Everyone has a different way in which they view the world, however, their worldviews are influenced by many

things, especially their religious views. The specific religious understandings on things such as how the world came into being and what humanity means influences everything in their lives. The interview subject, Tom, is married and in his thirties. He is from France and is very philosophical in his approach to life. He mentioned in the interview that he believes it a good idea to have an understanding of what he believes in and how it impacts on his life. He said that his beliefs have been a gradual process and that he has worked through them and what they mean since he became an adult. This paper will examine Toms belief system through the use of some of the questions pertaining to worldviews which are used in Sires (2004, p.20-22) book. It will examine what he sees as beliefs, and his opinions on God, history, death, ethics, and how his culture has influenced his worldview. When asked about his beliefs, Tom said that he did not believe that ones actions should be done specifically for what other people think. He gave the example of religious communities. He sees religious communities as a form of manipulation and that those who cling to such communities are weak. He believes that true faith is personal and that there is no need for one man to tell many others what they should believe this can lead to manipulation of the followers and offers opportunities for corruption and justification of this corruption by the leaders. He was very adamant about a personal belief system, especially to do with morals and ethics. This view is very similar to that of a Marxist. Marx saw religion as an ideology (Smith & Burr, 2007, p.176) and that it was either used as a means to control people or as a crutch by people who are having a crisis (Hamilton, 2005, p.23-24; McCutcheon, 2005, p.12-13).

Toms views on God are rather interesting. He claims to not believe in a God. He sees God as a concept which man invented to explain things which they did not understand or that frightened them. He believes that religion is the opiate of the people being that it is used to dull or deaden pain or it is used as a crutch by people use as a means by which to cope with situations or circumstances. He sees the various forms of religion using God as a way to manipulating people to achieve the purposes of a few. However, he went on to say that if he was going to believe in a God it would be more likely that that God would be found in nature: in the wind, water, and spirit. He sees these as less manipulative than formal religions. The phrase he quotes about religion being the opiate of the people is one of Karl Marxs sayings (Aron, 2001, p.vii; Hamilton, p.23-24; Park, 2010, p.161). His views on religion appear to have a very strong Marxist influence. Toms view on God given here is that of an atheist. An atheist denies the existence of a God (Clark, 1978, p.82). Marx particularly agreed with this viewpoint he saw God as a creation of mankind (McGrath, 2005, p.316). Sire calls this worldview secular humanism and it is a form of naturalism (p.7686). Tom is from France, which he notes is not known for its Church and State relationship but rather for its secularism. This came about as part of the French Revolution. For the French, their history is still having an influence on their culture. As such, he did not grow up with any real religious influence because it was just not important and it is possible to grow up without ever having any contact with churches at all. This, he suggested, is a possible reason for his belief system. He said that if he had grown up somewhere else then he might have had a different way of thinking but since he did not then it is a slightly irrelevant thought. He believes the history of his country the revolution of injustice has had an influence on his beliefs. He sees what was fought for as

honourable and what he wants to aspire to. When asked if his beliefs provide any sense of hope or sense of purpose in his life, Toms response was in the negative. He notes that because he does not believe in a God then that implies that there is no life after death there is simply this life. He also said that the purpose of life is just to live it; there is no real sense or meaning. Tom went on to say that the way he deals with this is just to live in a way that shows caring for others and to help them as much as possible. Toms understanding of death is similar to what Sire suggests in his chapter on Naturalism, which Marxism falls under. Sire writes that death is extinction of personality and individuality (p.67). When a person dies, that is the end; they cease to exist after that (p.67-68). With regards to ethics, Tom believes that the actions he does, especially with his relationships with other people should come from within he wants to show he cares and does not believe that what the majority of people think is actually right it should be a personal belief that what he is doing is right and this is right for him alone. Tom believes that his sense of humanity, respect of others and justice are the most important things in his system of beliefs. There appears to be a strong element of personal ethics and morals in his belief system. Woods (1993) mentions that Marxism tends to be confusing in its approach to ethics. It seems that there is a division between theory and action. Whilst ethics should be personal, when one persons ethics affect other people then it becomes a problem. Since Marxism is about freedom the fact that ethics can inflict unfreedom on others. This is where the problem lies (p.512-513). Tom does not appear to have that type of understanding with regards to his ethics. His ethics are concerned with the wellbeing of others.

When he was asked whether his beliefs influence the people around him, his response was both yes and no. He said that he tended to gravitate to people who have the same kind of worldview as what he does, so that they did not really have much of an influence except that they were all similar. But he went on to say that if he did have a different worldview to someone else, then that does not really matter because they would not really discuss it. He would prefer to talk about anything else than argue about religious beliefs. He explained that he would respect their beliefs if they respected his. He gave the example of his relationship with his wife for this. She is religious and he is not, so they have compromised: she did not have a religious wedding and he agreed that if they have any children, then they will be baptised. He believes that this sort of compromise should be made in all relationships where people have different worldviews he believes that it is a form of respect. This was an interesting interview because my understanding of the persons beliefs was vastly different to what they said they were. It was fascinating to find out how the society in which one grows up does play a factor in the worldview which one adopts. Tom commented himself that he was not sure if he had of grown up somewhere else, if he would have had the same beliefs as what he has now. It was interesting to learn how another person lives a worldview which they themselves claim is hopeless and the compensations which they make for this hopelessness. The fact that he is concerned for others and his strong family values are part of this. It was a bit difficult to see a fingerprint of God in Toms worldview, however, his ethics and family values could be seen as it. Toms religious views, such as they are, are a blend of many different styles. They are a mix of different kinds of understandings and

he does not appear to subscribe to any one particular religious belief. However, the dominant worldview that is seen in Toms belief system is that of Marxism. Marxism is an atheistic worldview, putting the emphasis on man rather than on any higher being. It is a hopeless worldview, which Tom acknowledges, but it seems he tries to make up for it by doing the best he can and caring for other people. This is one element of Marxism he did not seem to adopt the ethics. Toms personal ethics are people focused whereas Marxism is focused on freedom of all people and not infringing anyones rights, regardless of whether you are doing them a good deed or not.

Aron, R. (2001). The opium of the intellectuals. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Clark, R. E. D. (1978). Athiesm. In J. D. Douglas & E. E. Cairns. (Eds.). The new international dictionary of the Christian church. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Hamilton, M. (2005). The sociology of religion. In C. Partridge. (Ed.). The new lion handbook: the worlds religions (3rd Ed.). Oxford, UK: Lion Hudson. McCutcheon, R. (2005). Understanding religion. In C. Partridge. (Ed.). The new lion handbook: the worlds religions (3rd Ed.). Oxford, UK: Lion Hudson. McGrath, A. (2005). Christianity: a historical overview. In C. Partridge. (Ed.). The new lion handbook: the worlds religions (3rd Ed.). Oxford, UK: Lion Hudson. Pack, S. J. (2010). Aristotle, Adam Smith and Karl Marx. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Sire, J. W. (2004). The universe next door (4th ed.). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Smith, D. W. & Burr, E. G. (2007). Understanding world religions: a road map for justice and peace. Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc. Woods, A. (1993). Marx against morality. In P. Singer. (ed.). A companion to ethics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.