Atheists & Agnostics

, , , , , , , ,

Plug-In: Pope Francis, the nones and an embattled pastor's life after Mars Hill Church

, , , , , , , ,
Plug-In: Pope Francis, the nones and an embattled pastor's life after Mars Hill Church

The next generation is leaving the Christian faith faster than parents realize, Lifeway Research’s Aaron Earls writes.

Religion cases are notably absent from the U.S. Supreme Court’s fall schedule, the Deseret News’ Kelsey Dallas notes. The question: Is that a good thing?

Surprisingly, state-level pandemic restrictions had no measurable, lasting impact on American churches, according to data cited by Christianity Today’s Daniel Silliman.

This is our weekly roundup of the top headlines and best reads in the world of faith. We start with major news we previewed last week: the Catholic Church’s Synod of Bishops on Synodality.

What To Know: The Big Story

Blessing same-sex unions: Even before the synod opened Wednesday, a doctrinal earthquake shook the Catholic world, as our own Clemente Lisi explains:

In a move that would signal a seismic shift for the Catholic Church, Pope Francis said he’s open to blessing same-sex unions and to studying the possibility of ordaining women to the priesthood.

The comments came in an eight-page letter Francis penned this past July — and released by the Vatican on Monday — in response to five cardinals who had written to the pope expressing concern about a number of issues that will be discussed at a meeting of bishops set to start Wednesday at the Vatican.

“Pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing, requested by one or several people, that do not transmit a mistaken conception of marriage,” Francis wrote.

A welcome for “everyone” — Lisi, a veteran journalist who has reported on the Vatican for years — offers additional insight in his coverage of the synod’s opening day:

Pope Francis opened a meeting of bishops at the Vatican on Wednesday by warning that the Catholic church needs to put aside “political calculations or ideological battles” and welcome “everyone” to dialogue about the faith.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

News hooks? Gender, sexual orientation and religion among American college students

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
News hooks? Gender, sexual orientation and religion among American college students

I know people will be surprised to hear this, but it’s rare for me to get my hands on some new data. I basically use two or three surveys for everything you see on this Substack and my social media.

But last week was a very good one because I got data that is a bit different, but very interesting, and quite newsworthy.

It comes from FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression), which is an organization that fights for the ability of individuals (students and faculty) to be able to freely exercise their First Amendment right to free speech. If someone on a college campus is punished for nothing more than their speech, FIRE often steps in and sues the university. You can read several examples of this on their Wikipedia page.

One of the major research projects that FIRE undertakes is an annual survey of college students to gauge how they think about the issue of free speech and if they feel like they have to stifle their speech because of hostility on campus. Often, this includes speech connected to religious beliefs.

This is a real treasure trove of data about how the next generation thinks about all kinds of topics. Their full report of their results (which runs to 85 pages) is here. The survey that they collected contains a total sample size of 55,102 respondents who had to be currently enrolled at an institution of higher learning in the United States. A thorough description of the methodology used is here and here.

I am making one adjustment to this data — I restricted my sample to just those who are between the ages of 18 and 25 years old. While I do think the views of 40-year-old graduate students are important, I wanted to just focus on college aged folks for this bit of data analysis. That means my sample is a bit smaller — 39,178. That’s still more than enough to analyze, though.

I am going to write a series of posts with this data, especially topics related to free speech and allowing speakers on campus that generate controversy, but I gleaned so much from just the demographic variables that I had to write about them specifically.

The theme here is simply three variables: sexual orientation, gender identity and religion among college-aged folks.

What really kicked this off was a report from Brown University that indicated that 38% of their student body identifies as homosexual, bisexual, queer, asexual, pansexual, questioning or other. When that same poll was conducted ten years earlier, that share was just 14%. Is Brown an outlier here? Or are huge percentages of college students not straight and/or not cisgender? Are these issues linked to religious beliefs, or the lack thereof?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , ,

Are white evangelicals devoted to Fox News? Do atheists flock over to MSNBC?

, , , , , , , , , ,
Are white evangelicals devoted to Fox News? Do atheists flock over to MSNBC?

One of my favorite things to do when the weather is nice is walk my dog. She’s a seven-pound Yorkshire terrier named Lucy. Oftentimes she wants to take a stroll around the neighborhood in the early evening and it’s a good excuse for me to stand up from the computer and actually move around a bit.

It helps to know that I live in an older neighborhood in the Midwest where many houses were built close together and only 10 feet from the sidewalk. So, I can easily see in someone’s living room when I am walking by with the dog.

