuned universe with its fine-tuned laws will have the capacity to evolve. For Gregersen, however, it is not just about a selforganizing universe; it is also about a world of beauty and variation: “the world is imbued with a loving Creator who nurtures a universe with these self-organizing characteristics: God says ‘let it be’  – let it develop”. Gregersen “reverses the traditional theistic perspective by looking at the universe and asking how and what one can learn about God from it” (Gregersen, n.d.). Physicist Freeman Dyson knows that science is a powerful tool. Yet he recognizes that it is also only one tool to acquire knowledge; knowledge can be gained from a variety of sources—science, literature, religion—and none should be excluded. He is as concerned about scientific fundamentalism—the arrogant view that science can explain everything, a kind of “scientific imperialism”—as he is about religious fundamentalism. Dyson rejects a multiverse theory on similar grounds as stated by others: it is purely hypothetical and out of the reach of science. He is more inclined to

192 

J. VALK

accept the notion of one universe that is fine-tuned, which was the result of a mind, or God, that exists outside of it (Dyson, n.d.). Though religious, Dyson (2000) becomes only a little more specific about what he means by this: I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension. God may be either a world-soul or a collection of world souls. … I do not say that this personal theology is supported or proved by scientific evidence. I only say that it is consistent with scientific evidence.

John Polkinghorne (1994) is more specific about the interrelationship between his science and religious views. A physicist who later became an Anglican clergyman, Polkinghorne feels religious faith can inform physics. According to him, “the question of God is the most important question we face about the nature of reality” (p. 52). He argues that the ultimate answer to Leibniz’s great question “why is there something rather than nothing” has to postulate God. He considers the atheist’s explanation of the world’s existence a “grossly impoverished view of reality [and that] theism explains more than a reductionist atheism can ever address” (p. 71). Such views would not, of course, go over well with those who embrace an atheistic materialism, whether this involves a multiverse theory or an explanation for a fine-tuned universe. Perhaps in all of this the differences are less in the science and more in the starting points. Physicist and theologian Christopher Southgate (2005) felt that the anthropic coincidence— physical laws with their extremely small parameters of variants that led to the emergence of human life—leans towards the possibility of design. Most insightful, however, is his recognition that one’s beginning worldview premise will determine where one ends. If one’s starting point is “an atheistic materialism, so that a God explanation is bizarre, then one will be more inclined to speak about multiverses. If one begins with theism, the simple explanation of God answers the fine-tuning question, and that a multiverse theory is bizarre” (Southgate, n.d.). Nonetheless, Southgate finds no need to abandon God even if evidence is found for the multiverse theory. A theologian, he feels, need not be afraid of how science develops. In the End(ings)(?) Some of the same questions that come to the fore regarding the beginnings of the universe surface again in regard to the ending of the universe.

5  ONTOLOGICAL/EPISTEMOLOGICAL QUESTIONS 

193

Here cosmologists again employ theories of inflation and multiple universes to deal with what appears to be the potential ending of the cosmos, and of course also that of human life. According to Big Bang cosmology inflation continues to occur. The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate due to the weakening of gravitational forces. As a result, galaxies will move further and further apart. In about ten billion years the galaxies will have moved so far apart that the stars in the sky may no longer be visible. Alan Guth (1997) predicts that with inflation and continued expansion, our universe will expand and ultimately life will die. Temperatures will also have plummeted, leading him to speak of a “big chill” or a “big freeze”. Others speak of gravity weakening, leading to a reverse process; a deflation in which the universe will collapse back into a singularity, this time coined the “big crunch”. Of course, the sun in the meantime will have grown to such size that it will encompass the earth and render it a fiery demise, which appears to be the planet’s immediate destiny. In either case, the destiny of the earth and the universe does not appear to be very hopeful. What are the short-term and long-term implications of all of this? Here again, a number of basic worldview positions emerge. The first position is that of a secular worldview. There are some physicists who feel that while the immediate future of humans is not promising—we live and we die—there may be other future scenarios that offer some hope for humans as a species, even from an atheistic worldview perspective. For example, Andrei Linde, Russian-American theoretical physicist and Professor of Physics at Stanford University, feels that a small part of the universe will continue, as a tiny bubble of energy where life can continue. Alex Vilenkin feels that the universe will continue to expand, but not forever. A tiny bubble of negative energy vacuum will consume everything, yet a certain area will be unaffected. Michael Shermer feels that even if our life does die out in the future, there might yet be new life of some kind, though he does not speculate what that might be or where. Gregory Benford, physicist and science fiction writer, states that in fifty billion years most stars will have burned out. In one billion years Earth will be too hot to sustain life. But we can avoid a catastrophe by literally moving the earth. Though quite speculative, he feels it can be done by “swinging asteroids past the earth to change its position, thus transforming the universe”. He feels it is also theoretically possible to engineer the sun to make it last longer. We might even be able to harness energy from black holes. While this borders on science fiction, Benford believes science can tell us how to do this, even if it is a huge engineering feat. He says, “We

194 

J. VALK

cannot go back, only forward. We need to adapt to a new universe that is always changing” (Benford, n.d.). Michio Kaku (2018) speaks about the future ability to manipulate time and space to open up gateways to other possibilities, to create a lifeboat universe to escape the death of our own universe. He speculates that perhaps “the Big Bang was itself a lifeboat – a universe created to escape the death of another universe” (Kaku, n.d.). When it comes to the future of humans as a species, there is no less speculation, even from the perspective of an atheist worldview. Laurence Krauss (1999), theoretical physicist and cosmologist, agrees that if the universe is expanding galaxies will move away further from each other, the sun will expand, and the earth will perish. Yet, he hopes that even if human life here dies out in the future, there might be new life somewhere else. Ray Kurzweil (2000, 2013) feels that intelligence will expand and will take on a superhuman form. Though humans are alone in the universe, expansion of technology in the future allows for the expansion of intelligence. To be human, according to Kurzweil, means to transcend boundaries, and in the future humans will transcend themselves; they will become non-­ biological entities, able to transcend death. They will transcend their biological selves, though not their humanity. According to Kurzweil (n.d.), humans are knowledge creators, and our knowledge is expanding exponentially, as we have witnessed in the last number of decades. We now need computers to store all the knowledge we have gained thus far; knowledge of art, music, engineering, and even knowledge of ourselves. This is all uniquely human; human knowledge is not just information.

Swedish-born Nick Bostrom (2014), professor of philosophy at Oxford University and founder and director of the Future of Humanity Institute, speaks of a similar scenario—a future super-intelligence. Bostrom focuses his research on the future of humanity and its long-term outcomes. According to Bostrom, we could become a super-intelligent machine, which could assist humans in realizing their human values and even upload certain desires into ourselves. The second position is that of a religious worldview perspective. Here we find some similar views regarding the possible future of the universe and that of humanity by those who embrace a religious, but not necessarily theistic, worldview. Astrobiologist Steven Dick (2018) speaks of the “intelligence principle”, the driving force of cultural evolution, and the possibility of enhancing human intelligence to achieve a post-biological

5  ONTOLOGICAL/EPISTEMOLOGICAL QUESTIONS 

195

machine intelligence. Dick (2000) recognizes that theology must take into consideration what science tells us about the universe. As such, he speaks of a “cosmic-theology”. Paul Davies (2009) feels that science will reveal more insight into a possibility for life and mind to be expanded throughout the universe. He speaks of life, mind, and culture as real cosmic forces, which have not only resulted in the cosmos self-reflecting through science and human reason, but may also lead in the far future to a cultural evolution on a grand scale that changes the course or character of the universe as it moves to its destiny. Those of a religious worldview perspective, especially a theist perspective, have a challenge to link what science seems to be saying about the end of our universe, especially our solar system, with the promises emerging from revealed religion that death is not the end of the story. Here the focus is not so much on what humans will do, whether in a trans-modified form of super-intelligence or transcended form of biological limitation, but rather on what God will accomplish. But here some speculation is no less at play, at least at the interface of physics and theology. If physics informs us that the future is bleak, then a theological rendering of the future must take this into account. However, theologians from a Christian worldview perspective affirm, based on what the Scriptures teach, that death and extinction are not the last story. Paul Fiddes (n.d.), Baptist theologian and professor of Systematic Theology at Oxford University, speaks about “the re-creation of all, not just individual bodies and souls but a corporate re-creation, even of inanimate things”. Humans are made of the cosmic elements, and hence the future re-creation is also a cosmic re-creation. Humans and the cosmos will be uplifted to a new level of new possibilities, and that new reality will be free of the brokenness of this world and this cosmos (Fiddes, 2000). Christopher Southgate (2008) similarly speaks of a cosmos that will be transformed and redeemed. He feels that creation remains unfinished. Through the death and resurrection of Jesus, God has inaugurated a new creational evolutionary phase in which the creation will be transformed and healed. He rejects, on the one hand, the approaches of Creationism and Intelligent Design because they fail to account sufficiently for the evolutionary process, and on the other hand, a process theology because it fails to sufficiently take into account God’s role in the redeeming of creation. According to Southgate, “we live in a universe of change, decay and suffering” (Southgate, n.d.), but the future will bring a transformed cosmos free of suffering and decay.

196 

J. VALK

Robert John Russell (2008) admits that the most difficult challenges that lie at the interface of science and theology have to do with the future of human life and the cosmos. One must avoid a science fiction on the side of science on the one hand and a spiritual resurrection on the side of theology on the other. Russell feels that the creation was destined for transformation; it had to be transformable. He speaks about both a future continuity and a discontinuity; a future whereby the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy) preserves the beauty and goodness experienced in the present and also overcomes the pain, suffering, and decay also experienced in the present. Nonetheless, that transformation is a transformation of the entire cosmos; the resurrection of Jesus was a foretaste of what will come in the future. John Polkinghorne similarly speaks of a continuity and discontinuity between this life and future existence. He feels God can bring into being a new form of matter with a self-organizing principle that does not drift into decay. He speaks of a new creation, not as a second one or a better attempt than the first, but as a new creation born out of the old. That new creation will be a temporal unfolding or unveiling of the divine presence, and it will be cosmic in scope (Polkinghorne & Welker, 2000). Robin Collins (2006) also speaks of continuity and discontinuity and uses the analogy of the metamorphosing of the caterpillar; within the caterpillar lies a future butterfly. Hidden within the caterpillar is information that is activated at a certain point that leads to the unveiling of a butterfly. There will be a gradual unfolding that may also require a rapid movement initiated by divine intervention. The renewed earth will be part of a renewed universe. Theologian N.T. Wright (2008) sees the future as a coming together of God and humans. It is where God’s space and human space are joined together, and this involves the entire creation. Wright makes a helpful distinction between a direct divine intervention that will bring in future existence and a gradual evolutionary process, indicating it is both, yet it transcends both. The first implies that God is not directly involved in the unfolding of the creation and the second that the messiness of creation needs further explaining. More helpful, he indicates, is to see the future re-creation in terms of something new being born out of the old—a promise of physical renewal, of a new fullness that one glimpses in great music, art, and poetry. He states that all humans have tasks to perform and that all human endeavours that work towards the new fullness will be seen as part of what God is doing.

5  ONTOLOGICAL/EPISTEMOLOGICAL QUESTIONS 

197

Ontological starting points and positions taken in regard to questions about the nature of being, the nature of reality, the beginnings and the endings of humans and the universe often begin less from the science and more from a particular worldview approach to the science. While reason and logic play a role, and albeit an important one, explanations or rationale for the conclusions drawn can at times be better sought in the worldviews embraced. Explanations for the cause of the Big Bang, for example, or the future of the universe, often reveal one’s worldview starting point as much as the science or reason for the explanations themselves, and sometimes even more so.

Epistemology: Sources of Our Knowing What can we know, and how do we know what we can know? These are two big questions, and we all wrestle with them perhaps more than we realize. They come out in the simple questions we often ask of others when they say something controversial or outlandish or make a particularly contentious or even provocative point. We often respond instinctively with the words “how do you know that?” Even small children ask this question, if only in their own way. But adults will ask this question at many junctures, and most specifically when it comes to those larger ultimate or existential questions, such as: is there a God; is there life after this life; are we essentially matter? How can we know the answers to these questions, or at least know them with any certainty or confidence? Perhaps the larger question here is really the question on what is it that we base our knowledge, or even our certainty? In other words, what is it that we can really know? This question has perplexed the minds of many, past and present. One no less than Donald Rumsfeld, former US Secretary of State, realized the gravity of epistemological questions, and especially their practical implications. He pondered about them and concluded at one point the following: As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don’t know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones. (Rumsfeld, 2002)

198 

J. VALK

His statements netted him, unfortunately, more ridicule than profoundness, largely because they were uttered in a context of tensions developing between the United States and Iraq, and particularly in response to the question posed by reporters regarding the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that were escalating conflicts in the Middle East. Yet, in any other context, Rumsfeld’s words capture quite nicely what we confront when it comes to knowledge and what we can know with any certainty. Some examples will illustrate the point. There are indeed things we know—known knowns. We know with considerable certainty that we are born, we live, and we die. We know this also of all flora and fauna—all things in nature—when given enough time. We base this largely on our experiences. We also know that the earth is spherical, that we live in a heliocentric universe, that planets travel in orbits around the sun due to gravitational effects, and that the universe is expanding. We base all of this only partially on experience but mostly on the discoveries of modern science. Science has become an important source of our knowledge today. We also recognize, however, that there are some things we know we don’t know—known unknowns, as Rumsfeld put it. Some of these are at the forefront of new discoveries in science, especially in physics. So-called Black Holes are a prime example. We know they exist largely from seeing their effect on things around them, yet we know little, if anything, about them, if we ever will. The latter is not an admission all scientists like to make. Some more confidently feel we may be on the cusp of uncovering a grand theory of everything. Others more willingly acknowledge, however, that we actually possess only a very small amount of knowledge in the grand scheme of things. They concede that the more we come to know about existence the more we realize that we do not know. Another known unknown is the notion of life after this life. Many religious adherents “know”, that is, believe, there is some existence after this life. In terms of the Christian tradition it is based on Scriptures, especially the story of the resurrection of Jesus. In terms of Hindu and Buddhist traditions, it is based on a belief in reincarnation. Nonetheless, these beliefs notwithstanding, life after this life is largely unknown. We know little about it. Even the stories we have heard or read of those few who have recounted certain near-death experiences do not offer absolute certainty, though for some it offers absolutely no certainty. We might conclude, therefore, that it is a relatively known unknown.

5  ONTOLOGICAL/EPISTEMOLOGICAL QUESTIONS 

199

The existence of God might be conceived of as yet another known unknown. The monotheistic traditions affirm knowledge of the existence of God, knowledge that comes largely through sacred texts and awareness that comes by way of the created world. One might also say that we can know about the existence of God by looking at peoples’ reaction to their belief in God, much the same as we come to know about the existence of Black Holes by way of the reactions of planets and planetary bodies to Black Holes around them. Yet, the full extent of the nature of God is beyond comprehension; humans can only grasp at it to greater or lesser degrees. In that way the existence, but more specifically the nature, of God is a known unknown. But, as Rumsfeld also stated, there are also things we don’t know—the unknown unknowns. We also do not know the extent of the unknowns, of what we do not know. Those of the past had little sense of what discoveries or knowledge the future would bring, what we have come to know today and may simply take for granted. We today are in a similar position—we do not know what the future will bring. We really do not know what we may discover tomorrow. This is largely unknown to us, for the more we discover the more we come to realize that the extent of what we do not know may in fact be immense. There may be an infinite number of unknown unknowns. It was perhaps Modernism, with its emphasis on reason and science, that suffered the greatest hit in the last century. Some assumed that much of what we know was known, or what we didn’t know (known unknowns) was knowable and humans would soon come to know what currently was unknown. Using our reason, we could come to reason about everything or most things. Certainty was placed in reason; this is the essence of rationalism. What was not reasonable, or rational, was considered irrational. Hence, religion was often considered irrational because its beliefs were not deemed to be sufficiently reasonable. But this was contested on the basis that certain beliefs can indeed be justified—justified beliefs—and do not conflict with reason (Wolterstorff, 1998). In spite of unknown unknowns, the vast secrets of the universe are, nonetheless, being quickly unfurled due to the accelerating pace of scientific discoveries, and the last half-century is a prime example of the extensive knowledge of the vast physical universe that is unfolding before our eyes. We increasingly turn to science for the secrets of life and the universe, and we do so with just cause.

200 

J. VALK

All of this brings us to ask the following two questions: what are the sources of knowledge on which we rely, and what sources give us what kinds of knowledge and information? We come to our knowledge by means of a variety of sources. Each is regarded in different ways, perceived in different ways, and assessed in different ways. Some are given different weight in particular circumstances, situations, or even time periods. The power we give to each reveals what we deem most important, and where we place ultimate allegiance. In effect, they reveal a worldview. Practical or Common-Sense Knowledge One of the first sources of our knowledge is what is often call practical or common sense knowledge. At times it is also referred to as “naïve experience”. It is the knowledge we get from experience, the stuff of everyday living in the world. It is knowledge we accumulate over the years and is in many ways our first level of knowledge—knowledge tested over time. We compare it to what we learn from others, but also from what we learn from other sources of knowledge. Practical or common-sense knowledge is knowledge we can alter or change as our learning and experiences in life change. Practical or common-sense knowledge is a view of the world that we derive from our senses and is generally taken at face value. We experience things or people in the world, and those things or people have the properties or characteristics that they appear to us to have, or as we commonly perceive them to have. The world is pretty much as common sense would have it. Though all of this is often referred to as common sense, we also come to know, and even to say, that it is not as common as we would like to think it is. Nonetheless, in most cases we believe that our perceptions correspond directly with reality. But when is this not the case? When are my perceptions just that—perceptions—and do not actually conform to reality? A simple example will make the point. We say that the sun rises in the east in the morning, moves across the sky, and sets in the west in the evening. That is our perception, and we experience this every day. We speak of it in casual conversations, even teach it to children: it is common-sense knowledge. But we also know now, that is, since the last few centuries, and at least as adults, that this is simply not true. It is the earth that moves, not the sun, scientifically speaking.

5  ONTOLOGICAL/EPISTEMOLOGICAL QUESTIONS 

201

How many more examples are there where “naïve” experience, unconscious thinking, and common-sense knowledge generate perceptions that may or may not be the case? We may think it is common sense that “honesty is the best policy” or that “with hard work people get places”, only to discover that in some cases honesty can jeopardize us and that in many cases hard-working people—women and immigrants especially—receive little more than minimum wage. Further, we hear people say all too often that all politicians are liars, power hungry, and in it for the money, or that immigrants take away jobs, or that people from certain cultures are less motivated or trustworthy. Are these beliefs true, or are they stereotypes? We hear others say, and sometimes the same people, that religion is little more than superstition, causes violence, poisons everything, and that society would be better without it. Are these things true, or are they the common perceptions or beliefs told to us by others? Might we have come to embrace them based on some personal or limited experience—perceptions and beliefs that come from “naïve experience”? In that sense, common-­ sense knowledge, or “naïve experience”, may be unreflective—a failure to engage further: a failure to critically engage our thoughts and ideas. We become aware that our perceptions may not correspond to a larger reality when our experiences of others increase, or when we become conscious of our limited exposure. Our “naïve experience” might also change when science or further research and reflection proves us otherwise. Scientific Knowledge Scientific knowledge is a second source of knowledge and has gained tremendous currency, most particularly in the West in the last number of centuries. It has uncovered vast horizons of new knowledge and has challenged unreflective knowledge. Today nations invest considerable resources in advancing the frontiers of science. Science is taught in all schools, and the science curriculum is continually updated to reflect the latest discoveries. Science has increased our knowledge of the universe and its beginnings, of the earth and its natural processes, of both micro and macro life, of human nature and the human body, and so much more. Advances in science have yielded innumerable insights and benefits for humankind in areas such as medicine, healthcare, ecological care, communication, travel, and commerce. Small wonder that we put so much stock in science.

202 

J. VALK

Yet, scientific knowledge also has its downside, a shadow side. Not science itself so much as those who use its discoveries. The knowledge gained from science has been misused and has resulted in considerable ruin and devastation. Humans, as well as the environment, have suffered through the use of chemicals once thought harmless but now recognized as toxic, with plastics one of the most recent to be added to a growing list. Scientific knowledge has been used to create advanced weapons of mass destruction, resulting in the death and devastation of people and infrastructure. Scientific knowledge has been used to produce material goods and commodities that now litter the landscape. Along with its numerous benefits also come plaguing burdens difficult to resolve. Sometimes our enthrallment of science becomes veneration: a method of enquiry becomes a worship of its powers. Sometimes the advancement of scientific knowledge brings also a certain kind of hubris. Some argue that science, with its empirical method, is the only way to establish truth; that scientific evidence becomes the only criteria by which to ascertain whether something exists or whether something is true and warrants belief. But is there a point where science is exhausted? Are there dimensions to life that science is unable to penetrate? Are there areas of life—the mystery of existence—that go beyond what the empirical sciences are able to investigate? At what point does an embrace of science not itself become a perspective or worldview—scientism—that cannot be proven but is accepted ultimately on faith: in essence a secular worldview? Assertions that proclaim science as the sole criteria of truth may be reflective more of a philosophical presupposition than of an empirical veracity (Shook, 2018). Rational or Propositional Knowledge A third source of knowledge that has been central to Western thinking is rational or propositional knowledge. This is the kind of knowledge we gain from reason or logic, and it has been part of human philosophical thought and reflection since the time of the Greek philosophers. Humans have the unique ability to reason, and reason becomes a trusted criterion to establish truth. The task of the rational person, and specifically the philosopher, was to discover, examine, and investigate the real world to find behind its appearances permanent truths that might hold for all times and places. Through reason and logic objective knowledge could be gained. Certain language came along with it, and words like irrational or unreasonable became part of our lexicon. During the modernist period, from the time

5  ONTOLOGICAL/EPISTEMOLOGICAL QUESTIONS 

203

of the Enlightenment until the early twentieth century, reason was elevated, and rationalism separated truth from that which was regarded as superstition. Some felt such thinking elevated reason to “the new religion of the modern period” (Nash & Murray, 2010, p. 32; Tarnas, 1991). This could be seen in the French philosopher Auguste Comte’s assertion that Positivism was the new “Religion of Humanity”. While Rationalism generally regarded religion as irrational, with some of its beliefs as superstition, some rationalists could accept the existence of a deity, but not one who intervened in the daily course of earthly life. Deism, as it developed in the latter part of the eighteenth century and written about by Thomas Paine, relegated God to the status of a now remote and disinterested Creator, who had set matters in motion but distanced itself from human activity. One can see that atheism was simply one step further in dismissing God entirely, a belief in such a being perceived as not worthy of enlightened thinkers. Such was not the approach, however, of critical realism, especially that of theological critical realism. Critical realists such as John Polkinghorne, Ian Barbour, Arthur Peacocke, Alister McGrath, Wentzel van Huyssteen, and N.T. Wright are not so quick in dismissing the existence of God, even though rationalism presented it with huge challenges. Critical realism affirmed the use of reason, which was necessary to discover and know an objectively knowable, mind-independent reality. That reality can be known, but one which can be known only through our perception and cognition. We have no access to something called reality apart from the way it is represented in our concepts, language, and discourse. Everything we know, it was argued, comes to us through our experiences and our senses. We can never get outside our own knowledge to check the accuracy of what we know or perceive to know against objective reality. Critical realism admits that there is a distinction to be made between the reality “out there” and our perception of it. Access to the reality “out there”, the reality that exists outside of ourselves, is always mediated by our own senses, and even more so by our own linguistic and conceptual constructions. As N.T.  Wright explains, critical realism is a way of describing the process of “knowing” that acknowledges the reality of the thing known, as something other than the knower (hence, “realism”), while fully acknowledging that the only access we have to this reality lies

204 

J. VALK

along the spiraling path of appropriate dialogue or conversation between the knower and the thing known (hence “critical”). (Wright, 1992, p. 35)

That is, reality is mediated by the terms, concepts, and languages we use and even our social constructions of that reality. Yet critical realism acknowledges a reality independent of our social constructions. As such, it gives validity to revelational or sacred knowledge. Revelational or Sacred Knowledge Revelational or sacred knowledge is a source of knowledge handed down by the various sacred traditions over the centuries. It comes in the form of sacred texts and writings—Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), Christian Old and New Testament, Qur’an, Vedas, Bhagavad Gita, Analects of Confucius, and more—that have been studied through the ages and continue to be read, interpreted, and analysed today, as in the past, for their thoughts, ideas, and injunctions. Sacred knowledge also comes in the form of communications—revelations, visions, inspirations, illuminations—experienced by prophets, mystics, and others, who wrote about or conveyed their messages to those around them and who then later committed them to writing. Exactly how divine communications were spoken or received continues to be a topic of much debate and discussion. For many, sacred knowledge is knowledge set apart, knowledge far different than common-sense, scientific, or rational knowledge. It often touches on matters that are beyond the pale of science, responding to some of the ultimate questions: why we are here, the meaning and purpose of life, discerning right from wrong, the existence of God or gods, and more. Sacred knowledge is a kind of knowledge that asserts that there is something more, that there may be a larger mystery to life and the beyond that we cannot fully comprehend but exists nonetheless. Various sacred traditions understand these matters in different ways, conditioned at times due to the contexts and circumstances in which they emerged and in which they exist. Today there is recognition, however, that while differences do remain, and indeed do matter, many strive for peaceful relations focused on better understanding (Prothero, 2010). Beginning with the Enlightenment, revelational or sacred knowledge faced considerable scepticism, much of which continues into the present.

5  ONTOLOGICAL/EPISTEMOLOGICAL QUESTIONS 

205

Secular worldviews reject the notion of the divine, whether this is in the form of revelational knowledge, divine communication, or even divine intervention. These secular worldviews pose considerable challenges that cannot be dismissed out of hand. They challenge religious believers to give thought to what can be justifiably believed (warranted belief), a challenge taken up successfully by Wolterstorff (1998) and Plantinga (2000). It is perhaps the question of the existence and character of God that continues to be hugely debated and contested, by those of both secular and religious worldviews. N.T.  Wright is one among many who have entered into the fray. He grapples with the questions in new ways; ways that turn the criticism back to the sceptics. His critical realism, as mentioned earlier, acknowledges and accepts the reality of the known (God) as something distinct from the knower. He argues against those who make no such distinction and who tend to see God as creations of the mind. Wright (1992) fully acknowledges that the only access one has to the reality of God occurs through dialogue “between the knower and the thing known” (p. 35). The concepts of God, however, need always to be mediated through our linguistic and conceptual constructions, and this can create misconceptions and misappropriations, and therefore challenges. Within the Christian tradition, for example, God is often referred to as a “he”. In childhood, we often perceive God as an old man with a white beard sitting on a throne, an image formed or shaped perhaps as a result of medieval perceptions of a king and kingdom, and derived from story books. A child succumbs to naïve realism. Critical realism, on the other hand, recognizes that our perceptions of God are a human construct, a way of coming to some understanding of God. As such, perceptions of God can and do vary: a harsh tyrant, a gentle friend, a mother, a powerful being, a creator, absolute reality—the list goes on. Critical realism asserts that there is a reality “out there” which has been called “God”, but humans can never know God as God really and fully is. Humans are limited in that way. They can only know God through the human concepts constructed of God, and their knowing requires some critical thinking and reflection. Even those of secular worldview perspectives are obliged to engage some critical thinking and reflecting, for it is easy enough to construct, and then reject or refute, a concept or notion of God that even the most thoughtful monotheists would also reject and refute.

206 

J. VALK

Indigenous Knowledge Indigenous knowledge, also referred to often as indigenous knowledge systems, is gaining increased attention today. Its rise is coupled with concern for the welfare of Indigenous People throughout the world, as well as concern for the environment. The importance of indigenous knowledge was profiled at the 1992 Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro. Its upsurge is linked to the rights demanded by Indigenous or First Nations Peoples in various countries, rights that have now been acknowledged by the United Nations, resulting in a document adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 2007 entitled UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous knowledge is traditional knowledge— knowledge, skills, and even philosophies that arise from long-standing connections of Indigenous People to the land. It includes knowledge of the environment—plant life, animal life, and soil life. It incorporates spirituality—rituals, ceremonies, and knowledge of a Creator. It encompasses the communal—family life, community, and self-governance. In many ways it is a whole life approach, encompassed in an Indigenous worldview (Stonechild, 2016). Indigenous knowledge flows from traditional knowledge, knowledge that is linked to both local contexts and the social relations inherent in  local contexts. It is contextual and related to community and place (King, T. 2003; Kovach, 2010). It is understood as common-sense ideas— the cultural knowledge of local peoples that deal with the realities of their everyday life. It involves cultural traditions, values, and belief systems imparted from the Elders to a younger generation. It incorporates a worldview linked to nature. Indigenous knowledge emphasizes relationships above knowledge and participation over expertise. The relational is central—relationships are fundamental to Indigenous ways of believing and living (Wilson, 2009). Indigenous knowledge is now also being profiled in order to give more profile to Indigenous People themselves. It enhances the cultural identities of Indigenous People around the world—in North America, in Africa, in Australia/New Zealand, and more. Munyaradzi Mawere (2014) argues that colonialism destroyed African culture and Indigenous knowledge, and that African leaders now need to revive their Indigenous cultures. He calls for the decolonization of the African mind. In various places efforts are now underway by Indigenous People to reclaim their suppressed traditional knowledge in order to rekindle Indigenous worldviews. According

5  ONTOLOGICAL/EPISTEMOLOGICAL QUESTIONS 

207

to George Sefa Dei et  al. (2002), Indigenous worldviews are the very product of an experience with nature and the social worlds that result from that relationship. As such, reclaiming Indigenous knowledge is closely connected to self-determination—the cultural and physical survival of Indigenous People, their languages and overall well-being (Smith, 2012). Indigenous knowledge is often contrasted to Western knowledge, in what John Briggs (2005) refers to as a “binary tension”. Indigenous knowledge has been criticized as inferior, backward, local, and socially constructed: a result of territorial colonialism but no less academic colonialism. When it comes to international development, Indigenous knowledge is not highly regarded by Western science. That may be changing, however, and especially when it comes to the ever-growing concern regarding the effects of residual colonialism and the marginalization of Indigenous People (Odora Hoppers & Richards, 2011). Mawere (2014), speaking from an African perspective, states that Indigenous knowledge is not primitive or static, but dynamic, adaptive, and connected with Indigenous culture. It is equal to Western knowledge and has the potential to direct local development more efficiently than Western science. For the socio-economic development and freedom of their own communities, Africa must overcome dependence on Western knowledge. He encourages the West to make room for other knowledge systems. Margaret Kovach (2010) speaks of choosing “Indigenous methodologies” as a political act and hopes that their use will have a positive influence in determining policies and practices that benefit Indigenous communities. She recognizes that there are as many Indigenous methodologies as there are Indigenous communities and that storytelling is an important research method. Linda Tuhiwai Smith (2012), speaking from a Maori perspective, argues that current research is linked with colonialism—steeped in imperialism. She calls for the decolonization of methodologies so that Indigenous communities can regain control of Indigenous ways of knowing and being. She asserts that there is a role for research in the Indigenous struggle for social justice. Shawn Wilson (2009) sees Indigenous research as reflective of the values, beliefs, and ideas that emerge from local Indigenous culture, as articulation of Indigenous life. But Indigenous research must also function in a manner that will make a difference in the lives of Indigenous People. Increased status is extended towards Indigenous knowledge today, and especially concerning the ecological status of the land, the forests, and the seas. There is also recognition given to the extent of scientific knowledge actually contained in Indigenous knowledge systems (Pierotti, 2011;

208 

J. VALK

Aikenhead & Michell, 2010; Blackstock, 2007; Battiste & Henderson, 2000). The tide appears to be turning. But according to Briggs (2005), perhaps the pendulum is swinging a little too far in the opposite direction. Western science is now becoming more vilified, with Indigenous knowledge prior to Western colonialism perceived as “untainted and pristine knowledge”. But to view Indigenous knowledge, and even the Indigenous ecological footprint, as unproblematic may also be somewhat naïve (Krech, 1999). According to Briggs and Krech, its limitations too must be recognized, so that it can be seen as more nuanced, pragmatic, and flexible. What is needed most is a reduction in the tension between the two, especially when it comes to development issues in communities that suffer from environmental challenges, so that Indigenous knowledge is perceived “not as an alternative to Western science but instead is able to negotiate a way into mainstream development practice” (Briggs, 2005, p. 23). Such an approach to knowledge sharing would be a momentous epistemological shift—a difficult, though perhaps necessary, one, especially for those unbendingly steeped in one particular approach. Its significance cannot be underestimated, for it entails a recognition that knowledge is not simply about neutral facts and figures. Knowledge is linked to worldviews; one might even argue that it is grounded in worldviews. According to Haverkort and Reijntjes (2010), “worldviews lead to different ways of learning and different ways of knowing” (p. 12).

