Belief varies enormously from person to person, especially on issues that really matter such as politics and religion. According to research by Gerard Saucier of the University of Oregon, these myriad differences can be boiled down to five basic “dimensions” (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol 104, p 921). At their core, he says, these concern what we consider to be worthy sources of value and goodness in life, whether it be a concept, an object, a supernatural being or a historical person. Your belief system is the aggregate of your position on each of these five dimensions, which are independent of each other.
1. Traditional religiousness:
level of belief in mainstream theological systems such as Christianity and Islam
Test yourself: 1 is not at all religious, 10 is very religious: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2. Subjective spirituality:
level of belief in non-material phenomena such as spirits, astrology and the paranormal
Test yourself: 1 is no belief 10 is a devotee. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3. Unmitigated self-interest:
belief in the idea that hedonism is a source of value and goodness in life
Test yourself: 1 is a low level of self-interest,10 is a devotee of it. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
4. Communal rationalism:
belief in the importance of common institutions and the exercise of reason
Test yourself: 1 is supportive, 10 is a dismissive of the idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
5. Inequality aversion:
level of tolerance of inequality in society, a proxy of the traditional left-right political split. Test yourself: 1 is no tolerance 10 is indifference. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(Graham Lawton, deputy editor of the New Scientist devised the list; I have added the self-test)
The lower your total score under all five headings the more Epicurean, and rational, you are. Or anyway, that’s my belief!
If Saucier’s analytical concepts are meant only as a tool for understanding current socio-political realities in the West, they might be useful. The categories would be of little help in any more inclusive study of human history across the millennia because the “core” vocabulary is not rigorously defined. Concepts must be powerful enough to yield understanding of all human aggregates across history including any culture or civilizations. For example, undefined “religiousness?” how would that undefined “religion” yield insights into non-Western cultures across human history?
Even the definition of “subjective spirituality” leaves out most of human experience for most of human existence: “non-material phenomena,” it seems to me, would have to include non-material love, non-material hope, non-material optimism, non-material loyalty, non-material sense of humor, etc. In Saucier’s list, though, only non-material phenomena that are understood to be of low rational and predictive of value are mentioned.
“Inequality aversion?” What would appear as an off-the-charts high level of tolerance for “inequality” in early Medieval history, for example, would earn that period (i.e., ca. 970-1300 CE) a low rating indeed on the “communal rationalism” scale. In fact, the economic and social inequality of those centuries in the West could more realistically be understood as “communal rationalism.” That is, Feudalism was indeed “unequal” but feudalism and manorialism provided a cohesive enough Western society that somehow withstood several hundred years of military invasions by state-of-the-art marauding and pillaging by Vandals, Huns, Vikings and the lot.