Why a new term for belief systems could end centuries of religious conflict

Ideas & Philosophy · Published 3 October 2026 Swipe more like this →

In short: In the mid-1970s, humanists coined the term life stance to bridge the divide between religious and non-religious worldviews. By focusing on what individuals hold as ultimately important, this label aims to foster mutual respect and bypass the baggage associated with the word religion, creating a shared vocabulary for all.

The concept of a life stance emerged from educational debates in Britain, specifically the 1975 Birmingham Agreed Syllabus for Religious Education. Harry Stopes-Roe, a key figure in the Rationalist Press Association and British Humanist Association, championed the term to provide a neutral, inclusive framework. Unlike religion, which often carries connotations of supernaturalism or specific institutional rituals, a life stance describes the style and content of an individual's relationship with what they deem of ultimate importance. It encompasses both theistic and non-theistic perspectives, from Buddhism and Christianity to Humanism and Deep Ecology.

Stopes-Roe intended the term to resolve long-standing friction within the Humanist movement itself. Many humanists were deeply divided over the word religion, with some viewing it with intense antipathy and others with concern. By adopting life stance, Stopes-Roe hoped to move past these semantic battles and establish a clear, respected identity for Humanism that did not rely on being a pseudo-religion. The term emphasizes that every person, whether religious or not, operates from a set of presuppositions and commitments that shape their moral values and daily life.

To be considered a life stance, a belief system must attain a certain level of cohesion, seriousness, and importance. It functions as an integrated perspective on reality, dictating how one assigns value to the world. While some life stances, like Humanism, treat their core principles as having intrinsic value, others may use these values instrumentally. Ultimately, the framework is designed to be non-discriminatory, allowing for dialogue between different groups without forcing them to adopt the traditional, often divisive, language of sacred versus profane domains.

General information, not professional advice. Spotted an error? Flag the card or see corrections and complaints.

Intellect Plus is a visual educational discovery platform for exploring fascinating facts and ideas. Brain Food, Not Brain Rot. What is Intellect Plus?

Related

• Why do humans believe? From armchair speculation to the deep study of meaning
• Secular humanism, from Victorian positivist churches to ethics without God
• Is the human mind biologically hard-wired for religious belief?
• Why the modern concept of religion is a relatively recent Western invention
• Why some thinkers avoid the word atheism to escape a moral stigma
• Logical reasoning is the rigorous art of connecting premises to reach a sound conclusion.
• Why Martin Luther King, Jr. argued for direct action in his jailhouse letter
• The Lord Chancellor: From Keeper of the King's Conscience to Modern Minister of Justice
• Bravery is not the absence of fear but a relationship with it
• Golfers handed a so-called lucky ball actually played better
• Is the world you see just a shadow on a wall?
• Why your daily moral choices matter more than grand universal ethical principles

More in Philosophy · More in Ideas & Philosophy · Latest · A–Z · All topics