CHAPTER 6

Universal/Particular Beliefs, Values, and Principles

Introduction In spite of their differences, humans are really not all that different. They hold many similar beliefs and values and can at times find common ground with each other. Perhaps many already intuitively sense this or have experienced this. Mapping out common ground may actually be the best place to begin difficult conversations. That is, when confronted with complex or controversial issues, it might be worthwhile to spend some time first discussing or sharing the beliefs, values and principles held in common. Yet, at the same time, it is well known that agreement on many issues stops at a certain point. This too is quite clear. But why is this the case? Why is it that we can agree with each other on a certain level, yet come to disagree on another level? There may be various reasons why disagreements emerge. An approach from the perspective of worldviews may serve to shed some light on this matter. It represents yet another approach, another lens, another layer, to think about self and others, the beliefs and values we hold, and perhaps why we act as we do. This approach may also make clear that while we agree on some general things, we may disagree on how to implement them in our own particular contexts. Here awareness of our own beliefs and values, and the way we act on them, can become quite revealing when contrasted/compared to the beliefs and values, and ways of life, of others. Being citizens of any particular country, region, or place, for example, is context specific. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. Valk, Worldviews, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82491-4_6

209

210 

J. VALK

Understanding what citizenship entails is influenced and shaped by the particular context in which one lives, but even more so by the worldview one embraces. In this chapter we will look first at beliefs, values, and principles held in common by most, if not all, people. They are generally referred to as universals, and one can find agreement with them almost universally, past and present. Yet, second, these universal beliefs, values, and principles are embraced and lived out not in isolation, but in specific contexts. The contexts in which we live—either individually or collectively—in turn heavily influence the manner in which those common beliefs and values become particularized or concretized, and the manner in which they do so is inextricably linked to the specific worldview embraced. These then become particular beliefs, values, and principles; particular to context, place, time, and circumstance.

Universal Beliefs, Values, and Principles As previously mentioned by Heschel, we may disagree in our understanding of what is right or wrong, but we all believe that there is a distinction between right and wrong. Heschel put his finger on one of the major universal principles known to humans. We may argue endlessly, if not furiously, as to the rightness or wrongness of any particular issue or concern, yet few would deny that some distinction does exist. Whether written or unwritten, significant or insignificant, legal or illegal, different interpretations exist between what is perceived as right or wrong behaviour, or even right or wrong thinking. Two examples will make the point. First, honour codes draw clear lines between that which is understood as right or wrong, and these play out in particular ways in certain contexts, often with dire consequences for those who ignore or contravene them. Honour was transgressed in the past when a person was called a liar. This was perceived as a defamation of character, a wrong that could be settled only by a pistol duel. Honour codes are observed by even the most hardened criminals, who operate with their own notion of what is right and wrong and who exact deathly revenge on those who disregard them. Honour codes operate in certain familial and social circles, and often result in the death, for example, of young daughters who adopt Western ways alien to their non-Western parents or begin relationships with young men outside of their religious or cultural traditions. Two, a pro-life stance is one that regards abortion as wrong. But governments in numerous

6  UNIVERSAL/PARTICULAR BELIEFS, VALUES, AND PRINCIPLES 

211

countries regard the pro-life stance as a wrong and have adopted certain pro-choice policies in that regard. Hence, subtle or otherwise, distinctions between what is perceived to be right or wrong exist, however this is understood by political associations, educational institutions, religious adherents, or criminal organizations. A notion of right and wrong operates in each of them. Tolerance and openness are other universal principles or values embraced by many people. Here again, however, what one tolerates or is open to differs widely. For example, political activist and Indian independence leader Mahatma Gandhi (1869–1948) stated, “I want all the cultures of all lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any” (Gandhi, 2008, p. 241). Gandhi is quite well known and respected throughout the world. He was quite open to others and invited people to visit him at his ashram in India, where he engaged others in endless discussions. Yet he refused to be persuaded— “blown off his feet”—by them. Gandhi had certain openness, but this openness had limitations. Many today applaud open-mindedness, as well as tolerance. It is seen as a great value, often a badge of liberal and progressive thinking, and frequently espoused by younger people. A characteristic or principle admired by many, it wins one friends, and accolades. Great advances have been made in human history as a result of those who risked being more open to and accepting of the other, when all too many were not. But when one examines more closely that to which one is open, and that which one tolerates, one can see that openness has its limitations, and often surprisingly so by those who applaud it most. Differences can again loom large. In today’s politically correct climate, closed-mindedness and intolerance are labels quickly levelled at those whose ideas one dislikes or those one wishes to dismiss. It is easy, of course, to be open and tolerant of those with whom one agrees, and all too often openness and tolerance is regarded today strictly within such a parameter. But what about those with whom we disagree? Should one be open to them? What should be tolerated and what should not? How does one decide and on what basis? Much of this depends on one’s worldview, and particularly the context in which one lives out that worldview. Dignifying the human is another universal principle or value embraced by most. But here again, differences in terms of what we understand by this, and the manner in which we implement this, vary greatly. The well-­ known German writer, philosopher, and statesman Johann Wolfgang von

212 

J. VALK

Goethe (1749–1832) is reported to have stated that “you can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him”. The ancient Hebrew Prophet Isaiah (eighth to seventh centuries BCE) stated that “God will judge the people of Israel by how they treat the most vulnerable” (Isaiah 1:17). Yet in many places in the world, the rich, the famous, and the powerful are dignified and the powerless and poor less so, if at all. The gap between the rich and poor is growing, and this is no more evident than in the United States, one of the wealthiest countries in the world. In his book The Four: The Hidden DNA of Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google, Scott Galloway (2017) states that “America is on pace to be home to 3  million lords and 350  million serfs”. In the United States, in particular, debates as to whether the rich should pay more taxes continue endlessly, while the number of poor continues to grow annually. The quote by Goethe would seem to turn our current world upside down and cause some deep reflection on how those who can do nothing for the rich, the famous, and the powerful are treated in this world. The biblical quote from Isaiah is even more intriguing. Do we judge nations by how well they treat the most vulnerable? Or do we judge nations by their wealth—by their gross national product and their economic power? What does it mean when a former US president promises to “make America great again”? Does it mean to make it great again in terms of economic wealth and power, or make it great in terms of how it will better care for those who are most vulnerable? The small Kingdom of Bhutan, the landlocked country between Nepal and India, eschews the gross national product indicator in favour of a gross national happiness indicator, recognizing that happiness, though linked to economic well-being, goes far beyond it. It recognizes that human dignity is a principle closely connected to happiness, even if understood in a broad sense (Wangmo & Valk, 2012). It may also reveal a big difference in worldview grounding. The above hint at some general beliefs, values, and principles that many, if not most, embrace in some shape, form, or fashion. They are universal and many consist of the following: pursuit of justice, dignity of all people, sacredness of the human, equality and diversity, openness and tolerance, and preservation of the environment. There are more, of course, and one could add to the list. One hears often the following: “work hard, be honest, do the best you can, treat others with respect, clean up after yourself”. But these may be virtues more than beliefs or principles, and as such aim at different things.

6  UNIVERSAL/PARTICULAR BELIEFS, VALUES, AND PRINCIPLES 

213

It is in investigating how one understands these universal beliefs, values, and principles in one’s own particular circumstance that one gains a better understanding of one’s own worldview. Examining in more detail how universals are particularized in one’s own mind and how one enacts them in their own context is another attempt to add yet another building block to understanding worldviews in general and shedding further light on particular ones. Responses given to each of these will not singularly determine or reflect a worldview but may assist in shedding further light on it. Further, agreement can be found on many issues yet is done so from different worldview perspectives and hence different reasons. It is also important to remember, however, that describing and analysing different responses to questions regarding universal beliefs, values, and principles are not the same as evaluating them. One evaluates, and judges, the worldview of others from the perspective of one’s own. We individually and/or collectively seldom refrain from making judgements, at least on certain levels, about the worldviews held by others, and in certain instances we must. Being clear about the devastating tendencies of worldviews such as Fascism or Nazism, both of which have been quite destructive of human life, or even an unbridled Capitalism that disregards the environment, is important. We make judgements about such worldviews, and necessarily so.

Sources of Universal Beliefs, Values, and Principles So, where does one find these universal beliefs encoded? What are the sources of these beliefs and values? Where are they advocated or where do we get them? There can be many sources, of course, but no doubt the following are chief among them. UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights The UN Declaration of Human Rights came into existence in 1948, after a world war that destroyed numerous countries, their infrastructure, cities, and countryside. Most devastating was the deaths of some sixty-five million people, including about two-thirds of European Jewry. This war came twenty-one years after the First World War, the Great War that was to end all wars. In the aftermath of the Second World War and with many European countries laid waste and peoples decimated as a result of the atrocities of Nazi Germany, the United Nations put together a Declaration

214 

J. VALK

that established certain basic concepts such as human rights, dignity, liberty, and equality. It set out basic freedoms and fundamental rights including the dignity and worth of a person without discrimination based on race, sex, language, or religion, and further guaranteed the right to life and the prohibition of slavery. Canadian legal scholar, jurist, and human rights advocate John Peters Humphries (1984) was the Declaration’s principal drafter and head of a commission whose work had begun earlier in 1946. The UN Declaration was adopted on December 10, 1948, at the Palais de Chaillot in Paris, France. With the United Nations consisting at that time of fifty-eight members, forty-eight voted in favour, none voted against, eight abstained, and two were not present to vote. In other words, an overwhelming majority supported the Declaration. The UN Declaration has served as a valuable document establishing on an international level the basic rights of all humans throughout the world. Eleanor Roosevelt, first chairwoman of the UN Commission of Human Rights, stated in her speech before the General Assembly when the document was adopted, “It may well become the international Magna Carta of all men everywhere” (Roosevelt, 1948). Indeed, it has taken on significant value, even if it was not legally binding on its UN signatories. Nonetheless, it sets out as never before very important rights and freedoms that serve as basic foundational beliefs, values, and principles far and wide. It argues that each individual is an end unto himself/herself and not the servant or property of a state or another person. The UN has no authority to police compliance of member states to the Declaration, however. At times it can do little more than “name and shame” those who violate the rights of those within their jurisdictions. Today there are 193 member states and there has been considerable “naming and shaming” in the past of states whose record of human rights abuses has become quite glaring. In some flagrant cases international sanctions have been applied to persuade recalcitrant states to change their ways. While sanctions often have limited effect, the Declaration nonetheless serves as an important document by which members states can call others to account on the world stage for all to see. Sacred and Ecclesiastical Writings The UN Declaration of Human Rights was preceded by numerous documents and writings that promoted basic human rights and freedoms that

6  UNIVERSAL/PARTICULAR BELIEFS, VALUES, AND PRINCIPLES 

215

came into existence long before 1948. Chief among these are sacred and other writings that originate from spiritual and religious groups, communities, and traditions. Much discussion and debate have centred on how these writings, especially sacred writings, are to be interpreted, for they have been used to justify movements of freedom and liberation as well as movements that oppress, imprison, and even kill others. The Judeo-Christian Bible is perhaps the most prominent of the sacred writings in the Western World. It has been used to undergird movements that pursue justice, strive for the dignity of all people, promote the sacredness of the human, struggle for equality and diversity, encourage openness and tolerance, and foster preservation of the environment. But as noted earlier, it has also been used to justify the opposite. There is real debate whether or not the Bible actually does promote violence and hatred, or whether its words have been twisted to justify any kind of behaviour. No doubt this has been and still remains the case. Yet it also remains the case that numerous movements of liberation and freedom find their greatest support in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures and other theological writings. A few examples will suffice to make the point. William Wilberforce (1759–1833) fought an almost insurmountable campaign in the British Parliament to rid the British Empire of the slave trade. He was convinced of its evil and brutality and believed strongly that all men and women were created in the image of God and hence born free. He campaigned long and hard with friends and supporters, including members of the Clapham Sect, to eventually achieve success in shutting down a trade that others felt was necessary for the economic success of England and the colonies (Metaxas, 2007; Drescher, 1990; Inikori, 1987). Wilberforce also supported other causes, such as prison reform and the restriction of capital punishment (Stott, 2012). In all, however, it was his religious worldview perspective and understanding of Scriptures that led him to strive for the dignity of the human, and no less in regard to those of other cultures and races (Belmonte, 2002). Martin Luther King Jr. (1929–1968) fought hard in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s in the United States for the advancement of African Americans who felt the sharp edge of the oppression and segregation that continued to exist for decades into the twentieth century. An ordained Baptist minister, he was also the first president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which was founded to organize Black Churches in non-violent protests for civil rights. He was instrumental in

216 

J. VALK

organizing numerous non-violent protest marches throughout the country, for which he was awarded a Nobel Peace prize in 1964. King was arrested and jailed numerous times. One arrest in particular resulted from a campaign in Birmingham, Alabama, and while in prison he wrote the now well-known “Letter from Birmingham Jail” (King, 1994). In 1963 he led the “March on Washington” where he delivered from the Lincoln Memorial his most famous “I Have a Dream” speech. It was in that speech that King took themes from the Bible, calling for “justice for all God’s children”, so that “justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream” (Amos 5:24). He dreamt of the day when “every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain and the crooked places will be made straight. And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together” (Isaiah 40:4). These biblical themes undergirded King’s justification for his involvement in the civil rights movement and the call for justice for African Americans. King was assassinated on April 4, 1968, while planning a national occupation of Washington, DC (King, M. L., 2003). Oscar Romero (1917–1980), Catholic Archbishop of San Salvador, spoke out against the social injustices and poverty of his home country. Though not a specific advocate for Liberation Theology, he was much admired by its theologians because of his concern for Catholic teachings on liberation and the increasing attention he bestowed on the poor and marginalized. Romero became a “voice for the voiceless” and spoke out against the persecution of those who struggled on behalf of the poor (Romero, 1985). It was Romero’s religious and specifically Catholic Christian devotion that led him to strive to alleviate the poverty he saw all around him. He quite literally stood with the poor in his church community and in the refugee camps he would visit, reflecting in his own life’s work the teachings of Jesus and the Catholic Church’s preferential option for the poor (Wright, S, 2009; Brockman, 2005). Dorothy Day grew up in a nominal Christian home with parents who seldom attended church. Yet at an early age she took interest in religion, intrigued by the liturgy, music, and catechism of a local Episcopal church, where she was baptized and confirmed at the age of fourteen. In her twenties she became a social activist and took on what some have called a “bohemian lifestyle”, travelling, meeting, and living with other activists. In her thirties, and with a young daughter, Day took a greater interest in Catholicism and was soon baptized into the Catholic faith (Forest, 2011; Day, 1996). When she took on work as a writer for The Commonweal, an

6  UNIVERSAL/PARTICULAR BELIEFS, VALUES, AND PRINCIPLES 

217

independent lay liberal Catholic journal, she became more involved in social activism. But it was when she met Peter Maurin, an intellectual steeped in the social doctrines of the Church, that Day got a thorough grounding in a Catholic theology focused on social action. With Maurin she co-founded the Catholic Worker Movement, and its paper The Catholic Worker, which for decades became the vehicle for Day to write about the social teachings of the Catholic Church, and how the Great Depression, the situation of workers, the poor, the marginalized, and so many more socio-political issues should be viewed from those teachings (Holben, 2010). Through the years Day’s social activism came to take on a much deeper Catholic direction, and in later years she came to write more about the religious views that grounded her ideas and actions. To this day she is recognized for her deep theological and spiritual reflections on the social activism that came to define her life (Day, 2017; Ellsberg, 2012). National Constitutions and Charters National Constitutions and Charters are also sources for beliefs, values, and principles that come to define or influence the thoughts and actions of citizens. These documents come to define and establish principles that assert the rights and freedoms of individual citizens. Each nation determines for itself those rights and freedoms that will comprise its founding documents, and how they will be understood, interpreted, and enacted as times and circumstances change. Much debate and discussion continue to revolve around how some principles regarding rights and freedoms established centuries ago were understood in that day and how they ought to be interpreted in the present day. A few examples will reveal the challenges and difficulties. The American Declaration of Independence, written in 1776 at the founding of the United States of America and its separation from England, contained in its opening clause a profound statement that would come to define how the new state would view those living within its jurisdiction. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

This was quite a bold statement to make in 1776 and gave justification for the thirteen colonies to declare their independence from Britain—they

218 

J. VALK

wanted to be free. But of course, freedom did not extend to all. At the writing of this historic document, the “all men are created equal” clause applied only to white men of largely European descent. Not all “men” were included—America had slaves. At that time the United States was still heavily invested in the slave trade and the enslavement of Africans, whose life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness solely depended on the whims of their owners. Thomas Jefferson, principal author of the Declaration of Independence, owned slaves. Blacks remained slaves until slavery was abolished in 1865. Even then their freedoms were restricted and only improved somewhat in the 1960s as a result of freedom marches. Yet, even today they suffer systematic racism, injustices, and brutality at the hands of police forces, as amplified in the Black Lives Matter protest marches of 2020. First Nations People fared only slightly better in 1776, but only in that they were not the property of others. Their land continued to be confiscated, however, and they were forced to travel to distant reservations, with many killed or dying en route. Their pursuit of happiness, let alone their life and liberty, was not protected, much less guaranteed. White women were still considered, if not the property of their husbands, at least under their control. In the view of the founders, the unalienable rights bestowed by the Creator, as a basic and even advanced principle of the time, applied only to a select number. In the subsequent years, even up to the present, various other individuals and groups of individuals established general principles that subtly continued to bestow privileges on white men. Much progress to reverse such principles has been made, of course, yet issues continue to surface. The Constitution of Canada, enacted in 1982, consists of acts, conventions, and traditions of a long history, including the British North American Act of 1867 that established Canada as a Dominion distinct from Britain. Part One of the 1982 Constitution is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Its various sections are quite specific in what those fundamental rights and freedoms entail for all Canadians. Yet, their interpretation still results in much debate and discussion, with the Supreme Court of Canada often having to make definitive interpretations. Section 2, for example, lays out basic freedoms of conscience, religion, thought, belief, expression, association, and peaceful assembly, as well as freedom of the press—all freedoms that are well supported and highly treasured by most, if not all, Canadians and who might readily say that these are Canadian “universals”. Certain court decisions of the past have, however, restricted some of those rights and the most egregious restrictions have

6  UNIVERSAL/PARTICULAR BELIEFS, VALUES, AND PRINCIPLES 

219

been the rights of Indigenous People. Only now are they slowly regaining their rights based on the Charter. There are also certain Charter rights that now begin to trump other rights. This is particularly the case regarding the freedom of religious belief. The beliefs of some groups have been restricted when it was determined that their actions discriminated on the basis of sexual identity and orientation, or the freedom of expression when certain forms of speech were interpreted as hate speech. Another example of a section of the Charter that creates challenges is Section 7, which guarantees “the right to life, liberty and security of the person”. Here again, it is reasonably safe to say that most, if not all, Canadians agree fully with this basic right, and again consider it a Canadian “universal”. Yet, difficulty arises when the question is asked who is a “person”? Might then particular (worldview) beliefs come to play, and people begin to take different positions? The Canadian courts have defined a “person” as one who is outside the womb, and therefore Canada has no restriction on abortion. This view conflicts with those who seek the protection of the unborn. One can readily see that universals are interpreted in particular ways, often dependent on one’s particular worldview beliefs. Hence, while national constitutions and charters define certain universals, how they are interpreted and understood in more detail and in particular situations often hinge on deeper worldview beliefs. Oral Traditions Storytelling has for centuries been fundamental to Indigenous People. Handed down through generations, they become the major conveyor of Indigenous knowledge, culture, beliefs, and values. Stories contain accounts of certain significant historical events, of the connections of people with the lands in which they live, of their relationship to plants and animals, of creation stories explaining their coming into being, of life after this life, and more. Many are thousands of years old and are handed down only orally. It is in storytelling, especially of sacred stories, that important truths and knowledge are conveyed to the listeners, which in turn shape and influence their worldviews. Stories become authoritative in that they contain beliefs, values, and principles indispensable for shaping the views and actions of young and old alike. Many stories are never written down. Some Indigenous People consider them degraded when written.

220 

J. VALK

When oral stories are written down, they may still retain their sacredness, yet take on a different kind of authority. This is the case with the Judeo-Christian Bible. Many consider certain ancient biblical accounts, such as the creation stories, as stories depicting events helpful for giving guidance and direction for life but not necessarily to be taken literally, nor containing information that is historically accurate. Yet, they are often interpreted and understood as such when they are written down, with recorded events taking on historical authority, even inerrancy. Stories emerging from the oral traditions of Indigenous People are more likely to be understood not so much for the literal information that they contain, but for the truths and wisdom they convey. In the telling of stories, the storyteller expects the listener to take from the story some important moral lessons or traditional teachings and beliefs that will in turn give guidance and direction to their lives (Iseke, 2013; Archibald, 2008).

The Particularization of Universal Beliefs, Values, and Principles How we interpret and particularize the universal beliefs and values is where differences arise and difficulties surface. How we interpret and particularize them also reflect our worldview—our view of the world and what we think it is all about or should be about, and our way of life, the way in which we live out what we feel the world is all about. We live out and express what we think is the nature of the reality we experience around us, regardless of the fact that we are also often inconsistent in what we say and what we do. Three examples will suffice in revealing how certain universal beliefs are expressed in particular situations: equality and diversity; preservation of the environment; and the sacredness of human life. Equality and Diversity As mentioned, the principle of the equality of all people is firmly embedded in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. It is also contained in other documents and sacred writings that have a much longer history than the UN Declaration. As such it is not a new principle but has been part of human history for quite some time. So has the principle of diversity, and the belief that there is richness in the diversity that is part of the history of humanity. These two principles—equality and diversity—confront us in

6  UNIVERSAL/PARTICULAR BELIEFS, VALUES, AND PRINCIPLES 

221

new ways as globalization brings the world community closer together through instant communication and extensive travel. Today as never before we can actually meet the other face to face—those whose worldviews are different—whether in our own travels or in our own country. What then does equality and diversity as universal principles look like “on the ground”, in particular contexts and situations? What does equality and diversity as universal or general beliefs and values mean or might mean to different people or different worldviews in different times/places/contexts? Here are some examples. South Africa was one of eight countries that abstained in 1948 from voting for the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Six were Soviet-related countries and one was Saudi Arabia. That South Africa abstained surprised no one; it was firmly entrenched in apartheid policies. There was sufficient diversity in South Africa—whites, blacks, and coloured, as they were referred to at that time—but equality escaped many of them. The country had received its first constitution in 1910, shortly after the end of the Anglo-Boer War when the British left. That constitution gave rights to the white minority but restricted the black majority from voting. It also resulted in most land seized by whites, with blacks retained for their cheap labour. In 1948 the National Party came to power and firmly entrenched apartheid policies to South Africa, which severely restricted the freedom of movement, marriage, land possession, voting, and other rights of the black majority. The African National Congress (ANC) was formed in 1912; however, its powers and policies gained little traction. In response to the apartheid policies of 1948 set in place by the National Party, the ANC drafted its “Freedom Charter” in 1955, which stated that blacks had been robbed of their land, liberty, and peace by an unjust government based on inequality. It called for equal rights and opportunities for all, regardless of colour, race, belief, or gender. But these calls went unheeded. In 1961 South Africa became a Republic, with a new constitution that further entrenched apartheid policies. Those policies led to the violent and often brutal repression of protest movements for the next thirty years, which increasingly drew international condemnation. Pressure continued to mount on the white South African government throughout the 1980s to introduce major changes. In 1994 those changes finally took hold when the ANC came to power, and Nelson Mandela, who spent twenty-seven years in prison because of his resistance to apartheid policies, was elected the country’s first black president. A new constitution was signed into law and it

222 

J. VALK

forbade discrimination based on “race, gender, sex, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture or language” (Art. 8,2). It granted the right to life (Article 9); dignity (Art 10); freedom and security (Art. 11); freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief, and opinion (Art 14, 2); freedom of speech and expression, the press and other media, artistic creativity and scientific research (Art 15, 1); freedom of association (Art. 16); freedom of movement (Art 17); and more. Change had come to South Africa. Today the hopes and dreams of many black South Africans continue to be thwarted, however. While the 1994 Constitution grants them basic rights and freedoms, the opportunities for upward social and economic mobility escape all too many. South Africa continues to be a land of opportunity and potential, yet inequality, poverty, and violence remain rampant. The universal belief in equality and diversity, embedded in the nation’s constitution, has hardly been realized as massive turmoil surfaces in all too many cities, towns, and regions throughout the country. South Africa is not the only Western country where universal beliefs in equality and diversity, long embedded in national constitutions and political sentiments, find their particular expression in limited terms. Canada, seen today as a land of multi-cultural integration and opportunity, has a long colonial history from which it has not yet fully recovered. For centuries it seized land from First Nations People, placing them on reservations, and subjecting them to paternalistic policies that continue to threaten their cultural, linguistic, spiritual, and economic welfare. In Europe today one increasingly hears that “Europe is for Europeans”, with movements of rising national sentiments that exclude many people. Respecting diversity means for some that non-European cultural and ethnic groups should be returned to their own lands, and that religious diversity in Europe should be restricted only to Judaism and Christianity, with the view that the Islam of the Middle East, the Far East, and Africa should remain in those places. In Islam men and women are equal, yet it is acknowledged that they are not the same. Islam respects differences between men and women, which at the very least it asserts is biological—biological differences are not socially constructed. Yet others in other jurisdictions say that respecting equality and diversity means that men and women are equal, and saying anything else is anti-women, a viewpoint strongly expressed by some secular feminists from a social-constructivist perspective. But to what extent is the issue here not one of interpreting a universal respect for equality and

6  UNIVERSAL/PARTICULAR BELIEFS, VALUES, AND PRINCIPLES 

223

diversity among the genders in a particular way, based on one’s particular perspective, if not worldview? Today those with more liberal leanings advocate a respect of cultural diversity, which is understood as respecting cultural differences. But sometimes this respect is understood superficially, as a narrow respect for ethnic dress, food, and clothing—“foods, flags and fashions”, as mentioned earlier. Some of those are celebrated at markets or cultural awareness days. This is all good and necessary, but is it sufficient? Does it also include a respect for ideological/political/spiritual/religious differences? Does it entail respecting religiously symbolic clothing: wearing the hijab, crosses, or yarmulkes in public? This is not the case in France, which is a secular nation embracing Secularism. Secularism is a worldview that has gained a strong public foothold in France since the Enlightenment and French Revolution, in spite of the still somewhat favourable treatment afforded to Catholicism. Yet, it has forbidden the public wearing of the Islamic hijab and niqab, seen by French feminism as a symbol of the oppression of women by men (Selby, 2011). In an ironic twist, what has become known as the “burkini”, swimwear worn by some Muslim women and resembling swimwear of a few generations ago, was also banned from public beaches. Yet the scant bikini of today is not regarded as a symbol of the exploitation of women, or the objectification of their bodies by men, but as a symbol of their freedom of choice. That freedom of choice to wear what they wanted was not accorded to Muslim women (Bowen, 2011). We see similar sentiments arising in the Canadian province of Quebec, which has cultural, if not worldview, affinities with France. Quebec also embraces a cultural and political Secularism known as laicité and has also shown some clear aversions to Islam (Bouchard & Taylor, 2008; Selby, 2014). Perhaps the area where the equality and diversity principles are strongly articulated, if not asserted, yet not practised fully, is in the area of religious equality and diversity. In the Canadian political context, cultural and racial diversity can be visibly seen in the array of Members of Parliament, and this is promoted and applauded. But religious diversity is an entirely different matter and is largely kept private, if not hidden from the public. In contrast to the United States, Canadian politicians seldom speak publicly about their religious inclinations, leanings, or affiliations, largely for fear of being labelled either as religiously fundamentalist or that their political views will be influenced by their religious leanings. An exception was Elizabeth May, former leader of the Green Party of Canada. It was early

224 

J. VALK

recognized that May had considered the priesthood, but instead went into politics. She is an Anglican, “an unabashed follower of Jesus Christ”, and does not hide it. Yet, as a politician she says that she got “flak for being a Christian” (Sison, 2013). On the other hand, however, to have one’s political views influenced by feminist, atheist, or environmentalist perspectives or worldviews appears not to be a problem. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made public display of being perceived as a feminist and was favourably received as such, until that image was tarnished through some political missteps and caused some to wonder if an “old boys network” was still at play after all (Carpenter, 2018; Laidlaw, 2019). Though not a politician, the worldview of well-known Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki is also not an issue. Suzuki has been quite influential in the environmental movement in Canada and has written about “the wisdom of the elders” concerning environmental care and preservation (Knudtson & Suzuki, 1992). He says his worldview has been “profoundly influenced by Haida ties”, an Indigenous People of Haida Gwaii, formerly known as the Queen Charlotte Islands in the Province of British Columbia (CBC Radio, 2016). Applauding or admiring some (world)views in the public square, however, and discounting or slighting others are revealing of the influence and dominance of certain worldviews in the public square and limit the universal respect for equality and diversity in particular ways. Preservation of the Environment Preservation of the environment has gained considerable prominence in the last decades. Climate change and its effects have received high profile at international gatherings, for example at the United Nations and at several climate change conferences. Most politicians and other leading advocates today speak about the need to invoke changes to protect the environment and to live more sustainably. Few will state publicly that the environment can be wantonly used, abused, and exploited. Many major projects now require an environmental assessment before they can move forward. We are now at the point where attention needs to be focused on the footprint humans are leaving today, for we are placing future generations in jeopardy. But what that larger or general principle to protect the environment entails in changing human behaviour is understood in different ways in different contexts, and in regard to different worldview perspectives. How one views the environment or conceptualizes nature is quite revealing of individuals, groups of individuals, and cultures.

