Many people think religion is a collection of beliefs about God, the soul and the afterlife. This view of religion drains all the life out of it. It flattens religion into an interesting fact you’d find in a dusty old textbook.
When the Apostles’ Creed opens with ‘I believe,’ the Latin is credo, which means ‘I give my heart to’. That isn’t a statement that we’ve assessed the evidence and judged the propositions credible, it’s a commitment to orient our lives in that direction.
Over time we’ve traded this idea of orientation into a model of observation. On the belief view, to be religious is to first affirm claims about reality and then adopt religious practices. This is a distinctly modern way of understanding religion and one that’s influenced by a scientific way of thinking.
Science studies the world from a detached and neutral standpoint, then it builds theoretical models and tests them against observation. Within its own domain, the scientific method is effective, but it’s not a method we can use to navigate our lives. We’re embedded within the world as participants in every aspect of existence. We don’t have the option to leave the laboratory of life and go home for the day.
This modern understanding of religion is a distortion of how it actually functions in people’s lives. Religion isn’t first a theory that we can accept or reject, it’s better understood as a lived orientation toward what matters most. We already inhabit a world structured by values and priorities. It’s only from within that space that we can form beliefs about what it all means and how we should live.
Religion is a lived orientation that’s both our mode of access to the world and the structure of agency itself. It’s not an optional belief or activity, everyone lives from within an orienting framework. Our only choice is whether it’s articulated explicitly or functions implicitly and without being examined.
Why we can’t step outside our own viewpoint
Most of us have noticed that showing people evidence doesn’t always change their beliefs, it can even reinforce them. When faced with the frustration of being able to see something the other person can’t, it’s tempting to reach for an easy answer. Maybe it’s cognitive bias, self-interest or emotional attachment.
But those explanations are too quick. This resistance happens consistently across both beliefs and values. That suggests the cause is structural, that it’s not possible to step outside our own standpoint to evaluate it impartially.
When we judge a moral conflict between others, it’s easier to see who is unfair, rationalising or acting from self interest. But when we’re a participant in the same kind of situation, that clarity is much harder to achieve. The moral structure of the situation hasn’t changed, but our position within it has.
Even with an idealised model of belief formation like Bayesian reasoning where we update our beliefs with new evidence, we’re always judging against prior beliefs. The priors themselves aren’t justified from a neutral standpoint, they form the basis we use to evaluate new evidence.
In both our moral judgements and beliefs, we evaluate from within a standpoint. We can revise our standards, but that revision necessarily happens from within an existing set of standards.
We don’t float above the world observing it. To live is to be entangled. Every action moves something, the words we use can change outcomes.
Even though we can’t step outside our own standpoint to evaluate it, somehow we maintain a coherent standpoint from which to act. That means the conditions for that coherence can’t be something external to the standpoint. They must be internal to its structure.
How a standpoint holds together
If the internal structure of our standpoint maintains its coherence, what preserves that coherence over time?
A standpoint isn’t just a collection of individual beliefs or values. It’s the underlying structure needed to stabilise our lives as a whole. It must integrate value and belief with action, not just organise each one separately.
Our beliefs and values change and are sometimes in tension. We have incomplete information and conflicting goals. Our environment is always in flux and our evaluative reasoning only works in a prior orientation.
Imagine someone who is offered a job with better pay and career advancement. But it also means they have to move a long distance from family and friends. Their beliefs and values are in tension. They believe in fulfilling their ambitions, but they also believe family and social roots are important. They can reason about the choice, list the pros and cons, but their reasoning can’t tell them whether career should take precedence over family.
At the same time, their indecision is being progressively informed by their actions. When they talk to their family and friends about leaving, they discover they feel something more than inconvenience. When they imagine turning down the job they notice they feel something more than just relief. Their actions and reactions are already telling them which direction matters more to them before they’ve made a conscious decision.
Throughout the process, they occupy a stable standpoint while they work through the tension. That standpoint isn’t any individual element, it’s the structure that organises them. This is true of everyone, not only someone facing a difficult decision. Without that structure, if those elements were unconnected, there would only be impulses and immediate reactions. It’s the underlying organisation of belief, value, and action that gives our standpoint its coherence.
Why agency requires an orientation
What are the conditions required for coherent agency? Think about what’s needed to create ‘you’, an individual with your distinct flavour of preferences and motivations.
You have to be the same person you were last week, there has to be continuity in what you care about. Some things matter to you more than others and those values have to be consistent across changing situations to be recognisable as yours. Your actions have to express those values in a coordinated way, you’re not reacting to the world haphazardly, your actions are expressing your beliefs and values.
This coordination can’t come from isolated beliefs, feelings or decisions. There must be an underlying structure organising all those elements. A person isn’t a random collection of impulses or uncoordinated reactions, they have a characteristic way of moving through the world. That structure is the stable orientation toward the world that is recognisably you.
This orientation is what I’ll call our worldview.
Our orientation can be compared to flying a kite. Keeping the kite aloft depends on its attitude, the angle at which it faces the wind. The attitude isn’t something that’s set once and then stays the same, it needs constant adjustments to stay aloft. Change it too drastically and everything comes apart.
