Is 'no religion' a new religion?

I put two cups of mixed fruit into a saucepan and pour a couple cups of fruit juice over it. Then I sift self-rising flour as I stir it and then put in the oven to bake for a couple of hours.

These are common ingredients for a fruit cake. But when it is baked, I don't want to name it for what it is. I call it a non-cake, a furphy cake. However, it had the primary ingredients of a fruit cake and was baked to be served for afternoon tea when my neighbours visited.

It seems that the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) is offering a parallel option with the 'no religion' category in the 2016 census on 9 August 2016. It's something that has all of the ingredients but doesn't want to be labelled as the product it is. Is there such a category as those who practise 'no religion'? It was there in the 2011 Census at the bottom of the list of the question. That has changed.

The 2016 Census paper has the category, 'No religion', at the top of Q 19: 'What is the person's religion?' See this comparison of 2011 and 2016 Census Forms (image courtesy Hugh Harris, October 31, 2015, New Matilda):

The ABS media release (2 April 2013) on 'religious affiliation emerging as key theme in 2016 Census topic consultation', stated that submissions to that date supported the retention of religious affiliation in the Census. But 'the majority have requested that the question be modified to better capture information about people with no religion'.

This article will tease out the possibility that what appears to be 'no religion' in a worldview is religion after all. This will not make me a friend of the no-religionists.

The nitty gritty of this subtle change in the Census is more profound than it looks on the surface, by placing it as a first option in 2016 rather than the last option, as in 2011. An overt rationalist such as Hugh Harris could be licking his chops over this new placement of the category. However, there is a big BUT that needs answering! Part of his article's title is, 'A subtle tweak to the 2016 Census form might finally deliver a truly secular Australia'. This article wants us to believe that secularism is a worldview of 'no religion'. Is that true?

Is it possible to live a life in Australia and practise no religion? 'No religion' is appealing if one is not a Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Taoist, or Shintoist. BUT is a person not practising religion if the worldview is identified as rationalism, secularism, capitalism, socialism, atheism or environmentalism?

Dr N T Wright, professor of New Testament and early Christianity, University of St. Andrews, Scotland, considers that worldviews are like foundations of a house that are vital, but invisible. They are the grid through which people organise reality. We see them through the beliefs and aims of a person. They will be seen in how these beliefs and aims impact on the world, the individual person, views of society, and one's god. Wright (1992:126) diagrams it as:

A fundamental: What is religion?

To deal with the issues surrounding religion, including whether it is appropriate to make it the No 1 option for 'What is the person's religion?' we need to address the larger question on the nature of religion.

The Macquarie Dictionary's (1997, 3^rd ed) definition of religion includes these ingredients (remember the fruit cake): It is 'the quest for the values of the ideal life involving three phases, the ideal, the practices for attaining the values of the ideal, and the theology or world view relating the quest to the environing universe'.

That definition would include theistic and non-theistic religions such as Christianity, Buddhism and Taoism. However, I suggest here that it also could embrace other worldviews or religions, including secularism, rationalism and atheism. So the 'no religion' category is as religious as any of the other categories listed in the ABS 2016 Census form that asks: 'What is the person's religion?' I'm jumping ahead of myself. Put on your thinking caps.

In following the Macquarie Dictionary, I'm using religion and worldview as essentially equivalent concepts as the dictionary associates religion with worldview and praxis (practice, as opposed to theory). So religion amounts to worldview in action.

This involves examining the values of the ideal in life. Is that ideal to live life without any encounter with the God or ultimate of theism or non-theism? If the way to that ideal is through the use of reason in secularism, rationalism and atheism, it is suggested that that makes these three –isms into religions. That's because, according to the Macquarie Dictionary, the quest for the values of the ideal life are through a worldview that is a quest of the 'environing universe'. I take 'environing universe' to refer to the finite environment of the universe in which a person seeks the ideal life.

Every religion or worldview will be a quest, like looking through a set of spectacles, by which we examine a range of aspects of our world consciously or unconsciously.