6  UNIVERSAL/PARTICULAR BELIEFS, VALUES, AND PRINCIPLES 

225

According to Ross-Bryant (2017), “Nature grows out of our worldview and shapes our ways of acting in the world” (p.  4). In other words, as Jansen et al. (2016) put it, “views of nature can be seen as articulations of our worldview” (p. 103). Protecting the environment from the worldview perspective of environmentalism, as embraced by one such as David Suzuki, includes giving respect to non-human species (plants, animals) and ecological elements (air, soil, rivers, and oceans). Suzuki (1997) has had a tremendous impact on Canadians and others through his long-running television series The Nature of Things, where he has spoken tirelessly about the delicate balance of nature and the great need for humans to respect and protect this balance. Animals, forests, and the natural world have value in and of themselves according to people such as Suzuki. They are not there for the sole purpose of human profit and exploitation. Al Gore (2006) has similarly spoken out loudly about the need to focus on the damage humans extol on the planet and the need to curtail their activities. The efforts of Suzuki, Al Gore, and others have led to the emergence of Green political parties in various countries, Green movements, Green Peace initiatives, an increase in environmental consciousness, and more. Today it is common to see recycling facilities in most cities, towns, and villages in the Western world, and the litany “reduce, reuse, recycle” is well known to most. Yet, and not unexpectedly, people such as Suzuki also have their detractors. Sheila Gunn Reid (2018) documents Suzuki’s extravagant lifestyle, numerous multimillion-dollar homes, public fund-raising, partnership with an oil company on a land purchase, a large family in spite of espousing small families, and travel using conventional fossil fuel–burning jets and tour buses, all while publicly scolding others for all of these environmental “sins”. Suzuki and others have drawn heavily from an Indigenous worldview and its concern for the environment. Indigenous People are known for their particularly unique ecological relationship to the land and have even formed “sacred societies”. Laudine (2009) refers to these as societies defined by a “worldview that highly values as sacred something beyond that needed for economic or political ends” (p. 1). Much can be learned from the stories and sustainable practices grounded in Indigenous ways and spirituality, even if Western civilization is not able to appropriate all of it (Aftandilian, 2011; Holthaus, 2008). Much can be learned from their ability to see the relationship between all life forms and how they live in spiritual and physical harmony with the land. Such will assist greatly in dealing with the environmental crisis we face today (Jackson, 2011; Cajete, 1995).

226 

J. VALK

Protection of the environment from the worldview perspective of radical environmentalism entails even more radical views and initiatives. Also often referred to as “deep ecology” and “Earth First!”, and spawning new academic disciplines such as “green criminology”, “environmental psychology”, and “environmental sociology”, it advocates the philosophy of biocentrism, as opposed to anthropocentrism, with the assertion that the natural world has as much right to exist, thrive, and blossom as do humans. It advocates the personhood of non-human species, and highlights the notion of animal spirituality, arguing that there is no hierarchy of being; humans are placed on the same level of importance as non-human entities (Brooks Pribac, 2017). It argues that humans need to drastically curtail their activity, especially their industrial activity, so animal species and the earth have a fair chance for survival. It entails, for example, restricting human reproduction, expanding nature preserves, protecting delicate ecological regions, limiting industrial expansion, halting oil drilling in sensitive ecological areas, no new pipelines, no shale gas drilling and exploration, and more, all of which will place limitations on human activity. Some radical environmental groups are known for their militant civil disobedience, with activists engaging in “ecotage”, the sabotage of equipment used in forestry and oil and mineral explorations (Cianchi, 2015; Taylor, 1995). At times associated with radical environmentalism and also with traditional religions, the worldview of ecofeminism incorporates a concern for the environment that has deep spiritual roots. It opposes itself to a view of the environment perceived as masculine; of humans above nature with nature under their control and for their pleasure (Kheel, 2007; Ruether, 1994). Ecofeminism rejects anthropocentrism in favour of biocentrism and embraces a model that sees the earth as that from which all plant and animal species, including humans, receive their nurture and sustenance (Harris, 2017). It incorporates the voices of many women from various places in the world, each with different challenges depending on their own situation. Yet all recognize the need to connect humans and the environment in a way that respects both (Ruether, 1996). Numerous other writers also clearly link religion and ecology and advocate the great need for a deep transformation of the human heart and mind. Some speak of a “nature spirituality”, one that holds nature as sacred and replaces more traditional religions (Taylor, 2009). Some stand within the monotheistic traditions yet call on all organized religions to embrace a greater concern for the environment. There are elements within the religious traditions for which environmental concerns have not rated

6  UNIVERSAL/PARTICULAR BELIEFS, VALUES, AND PRINCIPLES 

227

highly. Within the Christian tradition, this has certainly been the case. Nonetheless, many of those earlier views are changing as environmental issues gain more currency, especially as climate change becomes more highly profiled. There are now clear, basic themes emanating from those who embrace religious worldviews, advocating that humans are to embrace a spiritual and ecological ethic that concerns itself with the health and welfare of the planet. Grim and Tucker (2014), for example, issue a call to all the world religions for a “religious ecology” that moves humans towards “ecological cultures”. They are concerned not just for ecological survival but for “human-earth flourishing”, “weaving humans into the elements of life both practically and symbolically” (Grim & Tucker, 2014, p.  37). It is religious sources, in addition to science, according to Rasmussen (2015), that will inspire humans to convert from a consumerist mindset to an ecological one. Some present very solid biblical and theological groundings for earthcare, giving theological depth or even renewal to environmental care from a Christian worldview perspective, at times referred to also as creation spirituality (Northcott & Scott, 2014; Jenkins, 2013; Berry, 1988, 2009; Marlow, 2009; Fox, 1963). While positions may vary somewhat there are some common elements. It is argued, for one, that humans are the crown of creation—created in the image of God. They are dignified above all other creatures. That does not mean, however, as some have assumed, that environmental neglect, abuse, and waste has little bearing. Such is a gross misinterpretation of the Genesis passage that states that humans are to “have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth” (Genesis 1:28). The passage refers more to “taking care of”, being stewards of the earth, having responsibility to ensure that all is treated well. Some also include practical ways to engage in earthcare, seeking restorative approaches that are viewed as sacramental practices (Van Wieren, 2013). Pope Francis’ encyclical ‘Laudito Si’ speaks definitively, and authoritatively, about the need to change human habits. The pope indicated that the earth is being dishonoured and neglected as a creation of God. But he premised the urgency to change our ways more importantly on the fact that we need to clearly recognize that human life is closely connected to and dependent on the earth, as the sustainer of all life. His concern for the environment was also linked to the fact that environmental destruction most heavily impacts the poor. Yet in all of this, he affirms that humans,

228 

J. VALK

created in the image of God, have a special role as caretakers or stewards of the natural world. In regard to the Islamic worldview, preservation of the environment is also premised on the belief that the earth belongs to Allah, who has entrusted it to humans. According to many Islamic scholars, the Qur’an and the hadith refer to the protection of nature. The Qur’anic verse most often cited in regard to environmental concerns indicates that humans are the guardians of God’s creation. Humankind’s role is that of a caliph, a vice-regent. Humans are stewards of the earth and will be held responsible for its welfare (Ahmad, 2015; Abu Bakar, 2012). Islam provides paradigms for preserving the environment, even though industrialization and materialism have come to dominate many traditional Islamic cultural practices, resulting in decreased concern for the environment (Nasr, 2015; Izzi Dien, 1997). For that reason, others advocate a renewed focus on environmental ethics in Islam for environmentalism is all too readily associated with the modern West (Yildirim, 2016; Al-Damkhi, 2008; Foltz, 2003). There are Islamic political groups who take seriously the Qur’anic and hadith injunctions and attempt to make changes, however small, unnoticed, and with potential security implications as they associate with militant environmentalists (Karagiannis, 2015). Sacredness of Human Life The term “sacred” has acquired many different meanings, and by many different disciplines. In sociology and the history of religions, for example, the term is often held in opposition to the profane and used by well-­ known sociologists and historians of religion such as Durkheim, Eliade, Otto, and Scheler. It often designates some feeling, thing, action, or experience as set apart, restricted, or pure. It refers to places, times, objects, music, offices, officials, rituals, festivals, images, and more. While much discussion and debate still continue in terms of adequate, appropriate, or precise meanings given to the term, it does convey the notion that something sacred is something special or different, and then special or different relative to something else. To speak of the sacredness of the human is then to speak of the human as an entity that is special or different. The question then arises, in what way is the human special or different, and special or different relative to what? Here the question of the nature of the human arises again. This question is particularly important in light of the advancements in neuroscience and medical technology.

6  UNIVERSAL/PARTICULAR BELIEFS, VALUES, AND PRINCIPLES 

229

Defining what constitutes the human has a direct bearing on how to determine the sacredness or specialness of the human. While the sacredness or specialness of the human may be a universal value, as has been discussed above, how it is to be understood differs from one worldview to another, and the implications of different understandings can be considerable. This is most noticeable  when it comes to certain public policies, which in some cases can have far-reaching consequences for some, as will become clear. One area where a discussion of the sacredness of the human gets considerable airplay is in regard to the highly controversial and highly charged debate concerning abortion. It touches on the whole idea of what is right or wrong, just or unjust. While we may all believe in the sacredness of human life as a general or universal principle, we disagree on how this should be understood and implemented in particular circumstances. Those disagreements have erupted in the public square, and at times in some very volatile ways. To some extent the issue of abortion has been settled, particularly in light of the fact that many jurisdictions and countries have initiated policies permitting abortion, albeit also restricting it at certain junctures. It also seems that countries that still restrict abortion entirely are rapidly dwindling in numbers. Ireland was the most recent country in 2018 to amend its abortion policies. But it is not at all certain that the abortion issue has been definitively settled. When Supreme Court appointments in the United States are being made, the issue flares again, and nominees are grilled in terms of where they stand on it. In Canada, political party leaders insist the debate is settled and will not be reopened, but it is known that it continues to simmer just under the surface. One’s position on abortion can determine public funding for certain projects completely unrelated to abortion. One’s position also determines appointments on particular committees, as was most recently the case regarding the nomination of a person to the chair of the Committee on the Status of Women. A candidate was rejected because of her pro-life leanings. As such, evidence indicates that the issue will not go away anytime soon. Abortion is an emotionally charged and highly sensitive issue, and for good reason. It is also a very complex issue. Women who opt for an abortion do it for a variety of reasons, which can be economic, sociological, psychological, familial, and more. Many feel they have little option, especially since it is they who face the unwanted pregnancy, and quite often alone. As such, many feel it is highly inappropriate to make judgements on

230 

J. VALK

those who have had abortions or are considering abortion. No matter the situation, circumstance, state, or context, abortion can never be an easy decision for anyone; and its impact lingers a lifetime. Perhaps a new approach from a different angle might shed some light on this highly charged and controversial issue. Might a worldview approach generate some new understanding on the matter and explain in part the different positions taken? Might addressing it from this perspective give us some new insight on the matter, not so much to change opinions but more so to generate greater understanding? Perhaps it may also create an opportunity where one can learn about different positions taken and at the same time learn from them? The abortion debates are all too often polarized with two opposing and largely entrenched positions: pro-choice and pro-life. These two terms have become rather unhelpful, serve as pejorative labels, and are highly divisive. Feminists present their pro-choice position as one that is liberating for women and the pro-life position as regressive. Such all too easily leads to a simplification of a complex issue, and a refusal to appreciate that there are many nuances. In the public realm the two sides no longer engage each other, frequently misrepresenting, maligning, and outright dismissing the position of the other. The two positions are like ships passing in the night; a refusal to examine or even consider common ground for fear that abortion policies may change. In the current debates there seems to be little room or desire to learn about and learn from the other. The pro-life side insists that it is crucial to uphold as sacred the right to life, a principle that is embedded in the constitutions of many nations. But the insistence here is that this right should be extended also to the unborn, for the unborn are indeed human and in their early stages of life. Since it is also a most vulnerable stage of life, the unborn should be protected. Hence, terminating a pregnancy is the extermination of a human life and is considered unjust, whether for economic or social reasons, or because the foetus is suspected of being disabled or having Down Syndrome, or is the wrong gender, or is simply unwanted. Some go as far as to say that abortion is akin to infanticide; a nation willing to eliminate the unwanted. Parallels are at times made to Nazi Germany, which became notorious for eliminating the unwanted. We hear largely of Nazis eliminating Jews in the death camps. We hear less of them also exterminating the disabled, mentally depressed, gypsies, and homosexuals. For the Nazis, these too were unwanted, regarded as unproductive and unfit, and considered less than human. Germany today permits abortion but only within a certain

6  UNIVERSAL/PARTICULAR BELIEFS, VALUES, AND PRINCIPLES 

231

timeframe, in part because of their felt need to protect the vulnerable. After a certain timeframe, a foetus for them needs legal protection. In a number of other countries abortion is permitted but only within the first weeks of pregnancy, the so-called first tri-semester. In Canada, on the other hand, there is no law on abortion; Canada has a null policy. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled as unconstitutional an earlier law that restricted abortions and struck it down. The Canadian Parliament then ruled that abortion is an individual decision and refused to put in place any laws that restrict abortions, at any point. In essence, abortion is legally permitted at all stages of pregnancy, though doctors are hesitant to perform abortions in the latter stages when the foetus is considered “viable”, that is, able to survive on its own. The lifting of restrictions on abortion was largely the result of intense lobbying by the pro-choice side. This side does not render opinions on the status of the unborn, largely refusing to enter into such discussions. Considerations of the foetus as a human, a human person, or a potential human person are largely avoided. As long as a foetus is not outside the womb it is not considered human, should not be protected by law, and is not considered an entity in its own right. As such, abortion is considered legal and just and not the termination (killing?) of a viable human being. The pro-choice side argues vehemently for a woman’s right to choose; a right to do with her body as she chooses. But it also argues for more—for a power to decide and to define. In her article “Unpregnancy”, Alexandra Kimball states that “women make and unmake our children, not just in the biological sense, but in the ontological sense, too. The fetus is a fetus, and the child a child – only the woman knows. If we deny her the power to define her own pregnancy, we deny the power inherent in womanhood” (Kimball, 2015, p. F6). From the perspective of the pro-choice side that right must remain exclusively that of the woman. It is women who must largely bear responsibilities for unwanted pregnancies, the care and nurture of children, and therefore it is they who must alone decide whether or not they are in a position to carry their pregnancy to term. Denying this right to women places them in an inferior and disadvantageous position, resulting in all too many stories recounting pain, desperation, and death. In the Canadian legal context this right to choose is not to be restricted in any way. Abortion becomes a medical procedure like many other medical procedures dealing with a situation that is unwanted and needs correction. Today there are medical professionals who readily perform abortions, especially during the first tri-semester, arguing for the right of women to

232 

J. VALK

choose. Some encourage abortion when the foetus is suspected of having Down Syndrome or a disability of some kind (Dixon, 2008). Some refuse to perform abortions after the first tri-semester, knowing that they are exterminating a human being. Some refuse to do abortions at any time, knowing that they would be aborting a viable human life. Many countries forbid abortion after a certain period, often after the first tri-semester knowing that forbidding abortion entirely is too controversial but realizing too that after a certain period a foetus is a viable human person. So the debate is really between two seemingly polar and irreconcilable opposites. For the pro-life side, the crucial issue is the legal status of that which is growing inside the mother; a foetus is considered a human being and deserves legal protection. Many pro-life groups also provide services and assistance for women who find themselves pregnant and in difficulty, encouraging them to seek pro-life solutions. For the pro-choice side, the crucial issue is the right of women to choose. They continue to lobby for abortion rights and provide services for women who wish to terminate their pregnancy. They lobby also for abortions to be funded by state, provincial, or federal government health plans. The polarization extends even further into the feminist camp itself. The pro-choice position today is readily linked to feminism. Many strident, ardent, and even low-key feminists (now also including men) have argued for years for the right to choose, indicating that abortion is a personal decision and abortion rights are necessary for social equality. Yet, not all feminists see it this way. Sydney Callahan (2005), an American psychologist, is a case in point. A pro-life feminist, Callahan claims that “a more authentic feminism would nurture life and oppose abortion.” She argues that “women can never achieve the fulfilment of feminist goals in a society permissive towards abortion”, and heavily criticizes the four central moral claims to abortion: (1) the moral right to control one’s body; (2) the moral necessity of autonomy and choice; (3) the moral claim for the contingent value of foetal life; (4) the moral right of women to social equality (p. 274). As one can see, the issue is neither settled nor closed. Charles Camosy (2015) attempts to get beyond the current polarized and all too entrenched and debilitating debates. He begins by making the argument that no woman really wants to abort her unborn child—it goes against the very biological but also psychological nature of being a woman with the unique ability to create new life. The biggest problem, as he sees it, however, is that all too many women have restricted parameters in which to create new life, making it difficult for them to fully enjoy this

6  UNIVERSAL/PARTICULAR BELIEFS, VALUES, AND PRINCIPLES 

233

life-generating experience. Those parameters are often set by a society with socio-economic conditions that disadvantage women, especially poor women, by men who refuse to take responsibility for their actions, by a society that does not welcome physically and intellectually disabled children, and even by parents embarrassed by their teenage daughter who becomes pregnant. In effect, while our society is child-friendly it is so only within certain parameters. In such a society, it is not surprising that women opt for the right to choose abortion. Such a society may include those with worldviews that uphold the universal principle of the sacredness of the human but are dominated by one or more that understand and interpret that principle within restricted parameters. The big question in all of this is, of course, when human life begins. And this is indeed a big question. Here there is also little agreement. But that does not mean we should not engage the question for as we advance medically this question comes back to us time and time again. It confronts us at the beginning of life, but now also at the end of life. It raises some further questions; most specifically—what does it mean to be human, and what do we dignify regarding the human? The Nature of the Human What constitutes the human being? We raised this ontological question earlier and we raise it specifically now in regard to the question of what it is about the human that is sacred. That is, what makes us human and therefore sacred? On the most basic level, we are human because of our physical features: we have human bodies—biological and physical bodies. While there are some similarities to other species, the human species can easily be distinguished physically from other species. We might be inclined to say this is at least a starting point from which we might begin to define what it means to be human. The question is, however, to what extent is it given any importance and significance? This is no small question. No two human bodies are identical; there is uniqueness to each individual human body. They come in an assortment of sizes, shapes, colours, and appearances. It is here that differences can take on particular importance and value, and from particular perspectives, or worldviews. In the colonial period, for example, value and even intelligence were determined by skin colour. Those of white skin assumed certain racial superiority and considered those with various other skin colours

234 

J. VALK

as inferior and hence subject to enslavement, especially those of black skin. These colonial sentiments have not disappeared entirely from Western societies. While most national constitutions today forbid discrimination based on skin colour and physical features, one can still readily see that people with certain physical features are more valued than others. This is particularly the case with human physical features. From the perspective of Consumerism, for example, people with physically fit bodies and facial beauty are highly valued as a kind of ideal human being, an ideal from which human fulfilment can be attained, and an ideal to which all too many feel they must strive. The consumer lifestyle focuses on self-enhancement, conveying that bodily transformation is possible, offering a wide variety of consumer products and services that assist in achieving a certain physical ideal. In essence, what are valued are not people for who they are but for their physical appearances. Not valued, or devalued, within the realm or orbit of Consumerism are those who have physical appearances that do not approximate that physical ideal, for example, those with physical deformities or disabilities. They all too often find themselves at the margins, having to struggle for recognition in terms of meaningful employment but also for eliminating physical barriers that prevent access to some basic social goods and services. Physical and even cognitive disabilities become a liability, and hence it is no surprise that with the proliferation of prenatal screening, foetuses with disabilities, including foetuses with Down Syndrome, are being aborted. They do not fit the consumerist human ideal. Yet, there are also other worldview perspectives for which physical features do not determine importance or value. Kittay, Garland-Thomson, and Nussbaum, for example, argue that all people—with whatever physical abilities or disabilities—belong to the human community. They are all important and valued because they are human. Our physical bodies are simply vehicles through which we connect with others. Our biological physical bodies are at minimum the starting point for determining the sacredness of the human. We are also human because of our social characteristics—humans are social creatures. We need social interaction and we interact socially in a variety of ways, by forming families, groups, communities, and societies. Social interaction serves an important array of functions. Socialization of the young is intended to orient them to certain kinds of thinking and acting. Social bonding gives identity to certain kinds of social groupings, intending to emphasize specific roles or behaviours. In general, however,

6  UNIVERSAL/PARTICULAR BELIEFS, VALUES, AND PRINCIPLES 

235

our need for social connectedness drives us to form small groups of particular interests, associations of various sorts, and communities of mixed kinds. Yet, we know that other species also have social characteristics, and form strong social bonds. Elephants are known to be very social, forming social groupings that can be quite complex, with hierarchical structures that are often matriarchal in nature (Vidya & Sukumar, 2005). Nonetheless, social characteristics are constitutive of the human. We also know that some people are rather anti-social or can be so because of their characteristics or even disabilities. Not everyone is the jovial, social type so often portrayed in certain lifestyle commercials. They may be more reflective, quieter, or contemplative, adverse to boisterous social gatherings, and more inclined to seek the quiet of nature. There are those who may be more reclusive due to feelings of social awkwardness and become socially isolated. There may be those who through physical or cognitive disabilities also become socially isolated. Today we now well recognize that this is an increasing phenomenon among the elderly, and no less the immigrant elderly, whose social isolation may in fact hasten their demise (De Jong Gierveld et al., 2015; Steptoe et al., 2013). The question here again is not so much how people with these characteristics may be perceived but more in terms of how they are valued, for what is valued is reflective of a worldview, and what is reflective of a worldview can also be translated into public policy. The amount of resources bestowed on care for the elderly, for example, can be a result of value conferred on them. In a highly individualized society where Individualism holds sway and communal bonds have been weakened, a growing sense of social isolation amongst the elderly will surely ensue, and with predictable consequences (Glover, 2017). This is now apparent in regard to the COVID-19 pandemic. Those worldviews that emphasize communal care and concern will feel a special responsibility for the very young and the elderly, recognizing that social inclusion—familial and communal inclusion—is needed as one enters life and as one begins to exit life, and most particularly the latter (Moody & Phinney, 2012; Emlet & Moceri, 2012; Tobin et al., 1986). We are also human because of our productive capacities. That is, we have the capacity to produce, create, build, and make things, but these can be of an almost limitless kind and variety—art, music, poetry, buildings, transportation, and communication systems, and so much more. Today we also have tremendous economic systems that have created the

236 

J. VALK

possibilities to produce an endless array of material goods and services. As such, our productive capacities can also be constitutive of the human species. Yet, we are not the only species that is productive. Certain non-human species can also be very productive. E.O. Wilson (2004, 2015) spent a lifetime researching ant colonies and wrote extensively on their productive capacities, yet he noted a crucial distinction. Insects, he concluded, are slaves to their natural instincts; humans are not. Our behaviours may be shaped and influenced by a strong genetic component, yet this component does not determine us—we can make choices. In light of our current environmental predicament, Wilson concludes, we must now make some wise productive choices. But to what extent do our productive capacities define us, or have come to define us, that results in skewing what it means to be human today? Hannah Arendt (1958) made a distinction between labour, work, and action. Labour is that which is necessary for meeting the needs of basic human survival—food, shelter, and clothing. Work is that which interrupts nature by using it to make lasting material things, including art, which are more useful, comfortable, or aesthetically pleasing for human existence. Action is that which distinguishes human from non-human life, but also distinguishes us from others and conveys in the public realm our individual uniqueness. Action generates human relationships and provides opportunities to reach beyond the status quo into the new and even extraordinary. Arendt’s critique of the modern era lies in its reduction of all material things to consumer items. Human action is focused on producing consumable items now assumed to be essential to life, with the human mind almost exclusively valued for its contribution to science, technology, and the marketplace, and the making, buying, and selling of consumer items. Our productive capacities are not used for reflecting on ultimate and existential questions such as why we are here or the existence of a higher power. Our productive capacities are but one characteristic of the human, but to what ends they are devoted is reflective of worldview perspectives. The monotheistic worldviews state that the productive capacities of the human are to be directed towards human flourishing as stewards of the earth, an injunction from God. This is not an individualistic endeavour, but a communal one, where everyone has capacities or abilities of some kind. Here there is place for everyone; everyone is valued for everyone has a role to play. Humans are created in the image of God and reflect that image as they flourish and act stewardly in their communal activities. Within an

6  UNIVERSAL/PARTICULAR BELIEFS, VALUES, AND PRINCIPLES 

237

Indigenous worldview, productive capacities are be directed to similar ends, recognizing the communal element and the mandate from a Creator. Within a Humanistic worldview, productive capacities may be devoted to similar communal ends but without recognition of an injunction from a Higher Being. Within an Individualistic worldview, where the individual is supreme and communal bonds weakened, productive capacities can be directed to whatever the individual deems most important, whether that be a life devoted to the development of the higher self or one devoted to a life of consumption. As Arendt and others make clear, however, it is in a modern society dominated by the Capitalist and Consumerist worldview that the productive capacity of humans takes on a different meaning and emphasis, a meaning and emphasis that they assert is skewed. All productive capacity is devoted towards consumption, which is seen as the fulfilment of the human. It is also here that human intelligence, understood as ingenuity, is highly valued, with those of highest intelligence able to demand the highest price in the marketplace. One can see that one’s own participation within such a marketplace can easily have a “best before” date, that is, at a certain age one becomes less productive in a marketplace that is extremely competitive. The productive capacities also of those with physical and cognitive disabilities may render them unable or minimally able to compete in such a marketplace, leaving the impression, subtle or otherwise, that from such a worldview perspective, they are devalued, and even costly to the system. We are also human because of our ability to think. Humans have been endowed with intelligence—with a capacity to reason, to self-reflect, be self-conscious, and be self-aware. As previously mentioned, research has revealed that animals also have the ability to think, even make some rudimentary logical decisions, and perhaps even have limited degrees of self-­ consciousness. But humans may be the only creatures with the ability to use their reason to self-reflect—that is, humans in distinction from all other sentient beings can reflect on themselves and are consciously aware of their being. The human capacity to reason resulted in significant changes in the history of the world. René Descartes (1596–1650) laid the foundation for a shift in the importance of human reason, leading to what became known as modern Rationalism. He postulated that one could doubt many forms of knowledge, including doubting one’s own existence. However, the thinking self is necessary, and thus foundational, to the very act of doubting. Therefore,

238 

J. VALK

there must be a thinking mind for there to be thought at all; hence his famous cogito ergo sum (“I think, therefore I am”) as the first principle of philosophy. Descartes made a dramatic shift from the medieval to the modern by raising the individual to a thinking subject, and the arbiter of truth, or rather certainty. Humans were no longer to be considered merely as obedient children of God, but as subjective agents with autonomous reason. Descartes had set the stage for Enlightenment Rationalism and the view that reason is the chief source of all knowledge. The Rationalism of Descartes confronted the emerging Empiricism of British philosophers such as Francis Bacon (1561–1626), John Locke (1632–1650), and David Hume (1711–1776), all of whom argued strongly for truth to be found in experience. Bacon, often referred to as the father of the scientific method, and others granted greater ascendency to knowledge gained from phenomena by what would later result in a burgeoning science. The German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) attempted to bridge the two opposing schools of thought. Kant recognized the value of knowledge gained through the phenomenal world of experience, but also recognized that the noumenal world of ideas transcends science. He argued that while reason must be the final arbiter of science, reason must also recognize its own limitations (Kant, 2008). The modernist period of the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries, with its heavy emphasis on reason, came to be overshadowed by the dominance of science in the twentieth and beginning of the twenty-first centuries. That dominance has at times been translated into the worldview of Scientism, which has its very strong advocates, even in the area of education, and can result in significantly redirecting educational resources. For example, Robert Halfon, former education minister in the United Kingdom, is of the view that university education should be focused on “high-skilled employability” and recently stated that “if someone wants to do medieval history that’s fine … But all the incentives from government and so on should go to areas the country needs and will bring it most benefit” (Leal-Olivas, 2018). According to Halfon, this was irrefutably science. Yet, such an approach and emphasis in education is not without its criticisms (Boudry & Pigliucci, 2017). That humans have been endowed with intellect and with it the capacity to think and reason is not in itself a problem or issue and has been highlighted over the centuries. The Hebrew prophet Isaiah speaks of God reasoning with humans—“Come let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18). It has been argued that in the fresco Creation of Adam, Michelangelo intended

6  UNIVERSAL/PARTICULAR BELIEFS, VALUES, AND PRINCIPLES 

239

to convey that the divine imparted to humans the gift of intelligence (Fields, 2010; Meshberger, 1990). It is also well known that in the Western world Christianity established universities for the purpose of exercising the intellect and using human reason to explore the intricacies of the world, probe the larger universe beyond it, and reflect on that which transcends the phenomena directly visible to us, all to the glory of God. Today many institutions of higher learning embrace a secular worldview yet continue their endeavours in various disciplinary areas, attempting to resolve problems and issues by use of human reason, ingenuity, and continued scientific and technological advancements. Considerable weight, emphasis, and value are placed on developing the human intellect and the powers of reason. The great social, historical, and cultural march forward in enhancing the powers of human reason may, however, create challenges for those whose abilities of thought, self-reflection, and self-consciousness are severely limited. In the past people with cognitive disabilities were often removed from the general society and placed in large institutions supposedly to provide for their special needs. But today it is well known that they were hidden away, unable to participate in the larger society, and rendered unusable in the advancements deemed so necessary to alleviate social problems. In fact, they themselves were considered social problems. Subtle steps are being taken even today to ensure that their numbers dwindle, and in some cases to disappear altogether. In many countries in the Western world, prenatal screening is leading to the abortion of foetuses suspected of having disabilities of one sort or another. We are also human because we have a spiritual essence. That is, there is something to the human essence that goes beyond our physical, social, and rational capacities, some essence that reaches beyond the physical world of the senses. It is an essence that connects the human to something transcendental or even transcendent, a connection to a Metaphysical Other: a spirit world, the realm of God, ultimate or absolute reality—the great Mystery. Did that great Mystery infuse physical and human reality with something life-giving that goes beyond the material substance of the earth, and as such are humans sacred and to be dignified? Many religious and spiritual worldview traditions have referred to that spiritual essence as the soul, that which animates the human and connects it to a life-giving Higher Being that is beyond the human, a Creator who brought all that exists into being and continues to be intimately connected to it as sustainer and ultimate end. The exact nature of the connection,

240 

J. VALK

link, or nexus between the body and the soul has been debated for centuries and continues to be, with dualists and monists perpetually pitted against each other. The question of what happens to the soul after the body dies also remains controversial as discussed above (Gillman, 2002; Hick, 1976; Kung, 1985). The idea of a soul remains anathema among most atheistic worldviews. Any notion that there is an aspect of the human that escapes death is rejected out of hand. As such, the idea of a spiritual essence receives little attention. At most it may refer to human consciousness or mind that contemplates deeper aspects of one’s own existence and may still remain a current mystery. From the perspective of the materialist worldview of neuro-philosophy, for example, it is linked to brain activity, for according to Churchland (1986), “the mind is the brain” (p. ix). Whatever deep spiritual thoughts one might have had, even of one’s own spiritual essence, evaporates as the brain ceases to function at death. What now might be the (worldview) implications of focusing largely or solely on one or two of these characteristics of the human, and ignoring others? How might some of this play out when different philosophical or worldview perspectives begin to influence and shape policy at the practical level? So again, we ask the question: What is a human being? How does one define a human being? What do various worldview perspectives state on the matter? Answers to such questions may become readily apparent when one focuses on specific issues. The different worldview perspectives on how to regard a foetus were addressed above. Addressing the issue of people with cognitive disabilities, and how they are viewed, will again reveal different worldview perspectives. We begin with the question: is a person with severe cognitive disabilities, one whose thinking, reflecting, and self-consciousness are severely limited, still considered a human? According to the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (2006), people with cognitive disabilities are human. Numerous countries have signed and ratified the Convention, often on the basis of national constitutions that include references regarding discrimination of persons with cognitive and physical disabilities. But how is this universal right, grounded in a belief in the sacredness of the human, understood and interpreted? Two very different (worldview) perspectives are highlighted, each potentially leading to radically different policies and actions in the public square.

