The dialogue between believers and non-believers is not measured in the same way as interreligious dialogue. The institutional frameworks, points of convergence, and obstacles differ depending on whether the interlocutors share a reference to the sacred or not. This article compares these two forms of exchange to identify what makes a meeting around common questions possible, beyond faith or the absence of faith.
Dialogue between believers and non-believers versus interreligious dialogue: how the framework changes
Interreligious dialogue is based on a shared foundation: the recognition of a transcendence, even if it takes very different forms in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or Buddhism. The Second Vatican Council, in 1965, laid the groundwork for this relationship by urging Christians to recognize the spiritual values present in other traditions.
The dialogue between believers and non-believers does not have this common foundation. The exchange then focuses on ethical, anthropological, or political questions, without a shared reference to a sacred text or a ritual practice. French secularism plays a structuring role here: it guarantees equality of status between believers, atheists, and agnostics, which is a prerequisite for any exchange on an equal footing.
Initiatives like the one documented on https://www.parvisdesgentils.fr/ illustrate this approach by organizing meetings where the question of God is addressed without adherence to a religion being a prerequisite.
| Criterion | Interreligious Dialogue | Dialogue between Believers / Non-believers |
|---|---|---|
| Common Foundation | Reference to a transcendence | Ethical and anthropological questions |
| Institutional Framework | Ecclesiastical structures, interreligious councils | Associations, think tanks, universities |
| Main Obstacles | Fundamentalisms, theological misunderstandings | Mutual distrust, mutual caricatures |
| Stated Objective | Peace and cooperation between religions | Mutual understanding of positions of conscience |
| Legal Basis in France | Freedom of worship (law of 1905) | Freedom of conscience (including the absence of belief) |
Freedom of Conscience and Secularism: The Common Ground of Dialogue
Secularism, in its doctrinal evolution, is no longer limited to organizing the neutrality of the state towards religions. It now asserts that freedom of conscience protects both religious conviction and atheism or agnosticism. This point changes the very nature of the possible dialogue.
When a believer and a non-believer exchange in a secular framework, neither occupies a default position. Secularism places belief and disbelief on the same legal level. This symmetry does not exist in all countries, and it partly explains why France constitutes a particular ground for this type of meeting.
The Question of Shared Symbols
Recent debates about religious holidays in France reveal a concrete issue. These dates function as collective markers whose original significance is religious, but whose use has become secular for a large part of the population.
The discussion around a common calendar raises a fundamental question: how can symbols inherited from a religious tradition carry meaning for non-believers without losing their significance for believers? This type of debate, far from being abstract, touches on the concrete organization of collective life.
- Christian-origin holidays (Christmas, Ascension, All Saints’ Day) are experienced by the majority of the population as times of rest, regardless of their religious dimension
- The recurring proposal to add holidays related to other traditions or secular dates reignites the debate on what society chooses to celebrate together
- The issue is not to eliminate religious references, but to construct narratives that make sense for all citizens, believers or not
Concrete Obstacles to Dialogue between Faith and Disbelief
Interreligious dialogue often stumbles upon identified fundamentalisms. Pope Francis has explicitly named this obstacle by emphasizing that doctrinal rigidity on both sides hinders any openness. Between believers and non-believers, the blockages take a different form.
Mutual distrust is the first barrier. From the believer’s side, atheism is sometimes perceived as a posture of refusal or contempt. From the non-believer’s side, faith is often reduced to a form of irrationality. These symmetrical caricatures prevent the posing of important questions: what gives meaning to life? How can a common ethics be founded?
A second obstacle lies in the asymmetry of expectations. The believer engaged in dialogue may hope for a spiritual journey from their interlocutor. The non-believer may expect the believer to relativize their convictions. A productive dialogue assumes accepting that the other does not change their position.
What Religious and Secular Institutions Struggle to Organize
Interreligious dialogue structures (councils, episcopal commissions, working groups) have decades of practice and reference texts. In contrast, institutional venues for meetings between believers and non-believers remain rare and fragile.
Universities, some philosophical circles, and a few associations carry these exchanges, but without the structural support that interreligious dialogue benefits from. This difference in organization partly explains why the meeting between faith and disbelief remains more difficult to initiate and maintain over time.
Fraternity and Common Culture: Topics that Enable Meeting
When dialogue cannot rely on a shared sacred text or a common liturgical practice, it must find other anchoring points. Three themes recur in documented experiences of meeting between believers and non-believers.
- The question of human finitude: death, suffering, and mourning concern every person regardless of their beliefs. These subjects allow for authentic exchange because they touch on direct experience
- Social engagement: fraternity as a shared value transcends the divide between faith and disbelief. Concrete projects (helping the most vulnerable, welcoming, education) bring people together without requiring prior agreement on the foundations of action
- The search for meaning does not require agreement on the source of that meaning. A believer and an atheist can explore the question of the common good together without resolving the question of God
The dialogue between believers and non-believers is not intended to produce a theological consensus. It aims for a more modest and useful objective: to enable people who do not share the same convictions to cooperate on what concerns them all, from the civil calendar to the ethical choices that traverse French society.