A worldview works the same way, it’s not just a map of what’s real and valuable. It’s the structure that organises all those elements into a stable and persistent self.
Worldviews are the structure of agency.
Every worldview is organised around a highest good
Most of us have an acceptable sounding answer to what matters most to us. But the truth of it is revealed in our actions, what we protect when faced with difficult choices. It’s shown in what we sacrifice other things for. That repeated pattern of actions is the real answer, and it’s not always the same as our theoretical one.
That isn’t a personal failing, it’s the structure of participating in the world. We often say we would do something in theory, but it’s always a judgement that’s made without knowing the particular circumstances and context the decision takes place within. When faced with a choice of acting, the myriad of consequences that surround our choice become visible.
What ultimately matters most to us may not be clear in the moment and it can change. We can keep multiple options open in theory, but when we’re forced to act, our ranking becomes operative. When we have to decide whether to tell someone a truth that would hurt them, we must choose between honesty and kindness. The choice forces our ranking to become explicit. This doesn’t just happen when we make difficult choices, the same structure is found in every action.
If we have a hierarchy of values, there must be a standard, explicit or implicit, that organises that ranking. If that standard was just one item within the hierarchy, it would need another further standard to organise it. So in any decision, something must take precedence and function as the highest point of orientation.
Our worldview is the structure in which this value hierarchy is embedded. It’s not just a map of reality, it’s a map of what matters the most to us. Without it, there would be no way to act coherently over time. In acting, we always treat something as highest.
If our actions consistently treat some things as more important than others, patterns of orientation begin to form over time.
We discover our worldview through action. It’s revealed in what we pay attention to, what we choose under pressure and what we sacrifice for other things. Action requires real commitment because our choices have real consequences. A worldview isn’t just an intellectual map, it’s a lived structure.
If orientation is lived prior to belief, then what matters is not what we claim to value, but the structure of the life we actually inhabit. Beliefs and values are how we try to make sense of our experiences.
Which means religion can’t be about affirming certain theoretical claims. It’s concerned with making our orientation to life explicit and then deliberately pursuing what we take to be valuable.
The question isn’t whether you have a highest good, it’s whether you’ve looked closely enough to know what it is.
Religion is your worldview made explicit
A worldview is the implicit structure that’s needed to act, and our religion is an explicit articulation of that structure. Traditionally, religion has functioned as this articulation. While we all have some kind of worldview, it’s often implicit and not articulated. It’s lived, but not examined. Some people do articulate it and they make their lived orientation explicit. They name it as a recognised ideology. They reflect on it and ritualise it with intentional practices.
Rejecting religion doesn’t mean we can escape a worldview. Positions that take themselves to be neutral, non-religious or just following evidence are still operating with some kind of hierarchy of goods. The difference between worldviews isn’t between those that have them and those who don’t, it’s between those who have examined and articulated their worldview and those that inherit them without questioning.
Our worldview is necessarily individual, because no one else can occupy our standpoint or make our choices. While orientation is something each individual must live from their own standpoint, it’s rarely constructed in isolation. We inherit beliefs and values from existing religions, philosophies and our culture. To call religion an individual practice doesn’t mean it’s created in isolation, but that it only exists in how an individual lives it.
Faith is Fidelity
If religion is orientation toward a highest good rather than assent to a set of beliefs, then faith is not belief without evidence. Faith is fidelity to our ideals. Faith is orientation without guarantees.
Fidelity is an old fashioned word. It’s not flashy or exciting enough for marketing copy. It’s not something that’s impressive in any given moment, it looks rather dull from the outside. Its strength is known in its stability and its capacity to withstand all attempts to topple it.
Fidelity has gravity. Its truth is found in staying true to an ideal. When we expect our faith to overcome intellectual doubt we’ve reverted to thinking of faith as belief in facts. When we continue despite our doubts, that is faith as fidelity. Like a marriage that lasts through the long decades of a life, we look back and find the satisfaction and love was in the commitment. That our faith was true in this deeper sense, this lived sense.
We see that our chosen religion wasn’t naming some facts about the world, but instead gave a recognisable name for the direction of our life and the ideals that gave it meaning.
Religious truth isn’t merely an abstract proposition, it’s a lived alignment. The point isn’t to have a logically airtight theory, no one has that. It’s to examine your ongoing experiences, values and beliefs in light of that orientation and provide you with a coherent and consistent way of acting in the world.
Religion as belief leaves a gap between theory and life. Belief can be held without consequence. Orientation doesn’t allow that loophole. What we’re oriented toward is visible in what we do, what we sacrifice, and what ideals we can’t abandon even when our fidelity to them has a cost. What ultimately orients us isn’t about moral theories in the abstract, it’s a direction we move in and by which we judge our progress.
Religion in this sense requires transformation, not mere intellectual assent to doctrine. A good life is about what sort of life you judge worth pursuing and the efforts you make to manifest that vision in reality.
Religion, our articulated worldview, is not only a light that charts our course, it illuminates where to place our next step. It orients us toward the world, makes sense of our experience and inspires us to live according to the highest good we can conceive of.
Featured image by Joseph Ashraf on Unsplash
Unity in Difference 