6  UNIVERSAL/PARTICULAR BELIEFS, VALUES, AND PRINCIPLES 

241

A Utilitarian Perspective As mentioned previously, Utilitarianism focuses on that which gives the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. Stated in a different way, it emphasizes that which is of the greatest utility, usefulness, benefit, or pleasure and the least amount of disutility, pain, or hardship. That was essentially the position of utilitarian philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Henry Sidgwick, and R.M. Hare. It is also the position of Peter Singer, an animal rights activist, ethicist, avowed atheist, and neuro-philosopher. Singer is a controversial figure largely because of his views regarding the severely disabled. Singer considers the notion of the “sanctity of life” as medieval and regards it as “speciesism”. Just because one looks like a human being does not necessarily mean they are a person, a distinction he carefully makes. According to Singer (2011), a human person is one who has “rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness”. From this perspective, neither a foetus nor a newborn is a human person; neither can think, self-reflect, or have self-awareness according to him. Singer agrees with pro-life advocates that human life may well begin at or very near conception, but that does not make it a human person. He is unclear when human life actually takes on capacities that constitute the transition from a human life to a human person, indicating that this can vary. Nonetheless, he agrees that this matter should be debated by the law courts and in the public (Cotto, 2017). Yet, while he is supportive of abortion, he is also aware that abortion eliminates a potential human person. Further, he is also wary and hesitant about the abortion of foetuses suspected by doctors of being severely disabled because it may well be the case that the diagnosis could be mistaken. If the diagnosis were indeed mistaken, which on occasion is the case, it would mean the elimination of a potential human person. This he would lament. He does not, however, lament the killing of a severely cognitively disabled child. In his view such a child is not a human person: it cannot think, reflect, or have self-awareness. It must be noted here, however, that Singer is referring to the most severe cases of cognitive disability, such as anencephaly, hydranencephaly, and holoprosencephaly. He recognizes that children with severe disabilities, as well as unwanted pregnancies, bring huge challenges to the lives of people who bear them and must deal with them, often without much support and assistance from others. As such these parents have gained the sympathetic ear of Singer the ethicist. But his views have also garnered tremendous criticism by advocates of the disabled.

242 

J. VALK

Singer feels that in cases where such children present a burden to their parents and if parents do not want such a child, they can have it euthanized. He advocates for laws that permit the euthanizing of severely cognitively disabled babies if in the first two years of their lives parents do not want them, that is, if they gain no pleasure from such a child and have not bonded with it. He feels that if parents only want one child and the child is severely cognitively disabled, they should be able to euthanize it—kill it—and try for a healthier one. Severely cognitively disabled children/ people need not be given any right to life. Singer takes a similar position on those who suffer from Alzheimer’s or other cognitive and neurological debilitating diseases, most specifically in the elderly. In severe cases they too lose the ability to think, reflect, and have self-awareness. They are then no longer human persons and could be euthanized. Ironically, Singer’s own mother suffered from severe Alzheimer’s, which put him in a conflicting position (Bailey, 2000; Specter, 1999). A Communitarian Perspective Advocates for the disabled take a much different position, one entirely different from that of Singer, and the differences could not be starker. Kittay (2019), Garland-Thomson (2017), and Nussbaum (2007) state that all humans, whether designated beings or persons, whether in utero or born, have a right to life and are valued. All persons are gifted, and all have gifts to offer to others. Eurich (2012) speaks from a Communitarian perspective and states that all persons are to be included in the community. The human community consists of a variety of people—with greater or lesser abilities and disabilities. The human community becomes richer when everyone is included, and no one is excluded (Taylor, 2014). Dignity and sacredness of the human require dignifying everyone, whether abled or disabled. Human value does not depend on one’s abilities, but rather on the fact that they are humans. Advocates of the disabled are not hesitant to remind people that at certain points in their lives—especially at the beginning and at the end—they are vulnerable and dependent on others for care. In effect, life’s journey is one towards disability—we all become disabled sooner or later. Such a worldview perspective, generally embraced by those who hold religious worldview perspectives, contrasts significantly from the Utilitarianism of Peter Singer. But each has implications. The Communitarian position has led to initiatives such as L’Arche, homes for

6  UNIVERSAL/PARTICULAR BELIEFS, VALUES, AND PRINCIPLES 

243

the disabled that now number some 260 worldwide and strive to give them dignity and value. The inclusive education movement in many countries attempts to take disabled children and adults out of institutions and place them in group homes, classrooms, and the larger public where they can thrive to the best of their abilities. On the other hand, while Singer’s position may be extreme, it does have an impact. Today countries are passing euthanasia laws that permit doctor-assisted dying for those who have lost the desire to live, often premised on the basis that individuals should have control over their own lives, and that the decision to end one’s life rests entirely with the individual. But advocates for the disabled are worried. What of those who are not in positions to make such decisions—the severely cognitively disabled, those suffering from Alzheimer’s or severe dementia, or foetuses known to have disabilities? Many European and North American countries are on a path to eliminate Down Syndrome in their societies in the next decade or two. Governments do not state this explicitly or officially, of course. None would do this, and they react vociferously when it is suggested that they do. It comes much more subtly, however, and it is done through a great advancement in medical technology—prenatal screening. Prenatal screening is now routine in many societies, and for good reason. It can save lives and potentially correct disabilities in the earliest stages. But with prenatal screening also comes dilemmas that can have severe consequences for society, and particularly in regard to Down Syndrome. In Iceland 80% and more women choose to take prenatal screening. Of those who do, and discover chromosomal abnormalities in the foetus, almost 100% opt to terminate the pregnancy. The termination rate in Denmark is estimated at 98%; in the United Kingdom 90%; in France 77%; and in the United States 67% (Quinones & Lajka, 2017). As one can see, the implications of the worldview embraced by each of these two dominant positions lead to vastly different attitudes and actions regarding how the most vulnerable in society ought to be treated. Contrasting these two positions reveals that while the larger principle of the sacredness of human life may be universally embraced, the working out of that principle in particular situations takes a variety of different shapes, depending largely on the worldview perspective one embraces. Therefore, how we define the human, which is shaped and influenced by our worldview, in turn shapes and influences how the universal principle is applied in particular situations.

CHAPTER 7

Concluding Reflections

It was the Apostle Paul who reminded us that in this world we all “see through a glass darkly” (1 Cor. 13: 12). An absolute clear vision able to declare absolute truth escapes us. As the Personal/Group Identity framework approach revealed, our view of the world is mediated through our senses, which in turn is influenced by our experiences and the circumstances in which we live. To greater or lesser degrees our beliefs and our values, our actions, and our behaviours are impacted by a variety of factors, as spelled out when we examined the personal, social, and cultural dynamics of identity. These do not determine our beliefs, values, and behaviours—we are free agents—but they certainly give some shape to them. The degree to which we are aware of them increases knowledge of self, and knowledge of others. Others are who they are because of their orbit and the circumstances in which they are immersed. Yet, our worldviews are influenced and shaped by much more. The cultural dimensions framework sheds light on the impact of yet other factors, such as sacred texts, narratives, and metanarratives—in effect sacred stories. They are diverse, yet shape perceptions of the reality experienced, giving meaning, guidance and direction to individuals, groups of individuals, even entire societies in their journey through this life and, for some, also the life beyond. Teachings or doctrines emerging from these sacred stories, and captured in vast documents, books, and tomes, are transmitted to younger and older alike giving meaning and identity to communities large and small. Ethics and moral choices often flow from the sacred © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. Valk, Worldviews, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82491-4_7

245

246 

J. VALK

stories of a particular worldview and their teachings, revealing clear differences between, for example, Utilitarian, Communitarian, Buddhist, Consumerist, and Catholic worldview perspectives on the meaning of “the good life”, and how to attain it. The cultural dimensions framework also highlighted a variety of rituals and symbols linked to both religious and secular worldviews. Rituals and symbols of secular worldviews may generally be less known or obvious, perhaps only because they may not be so easily discernible, yet they are at play in modern secular societies. Recognizing them sheds helpful light, for example, on the political controversies that erupted over religious symbols in France and the province of Quebec, revealing that worldview differences are actively at play. These differences continue to be at play in communities and social interactions where they are strengthened and supported, for humans are social creatures that depend on engagement with others—we need, form, and join an array of societies, communities, associations, and organizations. Today, however, institutional loyalties and membership seem to be shifting, as social cohesion frays in light of an increasing Individualism. The diminishing of social cohesion does not diminish the engagement of life’s big questions, however. They are highlighted in traditional worldview communities, especially religious ones, but nonetheless surface also in secular contexts, sometimes in new and more publicly assessable forums. Questions pertaining to the meaning and purpose of life are no less important today, if not more so, as we face increasingly complex societies, diverse ways of life, and a growing sense of meaninglessness in light of them. Here too the question of what it means to be human faces us more directly in the twenty-first century. Expanding technological advancements bring this question to the fore in a heightened manner, not least because of enhanced insights into the complexity of the human, but also because how we define the human today can have life and death consequences for some—at the beginning of life and at its ending. As revealed, worldview starting points weigh heavily in these discussions and debates. No less do these starting point weigh heavily in discussions pertaining to responsibilities and obligations. Here notions of right and wrong on a host of thoughts and actions enter the fray, with worldview positions clearly demarcated, especially on some of society’s most contentious issues, as was highlighted. What also became apparent and also continues to invoke endless discussion is the question of the existence of a higher power, being, or force.

7  CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS 

247

Between the extremes of Richard Dawkins (“There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life”) and the Church Father Augustine of Hippo (“I will not find my rest until I find it in thee”—Augustine, 1963, p.  17) lies a continuum of worldview positions. Here again, and particularly on this issue as was discovered, it is often the case that one argues from a particular perspective, rather than to it. Exceptions notwithstanding, an embrace or denial of the existence of God becomes a starting point from which much else flows, including big questions in light of new scientific findings: is God necessary in a universe operating on its own inherent physical laws; is God’s existence justifiable in light of suffering and evil in the world; is God required for human fulfilment? Whether Dawkins has been able to enjoy life and ceased worrying is not clear, especially as he moves into the twilight of his years. Neither is it clear that Augustine is now eternally enjoying the rest for which he craved. The nature of the afterlife that Augustine and so many others affirmed, is far from clear and will continue to be debated and discussed, and no less as stories of near-death experiences continue to emerge. Since conclusive evidence, scientific or otherwise, eludes us on this matter, affirming or denying a belief in life beyond this life must ultimately rest on faith. Responses to any or all of these ultimate questions will continue to arise as humans continue to probe them. They will generate new questions in search of more conclusive and decisive answers. Logic, empirical evidence, and rational argumentation will assist us, for responses need to be reasonable to be credible, based on justifiable beliefs, and in that sense, justifiable worldviews perspectives, even if those are ultimately taken on faith. Life is a mystery difficult to fathom in its entirety; yet it is also dynamic. To gain more clarity and integrity, worldview responses to the big questions must also be dynamic. As we have seen, ontological discussions concerning the nature of being and the nature of the universe continue unabated. We are at the forefront of new discoveries, all in light of continued advances in science and neuroscience. What will we learn from them—that the material universe is the ground of all being, or that there is a metaphysical dimension, a mystery that extends beyond the physical, a spiritual realm distinct from the material but connected to it and interacting with it, in ways that the human mind can perceive yet not fully grasp? Are the latter beliefs illusions and socially constructed, or are they hardwired into the brain because they correspond to something that is real? Linked to these are also questions pertaining to the beginnings and endings of the cosmos, which keep

248 

J. VALK

physicists and cosmologists, and no less philosophers, even theologians, preoccupied. Religious worldviews that make room for a Creator are receptive to at least some involvement of a Creator in the beginnings and the endings of the universe. The nature of that involvement is still thoroughly discussed and debated today but is not denied, even as scientific discoveries challenge that involvement and necessitate at times a readjustment of certain theological statements and teachings. Secular worldviews explain beginnings and ending without resorting to a Creator yet are challenged to give meaningful explanation to the mystery of a beginning. Much speculation exists also regarding the future and especially what many describe as the next stage of human evolution or development. Nonetheless, views regarding the future of the human are invariably linked to how we regard the human of the present—a homo deus or an imago dei. Will those who embrace certain worldviews—religious or secular—be challenged to rethink earlier positions in light of these questions? That question itself has direct epistemological implications—what knowledge systems hold most sway for which worldviews? Science increases our knowledge of the world as it appears to us, uncovering tremendous insight into the workings of the natural world. It is no surprise, therefore, that scientific knowledge continues to hold an esteemed position in Western society. Yet, an esteemed position is different from a revered one. When science becomes a worldview—Scientism—its status changes. Veneration of science reaches beyond science itself and becomes a worldview faith. For centuries it was argued that human reason was the distinguishing feature separating humans from animals. Created as the imago dei—the creature endowed with reason—linked humans to the eternal, transcendent and universal mind of God. Some argue that humans are not the only creatures with the ability to reason, even to logically solve problems. Nonetheless, the human ability to reason in highly complex forms gives it incredible advantages over other creatures. But perhaps it is the powers of self-reflection that distinguish the human from the non-human. Yet here too, the human ability to reason and self-reflect—to rationalize about our existence—is different than Rationalism, an abstraction of a human ability elevated to a revered and venerated status. Rationalism then becomes a worldview, a way of viewing the world only through the eyes of reason, exclusive of all other sources. But Rationalism is falling out of favour—a realization that reason easily becomes the handmaid of those seeking power, influence, and benefit and further that reason alone will not resolve the dilemmas faced by humans.

7  CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS 

249

Revelational or sacred knowledge, still revered by many as yet another source of knowing, is conditioned by time and context and as such requires interpretation. Its wisdom and truth have at times been rendered rigid, unyielding, dogmatic, and authoritarian. Nonetheless, though there is recognition that this knowledge must be approached cautiously, it is regarded by many not only as fundamental and essential but also as mysterious and enigmatic, often requiring other forms of knowledge to assist in comprehending the truth, wisdom, and insight contained in it. Indigenous knowledge or Indigenous knowledge systems are gaining ascendency today, returning identity, recognition, and power to Indigenous People worldwide. Often more culture- and context-specific, it contains knowledge vital for Indigenous survival. But even more so it presents alternative or additional wisdom and insight to that of Western philosophy and science. In its close link to nature, recognition of a Creator, importance of the community, and sharing of natural resources, increased awareness of Indigenous knowledge may well be necessary as the world struggles to resolve some of the most challenging and sometimes obstinate environmental problems. Numerous worldview perspectives, often differing widely on some fundamental issues, nonetheless united in 1948 to establish the UN Declaration of Human Rights. It revealed the existence of universal beliefs, values, and principles which all acknowledged, and to which all consented in creating this monumental document. But interpreting how these rights should be understood and played out in particular contexts has raised endless discussion and debate, often revealing political manoeuvrings as well as cultural differences. Applying those universals to particular situations continues to reveal not only social, political, and cultural conflicts, but also the fact that worldviews are not all the same. Consequently, clear distinctions must be made between beliefs, values, and principles undergirding various worldviews. Nonetheless, religious or secular worldviews should not be judged on the basis of behaviours of some eccentric or recalcitrant adherents. In the words of the late Kofi Annan (2003), former United Nations Secretary-General: No religion or ethical system should ever be condemned because of the moral lapses of some of its adherents. If I, as a Christian, for instance, would not wish my faith to be judged by the actions of the Crusaders or the Inquisition, I should be very careful to judge anyone else’s faith by the actions that a few terrorists may commit in its name.

250 

J. VALK

Worldviews espouse specific beliefs, values, principles, and ways of living. Notions of justice, dignity, equality, and sacredness of life are specific to those worldviews, as much as they are to the contexts in which they are enacted. While judgement is a natural human tendency, a first cautious step is recognizing that context shapes how we live out espoused beliefs and values. Yet, context specificity need not lead to cultural relativity. To accept all worldviews as the same is really to accept none—differences are real. We do accept certain beliefs, values, and ways of living and reject others, and for justifiable reasons. To be aware of and knowledgeable about differences leads to greater understanding of them and enhances dialogue on important issues in the public square. It assists us as we examine the past, journey in the present, and think about the future. The challenges for younger and older today may not be so much in developing a “cosmopolitan worldview” as it is in developing a greater understanding of our own worldview—our own thoughts, beliefs, and values—and those of others.

Works Cited

Abdul-Matin, I. (2010). Green Deen: What Islam Teaches About Protecting the Planet. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Abu Bakar, I. (2012). Islamic Theological Teachings on Ecology. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(13), 222–226. Abu-Rabi, I. (Ed.). (2010). Theodicy and Justice in Modern Islamic Thought: The Case of Said Nursi. Ashgate Publishing. Adamczyk, M. (2017). The Importance of Cultural Differences in International Business. Central European Review of Economics and Management, 1(2), 151–170. Adams, T., Banks, M., & Olsen, A. (2011). Benefits of International Education: Enriching Students, Enriching Communities. In D.  Davis & B.  Mackintosh (Eds.), Making a Difference: Australian International Education (pp. 9–46). University of New South Wales Press Ltd. Aftandilian, D. (2011). What Other Americans Can and Cannot Learn from Native American Environmental Ethics. Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture & Ecology, 15(3), 219–246. Aguirre, A. (2019). Cosmological Koans: A Journey to the Heart of Physical Reality. W.W. Norton. Ahmad, A. (2015). Islamic Attitudes Towards Environmental Problems and Practice. Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture & Ecology, 19(3), 209–225. Aikenhead, G., & Michell, H. (2010). Bridging Cultures: Indigenous and Scientific Ways of Knowing Nature. Pearson. Al-Azami, M.  M. (2003). The History of the Quranic Text, from Revelation to Compilation: A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments. UK Islamic Academy. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. Valk, Worldviews, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82491-4

251

252 

WORKS CITED

Albert, E. (2018). Christianity in China. Council on Foreign Relations. https:// www.cfr.org/backgrounder/christianity-china Al-Damkhi, A. M. (2008). Environmental Ethics in Islam: Principles, Violations, and Future Perspectives. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 65(1), 11–31. Alexander, E. (2012). Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon’s Journey into the Afterlife. Simon and Schuster. Ali, A. (2004). The Caged Virgin: A Muslim Woman’s Cry for Reason. Free Press. Alicino, F. (2018). Atheism and the Principle of Laïcité in France: A Shifting Process of Mutual Adaptation. Rivista Telematica, 32, 1–27. Allen, P. (2006). Ernan McMullin and Critical Realism in the Science-Theology Dialogue. Routledge. Ammerman, N. (2013). Spiritual but Not Religious: Beyond Binary Choices in the Study of Religion. Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion, 52(2), 258–278. Annan, K. (2003, December 12). Do We Still Have Universal Values? Speech Given at Tübingen University, Germany. https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2003-­12-­12/secretary-­generals-­lecture-­global-­ethics-­do-­ we-­still-­have-­universal. Accessed 8 Aug 2019. Apollonio, D., & Bero, L. (2007). The Creation of Industry Front Groups: The Tobacco Industry and “Get Government Off Our Back”. American Journal of Public Health, 97(3), 419–427. Archibald, J.-A. (2008). Indigenous Storywork: Educating the Heart, Mind, Body, and Spirit. University of British Columbia Press. Arendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition. University of Chicago Press. Arendt, H. (2006). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. Penguin. Armstrong, K. (1993). A History of God: The 4000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Knopf. Armstrong, K. (2007). The Great Transformation: The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions. Vintage. Armstrong, K. (2009). The Case for God: What Religion Really Means. Knopf. Armstrong, K. (2011). Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life. Vintage Canada. Arnade, C. (2016, June 8). McDonald’s: You Can Sneer, but It’s the Glue that Holds Communities Together. The Guardian.https://www.theguardian.com/ business/2016/jun/08/mcdonalds-­community-­centers-­us-­physical-­social-­ networks. Accessed 27 May 2019. Arnell, C. (2013, October 14). An Academic Among the Pews. The Chronicle Review. http://chronicle.com.proxy.hil.unb.ca/article/Dont-­Eschew-­the-­ Pew/142241/#sthash.S7Q5DYbW.dpuf Asare, R., Akuffobea, M., Quaye, W., & Atta-Antwi, K. (2015). Characteristics of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises in Ghana: Gender and Implications for Economic Growth. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 7(1), 26–35.

  WORKS CITED 

253

Association of Universities & Colleges of Canada (AUCC). (2003, January). Reality Check. Astin, A., & Astin, H. (Eds.). (2004). Why Spirituality Deserves a Central Place in Liberal Education. Liberal Education, 90(2), 34–41. http://web.ebscohost. com.proxy.hil.unb.ca/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hid=127&si d=49b25649-­fe5a-­45f8-­a6fa-­c0823e04e813%40sessionmgr113 Athanasopoulos, A., Bylund, E., Montero-Melis, G., Damjanovic, L., Schartner, A., Kibbe, A., Riches, N., & Thierry, G. (2015). Two Languages, Two Minds: Flexible Cognitive Processing Driven by Language of Operation. Psychological Science, 26(4), 518–526. Augustine. (1963). The Confessions of St. Augustine (R. Warner, Trans.). Mentor. Auxier, W.  R. (2015). A Comparison of Worldviews of Business Leaders from Disparate Geographic Cultures. Journal of Values-Based leadership, 8(2), Article 8. Babbage, D. R. & Ronan, K. R. (2000). Philosophical worldview and personality factors in traditional and social scientists: studying the world in our own image. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(2), 405–420. Bacevich, A. (2009). The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism. Holt. Baggini, J. (2012, March 25). A Heathen Manifesto. The Guardian. http://www. theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/mar/25/atheists-­p lease-­r ead­heathen-­manifesto Bailey, R. (2000, December). The Pursuit of Happiness. Reasononline. https:// web.archive.org/web/20060711211934/http://reason.com/0012/rb.the. shtml. Retrieved 26 July 2018. Baird, R. (1985). Meaning in Life: Discovered or Created? Journal of Religion and Health, 24(2), 117–124. Balcom, D. (1998). Absent Fathers: Effects on Abandoned Sons. Journal of Men’s Studies, 6(3), 283–296. Barber, B. (2008). Consumed: How Markets Corrupt Children, Infantalize Adults and Swallow Citizens Whole. W.W. Norton. Barbour, I. (1997). Religion and Science: Historical and Contemporary Issues. HarperSanFrancisco. Barker, D. (2016). God: The Most Unpleasant Character in all Fiction. Sterling. Barnet, L. (2013). Freedom of Religion and Religious Symbols in the Public Square (Publication No. 2011-60-E). https://lop.parl.ca/staticfiles/PublicWebsite/ Home/ResearchPublications/BackgroundPapers/PDF/2011-­6 0-­e .pdf. Accessed 29 Mar 2019. Barr, M. (2010). Religious Nationalism and Nation-Building in Asia: An Introduction. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 64(3), 255–261. Barr, M., & Govindasamy, A. (2010). The Islamisation of Malaysia: Religious Nationalism in the Service of Ethnonationalism. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 64(3), 293–311. Barr, S. (2016). The Believing Scientist: Essays on Science and Religion. Eerdmans.

254 

WORKS CITED

Barr, S. (n.d.). https://closertotruth.com/series/why-­fine-­tuning-­seems-­ designed Barrett, R. (2018). The Evolutionary Human: How Darwin Got It Wrong. Lulu. Basarudin, A. (2016). Humanizing the Sacred: Sisters in Islam and the Struggle for Gender Justice in Malaysia. University of Washington Press. Battiste, M., & Henderson, J.  Y. (2000). Protecting Indigenous Knowledge and Heritage: A Global Challenge. Purich. Bauer, O., & Barreau, J.-M. (Eds.). (2008). La Religion du Canadien de Montréal. Editions Fides. Bauman, Z. (2001). Modernity and the Holocaust. Cornell University Press. Bauman, Z. (2007). Consuming Life. Polity Press. Bavington, D. (2010). From Hunting Fish to Managing Populations: Fisheries Science and the Destruction of Newfoundland Cod Fisheries. Science as Culture, 19(4), 509–528. Bayer, R. (1999). Christianity & Capitalism: The Possibility of Christian Personalism. Georgetown University Press. Beaujot, A. (2012). Victorian Fashion Accessories. Bloomsbury Academic. Beauregard, M., & O’Leary, D. (2007). The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Case for the Existence of the Soul. HarperOne. Beit-Hallahmi, B., & Rabin, A. I. (1977). The Kibbutz as a Social Experiment and as a Child-Rearing Laboratory. American Psychologist, 32(7), 532–541. Beitler, R. M., & Martinez, A. R. (2010). Women’s Roles in the Middle East and North Africa. Greenwood. Belk, R., Wallendorf, M., & Sherry, J., Jr. (1989). The Sacred and Profane in Consumer Behavior: Theodicy on the Odyssey. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(June), 1–38. Belk, R.  W. (1987). A Child’s Christmas in America: Santa Claus as Deity, Consumption as Religion. Journal of American Culture, 10(Spring), 87–100. Belk, R. W. (2004). Men and Their Machines. In B. E. Kahn & M. F. Luce (Eds.), NA  - Advances in Consumer Research (pp.  273–278). Association for Consumer Research. Bellah, R., Madsen, R., Sullivan, M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. (1985). Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. University of California Press. Belmonte, K. (2002). Hero for Humanity: A Biography of William Wilberforce. NavPress. Belshaw, D., Calderisi, R., & Sugden, C. (2001). Faith in Development: Partnership Between the World Bank and the Churches of Africa. Regnum Books International. Benford, G. (n.d.). https://www.closertotruth.com/series/what-­the-­far-­far-­ future-­humans-­the-­universe#video-­1809 Berger, B. (2002). The Limits of Beliefs: Freedom of Religion, Secularism, and the Liberal States. Canadian Journal of Law and Society, 17(1), 39–68.

  WORKS CITED 

255

Berger, B. (2017). The Family in the Modern Age: More than a Lifestyle Choice. Routledge. Berger, P. (1969). A Rumor of Angels: Modern Society and the Rediscovery of the Supernatural. Doubleday. Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise on the Sociology of Knowledge. Anchor Books. Bering, J. (2011). The Belief Instinct: The Psychology of Souls, Destiny and the Meaning of Life. W. W. Norton. Bering, J. (2013, November 13). Life After Death: The Idea of Life After Death Lives on in Near-Death Experiences and Messages from Beyond the Grave. What’s the Evidence? Aeon Magazine. http://aeon.co/magazine/being-­ human/my-­paranormal-­adventure-­in-­pursuit-­of-­life-­after-­death/. Accessed 2 Dec 2013. Berkouwer, G. (1962). Man: The Image of God. Eerdmans. Berry, J. (2013). Research on Multiculturalism in Canada. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37(6), 663–667. Berry, T. (1988). The Dream of the Earth. Sierra Club. Berry, T. (2009). The Christian Future and the Fate of Earth. Orbis Books. Berry, W. (1993). Christianity and the Survival of Creation. Cross Currents, 43(2), 149–164. Bertrand, M. (2017). The Glass Ceiling. Becker Friedman Institute for Research in Economics (Working Paper No. 2018-38). https://doi.org/10.2139/ ssrn.3191467. Besser, T. (2002). The Conscience of Capitalism: Business Social Responsibility to Communities. Praeger. Bethke Elshtain, J. (2004). Who Are We?: Critical Reflections and Hopeful Possibilities. Eerdmans. Bhawuk, D. P. S. (2008a). Globalization and Indigenous Cultures: Homogenization or Differentiation? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 305–317. Bhawuk, D. P. S. (2008b). Science of Culture and Culture of Science: Worldview and Choice of Conceptual Models and Methodology. The Social Engineer, 11(2), 25–43. Bibby, R.  W. (2017). Resilient Gods: Being Pro-Religious, Low Religious, or No Religious in Canada. UBC Press. Birdsall, J. (2005). Divine Roots of Human Rights. The Review of Faith & International Affairs, 3(3), 53–56. Blackburn, S. (2001). Ethics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. Blackmore, S. (2011). Consciousness: An Introduction. Oxford University Press. Blackstock, C. (2007). The Breadth of Life Versus the Embodiment of Life: Indigenous Knowledge and Western Research. WINHEC Journal.http:// www.win-­hec.org/docs/pdfs/cindy.pdf

256 

WORKS CITED

Blake, J. (2010). Are There Dangers in Being “spiritual but not religious”?http:// www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/personal/06/03/spiritual.but.not.religious/ index.html Block, N. (2007). Consciousness, Function, and Representation: Collected Papers. MIT Press. Bloomberg, M. (2001). Bloomberg by Bloomberg. Wiley. Bok, D. (2004). Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education. Princeton University Press. Bonhoeffer, D. (1997). Letters and Papers from Prison. Touchstone. Bonzo, M., & Stevens, M. (2009). After Worldview: Christian Higher Education in Postmodern Worlds. Dordt College Press. Bopp, J. (1992). Sacred Tree: Reflections on Native American Spirituality. Lotus Press. Borchardt, G. (2006). The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein. iUniverse. Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford University. Bouma-Prediger, S. (2010). For the Beauty of the Earth: A Christian Vision for Creation Care. Baker Academic. Bouchard, G., & Taylor, C. (2008). Building the Future: A Time for Reconciliation. Commission de consultation sur les pratiques d’accommodement reliées aux différences culturelles. Québec Government Printing Office. Boudry, M., & Pigliucci, M. (Eds.). (2017). Science Unlimited? The Challenges of Scientism. University of Chicago Press. Bowen, J. R. (2006). Why the French Don’t Like Headscarves: Islam, the State, and Public Space. Princeton University Press. Bowen, J. R. (2011). How the French State Justifies Controlling Muslim Bodies: From Harm-Based to Values-Based Reasoning. Social Research, 78(2), 325–348. Briggs, J. (2005). The Use of Indigenous Knowledge in Development: Problems and Challenges. Progress in Development Studies, 5(2), 99–114. Brockman, J. R. (2005). Romero: A Life. Orbis Books. Brooks Pribac, T. (2017). Animal Spirituality: A Journey into the Unspeakable. Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture, 11(3), 340–360. Browne, R. (Ed.). (1980). Rituals and Ceremonies in Popular Culture. Popular Press. Brubaker, R. (2012). Religion and Nationalism: Four Approaches. Nations and Nationalism, 18(1), 2–20. Bruckner, P. (2013). Fanaticism of the Apocalypse. Polity Press. Buber, M. (1970). I and Thou. Charles Scribner’s Sons. Bucar, E. M., & Barnett, B. (2005). Does Human Rights Need God? Eerdmans. Buckova, M. (2009). A Comparison and Analysis of Eschatological Themes in Polynesian Mythology as a Survivor of Protopolynesian Unity. https://www.sav. sk/journals/uploads/091911126_Buckov%C3%A1.pdf

  WORKS CITED 

257

Bulhof, I. (1980). Wilhelm Dilthey: A Hermeneutic Approach to the Study of History and Culture. Martinus Nijhof. Burr, V. (2015). Social Constructionism. Routledge. Byrne, M. (2011). The Names of God in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: A Basis for Interfaith Dialogue. Continuum. Cajete, G. (1995). Native Science: Natural Laws of Interdependence. Clear Light Publishing. Cajete, G. (1999). Editor. A People’s Ecology: Explorations in Sustainable Living. Clear Light Publishers. Cajete, G. (2015). Indigenous Community Rethinking: Rekindling the Teachings of the Seventh Fire. Living Justice Press. Callahan, S. (2005). Pro-Life Feminism. In H. J. Gensler, E. W. Spurgin & J. C. Swindal (Eds.), Ethics: Contemporary Readings (pp. 274–283). Routledge. Camosy, C. (2015). Beyond the Abortion Wars: A Way Forward for a New Generation. Eerdmans. Campbell, C. (2004). I Shop Therefore I Know that I Am: The Metaphysical Basis of Modern Consumerism. In K. M. Ekstrom & H. Brembeck (Eds.), Elusive Consumption (pp.  27–44). Oxford. http://site.ebrary.com.proxy.hil.unb.ca/ lib/unblib/edf.action?p00=&docID=10231674&page=13 Campbell, D. (1989). The romantic ethic and the spirit of modern consumerism. Blackwell. Campbell, J., & Moyers, B. (1991). The Power of Myth. Anchor Books. Campbell-Dollaghan, K. (2017, September 12). Stores Are Not Town Squares. https://www.fastcompany.com/90139799/stores-­a re-­n ot-­t own-­s quares. Accessed 27 May 2019. Camus, A. (1955). The Myth of Sisyphus. Alfred Knopf. Capra, F. (2010). The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Meditations. Shambala. Carpenter, J. (2018, November 12). Justin Trudeau Is a Feminist. CNN. https:// www.cnn.com/2018/11/12/success/justin-­trudeau-­feminism/index.html. Accessed 7 Aug 2019. Carr, B. J. (Ed.). (2009). Universe or Multiverse. Cambridge University Press. Carr, B.  J. (n.d.). https://closertotruth.com/series/why-­cosmic-­fine-­tuning-­ demands-­explanation Carr, B.  J. (2004). Mind and the Cosmos. In D.  Lorimer (Ed.), Science, Consciousness and Ultimate Reality (pp. 33–64). Imprint Academic. Carroll, S. (2016). On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself. Dutton. Carroll, W. (2004). Corporate Power in a Globalizing World: A Study in Elite Organization. Oxford University Press. Cave, S. (2012). Immortality: The Quest to Live Forever and How It Drives Civilization. Crown.