Religion difficult to define

Academics have found the ingredients of religion difficult to identify. Wright (1992:124-25) refers to 'the slippery word religion' that 'focuses upon symbol and praxis, but draws more specific attention to the fact that symbol and praxis point beyond themselves to a controlling story or set of controlling stories which invest them with wider significance'.

Michael Bird, lecturer in theology, Ridley College (Anglican), Melbourne has ventured to state it refers to 'a blend of identity, symbol, purpose, behaviour, community and hope. If this is what religion is, then at its best it can make significant contributions to the lives of individuals and to our communities'. In writing for ABC Religion & Ethics (23 Sept 2015) he stated that 'religion is more than dogma and rules. It is a mixture of worldview and praxis that permeates all of peoples' lives'.

If we take Michael Bird's blends that contribute to religion and apply them to secularism, we find the Rationalist Society of Australia (RSA) promoting its own religion through….

· Secular identity in a '10 Point Plan for a Secular Australia'. This reads like a statement of faith that includes views on secular, pluralistic, democratic Australia; separation between religion and the State; one law for all and that includes religious organisations being subject to the same laws as other organisations; education to be strictly secular, etc. This is a very religious manifesto with the language seeming to expose and oppose religion when it is supporting its own religion – secularism.

· Symbols or rituals. In this 10-point plan, these rituals for a secular Australia include no discrimination on the basis of a person's sexual or gender identity and freedom of reproductive choice without religious interference. What is short-sighted about this view is that it is as religious as the view it opposes because it includes rituals that are as legalistic as those of its opponents. Isn't it appealing that in opposing separation of religion from the State, secularism imposes its own religion on the State. It's a self-defeating argument.

· The purpose is stated clearly. It's a 10-point plan for a secular Australia, but without recognising the religious dynamics of such a view.

· As far as promoting purpose, the RSA's purpose is stated in its endorsing the words of former High Court judge, Michael Kirby, who said, 'The principle of secularism is one of the greatest developments in human rights in the world. We must safeguard and protect it, for it can come under threat in contemporary Australia'. I ask: why secularism has to be democratic as in the 10-point plan? Why can't it be totalitarian under Stalin or Mao? The fundamental in any worldview is: Who or what decides the content of human rights?

Kirby and the RSA promote secularism as the be all and end all of ultimate values for such a task. It should be obvious that such values come out of the minds of finite human beings. This is far removed from any recognition of the Lord God's giving the absolutes of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20) that were affirmed by Jesus Christ himself in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). I don't expect secularists to accept such an assessment as God-given human rights but they have no foundation on which to reject such if I choose to accept and promote them. These Christian values have as much clout as those of secularists if human beings are the ones who create secular values. They are not the values I espouse, but the secularist has no fundamental right to oppose my Christian absolutes as inauthentic if I promote them.

· The ethical values and behaviour towards others includes promotion of overt secularism that is made evident in its active presence on the Internet, writings of Hugh Harris in the mass media, opposition to religious instruction (RI) in the state schools, support of those who oppose such RI, and opposition to school chaplaincy.

· Regarding the fostering of community of true believers in secularism, the Rationalist community includes a monthly Think Tank meeting in Melbourne. It has created a hub of rational secularists designed to attract rationalists to its website.

· What hope does it offer? In a discussion of rationality vs emotionality, a psychotherapist, philosopher and journalist dialogue on the 'road to the good life' and the comment section on the RSA website is open for involvement. So, for the rational secularist, the hope is the good life, without God. But it is just as religious as any theistic view because of the ingredients of its religion.

What is truth?

Pontius Pilate in condemning Jesus Christ to be crucified, asked, 'What is truth' (John 18:38)? The answer to this question profoundly influences the content of religion. Philosopher of religion, Anthony Thiselton, considered that the claims of truth, rationality and coherence are among the ingredients of religion.

If it's true, does it match the reality around and in us? This applies to the external world as much as to internal conscience. As for rationality, reason allows us to use critical thinking of knowledge to discern if secularism is a religion or if we need to be a theist or non-theist to be religious. Rationality helps to address some of the false assumptions behind, say, secularism where its attack on Christianity is seen to be self-defeating. This is not because Christianity is not a religion, but because secularism does not see its own secular values as religious. Christianity is open to the same kind of critical assessment through reason.