I love to catch a glance at what’s on their television. Lots of times it’s the St. Louis Cardinals, but that’s a less frequent occurrence as the team has been terrible this year. But if it’s not baseball, it’s usually the news. I see a little MSNBC, a bit more of CNN, but a whole lot of Fox News. If you go to a local doctor’s office, it’s what is on the television in the waiting room. It’s really the default channel for most public spaces in rural, deep-red America.

I am not a scholar of media and politics, but there have been dozens of books written about the 24 hours news cycle and the rise of polarized outlets like Fox News and MSNBC and the impact that they are having on society and politics. But I’ve never really seen a whole lot written about religion and media consumption. It’s time to change that.

The Cooperative Election Study asks people if they have watched a variety of media outlets in the prior 24 hours. They get all the legacy networks (NBC, CBS, ABC) but also the news channels like FNC, MSNBC and CNN. The results are fascinating and every time I look at the heat map, I seem to find a little nugget that I didn’t see the previous time.

The big networks still do pretty well, honestly. A decent chunk of America is watching NBC, CBS and ABC on a regular basis. And what’s interesting is that there’s not a ton of variation from top to bottom. For example, ABC hovers between 30% and 50% for basically every group (aside from Black Protestants). The other networks are in that same range, too. There’s pretty wide penetration across all kinds of religious groups.

I was surprised how broad the viewership is for CNN.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Double-thinking about atheists: What's up with their role in America's hot public square?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Double-thinking about atheists: What's up with their role in America's hot public square?

I live in Southern Appalachia, which is in Bible Belt territory on anyone’s map of America.

Then again, I live near the Oak Ridge National Laboratory — a place where the nerdy PhD’s per-square-foot count is the same or higher than, well, the California Institute of Technology or the University of California, Berkeley. In other words, it’s surprisingly easy to run into local atheists and agnostics just about anywhere one engages in conversation (take the gym, for example).

Are these unbelievers hostile? Let’s just say that the real people I meet in this niche religious group (#ducking) are different from those I encounter in cyberspace. Maybe there’s something about the Southern Highlands that attracts friendly atheists-agnostics?

I thought about this phenomenon when I saw this recent Graphs about Religion headline from political scientist (and GetReligion contributor Ryan Burge: “Just How Much Do Americans Dislike Atheists?”

This new Burge piece reminded me of his earlier piece: “No One Participates in Politics More than Atheists — Even White Evangelicals.” Remember these reflections on the Cooperative Election Study question: “Have you done any of the following activities in the previous month?”

The group that is most likely to contact a public official? Atheists.

The group that puts up political signs at the highest rates? Atheists.

HALF of atheists report giving to a candidate or campaign in the 2020 presidential election cycle.

And while they don’t lead the pack when it comes to attending a local political meeting, they only trail Hindus by four percentage points.

Anyway, I stashed these Burge URLs in my growing “Thinker piece” file — along with a very interesting (and I would argue, related) Pew Research Center post with this headline: “One-in-six Americans have taken steps to see less of someone on social media due to religious content.”

Let’s try to connect a few dots.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , ,

Religious Right? Those true believers are nowhere near as politically active as atheists

, , , , , , ,
Religious Right? Those true believers are nowhere near as politically active as atheists

The last 40 years of politics and religion has been focused squarely on the ascendancy of the Religious Right.

I must admit that I’ve probably contributed my fair share to that discourse, as well.

A motley crew of white evangelicals and traditional Catholics locked arms on some social issues, started voting in large numbers for Republican candidates, and changed American politics forever.

But I think that era of religion and politics is rapidly coming to a close. The Religious Right is no longer a primarily religious movement — from my point of view it’s one about cultural conservatism and nearly blind support for the GOP with few trappings of any real religiosity behind it.

Here’s what I believe to be the emerging narrative of the next several decades: the rise of atheism and their unbelievably high level of political engagement in recent electoral politics. Let me put it plainly: atheists are the most politically active group in American politics today and the Democrats (and some Republicans) ignore them at their own peril.

The data is clear and unequivocal on this point - no one gets involved in the political process to the level of the average atheist.

The Cooperative Election Study always asks a nice little battery of questions about political engagement. It’s phrased simply as: have you done any of the following activities in the previous month? Because the CES is fielded in the height of election season, if someone was going to get politically active, they would be doing so in October or November of an election year.

The group that is most likely to contact a public official? Atheists.

The group that puts up political signs at the highest rates? Atheists.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

News coverage of Los Angeles Dodgers drag-nuns story reveals plenty of bad habits

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
News coverage of Los Angeles Dodgers drag-nuns story reveals plenty of bad habits

Sports have always brought people together. That’s a big reason that they have been so popular for decades.

But in our ever-polarized world around political lines, sports have taken a hit. Whether it involved NFL players taking a knee during the national anthem or NBA players supporting Black Lives Matter, sports and sports journalism have become increasingly political the last few years.