258 

WORKS CITED

CBC Radio. (2003, November 25). Voortman Cookies to Shed Trans Fats. https:// www.cbc.ca/news/canada/voortman-­cookies-­to-­shed-­trans-­fats-­1.393888. Accessed 4 June 2019. CBC Radio. (2016, August 28). David Suzuki’s World View Profoundly Influenced by Haida Ties. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/unreserved/building-­an-­ally-­non-­ indigenous-­people-­share-­their-­stories-­of-­bridge-­building-­1.3430628/david-­ suzuki-­s -­w orld-­v iew-­p rofoundly-­i nfluenced-­b y-­h aida-­t ies-­1 .3433869. Accessed 7 Aug 2019. Cere, D., & Farrow, D. (2004). Divorcing Marriage: Unveiling the Dangers in Canada’s New Social Experiment. McGill-Queen’s University Press. Chacaby, M. (2016). A Two-Spirit Journey: The Autobiography of a Lesbian Ojibwa-­ Cree Elder. University of Manitoba Press. Chaker, A.  M. (2018, March 10). The Hottest Social Scene in Town Isn’t the Singles’ Bar. It’s the Supermarket. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/ articles/the-­h ottest-­s ocial-­s cene-­i n-­t own-­i snt-­t he-­s ingles-­b ar-­i ts-­t he-­ supermarket-­1520683200. Accessed 25 May 2019. Chalmers, D. (2003). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford University Press. Chan, K. (2006). Consumer Socialization of Chinese Children in Schools: Analysis of Consumption Values in Textbooks. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(3), 125–132. Chatterji, M. (2011). Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford University Press. Chebel, M., & Hamani, L. (1997). Symbols of Islam. Assouline. Cheney, J. (2002). The Moral Epistemology of First Nations Stories. Canadian Journey of Environmental Education, 7(2), 88–100. Chewning, R. C., Eby, J. W., & Roels, S. J. (1990). Business Through the Eyes of Faith. HarperOne. Chin, J. L., Trible, J. E., & Garcia, J. E. (Editors). (2018). Global and Culturally Diverse Leaders and Leadership: New Dimensions and Challenges for Business, Education and Society. Emerald Publishing. Christ, C. (1998). Rebirth of the Goddess: Finding Meaning in Feminist Spirituality. Routledge. Churchland, P. S. (1986). Neurophilosophy: Towards a Unified Understanding of the Mind-Brain. MIT Press. Churchland, P. S. (2011). Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us About Morality. Princeton University Press. Churchland, P. S. (2013). Touching a Nerve: The Self as Brain. W.W. Norton. Cianchi, J. (2015). Radical Environmentalism: Nature, Identity and More-than-­ human Agency. Palgrave Macmillan. Cimino, R., & Smith, C. (2011). The New Atheism and the Formation of the Imagined Secularist Community. Journal of Media and Religion, 10, 24–38. Cimino, R., & Smith, C. (2014). Atheist Awakening: Secular Activism and Community in America. Oxford University Press.

  WORKS CITED 

259

Clarke, B., & Macdonald, S. (2017). Leaving Christianity: Changing Allegiances in Canada Since 1945. McGill-Queen’s University Press. Clines, J. (1968). The Image of God. Tyndale Bulletin, 19, 53–103. Collier, P. (2007). The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries Are Failing and What Can Be Done About It. Oxford University Press. Collins, F. (2006). The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. Free Press. Collins, R. (1999). A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God: The Fine-­ tuning Design Argument. In M.  Murray (Ed.), Reason for the Hope Within (pp. 47–75). Eerdmans. Collins, R. (2006 September 22). New Heaven and New Earth. PBS Television Series, Closer to Truth: Science, Meaning and the Future. http://www.closertotruth.com/participant/Robin-­Collins/23 Collins, R. (n.d.). https://closertotruth.com/series/god-­the-­cause-­fine­tuned-­universe Colorado, P. (1988). Bridging Native and Western Science. Convergence (University of Calgary), 21(2/3), 49–67. Colorado, P., & Collins, D. (1987). Western Scientific Colonialism and the Re-emergence of Native Science. Practice, 5(3), 50–65. Conley, H., & Page, M. (2014). Gender Equality in Public Services: Chasing the Dream. Routledge. Connolly, W. (2008). Capitalism and Christianity, American Style. Duke University Press. Cooke, B., & Macy, G. (2005). Christian Symbol and Ritual: An Introduction. Oxford University Press. Cotter, D. A., Hermsen, J. M., Ovadia, S., & Vanneman, R. (2001). The Glass Ceiling Effect. Social Forces, 80(2), 655–681. Cotto, J. (2017, September 27). When Does Human Life Begin – And What Does This Really Mean? Peter Singer Explains. San Francisco Review of Books. http:// www.sanfranciscoreviewofbooks.com/2017/09/inter view-­w hen-­d oes-­ human-­life-­begin.html. Retrieved 26 July 2018. Cox, B., & Cohen, A. (2011). Wonders of the Universe. Harper. Cox, G. (2013). The God Confusion: Why Nobody Knows the Answer to the Ultimate Question. Bloomsbury. Cox, H. (1999). The Market God: Living in a New Dispensation. The Atlantic Monthly, 283(3), 18–23. Cox, H. (2016). The Market as God. Harvard University Press. Craft, A. (2015). A Knock on the Door: The Essential History of Residential Schools from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. University of Manitoba Press. Craig, W.  L., & Smith, Q. (1993). Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology. Clarendon Press.

260 

WORKS CITED

Craven, R. (2002). Customer Is King: How to Exceed Their Expectation. Virgin Books. Crystal, D. (2003). English as a Global Language. Cambridge University Press. Cunningham, L. (2013). The Essays of Warren Buffett: Lessons for Corporate America. Carolina Academic Press. Cupp, S.  E. (2010). Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media’s Attack on Christianity. Threshold Editions. Curtis, E. E. (2017). The Practice of Islam in America: An Introduction. New York University Press. Dalai Lama. (2001). Dalai Lama’s Book of Compassion. UK General Books. Dalai Lama. (2004). Many Ways to Nirvana: Reflections and Advice on Right Living. Penguin. Dalai Lama. (2008). How to Lead an Ethical Life. http://www.berzinarchives. com/web/en/archives/approaching_buddhism/introduction/how_to_lead_ ethical_life.html. Accessed 20 Feb 2014. Dalai Lama. (2011). Beyond Religion: Ethics for a Whole World. Signal. Davies, P. (1984). God and the New Physics. Simon & Schuster. Davies, P. (1993). The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis for a Rational World. Simon & Schuster. Davies, P. (2009). Life, Mind & Culture as a Fundamental Property of the Universe. In S.  Dick & M.  Lupisella (Eds.), Cosmos & Culture: Cultural Evolution in a Cosmic Context (NASA 4082). Davies, P., & Gribbin, J. (2007). The Matter Myth: Dramatic Discoveries that Challenge Our Understanding of Physical Reality. Simon & Schuster. Davis, D. (2000). Gendered Cultures of Conflict and Discontent: Living ‘the crisis’ in a Newfoundland Community. Women’s Studies International Forum, 23(3), 343–353. Dawkins, R. (1996). River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life. Perseus Publishing. Dawkins, R. (2006). The God Delusion. Mifflin. Day, D. (1996). The Long Loneliness: The Autobiography of the Legendary Catholic Social Activist. HarperCollins. Day, D. (2017). The Reckless Way of Love: Notes on Following Jesus (C. Kuntz, Ed.). Plough Publishing. De Graaf, J., Naylor, T., & Wann, D. (2002). Affluenza: The All-Consuming Epidemic. Berrett-Koehler. De Jong Gierveld, J., Van der Plas, S., & Keating, N. (2015). Loneliness of Older Immigrant Groups in Canada: Effects of Ethnic-Cultural Background. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 30(3), 251–268. De Tocqeville, A. (2010). Democracy in America. Signet. De Waal, F. (2013). The Bonobo and the Atheist: In Search of Humanism Among the Primates. W.W. Norton.

  WORKS CITED 

261

DeFede, J. (2003). The Day the World Came to Town: 9/11  in Gander, Newfoundland. Regan Books. Dembski, W. (2001). The Chance of the Gaps. Paper Presented at Conference. Boulder Colorado, Fall 2001. Deneen, P. (2018). Why Liberalism Failed. Yale University Press. Dennett, D. (2005). Sweet Dreams: Philosophical Obstacles to a Science of Consciousness. MIT Press. Derrida, J. (1993). Memoirs of the Blind (P.-A.  Broult, & M.  Naas, Trans.). University of Chicago Press. Desbois, P. (2008). The Holocaust by Bullets: A Priest’s Journey to Uncover the Truth Behind the Murder of 1.5 Million Jews. St. Martin’s Griffin. Deutschmann, C. (2001). Capitalism as a Religion? An Unorthodox Analysis of Entrepreneurship. European Journal of Social Theory, 4(4), 387–403. Dewey, J. (1934). A Common Faith. Yale University Press. DeWitt, R. (2018). Worldviews: An Introduction to the History and Philosophy of Science. Wiley-Blackwell. Dick, S. (Ed.). (2000). Many Worlds: The New Universe, Extraterrestrial Life, and the Theological Implications. Templeton. Dick, S. (2018). Astrobiology, Discovery, and Societal Impact. Cambridge University Press. Dixon, D. P. (2008). Informed Consent or Institutionalized Eugenics? How the Medical Profession Encourages Abortion of Fetuses with Down Syndrome. Issues in Law & Medicine, 24(1), 3–59. Dosick, W. (1993). The Business Bible: Ten New Commandments for Creating an Ethical Workplace. Harper Business. Drescher, S. (1990). People and Parliament: The Rhetoric of the British Slave Trade. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 20(4), 561–580. Driskell, R. B., & Lyon, L. (2002). Are Virtual Communities True Communities? Examining the Environments and Elements of Community. City and Community, 1(4), 373–390. Drohan, M. (2003). Making a Killing: How and Why Corporations Use Armed Force to Do Business. Random House. Duggal, A. (2009, September 9). The Good, The Bad and The Ugly: Indian Shareholder Meetings. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB125247322615594889. Accessed 27 May 2009. Duncan, S. (2013). Thomas Hobbes. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition, Edward N. Zalta, Ed.). Durant, W. (Ed.). (1932). On the Meaning of Life. R. Long & R. R. Smith. Dworkin, R. (2013). Religion Without God. Harvard University Press. Dyson, F. (2000, May 9). Progress in Religion. A Talk Given at His Acceptance Speech for the Templeton Prize. Washington National Cathedral. https:// www.templetonprize.org/laureate-­sub/dyson-­acceptance-­address/

262 

WORKS CITED

Dyson, F. (n.d.). Does a fine-tuned universe lead to God? https://closertotruth. com/series/does-­fine-­tuned-­universe-­lead-­god Eagleton, T. (2006). Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching: Review of The God Delusion. London Review of Books, 28(20), 32–34. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/ terry-­eagleton/lunging-­flailing-­mispunching Eagleton, T. (2007). The Meaning of Life. Oxford University Press. Earth Charter. http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/invent/images/uploads/ echarter_english.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2014. Eccles, J. (1994). How the Self Controls Its Brain. Springer. Echevarría, L. (1993). The Automobile as a Central Symbol in F. Scott Fitzgerald. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 6, 73–78. Ehrenreich, B. (2014). Living with a Wild God. Grand Central Publishing. Eisen, A.  M. (1997). Rethinking Modern Judaism: Ritual, Commandment & Community. University of Chicago Press. Ellsberg, R. (Ed.). (2012). All the Way to Heaven: The Selected Letters of Dorothy Day. Marquette University Press. Elson, R. (2010). Nationalism, Islam, ‘secularism’ and the State in Contemporary Indonesia. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 64(3), 328–343. Emlet, C. A., & Moceri, J. T. (2012). The Importance of Social Connectedness in Building Age-Friendly Communities. Journal of Aging Research, 2012, 1–9. Engelke, M. (2014). Christianity and the Anthropology of Secular Humanism. Current Anthropology, 55(S10), S292–S301. Epps, G. (2018, March 8). The Second Amendment Does Not Transcend All Others. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/ second-­amendment-­text-­context/555101/ Epstein, G. (2010). Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe. Avon. Erzen, J. (2008). The Dervish Dance: The Sacred Ritual of Love. Journal of Contemporary Aesthetics. http://www.contempaesthetics.org/newvolume/ pages/article.php?articleID=514 Ethicsphere. (2014). http://m1.ethisphere.com/wme2013/index.html. Accessed 22 Feb 2014. Etzioni, A. (2017, December 6). The Crisis of American Consumerism. Huffington Post.https://www.huffingtonpost.com/amitai-­etzioni/the-­crisis-­of-­american-­co_b_1855390.html Eurich, J. (2012). Justice for People with Disabilities: Philosophical and Theological Arguments. Religion & Theology, 19(2012), 43–59. Falconer, A., & Liechty, J. (1998). Reconciling Memories. Columbia Press. Farnsworth, C. A. (1964, February 2). The Sleuth with Six Million Clients. New York Times. Section SM, p. 11. Farrow, D. (2007). Nation of Bastards: Essays on the End of Marriage. BPS Books. Fawcett, J. (1993). From a Plethora of Paradigms to Parsimony in Worldviews. Nursing Science Quarterly, 6(1), 56–58.

  WORKS CITED 

263

Fearon, B., & Woods, M. (2012, March 25). Richard Dawkins Preaches to Non-­ believers at Reason Rally. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ national/archive/2012/03/richard-­dawkins-­preaches-­to-­nonbelievers-­at-­ reason-­rally/255012/. Accessed 24 May 2019. Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press. Feuerbach, L. (2004). The Essence of Religion. Prometheus Books. Feyerabend, P. (1975). Science: The Myth & Its Role. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, 18(2), 167–181. Fiddes, P. (2000). The Promised End: Eschatology in Theology and Literature. Wiley-Blackwell. Fiddes, P. (n.d.). https://closertotruth.com/series/immortality-­and-­personal­consciousness Fields, R.  D. (2010, May 27). Michelangelo’s Secret Message in the Sistine Chapel: A Juxtaposition of God and the Human Brain. Scientific American. Fingarette, H. (1972). Confucius: The Secular as Sacred. Harper & Row. Fisher, M. (2013, December 24). Edward Snowden, American Nationalist. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/ wp/2013/12/24/edward-­s nowden-­a merican-­n ationalist/?utm_term=. cdf8ca7429bb Foltz, R. C. (Ed.). (2003). Worldviews, Religion, and the Environment: A Global Anthology. Wadsworth. Forest, J. (2011). All Is Grace: A Biography of Dorothy Day. Orbis Books. Foucault, M., & Rabinow, P. (Eds.). (1984). The Foucault Reader. Vintage. Fox, M. (1963). Creation Spirituality: Liberating Gifts for the Peoples of the Earth. HarperOne. Francis I. (2013). Evangelii Gaudium [Joy of the Gospel]. Encyclical. Frankl, V. (2006). Man’s Search for Meaning. Beacon Press. Freud, S. (1957). The Future of an Illusion. Doubleday. Freudenberg, N. (2016). Lethal But Legal: Corporations, Consumption, and Protecting Public Health. Oxford University Press. Frick, P. (2017). Understanding Bonhoeffer. Mohr Siebeck. Friend, D., and Editors of Life (1991). The Meaning of Life. Little, Brown. Friedmann, J.  L. (2012). Social Function of Synagogue Song: A Durkheimian Approach. Lexington Books. Froese, P. (2008). The Plot to Kill God: Findings from the Soviet Experiment in Secularization. University of California Press. Fuller, R. (2001). Spiritual but Not Religious: Understanding Unchurched America. Oxford University Press. Gabriel, S. (2017). Nationalist Worldview Is Recipe for ‘more conflict, less prosperity’. Germany Tells UN Assembly. https://news.un.org/en/ story/2017/09/566192-­nationalist-­worldview-­r ecipe-­more-­conflict-­less-­ prosperity-­germany-­tells-­un

264 

WORKS CITED

Galloway, S. (2017). The Four: The Hidden DNA of Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google. Portfolio/Penguin. Gandhi, R. (1993). An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth. Beacon Press. Gandhi, R. (2008). Gandhi: The Man, His People, and the Empire. University of California Press. Garland-Thomson, R. (2016, August 19). Becoming Disabled. New York Times Sunday Review. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/opinion/sunday/ becoming-­disabled.html Garland-Thomson, R. (2017). Extraordinary Bodies: Figuring Physical Disabilities in American Culture. Columbia University Press. Gates, B. (1999). Business @ the Speed of Thought: Succeeding in the Digital Economy. Grand Central Publishing. Gaudelli, W. (2016). Global Citizenship Education: Everyday Transcendence. Routledge. Geertz, C. (1957). Ethos, World-View and the Analysis of Sacred Symbols. The Antioch Review, 17(4), 421–437. Geertz, C. (1973). Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books. Geertz, C. (2017). Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books. Gellner, E. (1983). Nations and Nationalism. Blackwell. Geltner, G. (2014). History of Corporal Punishment. In D.  Weisbund & G. Bruinsma (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Springer. Gill, B. (1999). Temples of Consumption: Shopping Malls as Secular Temples. http:// www.trinity.edu/mkearl/temples.html Gillman, N. (2002). Death of Death: Resurrection and Immortality in Jewish Thought. Novalis. Gimbutas, M. (2001). The Living Goddess. University of California Press. Gingerich, O. (2006). God’s Universe. Belknap Press. Gingerich, O. (2014). God’s Planet. Harvard University Press. Glanzer, P., & Talbert, T. (2005). The Impact & Implications of Faith or Worldview in the Classroom. Journal of Research in Character Education, 3(1), 25–42. Glover, T. (2017). All the Lonely People: Social Isolation and the Promise and Pitfalls of Leisure. Leisurely Studies, 40(1–2), 25–35. Goetz, S., & Taliaferro, C. (2008). Naturalism. Eerdmans. Goldman, D. (2005). Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. Bantam. Goldman, D. (2007). Social Intelligence: The New Science of Human Relationships. Random House. Goldstein, R.  N. (n.d.). Toward a Science of Consciousness. https://www.closertotruth.com/series/toward-­science-­consciousness#video-­47360 Gonzales, P. (2012). Red Medicine: Traditional Indigenous Rites of Birthing and Healing. University of Arizona Press.

  WORKS CITED 

265

Gordon, K. (2013). We Are Born with the Songs Inside Us: Lives and Stories of First Nations People in British Columbia. Harbour Publishing. Gordon-Lennox, J. (2016). Crafting Secular Ritual: A Practical Guide. Jessica Kingsley. Gore, A. (2006). An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It. Rodale Books. Gore, C. (2000). The Rise and Fall of the Washington Consensus as a Paradigm for Developing Countries. World Development, 28(5), 789–804. Gott, J. R., III, & Li, L.-X. (1998). Can the Universe Create Itself? Physics Review, D58, 023501. http://arxiv.org/abs/astroph/9712344 Gottlieb, R. (2006). A Greener Faith: Religious Environmentalism and Our Planet’s Future. Oxford University Press. Goudzwaard, B., Vander Vennen, M., & Van Heemst, D. (2007). Hope in Troubled Times: A New Vision for Confronting Global Crises. Baker Academic. Gould, S. (1999). Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. Ballantine Books. Gowens, C. (2003). Philosophy of the Buddha. Routledge. Graham, M. (2003). Some Thoughts on the Philosophical Underpinnings of Aboriginal Worldviews. In R.  Foltz (Ed.), Worldviews, Religion, and the Environment (pp. 89–96). Wadsworth. Gray, J. (2011). The Immortalization Commission: Science and the Strange Quest to Cheat Death. Doubleday. Gray, J. (2012). Men Are From Mars, Women Are from Venus: The Classical Guide to Understanding the Opposite Sex. HarperCollins. Gray, J. (2014). The Silence of Animals: On Progress and Other Modern Myths. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Grayling, A.  C. (2003). Meditations for the Humanist: Ethics for a Secular Age. Oxford University Press. Grayling, A. C. (2013a). The God Argument: The Case Against Religion and for Humanism. Bloomsbury. Grayling, A. C. (2013b). The Good Book: A Humanist Bible. Walker Books. Green, E. (2014). It Turns Out Colleges Aren’t Actually Atheist Factories. h t t p s : / / w w w. t h e a t l a n t i c . c o m / e d u c a t i o n / a r c h i v e / 2 0 1 4 / 0 8 / the-­myth-­of-­the-­godless-­university/375950/ Green, E. (2016, September 19). What America Lost as Women Entered the Workforce. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ archive/2016/09/what-­women-­lost/500537/. Accessed 25 May 2019. Greene, B. (2004). The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality. Knopf. Greene, B. (2011). The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos. Vintage. Gregersen, N. H. (n.d.). https://www.closertotruth.com/series/the-­world-­self-­ organizing#video-­2314

266 

WORKS CITED

Grenz, S. (1996). A Primer of Postmodernism. Eerdmans. Grice, A. (2006). Sunday Shopping Laws Reviewed. The Independent. Retrieved from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sunday-­shopping-­ laws-­reviewed-­522776.html Griffioen, S. (2012). On Worldviews. Philosophia Reformata, 77, 19–56. Grigsby, M., Stephen, J., & Billystrom, J. (2015). Benefits and Challenges of Micro-Enterprise Participation: Women’s Cottage Industry in Kaimosi, Kenya. Development in Practice, 25(8), 1146–1159. Grim, J., & Tucker, M. E. (2014). Ecology and Religion. Island Press. Gulevich, T. (2005). Understanding Islam and Muslim Traditions. Omnigraphics. Gunesch, K. (2004). Education for Cosmopolitanism: Cosmopolitanism as Personal Cultural Identity Model for and Within International Education. Journal of Research in International Education, 3(3), 251–275. Gunn, J. (2004). Under God but Not the Scarf: The Founding Myths of Religious Freedom in the United States and Laïcité in France. Journal of Church and State, 46(1), 7–24. Guth, A. (1997). The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins. Perseus Books. Guth, A. (n.d.). https://www.closertotruth.com/series/what-­does-­fine-­tuned-­ universe-­mean#video-­49943 Habermas, J. (2010). An Awareness of What Is Missing: Faith and Reason in a Post-­ secular Age. Polity Press. Hachtmann, F. (2012). The Effect of Advertising-Focused, Short-Term Study Abroad Programs on Students’ Worldviews. Faculty Publications, College of Journalism & Mass Communications, 68.http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ journalismfacpub/68 Hall, S. (2003). Merchants of Immortality: Chasing the Dream of Human Life Extension. Houghton Mifflin Company. Hamer, D.  H. (2004). The God Gene: How Faith Is Hardwired into Our Genes. Doubleday. Hamilton, E. (1998). Mythology. Back Bay Books. Hanohano, P. (1999). The Spiritual Imperative of Native Epistemology: Restoring Harmony and Balance to Education. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 23(2), 206. Harari, Y. N. (2017). Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow. Signal. Harris, M. (Ed.). (2017). Ecowomanism, Religion and Ecology. Brill. Harris, M. (1998). Lament for an Ocean: The Collapse of the Atlantic Cod Fishery, A True Crime Story. McClelland & Stewart. Harris, S. (2011). The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. Free Press. Harris, S. (2012). Free Will. Free Press. Harvey, G. (2013). Food, Sex, and Strangers: Understanding Religion as Everyday Life. Acumen Publishing.

  WORKS CITED 

267

Hatzfeld, J. (2006). Machete Season: The Killers in Rwanda Speak. Picador. Hauerwas, S. (2007). The State of the University: Academic Knowledge and the Knowledge of God. Blackwell. Haverkort, B., & Reijntjes, C. (2010). Diversities of Knowledge Communities, Their Worldviews and Sciences: On the Challenges of Their Co-evolution. In M.  Suneetha Subramanian & B.  Pisupati (Eds.), Traditional Knowledge in Policy and Practice: Approaches to Development and Human Well-Being (pp. 12–30). United Nations University Press. Hawking, S. (1998). A Brief History of Time. Bantam. Hawking, S., & Mlodinow, L. (2010). The Grand Design. Bantam. Hawking, S., & Mlodinow, L. (2012). The Grand Design. Bantam. Hayes, C., Hayes, L., & Reese, H. (1988). Finding the Philosophical Core: A Review of Stephen C.  Pepper’s World Hypotheses: A Study on Evidence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour, 50(1), 97–111. Haynes, J. (2010). Politics, Identity and Religious Nationalism in Turkey: From Atatürk to the AKP. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 64(3), 312–327. Heidegger, M. (1982). The Basic Problems of Phenomenology. Indiana University Press. Heschel, A. (1976). Man Is Not Alone: A Philosophy of Religion. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Hewitt, P. (2016). Language and Worldviews. Performance Research, 21(4), 122–130. Hick, J. (1976). Death and Eternal Life. Harper & Row. Hiebert, P.  G. (2008). Transforming Worldviews: An Anthropological Understanding of How People Change. Baker Academic. Hieronimus, R., & Cortner, L. (2016). The Secret Life of Lady Liberty: Goddess in the New World. Destiny Books. Hill, J.  P. (2011). Faith and Understanding: Specifying the Impact of Higher Education on Religious Belief. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 50(3), 533–551. Hobbes, T. (2009). Leviathan. Cosimo. Hobbes, T. (2010). Leviathan (I. Shapiro, Ed.). Yale University Press. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences, Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Sage. Holben, L. (2010). All the Way to Heaven: A Theological Reflection on Dorothy Day, Peter Maurin and the Catholic Worker. Wipf & Stock. Holder, R. D. (2012). Georges Lemaître and Fred Hoyle: Contrasting Characters in Science and Religion. In R. Holder & S. Mitton (Eds.), Georges Lemaître: Life, Science and Legacy (pp. 39–53). Springer. Holder, R.  D. (2013). Big Bang, Big God: A Universe Designed for Life? Lion Hudson. Holder, R. D. (2014). Can a Multiverse Provide the Ultimate Explanation? Faith and Thought, 56, 4–18.

268 

WORKS CITED

Holder R.  D. (n.d.). https://closertotruth.com/series/why-­believe-­multiple-­ universes#video-­2427 Holthaus, G. (2008). Learning Native Wisdom: What Traditional Cultures Teach Us About Subsistence, Sustainability, and Spirituality. University Press of Kentucky. Hopkins, J. (1991). West Edmonton Mall as a Centre for Social Interaction. The Canadian Geographer, 35(3), 268–279. Horgan, J. (2014, December 1). Physicist Slams Cosmic Theory He Helped Conceive. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-­check/physicist-­slams-­cosmic-­ theory-­he-­helped-­conceive/. Accessed 22 Feb 2018. Horn, G. (2011). The Book of Ceremonies: A Native Way of Honouring and Living the Sacred. New World Library. Houston, P.  D., Blankstein, A.  M., & Cole, R.  C. (2007). Spirituality in Educational Leadership. Corwin. Hoyle, F. (1994). Home Is Where the Wind Blows: Chapters from a Cosmologist’s Life. University Science Books. Hudson, L. (2011). From Small Beginnings: The Euthanasia of Children with Disabilities in Nazi Germany. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 47(8), 508–511. Hughes, P. (1989). The True Image: The Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ. Eerdmans. Humphrey, N. (2011). Soul Dust: The Magic of Consciousness. Princeton University Press. Humphreys, J.  P. (1984). Human Rights and the United Nations: A Great Adventure. Transnational. Huntington, S. (2011). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Simon & Schuster. Idler, E. (2008). The Psychological and Physical Benefits of Spiritual/Religious Practices. Spirituality in Higher Education Newsletter, 4(2), 1–5. Inikori, J. (1987). Slavery and Industrial Capitalism in England. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 17(4), 739–769. Iseke, J. (2013). Indigenous Storytelling as Research. International Review of Qualitative Research, 6(4), 559–577. Izzi Dien, M. (1997). Islam and the Environment: Theory and Practice. Journal of Beliefs and Values, 18(1), 47–57. Jackson, W. (2011). Nature as Measure: The Selected Essays of Wes Jackson. Counterpoint. Jacobs, S., Thomas, W., & Lang, S. (1997). Two-Spirit People: Native American Gender Identity, Sexuality, and Spirituality. University of Illinois. Jansen, P., Van der Stoep, J., Keulartz, J., & Jochemsen, H. (2016). In Search of Religious Elements in the Dutch Nature Policy. Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture, 10(1), 91–116.