When a worldview is said to cohere, we refer to what Indian-Canadian Christian apologist, Ravi Zacharias, has stated: Any worldview must answer four questions as they relate to origins, the condition of human beings, how to be saved from that condition, and the destiny of people. What is the truth about these four major areas of discussion? This will answer questions about God, reality, knowledge, morality and human beings. This is an assessment from one who was born in Chennai, India and migrated to Canada as a 20-year-old.

Confronting the facts of the Australian constitution

According to the Australian Constitution, Section 116,

'The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth'.

Therefore, to establish secularism as a religion of Australia with its practical ramifications would violate the Australian Constitution. To insist that secularism be imposed on the school system or parliament would violate Section 116 of the Constitution just as much as imposing Christianity on it.

The issue points to this rationale: Those who are opposing religion in the schools and government are as religious in their views as any theist or non-theistic religion. It is time for the atheists, agnostics, secularists, rationalists and environmentalists to own up to the nature of their religion or worldview. It is every bit as religious as Christianity or Buddhism.

It is an example of one-eyed intolerance to see Christianity as religion and not see secularism as religion.

In addition, the Christian religion was brought to Australia when the first fleet arrived in 1788 with the Anglican evangelical chaplain, Richard Johnson, on board. Our Head of State, Queen Elizabeth II – represented by the Governor-General – affirmed the Christian faith at her coronation on 2 June 1953.

Our foundations for law and order and parliamentary democracy are based on the Christian faith and the Westminster parliamentary system. Christianity should not be impaired because the religion of secularism wants its own way. Where would Australia's welfare system be without the backbone contribution of Christian communities that have worked with governments for the common good of Australians?

Even British scientist and God-slayer, Richard Dawkins, who now calls himself an agnostic (not being 100% sure God does not exist), has made this controversial statement:

(image courtesy Thomas D Williams Ph.D., 12 Jan 2016, Breitbart Connect)

What's the person's religion?

So, is the option at the top of Q. 19 of the 2016 Census important: 'What's the person's religion?' To make the number 1 selection, 'No religion', is profoundly misleading, in my view, for these reasons:

As indicated by associate professor of theology and philosophy, James Anderson, a worldview (or religion as defined above) is an overview of the world, not physically, but philosophically. It views all reality and has a profound impact on everything we say and do. Its beliefs deal with these big questions:

• Is there a God/god and what is he like?
• Does it matter if there is no God?
• Is there truth and how can we know it?
• What are the origins of the universe?
• Is there meaning and purpose to life?
• How do I find the good life and live it with the best I have?
• Is there life after death?
• To live in this world, we need a satisfactory worldview, like a set of glasses that is as indispensable as breathing.
• It's essential for our living in the world, but most often it sits in the background. Through it, we interpret our world of thought and experiences (Anderson 2014:12-14).

Perhaps we should settle with Paul Griffiths' understanding of religion since the time of the Protestant Reformation: it is 'a type of which there are many tokens'. While dollars, pounds and yen are tokens of currency, it is more difficult to define tokens of religion that might include Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, secularism and rationalism.

Conclusion

For Australia's Census, my evaluation is that the Australian Bureau of Statistics should abandon its 'no religion' category because it is undefined and leads to the false impression that worldviews such as secularism and rationalism are not religions – when they are.

The ABS's 'no religion' category on the Census is parallel to labelling a fruit cake as a no-cake for public display and use. It's a misleading category that tries to divert attention away from the obvious religious nature of secularism and rationalism.

Therefore, instead of checking the 'no religion' category, I recommend that those who support secularism, rationalism, capitalism, socialism and environmentalism write these words in the 'Other (please specify)' option as the last choice in Q 19 of the Census.

Spencer Gear PhD is a retired counselling manager, independent researcher, Christian minister and freelance writer living in Brisbane Qld.