Baseball, and specifically the Los Angeles Dodgers, became the focus of controversy over the last two weeks when the team invited, then un-invited and then issued a welcome once again a group known as the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a well-known San Francisco group of queer and trans people dressed as nuns at the team’s annual Pride Night on June 16.

As many noted, there’s no way a sports franchise would have given this kind of salute to a group of traditional Catholics opposed by cultural progressives, a group like the Little Sisters of the Poor.

What took place during this entire saga is a series of predictable news-media coverage twists and turns guided by professionals who, it appears, saw this issue from their own left-right vantage points. Modern journalism is often criticized for building narratives and reading minds rather than reporting facts and interviewing both sides. This story fit that mold.

While the news coverage lacked voices from both sides in this debate, most of the reports also lacked another very important term — anti-Catholic.

Are these “nuns” anti-Catholic? It certainly depends on which side of this debate you are on and many news outlets made that clear and, thus, ignored citizens whose views were found to be heretical, in terms of current newsroom dogmas.

Take, for example, the Los Angeles Times feature that ran on May 25 that included a photo shoot with the “nuns.” Here’s how that piece opened:

Ask the L.A. Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence why they decided to join the order of drag nuns, and most of them will tell you it’s because they felt the call.

Sister Tootie Toot (glitter green lips, dark beard, emerald cocktail dress) felt it like a ton of bricks when she walked into a leather bar where several sisters had assembled.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , ,

Thinking about a sort of 'religious' question: Why do atheists have so few children?

, , , , , , , , ,
Thinking about a sort of 'religious' question: Why do atheists have so few children?

One thing I love about studying religion is that it impacts every aspect of social life. How people vote, where they live, what kind of jobs they pursue, are influenced in some way by their religious beliefs and behaviors.

One choice that is clearly shaped by religion is when (and if) adults have children and how large they want their families to be.

In the United States, the fertility rate in 2008 was 2.06 children per woman. In 2023, it’s projected to be 1.78 children per woman. Forty-nine out of 50 states had a lower fertility rate in 2020 compared to 2010 (North Dakota was the only one to buck the trend.)

Obviously, there are a ton of factors that lead to a drop in fertility. Economics is usually considered to be a leading culprit for a drop in fertility. The Great Recession is supposed to lead to an enrollment cliff in higher education in the next five years because people decided to delay pregnancy.

But here’s another explanation that may be playing a noticeable role in the drop in American fertility: the increasing secularization of the United States.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam all encourage their adherents to marry and have children. But lots of Americans don’t adhere to those faiths anymore. I wrote an entire book (actually two of them) about the rising number of Americans who reject religion entirely or, at least, organized forms of faith.

Does this actually matter, though? Do we see in the data a difference in parenting rates for atheists compared to Latter-day Saints, for instance?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , ,

Newsworthy question (again): Does God exist? The latest twist in the perennial debate

, , , , , , , , , ,
Newsworthy question (again): Does God exist? The latest twist in the perennial debate

Early on in the 21st Century -- which turns out to be a thorny era for organized religion -- the “New Atheism” replaced past skeptics’ polite colloquies with fundamentalist-style attacks that demeaned believers as pretty much fools and knaves.

Some radicals even wanted to prevent parents from training children in their family’s religious faith (without imposing the same demand on atheistic families).

Religion writers will recall the so-called “Four Horsemen” of this much-publicized mini-movement in the popular press: neuroscientist Sam Harris (author of “The End of Faith,” 2004), biologist Richard Dawkins (“The God Delusion,” 2006), cognitive studies scholar Daniel Dennett (“Breaking the Spell,” 2006), and the late journalist Christopher Hitchens (“God Is Not Great,” 2007).

Though it hardly qualifies as the start of the New Anti-Atheism, a recent book answers that quartet with a more gracious but similarly popular style that ponders God’s existence in brass-tacks terms rather than abstruse philosophical theorems. Turns out to be a highly intriguing and readable project worth media consideration.

As the subtitle signals, the author of “Atheism on Trial: A Lawyer Examines the Case for Unbelief” (InterVarsity Press) is no theologian or philosophy professor but an attorney. And not any old attorney.

W. Mark Lanier has appeared on various Best Lawyers lists for his successes as a class-action litigator in some of the biggest product liability cases of our time (click here for details), involving prescription drugs, baby powder, artificial sweeteners, metal-on-metal hip implants and more. Out of court, Lanier teaches an adult Sunday School class at Houston’s Champion Forest Baptist Church and has amassed one of the nation’s largest private libraries on religion.

Lanier offers a courtroom-style case of the sort that wins verdicts, asking his readers as jurors to consider logic, common sense and circumstantial evidence from real life.


Please respect our Commenting Policy