  WORKS CITED 

269

Jaspers, K. (2003). The Way to Wisdom: An Introduction to Philosophy. Yale University Press. Jenkins, W. (2013). Ecologies of Grace: Environmental Ethics and Christian Theology. Oxford University Press. Jensen, L. C., McGhie, A. R., & Jensen, J. R. (1991). Do Men’s and Women’s World-Views Differ? Psychological Reports, 68(1), 312–314. Jensen, R. (2002). The Triune Identity: God According to the Gospel. Wipf and Stock. Joas, H. (2000). The Genesis of Values. Polity Press. Johnson, A. (2014). The Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy. Temple University Press. Johnson, C. J., & McGee, M. G. (1998). How Different Religions View Death and Afterlife. Charles Press Publishing. Johnson, D., & Johnson, J. (1972). God & Gods in Hinduism. Arnold-­ Heinemann India. Johnston, B. (2001). The Manitous: The Spiritual World of the Ojibway. Minnesota Historical Society. Johnston, C.  M., & Deisher, R.  W. (1973). Contemporary Communal Child Rearing: A First Analysis. Pediatrics, 52(3), 319–326. Jones, L. (2005). What Does Spirituality in Education Mean? Journal of College and Character, 6(7), 1–7. Josephson, B. (n.d.). https://closertotruth.com/series/must-­the-­universe­contain-­consciousness Josephson, B., & Conrad, M. (1992). Uniting Eastern Philosophy and Modern Science. Gujarat Vidyapith. Juergensmeyer, M. (2005). Religion in Global Civil Society. Oxford University Press. Juergensmeyer, M. (2010). The Global Rise of Religious Nationalism. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 64(3), 262–273. Juhasz, A. (2008). The Tyranny of Oil: The World’s Most Powerful Industry – And What We Can Do to Stop It. HarperCollins. Jung, C. G. (1954). Fundamental Questions of Psychotherapy. In The Collected Works of C. G. Jung (R. Hall, Trans.). Princeton University Press. Kainz, H. P. (2006). Liberalism as Religion: The Culture War Is Between Religious Believers On Both Sides. Touchstone, (May), 22–26. Kaiser, D. (2011). How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival. W.W. Norton. Kaku, M. (2018). The Future of Humanity: Terraforming Mars, Interstellar Travel, Immortality, and Our Destiny Beyond Earth. Doubleday. Kaku, M. (n.d.). https://www.closertotruth.com/series/what-­the-­far-­far-­future­humans-­the-­universe#video-­2496 Kant, I. (2008). Critique of Pure Reason. Penguin. Kaplan, E. (2009). Spiritual Radical: Abraham Joshua Heschel in America, 1940–1972. Yale University Press.

270 

WORKS CITED

Karagiannis, E. (2015). When the Green Gets Greener: Political Islam’s Newly-­ Found Environmentalism. Small Wars and Insurgencies, 26(1), 181–201. Kauffman, S. (1993). The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. Oxford University Press. Kauffman, S. (1999). At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-­ Organization and Complexity. Oxford University Press. Kauffman, S. (2008). Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason and Religion. Basic Books. Kearl, M. (n.d.). Temples of Consumption: Shopping Malls as Secular Cathedrals. Retrieved from: http://www.trinity.edu/mKearl/temples.html Kearney, M. (1975). Worldview Theory & Study. Annual Review of Anthropology, 4, 247–270. Kearney, M. (1984). Worldview. Chandler and Sharp. Keddie, N.  K. (2007). Women in the Middle East: Past and Present. Princeton University Press. Kemp, M. (2012). Christ to Coke: How Image Becomes Icon. Oxford University Press. Kennedy, P. (2017, March 9). More Companies Embrace Virtual Annual Shareholder Meetings. https://phys.org/news/2017-­03-­companies-­embrace-­ virtual-­annual-­shareholder.html. Accessed 27 May 2019. Kheel, M. (2007). Nature Ethics: An Ecofeminist Perspective. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers. Kikuchi, J. (2003). Nursing Knowledge and the Problem of Worldviews. Research and Theory for Nursing Practice: An International Journal, 17(1), 7–17. Kilbourne, J. (2006). Jesus Is a Brand of Jeans: How Advertising Affects the Way We Think and Feel. New Internationalist, 393, 10–12. Kim, C.-T. (1987). Transcendence and Immanence. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, LV, 3, 537–552. Kimball, A. (2015, December 5). Unpregnancy. Globe and Mail, F1, F5–F7. Kimmel, M. S., & Ferber, A. L. (Eds.). (2016). Privilege: A Reader. Westview Press. King, M. L., Jr. (1994). Letter from the Birmingham Jail. HarperCollins. King, M. L., Jr. (2003). I Have a Dream: Writings and Speeches That Changed the World. HarperOne. King, T. (2003). The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative. Anansi. Kinnvall, C., & Svensson, T. (2010). Hindu Nationalism, Diaspora Politics and Nation-Building in India. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 64(3), 274–292. Kitchner, P. (2014). Life After Faith: The Case for Secular Humanism. Yale University Press. Kittay, E. (2019). Learning from My Daughter: The Value and Care of Disabled Minds. Oxford University Press.

  WORKS CITED 

271

Klara, R. (2017, March 23). How Voortman Plans on Taking a Bigger Bite Out of the Cookie Market. https://www.adweek.com/brand-­marketing/how-­ voortman-­plans-­on-­taking-­a-­bigger-­bite-­out-­of-­the-­cookie-­market/. Accessed 4 June 2019. Klein, N. (2007). The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Knopf. Klemke, E. D., & Cahn, S. M. (2018). The Meaning of Life: A Reader. Oxford University Press. Kluckhohn, F. (1950). Dominant and Substitute Profiles of Cultural Orientations: Their Significance for Analysis of Social Stratification. Social Forces, 28, 376–393. Knudtson, P., & Suzuki, D. (1992). Wisdom of the Elders. Stoddart Publishing. Kolla, E. (2017). Sovereignty, International Law, and the French Revolution. Cambridge University Press. Koltko-Rivera, M. (2004). The Psychology of Worldviews. Review of General Psychology, 8(1), 3–58. Kornhaber. (2016, October 19). The Deadly Certainty of Leonard Cohen. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/10/ the-­deadly-­certainty-­leonard-­cohen/504674/ Korsgaard, C. M. (2018). Fellow Creatures: Our Obligations to the Other Animals. Oxford University Press. Kotsopoulos, D. (2015, June 9). Science Students Need the Liberal Arts: How the Liberal Arts Made Me Better at Mathematics. University Affairs. https:// www.universityaffairs.ca/opinion/in-­my-­opinion/science-­students-­need-­the­liberal-­arts/ Kovach, M. (2010). Indigenous Methodologies: Characteristics, Conversations, and Contexts. University of Toronto Press. Krauss, L. (1999). Quintessence: The Mystery of Missing Mass in the Universe. Basic Books. Krech, S. (1999). The Ecological Indian. W. W. Norton. Kreeft, P. (1982). Between Heaven and Hell: A Dialog Somewhere Beyond Death with John F. Kennedy, C.S. Lewis & Aldous Huxley. InterVarsity Press. Kriger, M., & Seng, Y. (2005). Leadership with inner meaning: A contingency theory of leadership based on the worldviews of five religions. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 771–806. Kuhn, T.  S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press. Kuhse, H., & Singer, P. (1985). Should the Baby Live? The Problem of Handicapped Infants. Oxford University Press. Kung, H. (1985). Eternal Life: Life After Death as a Medical, Philosophical and Theological Problem. Doubleday. Kurtz, P. (2000). Humanist Manifesto 2000: A Call for New Planetary Humanism. Prometheus.

272 

WORKS CITED

Kurzweil, R. (2000). The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence. Penguin. Kurzweil, R. (2005). The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. Penguin. Kurzweil, R. (2013). How to Create a Mind: The Secret of Human Thought Revealed. Penguin. Kurzweil, R. (n.d.). https://www.closertotruth.com/series/what-­the-­far-­farfuture-­humans-­the-­universe#video-­2558 Laidlaw, K. (2019, March 12). Justin Trudeau’s Feminist Brand Is Imploding. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/03/ canada-­trudeau-­feminism-­wilson-­raybauld/584677/. Accessed 7 Aug 2019. Landau, I. (1995). Modernism, Postmodernism and Politics. International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 10(1), 39–45. Lao Tzo. (1990). Tao te Ching. Bantam. Laslett, P., & Walls, R. (1972). Household and Family in Past Times. Cambridge University Press. Laudine, C. (2009). Aboriginal Environmental Knowledge: Rational Reverence. Ashgate Publishing. Laura, J. (2011). Goddess Spirituality for the 21st Century: From Kabbalah to Quantum Physics. Open Sea. Lawson, N. (2012, November 29). Why Is the Left Silent on the Scourge of Consumerism? New Statesman. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2012/11/why-­left-­silent-­scourge-­consumerism Leal-Olivas, D. (2018, January 23). Robert Halfon: Pay More for a Degree That Doesn’t Get You into Work. The Times. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ robert-­h alfon-­p ay-­m ore-­f or-­a -­d egree-­t hat-­d oesn-­t -­g et-­y ou-­i nto-­w ork-­ pw0pr8ndf. Accessed 8 Aug 2019. Leslie, J. (2001). Infinite Minds: A Philosophical Cosmology. Clarendon. Leslie, J., & Kuhn, R.  L. (Eds.). (2013). The Mystery of Existence: Why Is There Anything At All? Wiley-Blackwell. Levine, D. (1985). Industrialization and the Proletarian Family in England. Past & Present, 107(1), 168–203. Levinovitz, A. (2017). Americans – Not Just Liberals – Have a Religious Literacy Problem. http://www.vox.com/first-­person/2017/1/5/14166366/religious­illiteracy-­conservative-­liberal Levitt, T. (1983). The Globalization of Markets. Harvard Business Review, 61(3), 92–102. Lewontin, R. (1991). Biology as Ideology: The Doctrine of DNA. Anansi. Leys, S. (1997). The Analects of Confucius (Trans.). W.W. Norton. Lindkvist, L. (2017). Religious Freedom and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Cambridge University Press.

  WORKS CITED 

273

Lischer, R. (1995). The Preacher King: Martin Luther King Jr and the Word that Moved America. Oxford University Press. Lovelock, J. (1998). Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. Lovelock, J. (2010). The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning. Basic Books. Low, P., & Ang, S. (2013). Confucian Ethics, Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility. International Journal of Business and Management, 8(4), 30–43. Lower, W. (2013). Hitler’s Furies: German Women in the Nazi Killing Fields. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Lowy, M. (2009). Capitalism as Religion: Walter Benjamin and Max Weber. Historical Materialism, 17, 60–73. Loy, D. (1997). The Religion of the Market. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 65(2), 275–290. Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. University of Minneapolis Press. Malloy, J.  S. (2017). A National Crime: The Canadian Government and the Residential School System. University of Manitoba Press. Manning. C. J. (2015). Losing Our Religion: How Unaffiliated Parents are Raising their Children. New York University Press. Marlow, H. (2009). Biblical Prophets and Contemporary Environmental Ethics: Re-Reading Amos, Hosea, and First Isaiah. Oxford University Press. Marsden, G. (1994). The Soul of the American University: From Protestant Establishment to Established Nonbelief. Oxford University Press. Marsden, G., & Longfield, B. (1992). The Secularization of the Academy. Oxford University Press. Marshall, P. (1998). Heaven Is Not My Home: Learning to Live in God’s Creation. Word Publishing. Marshall, P., Gilbert, L., & Ahmanson, R. (2009). Blind Spot: When Journalists Don’t Get Religion. Oxford University Press. Marshall, P., Griffioen, S., & Mouw, R. (Eds.). (1989). Stained Glass: Worldviews and Social Science. University Press of America. Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and Personality. Harper and Row. Matt, D. (2010). The Essential Kabbalah: The Heart of Jewish Mysticism. Harper Collins. Matthaus, J., Bohler, J., & Mallmann, K.-M. (2014). War, Pacification and Mass Murder, 1939: The Einsatzgruppen in Poland. Rowan & Littlefield. Mawere, M. (2014). Culture, Indigenous Knowledge and Development in Africa: Reviving Interconnections for Sustainable Development. Langaa RPCIG. Mayama, A. (2009). Emmanuel Levinas’ Conceptual Affinities with Liberation Theology. Peter Lang. Mazumdar, S., & Mazundar, S. (2009). Religious Placemaking and Community Building in Diaspora. Environment and Behavior, 41(3), 307–337.

274 

WORKS CITED

McCracken, G. (1988). Culture and Consumption: New Approaches to the Symbolic Character of Consumer Goods and Activities. Indiana University Press. McDannell, C., & Lang, B. (2001). Heaven: A History. Yale University Press. McEwen, W.  J. (2005). Married to the Brand: Why Consumers Bond with Some Brands for Life. Gallup. McFague, S. (1993). The Body of God: An Ecological Theology. Fortress. McFague, S. (2000). Life Abundant: Rethinking Theology and Economy for a Planet in Peril. Fortress. McGrath, A. (2003). A Brief History of Heaven. Blackwell. McGrath, A. (2004). The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World. Doubleday. McGrath, A. (2007). The Dawkins Delusion? Atheistic Fundamentalism and the denial of the Divine. SPCK. McKenzie, L. (1991). Adult Education and Worldview Construction. Krieger. McLeod, H. (2015). Christianity and Nationalism in Nineteenth-Century Europe. International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church, 15(1), 7–22. McLeod, T. H., & McLeod, I. (2004). Tommy Douglas: The Road to Jerusalem. Fifth House Publishers. McMullin, E. (n.d.). https://closertotruth.com/series/god-­the-­cause-­fine-­ tuned-­universe McQuaig, L. (2001). All You Can Eat: Greed, Lust and the New Capitalism. Penguin. McQuaig, L. (2006). It’s the Crude, Dude: War, Big Oil, and the Fight for the Planet. Anchor Books. Melville, C. (2011, March/April). Natural History of the Soul. The New Humanist, 126(2). http://rationalist.org.uk/articles/2533/natural-­history-­of-­the-­soul. Accessed 28 Jan 2014. Merasty, J.  A. (2017). The Education of Augie Merasty: A Residential School Memoir. University of Regina Press. Mercandante, L. (2014). Belief without Borders: Inside the Minds of the Spiritual but not Religious. Oxford University Press. Meshberger, F. L. (1990). An Interpretation of Michelangelo’s Creation of Adam Based on Neuroanatomy. Journal of American Medical Association, 264(14), 1837–1841. Mestre, R. (2005). The Buddhist Primer: An Introduction to Buddhism. Ebook. Lulu.com. Metaxas, E. (2007). Amazing Grace: William Wilberforce and the Heroic Campaign to End Slavery. HarperSanFrancisco. Meyer, R. (2018, June 20). How the Carmakers Trumped Themselves. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/06/how-­the-­ carmakers-­trumped-­themselves/562400/. Accessed 5 June 2019.

  WORKS CITED 

275

Midgely, M. (1992). Science as Salvation: A Modern Myth and Its Meaning. Routledge. http://www.giffordlectures.org/Browse.asp?PubID=TPSASV&V olume=0&Issue=0&TOC=TRUE Midgely, M. (2001). Gaia: The Next Big Idea. Demos. Midgely, M. (2007). Earthly realism: The Meaning of Gaia. Imprint Academic. Midgely, M. (2011, February 5). Consciousness Is Not Just an Illusion Conjured in the Theatre of the Brain. The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/ books/2011/feb/05/nicholas-­humphrey-­soul-­dust-­review. Accessed 28 Jan 2014. Miedema, S., & Gerdien Bertram-Troost, G. (2015). The Challenges of Global Citizenship for Worldview Education. The Perspective of Social Sustainability. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 17(2), 44–52. Miles, S. (2006). Consumerism: As a Way of Life. SAGE. Mitroff, I., & Kilman, R. (1978). Methodological Approaches to the Social Sciences. Jossey Bass. Mlodinow, L. (n.d.). https://closertotruth.com/series/why-­fine-­tuning­seems-­designed Mol, H. (1976). Identity and the Sacred: A Sketch for a New Socio-Scientific Theory of Religion. Free Press. Molesworth, M., Elizabeth Nixon, E., & Richard Scullion, R. (2009). Having, Being and Higher Education: The Marketisation of the University and the Transformation of the Student into Consumer. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(3), 277–287. Moody, E., & Phinney, A. (2012). A Community-Engaged Art Program for Older People: Fostering Social Inclusion. Canadian Journal on Aging, 31(1), 55–64. Moreland, J. P., & Craig, W. L. (2003). Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. InterVarsity Press. Müller, M. (1873). Introduction to Science of Religion. Longmans, Green. Murad, N. (2018). The Last Girl: My Story of Captivity, and My Fight Against the Islamic State. Penguin. Myers, L., Speight, S., Highlen, P., Cox, C., Reynolds, A., Adams, E., & Hanley, P. (1991). Identity Development and Worldview: Toward an Optimal Conceptualization. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70(1), 54–63. Myers, P. Z. (2013). The Happy Atheist. Pantheon. Nagel, T. (2012). Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. Oxford University Press. Naidoo, R., & Jamieson, I. (2005). Empowering Participants or Corroding Learning? Towards a Research Agenda on the Impact of Student Consumerism in Higher Education. Journal of Education Policy, 20(3), 267–281. Narvaez, D., Panksepp, J., Schore, A., & Gleason, T. (Eds.). (2012). Evolution, Early Experience and Human Development: From Research to Practice and Policy. New York.

276 

WORKS CITED

Nash, R., & Murray, M. (2010). Helping College Students Find Purpose: The Campus Guide to Meaning-Making. Jossey-Bass. Nasr, S.  H. (2013). Qurʾān. Encyclopedia Britannica. http://www.britannica. com/EBchecked/topic/487666/Quran. Accessed 10 Feb 2014. Nasr, S.  H. (2015). A Religious Nature: Philosopher Seyyed Hossein Nasr on Islam and the Environment. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 71(5), 13–18. Naugle, D. (2002). Worldviews: History of a Concept. Eerdmans. Neal, M. (2012). To Heaven and Back: A Doctor’s Extraordinary Account of Her Death, Heaven, Angels, and Life Again: A True Story. WaterBrook Press. Needleman, J. (2009). What Is God? Penguin. Neimark, J. (2007, September 28). J.  Richard Gott on Life, the Universe, and Everything. Science & Spirit. Nelson, A. (2009). Red Orchestra: The Story of the Berlin Underground and the Circle of Friends Who Resisted Hitler. Random House. Nelson, K. (2011). The Spiritual Doorway in the Brain: A Neurologist’s Search for the God Experience. Dutton. Nelson, R.  H. (2001). Economics as Religion: From Samuelson to Chicago and Beyond. Pennsylvania State University Press. Neuhaus, R. (1992). Doing Well and Doing Good: The Challenge to the Christian Capitalist. Image. Niebuhr, R. (1970, June 24). Liberals and Marxist Heresy. The New Republic. https://newrepublic.com/article/72199/liberals-­and-­the-­marxist-­heresy. Accessed 26 Mar 2019. Nilsson, A. (2013). The Psychology of Worldviews: Toward a Non-Reductive Science of Personality. Lund University. Noë, A. (2009). Out of Our Heads: Why You Are Not Your Brain, and Other Lessons from the Biology of Consciousness. Hill and Wang. Northcott, M. S., & Scott, P. M. (Eds.). (2014). Systematic Theology and Climate Change: Ecumenical Perspectives. Routledge. Nouwen, H. (1994). The Return of the Prodigal Son: A Story of Homecoming. Image. Novak, M. (2004, August 16). The Moral Heart of Capitalism. National Review Online. http://www.michaelnovak.net/Module/Article/ArticleView. aspx?id=12 Nussbaum, M. (2007). Frontiers of Justice: Disabilities, Naturality, Species Membership. Harvard University Press. O’Leary, K. (2011). Cold Hard Truth: On Business, Money & Life. Double Day. Obayashi, H. (Ed.). (1992). Death and Afterlife: Perspectives of World Religions. Greenwood Press. Ochs, V. (2017). Inventing Jewish Ritual. Jewish Publication Society. Odora Hoppers, C., & Richards, H. (2011). Rethinking Thinking: Modernity’s “Other” and the Transformation of the University. University of South Africa. Oldenberg, R. (1989). The Great Good Place. Da Capo.

  WORKS CITED 

277

Oldenberg, R. (2002). Celebrating the Third Place. Da Capo. Oliver, O. (2007). Liberté, Egalité, Laicité. America Interest, 2(3), 126–131. Olsen, M.  E., Lodwick, D.  G., & Dunlap, R.  E. (1992). Viewing the World Ecologically. Westview Press. Olssen, M., & Peters, M.  A. (2005). Neoliberalism, Higher Education and the Knowledge Economy: From the Free Market to Knowledge Capitalism. Journal of Education Policy, 20(3), 313–345. Olthuis, J. (1985). On Worldviews. Christian Scholars Review, XIV(2), 155–165. Olthuis, J. (2012). A Vision of and for Love: Towards a Christian Post-Postmodern Worldview. Koers – Bulletin for Christian Scholarship, 77(1). Orr, M. (2006). What Is a Scientific Worldview, and How Does It Bear on the Interplay of Science and Religion? Zygon, 41(2), 435–444. Otto, R. (2012). The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry into the Non-rational Factor in the Idea of the Divine and Its Relation to the Rational. HardPress Publishing. Ouaknin, M.-A. (2000). Symbols of Judaism. Assouline. Page, D. (2007). Does God So Love the Multiverse? In M. Stewart (Ed.), Science and Religion in Dialogue (pp. 380–395). Blackwell. Park, J. Z., & Smith, C. (2000). ‘To Whom Much Has Been Given …’: Religious Capital and Community Voluntarism Among Church Going Protestants. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 39(3), 272–286. Parker, B.  A., Adams, H.  L., & Phillips, L.  D. (2007). Decentering Gender: Bisexual Identity as an Expression of a Non-Dichotomous Worldview. An International Journal of Theory and Research, 7(3), 205–224. Parks, S. D. (1991). The Critical Years: Young Adults & The Search for Meaning, Faith and Commitment. HarperCollins. Parks, S.  D. (2011). Big Question, Worthy Dreams: Mentoring Young Adults in Their Search for Meaning, Purpose and Faiths. Jossey-Bass. Parsons, W. (2018). Being Spiritual but Not Religious Past, Present, Future(s). Routledge. Passini, S. (2013). A Binge-Consuming Culture: The Effect of Consumerism on Social Interactions in Western Societies. Culture & Psychology, 19(3), 369–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067x13489317 Patel, A., Hartberg, Y., & Klemm, W.  R. (2018). Influences of Large State Research University on Student Religious Beliefs and Practices. Religion & Education, 45(2), 129–154. Patel, R. (2009). Indian Muslim Women, Politics of Muslim Personal Law and Struggle for Life with Dignity and Justice. Economic and Political Weekly, 44(44), 44–49. Pauwels, J. R. (2018). Big Business and Hitler. Lorimer. Pavlenko, A. (2014). The Bilingual Mind: And What It Tells Us About Language and Thought. Cambridge University Press.

278 

WORKS CITED

Pennings, R., & Wiens, K. (2011). Do the Motivations for Private Religious Catholic and Protestant Schooling in North America Align with Graduate Outcomes? Cardus Education Survey.https://www.cardus.ca/research/education/reports/cardus-­education-­survey-­phase-­i-­report-­2011/ Pennycook, A. (1998). English and the Discourse of Colonialism. Routledge. Pepper, S. (1942). World Hypotheses: A Study in Evidence. University of California Press. Pepper, S. (1982). Metaphor in Philosophy. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 3(3/4), 197–206. Perrett, R. (1998). Hindu Ethics: A Philosophical Study. University of Hawaii Press. Peters, T. (2000). God  – The World’s Future: Systematic Theology for a New Era. Fortress. Peters, T., Russell, R.  J., & Welker, M. (2002). Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments. Eerdmans. Peterson, G. (2001). Religion as Orienting Worldview. Zygon, 36(1), 5–19. Pew Forum. (2017). https://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/05/the-­changing-­ global-­religious-­landscape/. Accessed 9 Aug 2019. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford University Press. Pickens, T. (2009). The First Billion Is the Hardest: Reflections on a Life of Comebacks and America’s Energy Future. Crown Business. Pierotti, R. (2011). Indigenous Knowledge, Ecology, and Evolutionary Biology. Routledge. Pieterse, J.  N. (2015). Globalization and Culture: Global Mélange. Rowman & Littlefield. Pihlström, S. (2007). A Meaningful Life in a Meaningless Cosmos?: Two Rival Approaches. Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, 3(1), 4–17. Plantinga, A. (1974). God, Freedom and Evil. Eerdmans. Plantinga, A. (1979). The Probabilistic Argument from Evil. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 35(1), 1–53. Plantinga, A. (2000). Warranted Christian Belief. Oxford University Press. Plantinga, A. (2008, July–Aug). Evolution and Naturalism. Books & Culture. Plantinga, A. (2011). Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. Oxford University Press. Plantinga, A., & Wolterstorff, N. (1983). Faith and Rationality: Reason and Belief in God. University of Notre Dame Press. Polanyi, M. (1962). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. University of Chicago Press. Polanyi, K. (2001). The Great Transformation: The Political & Economic Origins of Our Time. Beacon Press. Polkinghorne, J. (1994). Faith of a Physicist: Reflections of a Bottom-Up Thinker. Princeton.

  WORKS CITED 

279

Polkinghorne, J. (1995). Serious Talk: Science & Religion in Dialogue. Trinity Press. Polkinghorne, J., & Welker, M. (2000). The End of the World and the Ends of God: Science and Theology on Eschatology. Trinity Press International. Post, S., & Binstock, R. (Eds.). (2004). The Fountain of Youth: Cultural, Scientific, and Ethical Perspectives on a Biomedical Goal. Oxford University Press. Postman, N. (1995). The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School. Vintage. Prell, R.-E. (1989). Prayer and Community: The Havurah in American Judaism. Wayne University Press. Prothero, S. (2007). Religious Illiteracy. HarperOne. Prothero, S. (2010). God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World – And Why Their Differences Matter. HarperOne. Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–76. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon and Schuster. Putnam, R., & Campbell, D. (2010). American Grace: How Religion Is Reshaping Our Civic and Political Life. Simon & Schuster. Quest, R. (2017, February/March). Nadia Murad’s Fight to Bring Islamic State to Justice. The Economist. Quinn, M. (1994). The Swastika: Constructing the Symbol. Routledge. Quinones, J., & Lajka, A. (2017, August 15). What Kind of Society Do You Want to Live in? Inside the Country Where Down Syndrome Is Disappearing. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/down-­syndrome-­iceland. Retrieved 27 July 2018. Raphael, M. (1996). Truth in Flux: Goddess Feminism as a Late Modern Religion. Religion, 26(3), 199–213. Rasmussen, L. (2015). Earth Honoring Faith: Religious Ethics in a New Key. Oxford University Press. Ratner, J. (1923). George Santayana’s Theory of Religion. The Journal of Religion, 3(5), 458–475. Reader, I., & Tanabe, G. (1998). Practically Religious: Worldly Benefits and the Common Religion of Japan. University of Hawaii Press. Redfield, R. (1952). The Primitive World View. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 96(1), 30. Regnerus, M. (2000). Shaping Schooling Success: Religious Socialization and Educational Outcomes in Metropolitan Public Schools. Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion, 39(3), 363–370. Regnerus, M., & Uecker, J. (2007). How Corrosive Is College to Religious Faith and Beliefs. http://religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Regnerus_Uecker.pdf Reid, S. G. (2018). The Case Against David Suzuki: An Unauthorized Biography. Rebel News Network Ltd (online publication).

280 

WORKS CITED

Reiss, S. (2002). Who Am I?: 16 Basic Desires that Motivate Our Actions and Define Our Personalities. Berkley Trade. Remnick, D. (2016). How the Light Gets In. New Yorker, 92(33), 46–59. Reuben, J. (1996). The Making of the Modern University: Intellectual Transformation and the Marginalization of Morality. University of Chicago Press. Revel, J.-F., & Ricard, M. (1998). The Monk and the Philosopher: A Father and Son Discuss the Meaning of Life. Schocken. Richards, J. (2010). Money, Greed, and God: Why Capitalism Is the Solution and Not the Problem. HarperOne. Riggs, A. (2016). Working in the Middle East: An American Woman’s Story. Praeger. Ritzer, G. (2000). The McDonaldization of Society. Pine Forge. Romanowski, W. (2012). Reforming Hollywood: How American Protestants Fought for Freedom at the Movies. Oxford University Press. Romero, O. (1985). Voice of the Voiceless: The Four Pastoral Letters and Other Statements. Orbis Books. Roosevelt, E. (1948, December 9). Address to the United Nations General Assembly. http://www.kentlaw.edu/faculty/bbrown/classes/HumanRightsSP10/ CourseDocs/2EleanorRoosevelt.pdf Ross-Bryant, L. (2017). Pilgrimage to the National Parks: Religion and Nature in the United States. Routledge. Rovelli, C. (2017). Reality Is Not What It Seems: The Journey to Quantum Gravity. Riverhead Books. Roy, O. (2007). Secularism Confronts Islam. Columbia University Press. Royal, C. (1998). Te Whare Tapere: Towards a Model for Maori Performance Art. University of Wellington Press. Ruether, R. R. (1994). Gaia and God: An Ecofeminist Theology of Earth Healing. HarperOne. Ruether, R.  R. (1996). Women Healing Earth: Third World Women on Ecology, Feminism, and Religion. Orbis Books. Ruether, R. R. (2005). Women and Redemption: A Theological History. Fortress. Ruether, R.  R. (2006). Goddesses and the Divine Feminine: A Western Religious History. University of California Press. Rugabera, W. (1975, April 6). Industry Resists Car Safety Costs. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1975/04/06/archives/industry-­resists-­carsafety-­ costs-­companies-­feel-­consumers-­will.html. Accessed 5 June 2019. Rumsfeld, D. (2002, February 2). DoD News Briefing – Secretary Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers. https://archive.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript. aspx?TranscriptID=2636 Rundle, S., & Steffen, T. (2003). The Great Commission Companies: The Emerging Role of Business in Missions. InterVarsity. Russell, R. J. (2008). Cosmology: From Alpha to Omega. Fortress Press.

