Dialogue with Non-Religious Worldviews
Defining the Non-Religious Worldviews
Religious dialogue in the twenty-first century does not only take place between different faiths — it also takes place between religious and non-religious worldviews. These are not fringe positions: according to the 2021 census, for the first time fewer than half of people in England and Wales described themselves as Christian, and around 37% identified as having no religion at all. Understanding what non-religious worldviews actually claim is therefore essential for intelligent dialogue.
Atheism is the claim that there is no God or gods. It is not merely the absence of belief; it is the conclusion that the arguments and evidence for theism are insufficient or defeated. Atheism is ancient — the Greek philosopher Diagoras of Melos was called an atheist in the fifth century BCE — but its modern form, supported by developments in science and philosophy, is the most widespread in human history. Contemporary atheism is closely associated with figures such as Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion, 2006) and Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great, 2007), who argue that religious belief is not only false but actively harmful.
Agnosticism is a distinct position. The term was coined by Thomas Huxley in 1869, who used it to describe the view that the existence of God lies beyond what human reason can determine. An agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves — they suspend judgement on a question they regard as genuinely uncertain. The philosopher Bertrand Russell is a famous example: he described himself as agnostic rather than atheist because he thought neither theism nor atheism could be proven conclusively. In practice, “agnostic” is often misused to mean “not very religious” — but technically it is a specific claim about the limits of human knowledge.
Atheism is the positive rejection of belief in God (there is no God). Agnosticism is the view that God’s existence is unknown or unknowable (neither affirmed nor denied). The two are easily confused but represent different positions: an atheist makes a claim about reality; an agnostic makes a claim about knowledge.
Humanism: A Positive Non-Religious Worldview
Humanism is a positive, life-affirming worldview, not merely the rejection of religion. It holds that human beings are capable of understanding the world through reason and science, making ethical decisions through empathy and reflection, and finding meaning through human relationships, creativity and achievement — all without any need for supernatural belief. The British Humanist tradition, represented today by Humanists UK (formerly the British Humanist Association), traces its roots to Enlightenment thinkers and to philosophers such as John Stuart Mill and Auguste Comte.
Humanists UK describes its approach through five key commitments: (1) reason — using evidence and critical thinking to understand the world; (2) empathy — moral decisions should consider the impact on all people and other sentient beings; (3) hope — working to make the world better in this life, not counting on any afterlife; (4) human dignity — every person deserves respect and autonomy; and (5) humanity — human beings are fully natural, evolved beings, part of the natural world. These are not anti-religious claims; they are positive commitments that many religious people also share. This is a crucial point for dialogue: humanism is not simply the negation of religion.
One practical expression of humanism is the growth of humanist ceremonies: non-religious naming ceremonies, weddings, civil partnerships, and funerals. Humanists UK trains and registers celebrants who work with families to create meaningful ceremonies that reflect a person’s actual values and life, rather than a religious template. In 2021, Scotland became the only country in the world where humanist weddings are legally recognised in greater numbers than Church of Scotland weddings. This reflects the scale of the shift towards non-religious identity in Britain.
The Sunday Assembly — founded in London in 2013 by Sanderson Jones and Pippa Evans — meets in theatres and civic spaces, featuring singing, talks and community gathering, consciously modelled on the positive social functions of church without any supernatural beliefs. It now has branches in dozens of cities worldwide. Critics argue that this is religion without admitting it; supporters argue it is meeting genuine human needs for community and meaning through purely secular means.
Secularism as a Political Principle
Secularism in this context is a political principle, not a personal belief. A secularist is not necessarily an atheist: many religious people are secularists, believing that a neutral state best protects the freedom of all religious and non-religious people equally. The National Secular Society campaigns for a constitutional separation of religion and state in Britain — including removing bishops from the House of Lords, ending compulsory religious worship in state schools, and removing religious exemptions from equality law.
The Tony Blair Foundation (now called the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change) represents a very different approach: it engages with religion as a positive force in global politics and development, arguing that secular governments need to understand and work with religious communities rather than marginalising them. This reflects a broader debate about whether secularism means “religion has no role in public life” or “the state is neutral between religious and non-religious positions.” The second definition allows religious voices in public debate; the first does not.
Shared Values: What Religious and Non-Religious People Agree On
Despite the obvious differences, religious and non-religious worldviews share a remarkable number of values. Both are committed to human dignity — though they ground it differently (religious believers in the idea of humans made in God’s image, humanists in the inherent worth of conscious beings). Both value compassion and seek to reduce suffering. Both support freedom of conscience — the right of individuals to hold and express their own beliefs. Both value honesty, fairness, and care for the vulnerable.
Matthew 22:37–40 records Jesus identifying love of God and love of neighbour as the twin foundations of the whole Law. Humanists ground ethical concern in empathy — putting oneself in the position of others — rather than divine command, but the practical outcomes often overlap substantially. Both traditions have produced hospitals, schools, charities, and campaigns for human rights. This overlap of values is the natural starting-point for genuine dialogue: the conversation begins not with maximum disagreement but with genuine common ground.
Despite shared values, real disagreements remain. The basis of morality: religious traditions typically ground ethics in the commands or nature of God; humanists ground ethics in reason and empathy. The practical conclusions may often agree, but the reasoning is different — and this matters when conclusions diverge. For example, if a religious tradition teaches that a certain sexual behaviour is contrary to divine will, no amount of evidence about human wellbeing will resolve the disagreement at the level of first principles.
Life after death: this is perhaps the sharpest practical difference. Religious traditions generally affirm some form of life beyond death, which shapes attitudes to suffering, sacrifice, justice, and meaning. Humanists believe this life is the only life; there is no afterlife to compensate for suffering or to fulfil unfulfilled potential. This makes urgent the imperative to reduce suffering now, and changes the calculus of many ethical arguments (for example, on end-of-life care).
The nature of the universe: religious believers generally hold that the universe exists because of a personal God who created it with purpose. Humanists and atheists generally hold that the universe is natural, arose without a creator, and has no built-in purpose. This affects attitudes to environmental ethics (is the natural world sacred, or just valuable?), to human exceptionalism (are humans uniquely made in God’s image, or one species among many?), and to the grounds of human rights.
Should Secular Values Take Precedence?
The question of whether secular values should take precedence over religious values is one of the most contested in this theme. Those who say yes argue that in a diverse society, the only values that can be imposed on everyone are those that do not depend on any particular religious commitment — values derived from reason and the common good. Requiring religious compliance from non-believers is an infringement of their freedom. John 14:2 — “In my Father’s house are many rooms” — is sometimes interpreted as suggesting that different people may find their own paths; but this is a Christian text and cannot be used to compel non-Christians.
Those who say no argue that religious communities also constitute the “public,” and that their values have as much right to shape public policy as secular ones. The Humanist claim that reason alone is sufficient is itself a contested philosophical position, not a neutral default. Matthew 22:37–40 — love God and love your neighbour — generates highly practical ethical commitments (care for the poor, welcome for the stranger, opposition to oppression) that have shaped much of what Britain calls its “values” in the first place. The most intellectually honest position acknowledges that both religious and non-religious worldviews make substantive claims, and that genuine dialogue requires taking both seriously rather than assuming either is self-evidently correct.
Humanists UK, the National Secular Society, and the Tony Blair Foundation all engage with the relationship between religion and public life from different perspectives: Humanists UK grounds ethics in reason and empathy; the National Secular Society campaigns for strict separation of religion and state; the Tony Blair Institute argues for positive engagement between secular governments and religious communities.