Much of what has been said about the succession of, and attitude towards, disciplinary matrixes or 'paradigms' in science need not exclusively hold for science at all, but could be applied to other departments or subdepartments of disciplinary thought as well. In this and the following section we will consider some of the similarities and differences between the theory of the history and future of scientific paradigms as outlined in the previous section, and a theory of the history and future of denominational paradigms. A denominational paradigm is, then, a (religious or nonreligious) comprehensive ideology which plays a dominant part in a certain community because it is generally adhered to, or made to adhere to, in that community. This definition may still be vague --what does community mean, for instance?-- but here it need not be more accurate than the concepts used in the theory of scientific paradigms or in other theories propounded by philosophers of science.

What are the most plausible things the analogy reveals to us? First of all, it reveals to us --again, for all but the most ignorant-- that a religion or nonreligious, denominational doctrine has never been, and never will be, abandoned because it has been falsified. Like 'normal scientists', 'normal denominationalists' always have tried, and will try, to interpret the facts and modes in such a way that they do not contradict the dominant religion or nonreligious ideology, or else they will reinterpret or restrict the assertions of that dominant ideology to make them correspond with new facts and modes. The distortion of language and truth may be outrageous, yet they will do it. (For example, if the end of the world was predicted several millenniums ago in their religion, they may retort that for their god one day may be a thousand years and a thousand years one day.)

That the falsification of religious or theodemonical belief does in no way affect adherence to such belief was discovered a long time ago. When, with the advent of modern science, the key theme of atheist arguments became the relationship between science and religion, the problems of this relationship were viewed from a purely epistemological standpoint. So it was naively believed that the future of religion would depend on the progress of science in that science would disprove the crucial assertions of religion and theodemonism. In the meantime history has demonstrated, however, how silly these expectations were, and that --as said elsewhere-- the 'exposure of the contradictoriness of religious symbols and dogmas proves to be completely inadequate'. (Certain exponents of atheist ideology have subsequently started concentrating on science and religion as 'specific components of the intellectual life and social system as a whole serving different objective needs and performing particular social functions'. Their interest is not really in the truth of statements about the external world. Instead of elevating ideology to the level of science, these atheists drag science down to the level of ideology; traditional ideology, that is.)

Another thing which the analogy between paradigms in science and in denominationalism teaches us, is the occurrence in the past and/or present and/or future of denominational crises. Also in the denominational field a crisis is a necessary precondition for the emergence of a new paradigm with its own conceptual apparatus and symbolism. Such a crisis situation is found in this field, when the old denominational paradigm (for example, the state's monotheist ideology) is bankrupt of original ideas and has exhausted its plausible intellectual supplies; when it is confronted with too many or too serious anomalies it cannot adequately cope with anymore. While the loyal agents of the old lights stick to the descriptions and prescriptions which have been churned out for centuries or millenniums, many people in the community or society concerned begin to lose, or have already lost, faith. The traditional standards of conduct and belief become weaker and weaker or vanish altogether. It is in such a state of anomie that 'spiritual culture' is often said to be at a low ebb. But altho some people start to search for an alternative the denominational doctrine (or family of denominational doctrines) which has led the community or society into crisis or anomie will not yet be apostatized officially, publicly or by the majority of people. It is only if, and when, a suitable denominational alternative is available that this can happen, for the decision to reject the traditionally dominant ideology is at the same time a decision to accept another doctrine as the new denominational paradigm. And whereas it may be exaggerated to call such a decision "a traumatic one" in science, in the ideological field it can be a really traumatic one because what is at stake here is people's denomination, that is, their 'name': the name in which they and their forbears have always gone (and forgone). When that denomination changes, it is as tho their own identity as a person changes. Yet, it is not necessary that in a time of denominational crisis people individually renounce their old belief and accept a new one. (If the adherents of that old belief do so grossly violate other people's rights that their actions cannot be tolerated anymore, they will have to be restrained, but they still do not have to be forced to renounce their belief itself.) Again like in science, the paradigm which has been in force in the community as a whole can in principle be replaced without anyone personally falling away from 'er religion or other ideology. The traditional belief system may simply disappear or lose its hegemony with the passing on of the old generation or generations.