  WORKS CITED 

281

Sachs, J. (2011). The Great Partnership: Science, Religion, and the Search for Meaning. Schocken. Sacks, O. (2011, December 12). Seeing God in the Third Millennium. The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/12/seeing-­ god-­in-­the-­third-­millennium/266134/. Accessed 28 Jan 2014. Samuel, S. (2018, May 7). A Design Lab Is Making Rituals for Secular People. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/05/ ritual-­design-­lab-­secular-­atheist/559535/ Sandel, M. (2012a). What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. Macmillan. Sandel, M. (2012b). What Isn’t for Sale. The Atlantic, 309(3), 62–66. http:// www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/what-­i sn-­8 217-­t -­f or-­ sale/8902/. Accessed 13 Jan 2014. Santayana, G. (1922). Soliloquies in England. Constable. Later Published in 2013 by Hardpress Publishing. Sartre, J. P. (1965). Nausea. Penguin. Sartre, J. P. (1969). Being and Nothingness. Washington Square Press. Saul, J. R. (2008). A Fair Country: Telling the Truths About Canada. Viking. Saul, J. R. (2014). The Comeback. Viking. Saunders, P. (2007). Why Capitalism Is Good for the Soul. Policy, 23(2), 3–9. h t t p : / / w w w. c i s . o r g . a u / P O L I C Y / s u m m e r % 2 0 0 7 -­0 8 / s a u n d e r s _ summer07.html Schauss, H. (1962). Guide to Jewish Holy Days. Schocken. Schumacher, E.  F. (1989). Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered. Harper and Row. Schuman, W. (2006). Pete Seeger’s Session. Beliefnet. http://www.beliefnet. com/Entertainment/Music/2006/08/Pete-­S eegers-­S ession.aspx?p=1. Accessed 19 Feb 2014. Scully, M. (1995, April). Viktor Frankl at Ninety: An Interview. First Things. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/004-­v iktor-­f rankl-­a t-­ ninety-­an-­interview-­18 Seabrook, J. (2009 September 24). Stop Capitalism Defining Human Nature. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cif-­green/2009/ sep/24/capitalism-­human-­nature. Accessed 20 Dec 2013. Searle, J. (1990). The Mystery of Consciousness. New York Review Books. Searle, J. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. Free Press. Searle, J. (2005). Mind: A Brief Introduction. Oxford University Press. Searle, J. (2013). Is the Person All Material? Interview with John Searle. http:// www.closertotruth.com/video-­p rofile/Is-­t he-­P erson-­A ll-­M aterial-­J ohn-­ Searle-­/162. Accessed 19 Dec 2013. Sefa Dei, G. J., Hall, B., & Rosenberg, D. G. (2002). Indigenous Knowledges in Global Contexts: Multiple Readings of Our World. University of Toronto Press.

282 

WORKS CITED

Segal, A. (2004). Life After Life: A History of the Afterlife in Western Religion. Doubleday. Selby, J. (2011). French Secularism as a ‘guarantor’ of Women’s Rights? Muslim Women and Gender Politics in a Parisian Banlieue. Culture and Religion, 12(4), 441–462. Selby, J. (2014). Un/veiling Women’s Bodies: Secularism and Sexuality in Full-­ face Veil Prohibitions in France and Quebec. Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses, 43(3), 439–466. Shamir, R. (2011). Socially Responsible Private Regulation: World Culture or World-Capitalism? Law and Society Review, 45(2), 313–336. Sharma, A. (1990). A Hindu Perspective on the Philosophy of Religion. Palgrave Macmillan. Sherlock, A. (2013). Larger than Life: Digital Resurrection & the Re-Enchantment of Society. The Information Society, 29(3), 133–141. Shermer, M. (2018). Heavens on Earth: The Scientific Search for the Afterlife, Immortality, and Utopia. Henry Holt. Shiva, V. (2016). Soil, Not Oil: Climate Change, Peak Oil and Food Insecurity. Zed Books. Shook, J.  R. (2018). Systematic Atheology: Atheism’s Reasoning with Theology. Routledge. Shusterman, N. (2018, February 22). What the Second Amendment Really Meant to the Founders. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ made-­b y-­h istory/wp/2018/02/22/what-­t he-­s econd-­a mendment-­r eally­meant-­to-­the-­founders/ Silverman, D. (2015). Fighting God: An Atheist Manifesto for a Religious World. Thomas Dunne Books. Simmons, D. R. (1997). Te Whare Runanga: The Maori Meeting House. Reed. Singer, P. (1972). Famine, Affluence, and Morality. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1(3), 229–243. Singer, P. (1975). Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals. Review/Random House. Singer, P. (1985). Should the Baby Live? The Problem of Handicapped Infants. Oxford University Press. Singer, P. (1997). How are we to live? Ethics in an age of self-interest. Oxford University Press. Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press. Singh, G. (2006). Gurdwaras & Community-Building Among British Sikhs. Contemporary South Asia, 15(2), 147–164. Singh, S. (2005). Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe. HarperCollins. Sire, J. W. (2004a). Naming the Elephant: Worldview as a Concept. InterVarsity Press. Sire, J.  W. (2004b). The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog. InterVarsity Press.

  WORKS CITED 

283

Sison, M. (2013, August 2). An Activist, an Anglican, a Political Leader. Anglican Journal. https://www.anglicanjournal.com/an-­activist-­an-­anglican-­a-­political­leader/. Accessed 7 Aug 2019. Skelton, M., Wigford, A., Harper, P., & Reeves, G. (2002). Beyond Food, Festivals, and Flags. Educational Leadership, 60(2), 52–55. Smart, N. (1983). Worldviews: Cross-Cultural Explorations of Human Beliefs. Charles Scribner’s Sons. Smart, N. (1998). The World’s Religions. Cambridge University Press. Smith, A. (1904). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Methuen & Co. Library of Economics and Liberty. http://www.econlib.org/ library/Smith/smWN1.html. Retrieved 15 Dec 2013. Smith, C. (2003). Moral, Believing Animals: Human Personhood and Culture. Oxford University Press. Smith, C. (2005). Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers. Oxford University Press. Smith, C. (2011). What Is a Person?: Rethinking Humanity, Social Life, and the Moral Good from the Person Up. University of Chicago Press. Smith, C. (2017). Religion: What It Is, How It Works, and Why It Matters. Princeton University Press. Smith, H. (2001). Why Religion Matters: The Fate of the Human Spirit in an Age of Disbelief. HarperSanFrancisco. Smith, C., & Cimino, R. (2012). Atheisms Unbound: The Role of the New Media in the Formation of a Secular Identity. Secular and New Religion, 17–31. Smith, J. K. A. (2009). Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview and Cultural Formation. Baker Academic. Smith, J.  M. (2013). Creating a Godless Community: The Collective Identity Work of Contemporary American Atheists. Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion, 52(1), 80–99. Smith, J.  E. (1994). Quasi Religions: Humanism, Marxism, and Nationalism. Palgrave Macmillan. Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Zed Books. Smolkin, V. (2018). A Sacred Space Is Never Empty: A History of Soviet Atheism. Princeton University Press. Somerville, M. (2000). The Ethical Canary: Science, Society and the Human Spirit. Penguin. Somerville, M. (2006). The Ethical Imagination: Journeys of the Human Spirit. Anansi. Sommer, J. (n.d.). Purposes of a Local Humanist Chapter. https://americanhumanist.org/what-­we-­do/grassroots/purposes-­local-­humanist-­chapter/ Sontheimer, M. (2005, March 10). Why Germans Can Never Escape Hitler’s Shadow. Spiegel. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany-­s-­nazi-­past-­ why-­germans-­can-­never-­escape-­hitler-­s-­shadow-­a-­345720.html

284 

WORKS CITED

Soros, G. (1995). Soros on Soros: Staying Ahead of the Game. Wiley. Soter, S., & de Grasse, T. N. (2001). Cosmic Horizons: Astronomy at the Cutting Edge. The New Press. Southgate, C. (2005). God, Humanity and the Cosmos. T & T Clark International. Southgate, C. (2008). The Groaning of Creation: God, Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Westminster John Knox. Southgate, C (n.d.). https://closertotruth.com/series/why-­cosmic-­fine-­tuning-­ demands-­explanation Specter, M. (1999, September 6). The Dangerous Philosopher. The New Yorker. http://www.michaelspecter.com/1999/09/the-­dangerous-­philosopher/. Retrieved 27 July 2018. Spitzer, R. (2004). Indications of Supernatural Design in Big Bang Cosmology. Journal of Ultimate Reality and Meaning, 27(4), 265–287. Spitzer, R. (2010). New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy. Eerdmans. Spitzer, R. (n.d.). https://www.closertotruth.com/series/why-­fine-­tuning-­ seems-­designed#video-­4233 Stambach, A. (2011). Religion, Education and Secularism in International Agencies. Comparative Education, 55(1), 11–142. Starhawk. (1999). The Spiral Dance: A Rebirth of the Ancient Religion of the Great Goddess. Harper. Starhawk. (2005). The Earth Path: Grounding Your Spirit in the Rhythms of Nature. HarperOne. Stark, R. (2005). The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success. Random House. Stearns, P. (2006). Consumerism in World History: The Global Transformation of Desire (2nd ed.). Routledge. Steffler, A. (2002). Symbols of the Christian Faith. Eerdmans. Steiner, E. (1995/96). The Muslim Scarf and the French Republic. The King’s College Law Journal, 6, 146–149. Steiner, G. (1975). After Babel. Oxford University Press. Steiner, G. (1999). The Humanities – At Twilight. PN Review, 25, 23–24. From Wolin, R. (2011). Reflections on the Crisis in the Humanities. Hedgehog Review, 13(2), 8–20. Steinhardt, P. J. (2011). Inflation Debate: Is the Theory at the Heart of Modern Cosmology Deeply Flawed. Scientific American, 304, 36–43. Steinhardt, P.  J., & Turok, N. (2007). Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang. Doubleday. Steptoe, A., Shankar, A., Demakakos, P., & Wardle, J. (2013). Social isolation, loneliness, and all-cause mortality in older men and women. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110, 5797–5801.

  WORKS CITED 

285

Stevens, D. (1997). Nationalism as Religion. Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review, 86(343), 248–258. Stewart, B. (2004, December). On the Front Lines. Presbyterian Record. Stoker, W. (2012). Culture and Transcendence: A Typology. In W.  Stoker & W. L. Van der Merve (Eds.), Looking Beyond? Shifting Views of Transcendence in Philosophy, Theology, Art and Politics (pp. 5–28). Brill. Stonechild, B. (2016). The Knowledge Seeker: Embracing Indigenous Spirituality. University of Regina Press. Stott, A. (2012). Wilberforce: Family and Friends. Oxford University Press. Strauss, K. (2017, September 13). The 10 Companies with the Best CSR Reputations in 2017. https://www.forbes.com/sites/karstenstrauss/2017/09/13/ the-­10-­companies-­with-­the-­best-­csr-­reputations-­in-­2017/#4303adb2546b. Accessed 4 June 2019. Sullivan, J. (2006). Jeans: A Cultural History of an American Icon. Gotham. Sumegi, A. (2013). Understanding Death: An Introduction to Ideas of Self and the Afterlife in World Religions. Wiley-Blackwell. Suzuki, D. (1997). The Sacred Balance: Rediscovering Our Place in Nature. Greystone. Suzuki, D., & Knudtson, P. (2006). Wisdom of the Elders: Sacred Native Stories of Nature. Greystone. Swaab, D. (2014). We Are Our Brains: A Neurobiography of the Brain, from the Womb to Alzheimer’s (J. Hedley-Prole, Trans.). Spiegel & Grau. Swimme, B. (2002). Hidden Heart of the Cosmos. Orbis Books. Swinburne, R. (2010). Is There a God. Oxford University Press. Swinburne, R. (n.d.). https://www.closertotruth.com/series/did-­god-­create­multiple-­universes#video-­4281 Tocqueville, Alexis de. (2010). Democracy in America. Signet. Taji-Farouki, S. (Ed.). (2004). Modern Muslim Intellectuals and the Quran. Oxford University Press. Tannen, D. (2001). Talking from 9 to 5: Women and Men at Work. HarperCollins. Tannen, D. (2007). You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. Virago Press. Tanner, K. (2019). Christianity and the New Spirit of Capitalism. Yale University Press. Tarnas, R. (1991). The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas that Have Shaped Our Worldview. Harmony Books. Tassell-Matamua, N. (2013). Phenomenology of Near-Death Experiences: An Analysis of a Maˉori Case Study. Journal of Near-Death Studies, 32(2), 107–117. Taylor, B. (1995). Ecological Resistance Movements: The Global Emergence of Radical and Popular Environmentalism. SUNY. Taylor, B. (2009). Dark Green Religion: Nature Spirituality and the Planetary Future. University of California Press.

286 

WORKS CITED

Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. Cambridge University Press. Taylor, C. (2007). A Secular Age. Harvard University Press. Taylor, D. (2014, September 8). A World Without the Disabled Will Be the Poorer. Christian Courier, p. 4. Thiessen, E. J. (1993). Teaching for Commitment: Liberal Education, Indoctrination and Christian Nurture. McGill-Queen’s. Thiessen, J., & Wilkins-LaFlamme, S. (2017). Becoming a Religious None: Irreligious Socialization and Disaffiliation. Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion, 56(1), 64–82. Thinley, D., & Maxwell, T. (2013). The Role of English in Cultural Preservation in Bhutan. Journal of Bhutan Studies, 28(Summer), 1–29. Thomas, R. (2007). Manitou and God: North American Indian Religions and Christian Culture. Praeger. Tillich, P. (1957). Dynamics of Faith. Harper and Row. Tobin, S., Ellor, J., & Anderson-Ray, S. (1986). Enabling the Elderly: Religious Institutions Within the Community Service System. SUNY. Tomlinson, M. (2017). Student Perceptions of Themselves as ‘consumers’ of Higher Education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(4), 450–476. Tönnies, F. (2011). Communities and Society. Dover. Tooly, M. (n.d.). Can a Person Be a Soul?https://www.closertotruth.com/ interviews/3133 Toon, P. (1986). Heaven and Hell: A Biblical and Theological Overview. Thomas Nelson. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and Collectivism. Westview Press. Tucker, M. (2002). Worldviews and Ecology: Religion, Philosophy and the Environment. Orbis Books. Tueff, K. (2018). Channel of Peace: Stranded in Gander on 9/11. Anansi. UN. (2016). 224 Million International Migrants Living Abroad Worldwide. http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2016/01/244-­million-­ international-­migrants-­living-­abroad-­worldwide-­new-­un-­statistics-­reveal/ Underhill, J. (2013). Creating Worldviews: Metaphor, Ideology and Language. Edinburgh University Press. Ushpiz, A. (2016, October 10). The Grossly Misunderstood “Banality of Evil” Theory. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-­news/the-­grossly-­misunderstood-­ banality-­of-­evil-­theory-­1.5448677. Accessed 24 Feb 2018. USHMM. (2018). 2018 Global Issues Forum: The Holocaust and Human Nature. https://www.ushmm.org/online/global-issues-forum/ Valarino, E. E. (1997). On the Other Side of Life: Exploring the Phenomenon of the Near-Death Experience. Da Capo Press. Valdes-Fauli, R., & Diaz, J. (1997, March 31). How Cultural, Language Differences Affect Business. South Florida Business Journal. https://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/1997/03/31/smallb3.html

  WORKS CITED 

287

Valk, J. (2007). A Plural Public School: Religion, Worldviews & Moral Education. British Journal of Religious Education, 29(3), 273–285. Valk, J. (2009). Stories of Our Elders: Exploring Traditional Wolastoq Knowledge and Knowledge Transmission. Journal of Australian Indigenous Issues, 12, 278–288. Valk, J. (2010). Leadership for Transformation: The Impact of a Christian Worldview. Journal of Leadership Studies, 4(3), 83–86. Valk, J. (2012). Christianity Through a Worldview Lens. Journal of Adult Theological Education, 9(2), 158–174. Valk, J. (2013). Knowing Self and Others: Sustaining Ethical Leadership. In C. Beauvais, R. Shukla, & M. David-Blais (Eds.), Ethical Leadership and Contemporary Challenges: Philosophical Perspectives (pp 19–42). Peeters. Valk, J. (2015). Inclusion and the Nature of the Human: A Canadian Perspective. In Heilpadagogik: Objectives, Structures, Perspectives, Conference Proceedings (pp. 123–131). Druckhaus Berlin-Mittepp. Valk, J., Albayrak, H., & Selçuk, M. (2017). An Islamic Worldview from Turkey: Religion in a Modern, Democratic and Secular State. Palgrave Macmillan. Valk, J., Belding, S., Crumpton, A., Harter, H., & Reams, J. (2011). Worldviews and leadership: Thinking and acting the bigger pictures. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(2), 54–63. Van Brummelen, H. (1991). The World Portrayed in Texts: An Analysis of the Context of Elementary School Textbooks. Journal of Educational Thought, 25(3), 201–221. Van der Kooij, J., De Ruyter, D., & Miedema, S. (2013). Worldview: The Meaning of the Concept and the Impact on Religious Education. Religious Education, 108(2), 210–228. Van Duisen, M. (2013). 10 Awesome Groups of Germans Who Resisted the Nazis.https://listverse.com/2013/09/29/10-­awesome-­groups-­of-­germans-­ who-­resisted-­the-­nazis/. Accessed 22 Feb 2018. Van Inwagen, P. (2014). Metaphysics. Westview Press. Van Wieren, G. (2013). Restored to Earth: Christianity, Environmental Ethics, and Ecological Restoration. Georgetown University Press. Vanier, J. (1998). Becoming Human. Anansi. Veneziano, G. (2004). The Myth of the Beginning of Time. Scientific American, 290(5), 54–65. Veneziano, G. (2018). New Ritual Society: Consumerism and Culture in the Contemporary Era. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Véras, E., & Véras, D. (2011). Cultural Differences Between Countries: The Brazilian and the Chinese Ways of Doing Business. Journal for Innovation and Sustainability, 2(2), 77–83. Verhoef, A. (2013). Embodied Religion’s Radicalization of Immanence and the Consequent Question of Transcendence. Acta Academica, 45(4), 173–194.

288 

WORKS CITED

Vidal, C. (2008). What Is a Worldview? In H.  Van Belle & J.  Van der Weken (Eds.), Nieuwheid denken; De wetenscheppen en het creative aspect van de werklijkheid. Acco. Vidal, C. (2012). Metaphilosophical Criteria for Worldview Comparison. Metaphilosophy, 43(3), 306–347. Vidya, T.  N. C., & Sukumar, R. (2005). Social and Reproductive Behaviour in Elephants. Current Science, 89(7), 1200–1207. Vilenkin, A. (2013, October 23). The Beginning of the Universe. Inference: International Review of Science, 1(4). https://inference-­review.com/article/ the-­beginning-­of-­the-­universe Vincenzo, G. (2018). New Ritual Society: Consumerism and Culture in the Contemporary Era. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Visser, J. R. (2005). Worldview and Global Leadership. Leadership: Succeeding in the Private, Public, and Not-for-profit Sectors. Routledge. Vitz, P. (1994). Psychology as Religion: The Cult of Self-Worship. Eerdmans. Volf, M. (2015). Flourishing: Why We Need Religion in a Globalized World. Yale University Press. Wadud, A. (2006). Inside the Gender Jihad: Women’s Reform in Islam. Oneworld Publications. Wallace, J. R. (2007). Servant Leadership: A Worldview Perspective. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(2), 114–132. Wallace, L. (2009, November 10). What’s Lost When a Language Dies. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2009/11/whats-­ lost-­when-­a-­language-­dies/29886/#:~:text=%22The%20wisdom%20of%20 humanity%20isthe%20knowledge%20dies%20with%20 it.%22&text=Language%2C%20he%20believes%2C%20is%20not%20inherently%20linked%20to%20culture Wangmo, T., & Valk, J. (2012). Under the Influence of Buddhism: The Psychological Wellbeing Indicators of GNH. Journal of Bhutan Studies, 26(Summer), 53–81. Ward, K. (2008). Why There Almost Certainly Is a God: Doubting Dawkins. Lion. Ward, K. (2017). The Christian Idea of God: A Philosophical Foundation for Faith. Cambridge University Press. Washburn, J. (2005). Universities Inc.: The Corporate Corruption of American Higher Education. Basic Books. Watson, P. (2010). The German Genius: Europe’s Third Renaissance, the Scientific Revolution, and the Twentieth Century. Simon & Schuster. Webb, E. (2009). Worldview and Mind: Religious Thought and Psychological Development. University of Missouri. Wehner, P., & Brooks, A. C. (2010). Wealth and Justice: The Morality of Democratic Capitalism. AEI Press. Weikart, R. (2004). From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany. Palgrave Macmillan.

  WORKS CITED 

289

Weinberg, S. (1994). The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe. Basic Books. Weinberg, S. (2008, September 25). Without God. New York Review of Books, 55(14). http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21800 Weiner, J. (2010). Long for This World: The Strange Science of Immortality. HarperCollins. Weinstein, J. (2013). Adam Smith’s Pluralism. Yale University Press. Welle, M. R. (2014). Self-Perception of Adults with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. Advances in Applied Sociology, 4(1), 24–29. Wente, M. (2009, December 18). When in Doubt: An Atheist’s Christmas. Globe and Mail. Westermann, E. (2016). Hitler’s Ostkrieg and the Indian Wars: Comparing Genocide and Conquest. University of Oklahoma Press. Westermann, E. (2018, February). Drunk on Genocide: How the Nazis Celebrated Murdering Jews.https://aeon.co/ideas/drunk-­on-­genocide-­how-­the-­ nazis-­c elebrated-­m urdering-­j ews?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_ campaign=a8891c9ade-­E MAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_02_12&utm_ medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-­a8891c9ade-­68717837 Wexler, M. N. (2006). Leadership in Context: Four Faces of Capitalism. Edward Elgar Publishing. White, C. (2004). Starbucks: The third place. In White, C. (2004). Strategic Management (pp. 766–772). Palgrave. Whitehead, A. W. (1979). Process and Reality. Free Press. Wiesel, E. (2006). Night. Hill and Wang. Williams, P. (2008). Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations. Routledge. Williams, R. (2015). Faith in the Public Square. Bloomsbury. Williamson, J. (2004). The Washington Consensus as Policy Prescription for Development. Institute for International Economics. http://www.iie.com/ publications/papers/williamson0204.pdf Wilson, E. O. (2004). On Human Nature. Harvard University Press. Wilson, E. O. (2012). The Social Conquest of Earth. W.W. Norton. Wilson, E. O. (2015). The Meaning of Human Existence. Liveright. Wilson, S. (2009). Research Is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods. Fernwood. Wilson, S.-A. (Ed.). (2015). Identity, Culture and the Politics of Community Development. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Witt, J., & Taylor, B. (2017). Special Issue: Religion and Eco-Resistance Movements in the Twenty-First Century. Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture, 11(1), 5–22. Wolf, F.  A. (1996). The Spiritual Universe: One Physicists Vision of Spirit, Soul, Matter, and Self. Simon & Schuster. Wolf, F.  A. (n.d.). https://closertotruth.com/series/does-­physical-­reality-­ go-­beyond

290 

WORKS CITED

Wolfson, M. (2001). The Fight Against Big Tobacco: The Movement, the State and the Public’s Health. Routledge. Wolpe, D. J. (1991). The Healer of Shattered Hearts: A Jewish View of God. Penguin Group USA. Wolters, A. (1985). Creation Regained: A Biblical Basis for a Reformational Worldview. Eerdmans. Wolterstorff, N. (1987). Until Justice and Peace Embrace. Eerdmans. Wolterstorff, N. (1998). Reason Within the Bounds of Religion. Eerdmans. Wood, J. (2009). God in the Quad: A Don Defends the Supreme Being from the New Atheists.h t t p s : / / w w w. n e w y o r k e r. c o m / m a g a z i n e / 2 0 0 9 / 0 8 / 3 1 / god-­in-­the-­quad Wright, A. (2000). Spirituality and Education. RoutledgeFalmer. Wright, B. R. E. (2010). Christians Are Hate-Filled Hypocrites … And Other Lies You’ve Been Told. Bethany House. Wright, K. (2004). The Hell Jesus Never Intended. Northstone. Wright, N. T. (1992). The New Testament and the People of God. Fortress. Wright, N. T. (2006). Evil and the Justice of God. IV Press. Wright, N. T. (2008). Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church. HarperOne. Wright, N. T. (2013). Scripture and the Authority of Gods: How to Read the Bible Today. HarperOne. Wright, R. (2009). The Evolution of God. Little, Brown & Company. Wright, S. (2009). Oscar Romero and the Communion of Saints. Orbis Books. Wu, S., & Keysar, B. (2007). The Effect of Culture on Perspective Taking. Psychological Science, 18(7), 600–606. Yang, F. (2012). Religion in China: Survival and Revival under Communist Rule. Oxford University Press. Yelich Biniecki, S., & Conceição, S. (2014). How Living or Traveling to Foreign Locations Influences Adults’ Worldviews and Impacts Personal Identity. New Horizons in Adult Education & Human Resource Development, 26(3), 39–53. Yildirim, A.  K. (2016). Between Anti-Westernism and Development: Political Islam and Environmentalism. Middle Eastern Studies, 52(2), 215–232. Younkins, E. W. (2007, June 24). Capitalism: The Only Moral Social System. Le Quebecois Libre, 231. http://www.quebecoislibre.org/07/070624-­5.htm Yousafzai, M. (2015). I Am Malala: The Girl Who Stood Up for Education and Was Shot by the Taliban. Back Bay Books. Zimmerman, D. (2010). From Property Dualism to Substance Dualism. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, 84, 119–150. Zohar, D., & Marshall, I. (1999). Spiritual Intelligence: The Ultimate Intelligence. Bloomsbury. Zsolnai, S. (Ed.). (2011). Ethical Principles and Economic Transformation: A Buddhist Approach. Springer. Zuckerman, P. (2014). Living the Secular Life. Penguin.

Author Index

A Abdul-Matin, I., 149 Aguirre, Anthony, 179 Allah, 86, 105, 126, 228 Anaxagoras, 176 Ang, S., 144 Annan, Kofi, 249 Arendt, Hannah, 65, 100, 236, 237 Aristotle, 74, 177, 184, 185 Arjuna, Prince, 79 Armstrong, Karen, 86, 87, 97, 155 Augustine, 247 B Bacevich, Andrew, 66, 67 Bach, Johann Sebastian, 65 Bacon, Francis, 238 Baggini, Jullian, 89 Barbour, Ian, 157, 203 Barr, Stephen, 191 Basarudin, Azza, 141 Bauman, Zygmunt, 65, 83, 100

Beaujot, A., 84 Belk, R. W., 84, 91, 100, 101, 108, 109, 161 Bellah, Robert, 48, 153 Benedict, Ruth, 103 Benford, Gregory, 193, 194 Berger, Peter, 13 Berry, Thomas, 133, 151, 152, 227 Bhawuk, D. P. S., 57, 58 Blackmore, Susan, 180 Blackstock, Cindy, 58, 207 Block, Ned, 179 Bloomberg, Michael, 84 Boaz, Franz, 103 Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, 140 Bonzo, Matthew, 2 Bostrom, Nick, 194 Brahman, 79, 88 Briggs, John, 207, 208 Buber, Martin, 65, 126 Buddha, 79, 87, 97, 106 Buffett, Warren, 84

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. Valk, Worldviews, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82491-4

291

292 

AUTHOR INDEX

C Callahan, Sydney, 232 Camosy, Charles, 232 Campbell, Lyle, 60 Camus, Albert, 124 Capra, Fritjof, 2, 182 Carr, Bernard, 189 Carroll, Sean, 179, 188 Chalmers, David, 182 Chanel, Coco, 172 Churchland, Patricia, 98, 170, 240 Clooney, Amal, 141 Cohen, Leonard, 43 Collins, Francis, 125, 190 Collins, Robin, 190, 196 Comte, Auguste, 6, 203 Copernicus, Nicolaus, 184 Cox, Brian, 181 Cox, Harvey, 2, 10, 23, 91, 101, 161 D Dalai Lama, 79, 97, 152 Darwin, Charles, 81 Davies, Paul, 183, 189, 195 Dawkins, Richard, 6, 8, 17, 22, 81, 82, 90, 99, 157, 160, 185, 247 Day, Dorothy, 140, 216, 217 de Beauvoir, Simone, 152 Dembski, William, 187 Dennett, Daniel, 8, 17, 22, 180, 181 Derrida, Jacques, 7 Descartes, Rene, 6, 132, 180, 237, 238 De Tocqueville, 48, 117 De Waal, F., 98 Dewey, John, 100, 156, 160 Dick, Steven, 194, 195 Diderot, Denis, 22 Diesel, Rudolf, 172 Dilthey, Wilhelm, 3–6, 8 Dior, Christian, 172 Donne, John, 31

Douglas, Tommy, 140 Durkheim, Emile, 112, 228 Dyson, Freeman, 191, 192 E Eccles, John, 182 Eichmann, Adolph, 100 Eiffel, Gustave, 108 Einstein, Albert, 144 Eliade, Mircea, 228 Etzioni, A., 53 F Fackenheim, Emil, 126 Feuerbach, Ludwig, 22, 134, 156, 161, 181 Fiddes, Paul, 195 Fisher, Max, 63 Foucault, Michel, 7 Fox, Matthew, 151, 227 Francis, Pope, 227 Frankl, Viktor, 129 Frederick the Great, 22 Freud, Sigmund, 36, 168, 169 Frick, Peter, 62 Friedan, Betty, 152 Friedman, Milton, 153 Friedmann, J. L., 113 G Gabriel, 76 Gabriel, Sigmar, 63, 66 Galloway, Scott, 212 Galvani, Luigi, 172 Gandhi, Mahatma, 143, 150, 211 Gandhi, R., 12 Garland-Thomson, R., 42, 234, 242 Gates, Bill, 84 Geertz, Clifford, 2, 4, 103 Gellner, E., 63

  AUTHOR INDEX 

293

Gingerich, Owen, 185 Goethe, Johan Wolfgang von, 212 Gore, Al, 225 Gott, J. Richard, 186 Gould, Stephen J., 157, 185 Graham, Billy, 66 Grayling, Anthony, 6, 22, 81, 97, 187 Greene, Brian, 186 Gregersen, Niels Henrik, 191 Grim, J., 227 Guth, Alan, 186, 188, 193

I Inwagen, Peter van, 190 Irenaeus, 94, 125 Isaiah, 164, 166, 212, 216, 238

H Habermas, Jurgen, 86 Halfon, Robert, 238 Harari, Yuval, 160, 172 Hare, R. M., 241 Harris, Sam, 22, 136 Harvey, Graham, 5, 10 Haverkort, B., 208 Hawking, Stephen, 6, 42, 81, 160, 179, 181, 188 Hayek, Friedrich, 153 Hebrew, 86, 94, 139, 149, 150, 156, 164, 238 Hegel, G. W. F., 3, 65 Helmholtz, H. L. von, 65 Herder, Johann Gottfried, 60 Heschel, Abraham Joshua, 46, 149, 210 Hitchens, Christopher, 168 Hitler, Adolf, 90 Hobbes, Thomas, 126 Holder, Rodney, 185, 190 Hoyle, Fred, 185 Hubble, Edwin, 185 Humboldt, A. von, 60, 65 Hume, David, 6, 238 Humphrey, John Peters, 99 Humphrey, N., 169 Huyssteen, Wentzel van, 203

K Kaku, Michio, 194 Kant, Immanuel, 3, 65, 97, 98, 238 Kauffman, Stuart, 156, 189 Kierkegaard, Soren, 3 Kilman, R., 2, 58 Kimball, Alexandra, 231 King James, 76, 89 King, Martin Luther Jr., 66, 80, 140, 149, 164, 206, 215, 216 Kittay, Eva, 42, 234, 242 Klein, Calvin, 100, 110, 153, 172 Kolla, Edward, 63 Koltko-Rivera, M., 2, 13, 17, 24 Kovach, Margaret, 206, 207 Krauss, Laurence, 194 Krech, Shepard, 142, 208 Kuhn, Thomas, 2, 58 Kurtz, Paul, 89, 98, 128 Kurzweil, Ray, 131, 163, 194 Kushner, Rabbi Harold, 122

