Janne Kontala – EMERGING NON-RELIGIOUS WORLDVIEW PROTOTYPES
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Janne Kontala | Emerging Non-religious Worldview Prototypes | 2016 Prototypes Worldview Non-religious Janne Kontala | Emerging Janne Kontala Emerging Non-religious Worldview Prototypes A Faith Q-sort-study on Finnish Group-affiliates 9 789517 658386 ISBN 978-951-765-838-6 Åbo Akademis förlag Domkyrkotorget 3, FI-20500 Åbo, Finland Tfn +358 (0)2 215 4793 E-post: forlaget@abo. Försäljning och distribution: Åbo Akademis bibliotek Domkyrkogatan 2-4, FI-20500 Åbo, Finland Tfn +358 (0)2 215 4190 E-post: publikationer@abo. EMERGING NON-RELIGIOUS WORLDVIEW PROTOTYPES Emerging Non-religious Worldview Prototypes A Faith Q-sort-study on Finnish Group-affiliates Janne Kontala Åbo Akademis förlag | Åbo Akademi University Press Åbo, Finland, 2016 CIP Cataloguing in Publication Kontala, Janne. Emerging non-religious worldview prototypes : a faith q-sort-study on Finnish group-affiliates / Janne Kontala. - Åbo : Åbo Akademi University Press, 2016. Diss.: Åbo Akademi University. ISBN 978-951-765-838-6 ISBN 978-951-765-838-6 ISBN 978-951-765-839-3(digital) Painosalama Oy Åbo 2016 ABSTRACT This thesis contributes to the growing body of research on non-religion by examining shared and differentiating patterns in the worldviews of Finnish non-religious group-affiliates. The organisa- tions represented in this study consist of the Union of Freethinkers, Finland’s Humanist Association, Finnish Sceptical Society, Prometheus Camps Support Federation and Capitol Area Atheists. 77 non-randomly selected individuals participated in the study, where their worldviews were analysed with Faith Q-sort, a Q-methodological application designed to assess subjectivity in the worldview domain. FQS was augmented with interviews to gain additional information about the emerging worldview prototypes. Three distinct worldview prototypes, or interpersonally shared preferences, could be discerned. These prototypes differ from each other along three dimensions: attitudes towards religion and spir- ituality, social and societal orientation, and emotional-experiential life. The Content Altruists have societal concerns, reject religion and spirituality moderately, and are emotionally stable and content. The Experientially Spiritual are more individualistic, reject traditional religion but are open to spir- ituality, and appreciate deep and nourishing experiences. The Communally Irreligious favour like- minded association, reject firmly and consistently both religion and spirituality, and are emotionally content, despite some signs of awareness for negative experiences. The results point to the multidimensionality of non-religion. Since FQS is able to assess both a vari- ety of different worldviews, and to discern variation internal to a specific worldview constellation, it is concluded to represent a methodological advancement in religious studies in general, and in non-religious studies in particular. Keywords: worldview, FQS, Faith Q-sort, Q-method, non-religion, irreligion, atheism, secularity, secular, freethinkers, humanists, Protu, Skepsis, Finland v ABSTRAKT Denna avhandling bidrar till forskning kring icke-religion genom att undersöka gemensamma och differentierande särdrag i världsbilder bland individer anknutna till icke-religiösa organisationer i Finland. Organisationer representerade i denna studie består av Fritänkarnas förbund, Finlands hu- manistförbund, Skepsis, Prometheus-lägrets stöd och Huvudstadsregionens ateister. 77 icke- slumpmässigt utvalda personer deltog i studien, där deras världsbilder analyserades med Faith Q- sort (FQS), en Q-metodologiskt forskningsinstrument som är avsedd för att uppskatta subjektivitet inom världsbilder. FQS kompletterades med intervjuer för att få ytterligare information om de framträdande världsbild prototyperna, eller preferenser delade mellan respondenterna . Tre olika världsbild prototyper kunde urskiljas. Dessa prototyper skiljer sig från varandra utefter tre dimensioner: attityder gentemot religion och andlighet, social och samhällelig orientering samt emotioner och upplevelser. De Belåtna Altruisterna har samhälleliga bekymmer, avvisar religion och andlighet måttligt, och är känslomässigt stabila och belåtna. De Upplevelsemässigt Andliga är mer individualistiska, förkastar traditionell religion medan de är öppna för andlighet, och de uppskattar djupa och närande erfarenheter. De Kollektivt Icke-religiösa föredrar likasinnad sällskap, avvisar bestämt och konsekvent både religion och andlighet, och är känslomässigt belåtna, trots vissa tecken på att vara medvetna om negativa erfarenheter. Resultaten pekar på att icke-religion är ett mångdimensionellt fenomen. Eftersom FQS kan både uppskatta olika världsbilder, och urskilja variation internt till en viss världsbild konstellation, dras slutsatsen att metoden representerar ett framsteg inom religionsvetenskap i allmänhet, och i icke- religiösa studier i synnerhet. Nyckelord: världsbild, FQS, Faith Q-sort, Q-metod, icke-religion, ateism, sekulär, sekularitet, fritänkare, humanister, Protu, Skepsis, Finland vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................x 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 The Scope of This Study ....................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Previous Research on Non-Religion ..................................................................................... 4 1.3 Organised Non-religion in Finland ..................................................................................... 14 2. TERMINOLOGY OF NON-RELIGION ................................................................................ 17 2.1 Atheism ............................................................................................................................... 17 2.2 Secular Humanism .............................................................................................................. 18 2.3 Scepticism ........................................................................................................................... 19 2.4 Freethought ......................................................................................................................... 20 2.5 Parent-category ................................................................................................................... 20 2.6 This-worldly and Bright ...................................................................................................... 21 2.7 Secular ................................................................................................................................ 21 2.8 Non-religion and Irreligion ................................................................................................. 23 3. WORLDVIEW THEORY ......................................................................................................... 30 3.1 Etymology of Worldview ................................................................................................... 33 3.2 Theoretical Perspectives to Worldview .............................................................................. 35 3.2.1 Individual-Social-Dimension in Worldview Theory ............................................... 37 3.2.2 Intuitive-Theoretical-Dimension in Worldview Theory.......................................... 40 3.2.3 Functions of Worldview .......................................................................................... 42 3.2.4 Contents of Worldview ............................................................................................ 43 3.3 Summary: Salient Aspects of Worldview for the Present Study ........................................ 49 3.3.1 Working Definition of Worldview .......................................................................... 50 4. METHODS FOR WORLDVIEW ASSESSMENT ................................................................. 52 4.1 How Worldviews are Expressed ......................................................................................... 52 4.1.1 Non-linguistic Physical Expressions ....................................................................... 53 4.1.2 Layered Model of Worldview and Language .......................................................... 55 4.1.3 Challenges with Studying Linguistic Expressions .................................................. 60 4.2 Methods of Assessing Linguistic Worldview Expressions ................................................. 61 4.2.1 Scales Measuring Religious Orientation ................................................................. 62 4.2.2 Conclusions about Religious-orientation scales ...................................................... 64 4.2.3 Q-method: Giving Voice to Subjective Viewpoints ................................................ 65 4.2.4 Q-methodological Research on Worldviews ........................................................... 66 4.3 Introducing Faith Q-sort ..................................................................................................... 67 4.3.1 Design ...................................................................................................................... 68 4.3.2 Domain ...................................................................................................................