Abstract:
The objective of the article was to critique two cognitive strategies used by both proponents of
Christian and secular moralities to justify an exclusionary relationship between them, thus
contributing to the conflict between them. They are the cognitive strategies of foundationalism
and incompatibilism. The objective was also to resume a critical discussion of these two
strategies in Wentzel van Huyssteen’s publications. The method followed was, first, to provide
a historical reconstruction of the relationship between Christian faith and the secular and,
second, a critical analysis of Richard Dawkins’ foundationalist view of secular morality and
Stanley Hauerwas’ incompatibilist view of Christian morality. Findings were that influential
views of a positive relationship between Christian faith and secular morality are found in
history, and that the foundationalist view of Dawkins and the incompatibilist view of Hauerwas
are both untenable and contextually inappropriate. This led to the conclusion that there is no
justification for the view that Christian morality and secular moralities necessarily exclude one
another. The remaining challenge to find an alternative approach that would allow for a more
positive relationship between these two moralities and provide guidance on adaptations they
need to make was also identified.
Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: The Christian ethical research
undertaken in the article drew on research findings in the fields of Christian Ethics, Church
History, philosophy, evolutionary ethics and psychology. Research results present Christian
and philosophical ethics with the challenge to find an acceptable alternative for the problematic
foundationalist and incompatibilist approaches.