J Jefferson, Thomas, 218 Jesus Christ, 105, 164 Jesus of Nazareth, 76, 87 Job, 156 Josephson, Brian, 188, 189

L Lemaitre, George, 185 Lennox, Annie, 121 Leslie, John, 181, 182 Levinas, Emmanuel, 156 Levi-Strauss, Claude, 103

294 

AUTHOR INDEX

Leviticus, 95 Lewis, David, 181 Lewontin, R., 6, 13 Linde, Andrei, 193 Locke, John, 60, 238 Lord Krishna, 79 Lovelock, James, 143, 158 Low, P., 144 Loy, David, 2, 91, 161 M Malik, Charles, 99 Malinowski, Bronislaw, 103 Mandela, Nelson, 221 Mao Zedong, 90 Maritain, Jacques, 99 Marx, Karl, 12, 13, 22, 83 Mawere, Munyaradzi, 206, 207 May, Elizabeth, 223, 224 Mazumdar, S., 114 Mazundar, S., 114 McFague, Sally, 126, 132, 142 McGrath, Alister, 157, 159, 164, 203 McMullin, Ernan, 189, 190 Mead, Margaret, 103 Mendel, Gregor, 65 Mercedes Benz, 65, 109 Micah, 94, 139 Michelangelo, Michel, 238 Midgely, Margaret, 8, 143, 169 Mitroff, I., 2, 58 Mlodinow, Leonard, 6, 81, 188 Mohammad, Prophet, 77 Moses, 75 Müller, Max, 15, 32 Murad, Nadia, 141 Murray, M., 121, 124, 125, 203 N Nagasaki, 65 Nagel, Thomas, 182

Nash, R., 121, 124, 125, 203 Naugle, David, 2–4, 7, 8 Newberger, Rebecca, 180 Niebuhr, Reinhold, 86 Nietzsche, Friedrich, 7, 22 Noe, Alva, 179 Novak, Michael, 100, 130, 137, 161 Nussbaum, Martha, 234, 242 O Obama, Barack, 191 Odora Hoppers, Catherine, 58, 207 Oldenberg, Ray, 118 O’Leary, Kevin, 130, 146, 169 Olthuis, James, 2, 8, 10, 13, 14, 28 Otto, Rudolph, 183, 228 P Page, Don, 190 Paine, Thomas, 83, 203 Parks, Sharon, 124 Parmenides, 176 Parsons, Talcott, 22, 39 Passini, S., 146 Peacocke, Arthur, 203 Pepper, Stephen, 2, 13, 17 Pickens, T. Boone, 84 Pinochet, Augusto, 153 Plantinga, Alvin, 157, 162, 183, 205 Plato, 74, 143, 177 Polkinghorne, John, 157, 163, 192, 196, 203 Pol Pot, 90, 145 Popper, Karl, 169 Putnam, Robert, 112, 117 R Radcliffe-Brown, A. R., 103 Raphael, 177 Rasmussen, L., 227

  AUTHOR INDEX 

Reader, I., 10 Reagan, Ronald, 153 Rees, Martin, 9 Reid, Sheila Gunn, 225 Reijntjes, C., 208 Reiss, Steven, 132 Richards, Howard, 58, 207 Richards, Jay, 161 Romero, Oscar, 216 Roosevelt, Eleanor, 214 Ross-Bryant, L., 225 Rovelli, Carlo, 179 Rumsfeld, Donald, 66, 197–199 Russell, Bertrand, 22 Russell, Robert John, 190, 196 S Sandel, Mark, 101, 102, 154 Santayana, George, 128, 129 Sartre, Jean-Paul, 128, 129 Saunders, Peter, 91, 100, 130, 131 Scheler, Max, 228 Schermer, Michael, 169, 170, 172, 181 Schopenhauer, Arthur, 65 Searle, John, 13, 136, 180, 183 Seeger, Pete, 88 Sefa Dei, George, 207 Sherlock, A., 170 Shiva, Vandana, 161 Sidgwick, Henry, 241 Siemens, 65 Singer, Peter, 43, 144, 241–243 Sire, James, 2, 8, 13, 14, 16–18, 121 Smart, Ninian, 2, 9, 16, 26, 64, 71, 73 Smith, Adam, 23, 83, 130, 137 Smith, Christian, 2, 5, 10, 13, 76, 81, 83, 106, 112, 117, 133, 138 Smith, Huston, 13 Smith, J. K. A., 2, 5, 10–14, 28, 74, 91, 92

295

Smith, John E., 9 Smith, Linda Tuhiwai, 207 Smith, Quentin, 188 Snee, Jim, 118 Snowden, Edward, 63 Sommer, Joseph, 116 Sontheimer, M., 65 Soros, George, 84 Southgate, Christopher, 192, 195 Spinoza, Baruch, 129 Spitzer, Robert, 187, 191 Stalin, Josef, 90 Stanton, Elizabeth Cady, 149 Steinem, Gloria, 152 Steiner, George, 60, 104, 124 Steinhardt, Paul, 186 Suzuki, David, 80, 128, 135, 142, 224, 225 Swimme, Brian, 151 Swinburne, Richard, 186, 190 T Tanabe, G., 10 Taylor, Charles, 4, 5, 12, 20, 22, 58, 128, 159 Thatcher, Margaret, 153 Tillich, Paul, 2, 13, 121, 156 Tönnies, Ferdinand, 48 Tooley, Michael, 181 Trudeau, Justin, 224 Trump, Donald, 62, 63, 66 Tucker, Mary Evelyn, 151, 227 Tutu, Desmond, 125 V Van der Kooij, Jacomijn, 2, 18 Véras, D., 59, 60 Véras, E., 59, 60 Vidal, Clement, 18, 121 Vilenkin, Alexander, 188, 193 Voortman, Harry, 147

296 

AUTHOR INDEX

W Wadud, Amina, 140, 141 Ward, Keith, 156, 182 Watson, Peter, 65 Webb, Eugene, 2, 17 Wente, Margaret, 171 Whitehead, Alfred Norton, 74, 177 Wiesel, Elie, 141 Wiesenthal, Simon, 141 Simon Wiesenthal Foundation, 141 Wilberforce, William, 140, 215 Williams, Rowan, 45, 58 Wilson, E. O., 114, 136, 236 Wilson, Shawn, 206, 207 Wolf, Fred Alan, 182 Wolterstorff, Nicholas, 126, 162, 199, 205

Wright, Frank, 63 Wright, N.T., 95, 96, 155, 164, 165, 196, 203–205 Wright, Robin, 87 Y Yahweh, 86, 105 Younkins, Edward, 100, 102, 130 Yousafzai, Malala, 141 Z Zeiss, 65 Zeppelin, Ferdinand von, 172 Zimmerman, Dean, 180 Zuckerman, Phil, 168

Subject Index

A Aborigines, 182 Abortion, 68, 98, 151, 152, 210, 219, 229–233, 239, 241 Abrahamic, 10, 20, 94 Aflac, 102 Africa African, 37, 49, 56, 58, 140, 206, 207, 215, 216, 218, 221, 222 African National Congress (ANC), 221 Age of Reason, 82 Algonquian, 88 Alzheimer’s, 242, 243 America, 48, 67, 113, 114, 212, 217, 218 America First, 62, 63, 66 American American Atheist Convention, 117 American Declaration of Independence, 217 American Express, 102 American Humanist Association (AHA), 89, 116

Americanism, 66 American Thanksgiving, 109 Amish, 47 Analects of Confucius, 204 Anglican, 189, 190, 192, 224 Anglo-Boer War, 221 Animism, 17 Anthropocentrism, 226 anthropocentric, 127, 135 Apostles Creed, 164 Apple, 119 Arabic, 77, 86 Ashramas, 96 Asian, 56, 59 Atheism atheist, 115, 117, 128, 159, 168, 182, 185–187, 190, 191, 194, 224, 241 atheistic, 7, 82, 157, 159, 179, 185, 188, 192; atheistic worldviews, 187, 193, 240 new atheists, 8 Aum, 106 Auschwitz, 141

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 J. Valk, Worldviews, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82491-4

297

298 

SUBJECT INDEX

Australia, 56, 62, 182, 206 Axial Age, 155 B Baptism, 104, 107 Bat mitzvah, 104 Berkshire Hathaway, 118 Bhagavad Gita, 79, 96, 204 Bhutan, 51, 62, 212 Bible, 74, 76, 78, 81, 215, 216, 220 Hebrew Bible, 75, 76, 166, 204 Big Bang, 72, 81, 180, 184–187, 194, 197 Big Bang Cosmology, 184, 185, 193 Bikinis, 110 Biocentrism, 226 Biology, 2, 36, 98, 136 Birmingham, Alabama, 216 Black Churches, 215 Black Friday, 109, 130 Black Holes, 193, 198, 199 BMW, 109, 110 Bodhi tree, 106 Body of God, 142 Boxing Day, 109, 130 Britain British Empire, 215 British Parliament, 140, 215 Buddhism Buddhist, 50, 51, 62, 79, 97, 114, 143, 152, 168, 189, 198, 246 Buddhist Bhutan, 14 Buddhist ethics, 97, 143 Tibetan Buddhism, 79 Burka, 96, 110 Burkinis, 110, 223 C Caliph, 228 Calvin Klein, 110, 172 Cambodia, 145

Canada Canada Day, 69, 106 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 218 Canadian Multi-Culturalism Act, 57 Canadian/Canadians, 1, 34, 43, 54, 67–69, 99, 111, 214, 218, 219, 223–225, 231 Constitution of Canada, 218 Green Party, 223 Supreme Court of Canada, 218, 231 Capitalism, 10, 14, 16, 17, 23, 44, 83–85, 91–93, 100–103, 108–111, 118–119, 129–131, 136–138, 146–148, 153–155, 161–162, 171–173, 213 capitalist, 2, 44, 46, 49, 83, 91, 100, 101, 108–110, 118, 119, 138, 153, 155, 161, 171, 172, 237 Carnegie Hall, 171 Catalonian, 63 Catholic, 76, 87, 110, 111, 130, 185, 191, 216, 217, 246 Catholic Worker’s Movement, 140, 217 Chambers of Commerce, 118 Chile, 153 China, 66, 145, 159 Christianity Christian, 10, 21, 46, 49, 51, 52, 76, 81, 87, 92, 95, 96, 104, 105, 111, 112, 127, 140, 149, 157, 159, 164–166, 198, 205, 216, 227, 249 Christian cross, 105 Christian schools, 45, 52 Christian Theism, 16 Christian worldview, 8, 72, 164, 165, 195, 227 Christmas, 84, 92, 101, 104, 107, 109, 111 Christmas Parties, 107

  SUBJECT INDEX 

Chromosome, 43 Civil Rights Movement, 149, 215, 216 Clapham Sect, 215 Coca-Cola, 109 Cogito ergo sum, 6, 132, 238 Cohen, Lenard, 43 Colonialism, 22, 56, 206–208 Colonization, 34, 61 Commandments Biblical Ten Commandments, 97 Native Ten Commandments, 97 Ten Commandments, 89, 128 Committee on the Status of Women, 229 The Commonweal, 216 Communism Communist China, 14 Communist Manifesto, 83 Communist State, 90 Comprehensive frameworks, 13 Confucianism, 21, 90, 144 Consumerism consumer culture, 33, 48 consumer God, 92 consumerist worldview, 2, 83, 91, 108, 118, 138, 154, 237 Contextualism, 17 Cornel University, 171 Cosmological, 127, 157, 187 Cosmopolitan worldview, 1, 2, 33, 250 Creation creationism, 195 Creation of Adam, 238 Creator, 9, 50, 76–78, 86–90, 92, 95, 97, 127, 128, 130, 133, 134, 139, 156–160, 167, 168, 182, 183, 186, 187, 189–191, 194, 203, 205, 206, 217, 218, 237, 239, 248, 249 Crimea, 63 Critical realism, 45, 203–205 Crucifix, 104

299

Crystal Palace, 108 Culture cultural dimensions, 26, 71–119, 245, 246 cultural orientations, 13 cultural relativism, 148 Cultural Revolution, 145 Cyber Monday, 109, 130 D Darwinism, 98, 99, 159 Daughters of the American Revolution, 117 “Day of Reckoning,” 166 Death, 8, 38, 40, 55, 76, 77, 105, 122, 124–126, 129, 133, 141, 145, 150, 163–165, 167–171, 179, 180, 194, 195, 202, 210, 213, 230, 231, 240, 246 Declaration of Independence, 66, 217, 218 Deism, 16, 203 deistic religions, 88 Denmark, 147, 243 Dharma name, 51 Dharma, 51, 106 Disabilities, 26, 32, 41–43, 59, 68, 145, 222, 232, 234, 235, 237, 239–243 Divine, 9, 45, 75, 77, 78, 82, 87, 90, 96, 98, 123, 125–127, 135, 136, 139, 142–144, 158, 162, 182, 183, 196, 204, 205, 239 Doctrines, 9, 10, 85–93, 141, 185, 217, 245 Dogma, dogmas, 85, 86, 89, 98 Down Syndrome, 43, 145, 230, 232, 234, 243 Dresden, 65 Drumming, 105 Dutch-Canadians, 57

300 

SUBJECT INDEX

E Earth Charter, 151 Earth Summit, 206 Easter, 84, 92, 104 Eastern Orthodox, 87 Eastern Pantheistic Monism, 16 Eastern worldviews, 74, 78, 79 Eid al-Fitr, 104, 113 Eiffel Tower, 108 Eightfold Path, 79, 97 Elder, 41, 47, 59, 79, 97, 206, 224 Elks, 116 Elohim, 86 Emotional intelligence, 15 Empiricism, 117, 238 English, 34, 35, 61, 62, 76 Enlightenment, 6, 27, 78, 83, 84, 99, 127, 135, 143, 203, 204, 223 Environment environmental concerns, 226, 228 environmental preservation, 212, 215, 220, 224–228 environmentalism, 225, 226, 228 Epistemology, 18, 197–208 epistemological, ix, 16, 27, 28, 175–208, 248 Eternity, 133, 165, 166, 168, 171 eternal life, 166 Ethnicity, 26, 33, 56–69 Eucharist, 104 Europe, 56, 57, 64, 105, 113, 222 Europeans, 34, 56, 59, 64, 68, 106, 177, 213, 218, 243 Euthanasia, 68, 98, 151, 243 Evolution, 18, 72, 74, 81, 136, 182, 186, 194, 195, 248 Ex nihilo, 184, 186 Existentialism, 16, 129, 152 F Fascism, 213 Fasting, 50, 105

Feminism ecofeminism, 226 feminist, 80, 105, 141, 152, 158, 222, 224, 230, 232 Fetus(s), 231 First Nations People First Nations children, 40 First Nations spirituality, 58 Five Precepts, 97 Fluor, 102 “Foods, flags and festivals,” 57 Four Noble Truths, 79, 97, 127 Fourth of July, 106 France, 50, 52, 64, 104, 110, 111, 214, 223, 243, 246 “Freedom Charter,” 221 “Freedom 55,” 84 French Revolution, 63, 108, 223 Friday Prayers, 113, 141 Fundamental Fysiks Group, 182, 189 G Gaia, 134, 143, 158 “Gates of heaven,” 166 Gay Pride parades, 111 Gemara, 75 Gemeinschaft, 48 General Electric, 102 General Federation of Women’s Clubs, 116–117 Genesis, Book of, 184 Germany, x, 63–65, 106, 141, 230 Gitche Manitou, 88 “Glass ceiling,” 36 Globalization, 57, 221 Goddess Gods, 6, 43, 74, 121, 179, 212, 247 Golden Rule, 139 Good Friday, 104 Good life, 93–97, 100–103, 246 Gospels, 76, 84, 164

  SUBJECT INDEX 

Grand theory of everything, 7, 179, 198 Great Awakening, 66 Great Books, 45 Great Spirit, 88 Green movements, 225 Green Peace, 225 Green political parties, 225 Gross National Happiness, 2, 212 Gross national product, 212 Ground of Being, 92 H Hadith, 77, 228 Haida, 224 Gwaii, 224 Haida Gwaii, 224 Hajj, 104, 113 Hanukkah, 104, 113 Hasidic, 87 Heaven, 164–167, 172 Higher being, 16, 83, 92, 237, 239 Higher power, 21, 27, 86, 87, 89–93, 99–101, 103, 106, 124, 135, 139, 141, 148, 155, 158, 159, 162, 236, 246 Hindu, 50, 51, 79, 96, 99, 114, 143, 168, 198 Hinduism, 21, 74, 78, 79, 88, 96, 106, 158, 161 Hiroshima, 65 “Holiday Parties,” 107 Holocaust, 141 Homo deus, 172, 248 Homo sapiens, 172 Hormel Foods Corporation, 118 Hortons, Tim, 119 Hubble’s Law, 185 Humanism, 9, 14, 18, 116, 152 Exclusive Humanism, 22, 81–83, 89–90, 97–100, 106–108,

301

115–117, 128–129, 135–136, 144–146, 152–153, 158–161, 168–171 Humanist Manifesto, 89, 98 Humanist Manifesto II, 89 I Imago dei, 132, 248 Immigration, 16, 56, 57, 64 Immortality Project, 170 India, 51, 58, 64, 106, 161, 211, 212 Indian worldview, 58 Indigenous Indigenous communities, 41, 44, 59, 114, 207 Indigenous cultures, 40, 48, 59, 206, 207 Indigenous knowledge, 58, 206–208, 219, 249 Indigenous Peoples, 22, 47–50, 57, 60–62, 66, 74, 80, 114, 128, 142, 206, 207, 219, 220, 224, 225, 249 Indigenous students, 44 Indigenous worldviews, 44, 80, 147, 206, 207, 225, 237 Individualism, 14, 35, 48, 144, 145, 148, 152, 235, 246 Individualistic worldview, 237 Indonesia, 64 Intelligent Being, 135, 190 Intelligent Design, 195 International Monetary Fund, 153 Inuit, 57 Iraq, 141, 198 Irish-Canadians, 57 Islam Islamic Saudi Arabia, 14 Islamic worldview, 228 Israel, 76, 139, 212 Israeli kibbutz, 40

302 

SUBJECT INDEX

J Jainism, 106 Japanese-Canadian, 57 “Jeffersonian Trinity,” 66, 67 Jewish People, 75, 127 Judaism Jewish kippa, 105 Rabbinic Judaism, 75 Judeo-Christian, 4, 76, 88, 89, 128, 184, 185, 215, 220 K Kabbalah, 87 Kacchera, 106 Kanata, 68 Kangha, 106 Kansas, 168 Kara, 106 Karma, 168 Kes, 106 Ketuvim, 75 Khmer Rouge, 145 King James Version, 76 Kinsmen Club, 116 Kippa, 104 Kirpan, 51, 104, 106 L Laicité, 223 L’Arche, 242 Latin American, 49 Latin Vulgate, 76 Laudito Si, 227 Lego, 147 Leibnitz Law, 183 Lenin, Leninist, 86 LGBTQ2+, 36, 38 Liberalism, 6, 9, 52, 153 Liberation theology, 49, 216 Life after this life, 9, 16, 113, 121, 162–173, 197, 198, 219

Lincoln Memorial, 216 Lion’s Club, 116 Lotus, 106 M Magna Carta, 214 Mahayana, 79 Malaysia, 64, 141 Maoism, Maoist, 86 Maori Maori culture, 114 Maori people, 46, 47, 49, 50, 61 marae, 114 Market, 91, 101, 108, 146, 153, 154, 223 market god, 91, 101, 161 Market god, 91, 101, 161 Marriage, 68, 113, 151, 221 Marxism marxists, 13, 16, 23, 46, 49, 83, 85, 86 Masons, 116 Materialism, 22, 35, 84, 101, 109, 129, 170, 173, 179, 182, 188, 189, 192, 228 physical materialism, 179, 180, 182 May Day, 106 McDonalds, 109, 118, 119, 137 golden arches, 109 Mecca, 104 Mechanism, 17, 115 Medicare, 140 Medicine Wheel, 106 Mennonites, 47 Mental lenses, 13 Metanarrative(s), ix, 4, 26, 72–85, 176, 245 Metaphysical metaphysical dimension, 247 metaphysicalism, 177, 181–183 metaphysical other, 239 metaphysical reality, 181

  SUBJECT INDEX 

Metis, 57 Mexico, 68 Middle Eastern, 59 Middle Easterners, 56 Midrash, 75 Migration, 56, 57, 64 Milliken & Company, 102 Modernism, 6, 27, 65, 82, 83, 131, 199 Monotheism monotheistic, 20, 77, 78, 80, 87, 88, 91, 94, 97, 98, 104–106, 110, 112, 127, 128, 133–135, 140, 143, 148–151, 155, 156, 160, 162, 163, 167, 172, 199, 226 monotheistic religions, 21, 156, 157 monotheistic worldviews, 20, 21, 74, 78, 86, 88, 96, 97, 99, 104, 105, 125, 127, 132, 137, 139, 140, 142, 148, 156, 158, 163, 166–168, 236 Moral Majority, 66 Mother Earth, 134, 142, 158, 167 Muslim hijab, 96, 105, 223 Mysticism, 17, 87, 182 Myths, 72, 80, 81, 84, 101 N Naming ceremonies, 104, 105, 107 Narratives, 4–9, 72–85, 91–93, 96, 125, 132, 134, 139, 245 National Hockey League, 107 National Institutes of Health, 191 Nationalism, 9, 10, 63, 64, 66–69 Native spirituality, 22 Nativity scenes, 109 Naturalism methodological naturalism, 179 philosophical naturalism, 22, 98, 129, 169

303

physical naturalism, 179 Nazi Nazi Germany, 43, 145, 213, 230 Nazism, 106, 213 Near death experiences, 165, 169, 198, 247 Neo-liberalism, 44, 146, 153 Nepal, 212 Netherlands, xii, 62 Neuroscience neuro-philosophy, 241 Nevi’im, 75 New Age, 16 Newfoundland, 54 New Testament, 76, 164, 204 New York City, 109, 140, 141, 144 New Zealand, 46, 49, 50, 56, 61, 62, 114, 206 Nietzsche, 7 Nihilism, 16 Nike, 110 Niqabs, 110 Nobel Peace Prize, 141, 216 North America, 34, 39, 45, 49, 50, 56, 58, 113, 114, 130, 147, 206 Notre Dame Cathedral, 110 Nuclear family, 39, 41 Nuremberg Trials, 100 O Occam’s Razor, 187, 189 Oceania, 47, 56 Old Testament, 21, 76, 98 Olympic Games, 108 Omnipotent, 91, 156, 157 Omnipresent, 91 Omniscient, 91 Ontology ontological, ix, 16, 27, 28, 157, 166, 175–208, 231, 233, 247 ontological beliefs, 27

304 

SUBJECT INDEX

Orange Day, 106 Orange Lodge, 116 Organicism, 17 Orthodox, 75, 76, 159 Oxford University, 194, 195 P Pacific Northwest, 47 Pacific Southwest, 47 Pagan religions, 88 Pakistan, 141 Pali Canon, 78 Panentheistic, 87, 88 Pantheistic, 88 Pascal’s Wager, 159 Passover, 104 Passover Seder, 113 Patagonia, 102 Philosophy historians of philosophy, 27 philosophers, 3–6, 27, 74, 78, 82, 85, 87, 96, 99, 122, 128, 129, 131, 132, 156, 157, 160, 166, 176, 177, 180, 181, 184, 189–191, 202, 203, 211, 238, 241, 248 philosophical materialism, 22, 173 philosophical naturalism, 22, 98, 129, 169 philosophies of life, 13 Physical physicalism, 177–181 physical materialism, 179, 180, 182 Physics, 2, 163, 179, 181, 183, 186, 187, 192, 195, 198 physical universe, 178–181, 183, 189, 199 Pipe ceremonies, 105 Plato’s Academy, 177 Poland, 107 Polytheistic, 88

Postmodernism, 6, 7, 16, 27 Prayer flags, 106 Prayers, 50, 77, 104–106, 110, 111, 113, 115, 141 Prenatal screening, 234, 239, 243 Pro-choice, 211, 230–232 Pro-life, 210, 211, 229, 230, 232, 241 Protestant, 76 Puberty rites, 105 Public education, 44, 52, 53, 90 Psychology, 2, 10, 17, 22, 24, 26, 71, 132, 170, 226 Q Quebec, 62, 104, 106, 108, 223, 246 Quebecois, 106 Queen Charlotte Islands, 224 Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung, 83 Qur’an, 74, 76, 77, 95, 166, 204, 228 R Rabobank, 102 Ramadan, 59, 104, 113 Rationalism, 82, 83, 199, 203, 248 rationalists, 3, 6, 23, 115, 203 Reason, 3, 6–9, 11, 12, 43, 63, 82, 83, 89, 90, 94, 95, 98, 99, 103, 111, 117, 123, 129, 131, 132, 134–136, 142–145, 147, 148, 157, 179, 183, 191, 195, 197, 199, 202, 203, 209, 213, 228–230, 237–239, 243, 248, 250 “Reason Rally,” 117 Reincarnation, 168, 198 Relativism, 7, 11, 12, 28, 100, 148 Religion religious schools, 45

  SUBJECT INDEX 

religious studies, 2, 18, 24, 26, 27, 71 religious worldviews, ix, 9, 10, 12, 16–22, 25, 34, 58, 64, 80, 85, 86, 92, 101, 105–107, 109, 110, 115, 116, 123, 135, 143, 155, 158, 167, 181–184, 194, 195, 205, 215, 227, 242, 248 Renaissance, 177 Italian Renaissance, 177 Residential Schools, 40 Resurrection, 76, 164, 195, 196, 198 Revelation, 8, 9, 74, 75, 77, 78, 83, 94, 123, 156, 204 revelational knowledge, 205 Rio de Janeiro, 64, 206 Rituals, ix, 4, 9–12, 18, 25, 26, 48, 50–52, 58, 72, 73, 77–79, 101, 103–111, 113, 115, 171, 176, 228, 246 rites of passage, 48, 104–106, 110, 111 Root metaphors, 17 Rosh Hashanah, 104, 113 Rotary Club, 116 Russia, 63, 66, 159 Rwandan genocide, 107 S Sacred, 9, 12, 26, 67, 72–79, 81, 83–86, 92, 94–97, 99, 105, 110, 114, 133, 134, 139, 142, 148, 149, 158, 161, 176, 199, 204, 214–217, 219, 220, 225, 226, 228, 230, 233, 239, 245 sacred knowledge, 204–205, 249 St. Jean Baptiste Day, 106 San Salvador, 216 Santa Claus, 84, 91, 101, 109, 111 Saudi Arabia, 221 Scandinavia, 62

305

Science modern science, 58, 61, 157, 163, 172, 198 Scientism, 19, 74, 81, 82, 90, 185, 202, 238, 248 Second Amendment, 67, 116 Second Law of Thermodynamics, 196 Second World War (WWII), 99, 108, 156, 213 Secularism saeculum, 12, 20, 22, 180 secular, 5, 7, 12, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24–26, 33, 34, 45–53, 64, 72, 86, 90, 92, 93, 97, 99, 103, 104, 106, 107, 110–112, 115, 116, 118, 122, 123, 128, 150, 152, 159, 170, 171, 173, 177, 178, 184, 189, 205, 222, 223, 246, 248 secular beliefs, 34, 49, 115 Secular Humanism, 16, 22, 128, 145 secular humanistic worldview, 22, 145 secular humanists, 23, 144 secular worldviews, ix, 9, 12, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25, 28, 53, 58, 64, 73, 74, 81, 83, 86, 89, 90, 92, 97, 99, 103, 106, 110, 115, 116, 123, 128, 135, 143, 144, 159, 169, 171, 178–181, 193, 202, 205, 239, 246, 248, 249 Shabbat, 113 Shriners, 116 Sierra Club, 117 Sikhs, 51, 105, 106, 114 Sikh turban, 51 Sioux, 88 Smudging, 105 Social constructionism, 7, 12 social construction, 7, 204

306 

SUBJECT INDEX

Social Darwinism Spenserian Social Darwinism, 99 Social intelligence, 15 Soul, 79, 87, 88, 130, 133, 138, 167–170, 179, 180, 192, 195, 239, 240 South Africa(n), xi, xii, 221, 222 Southern Christian Leadership Conference, 215 Spain, 63 Spirit journeys, 105 Spiritual intelligence, 15 Stanford University, 193 Starbucks, 102, 118 “Story of the Two Wolves,” 97 Sufism, 87 Sukkot, 113 Summer solstice, 105 Sun dances, 105 Sunni, 141 Supreme Being, 79, 90, 156 Supreme Spirit, 79, 88, 92, 97 Sutras, 78 Symbol(s), ix, 5, 12, 18, 23, 25, 26, 51, 103–111, 117, 176, 223, 246 T Taliban, 141 “Talking Circles,” 41 Talmud, 75 Tanakh, 74, 75, 204 Tantras, 78 Tao, Taoism, 127 Teleological, 157, 189 Ten Commandments, 89, 128 Theist, 126, 134, 182, 184–186, 190, 191, 195 Theology theologians, 4, 23, 27, 78, 85–87, 121, 122, 130–132, 140, 142, 149, 157, 166, 182, 184, 189, 192, 195, 196, 216, 248

Theravada, 79 Torah Oral Torah, 75, 95 Written Torah, 75, 95 Transcendent, 6, 12, 20, 22, 45, 75, 76, 78, 82, 86–89, 92–94, 110, 124, 127, 134, 156, 158–161, 182, 183, 239, 248 Truth and Reconciliation Committee, 69 Turban, 51, 104, 110 Turkey, 64 Twin Towers, 109 “Two spirited,” 38, 158 U Ukraine, 107 Ukrainian-Canadians, 57 Unitarian/Universalist Church, 128 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, 99, 213, 214, 220, 221, 249 United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 206 United Nations General Assembly, 206 United States (US), 40, 47, 51, 56, 63–65, 106, 111, 150, 153, 198, 212, 215, 217, 218, 223, 229, 243 Universal Product Code (UPC), 109 Universal/particular, 28, 209–243 University of Alberta, xi University of Utah, 60 Unpregnancy, 231 Upanishads, 79 Utilitarianism, 44, 145, 241, 242 V Vajrayana, 79 Vedas, 79, 96, 204

  SUBJECT INDEX 

Veil, 96, 164 Victorian, 84 Views of life, 13, 14, 43 Voortman Cookies, 147 W Wakan Tanka, 88 “Washington Consensus,” 153 Washington DC, 117, 216 Ways of life, 9, 14, 43, 53, 56–58, 73, 114, 115, 209, 246 Wealth of Nations, 83 Weltanschauung, 3, 5 Weltbild, 5 Western world, 1, 23, 36–39, 49, 51, 55, 62, 72, 76, 79, 81, 115, 130, 142, 144, 159, 161, 176, 177, 215, 225, 239

307

Whare Tapere, 114 Whirling Dervishes, 43 Wiccan, 158 Wolastoqey First Nation People, 128 “Woodstock for Atheists,” 117 World Atheist Conference, 117 World Bank, 153 World Cup, 64 World outlook, 13 World Trade Center, 109 Worldview, ix, 1, 15–24, 32, 71, 123, 176, 178–181, 209, 245 Wright, Robin, 216 Y Yarmulke, 105, 223 Yom Kippur, 104, 113