atheists

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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
, , , , , , , ,

Relevant question for modern Democrats: Are agnostics just 'light' versions of atheists?

, , , , , , , ,
Relevant question for modern Democrats: Are agnostics just 'light' versions of atheists?

It’s something that I’ve said before during presentations that felt right, but I wasn’t 100% sure — “Agnostics are a light version of atheists.”

Agnostics seem to get overlooked when it comes to talking about the nones. I know that when I’m writing about the extremes of American religion, I tend to focus on atheists the most. And, in evangelical media circles, there’s never an agnostic philosophy professor — it’s always an atheist.

So, are agnostics just a slightly more religious, slightly less liberal version of atheists? I dug through some data and I think I can say that the answer is pretty clear — “yes.”

A quick aside about the theological differences between the two groups. Atheists, by definition, believe that there is no Higher Power. They contend that everything in the world has scientific explanations and not Divine ones.

Agnostics are a bit more ambivalent about that. While atheists state, “There is no God,” agnostics would say that they don’t know if God exists and there’s no way to prove that either way. The term agnostic was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869, when he stated “(agnostic) simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.”

Let’s compare those two groups on the religious questions that exist on the Cooperative Election Study to get a sense of their theological differences.

When asked how important religion is to their lives, 92% of atheists say “not at all” while another five percent say “not too.” Agnostics are a bit more ambivalent with 74% saying “not at all” and 20% saying “not too important.”

When it comes to church attendance, the same general pattern emerges — neither group goes to services that much but atheists are even less apt to admit to any church attendance (88% say that they never go vs. 72% of agnostics).

Finally, when it comes to prayer, the gap grows larger.


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

New podcast: Gray Lady prints some complex Ryan Burge insights on Democrats and religion

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
New podcast: Gray Lady prints some complex Ryan Burge insights on Democrats and religion

Something old, something new.

Something red, something blue.

We started with something new and something blue during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in). But, as you will see, the “something old” turned out to be blue, as well.

“Blue,” of course, refers to the liberal/progressive half of the starkly divided American political scene, which also reflects, of course, divisions on moral, social, cultural and religious issues.

Oceans of mass-media ink have been poured out in recent decades by journalists covering the Religious Right and its scary impact on the Republican Party. What about the religious left — no capital letters, of course — and its impact on the Democrats?

That isn’t an important story, of course. At the start of the podcast I quoted some numbers retrieved at mid-week from some Google searches. A basic search for “Religious Right” yielded 6.5 million hits and a Google News search found 77,500 items. Do the same thing for “religious left” and you get 196,000 in the first search and 3,680 in the news search. Amazing, that.

This brings us to a New York Times op-ed essay by the increasingly omnipresent (and that’s a good thing) political scientist Ryan Burge, who contributes charts and info here at GetReligion. The headline: “A More Secular America Is Not Just a Problem for Republicans.” Here’s an early thesis statement:

Today, scholars are finding that by almost any metric they use to measure religiosity, younger generations are much more secular than their parents or grandparents. In responses to survey questions, over 40 percent of the youngest Americans claim no religious affiliation, and just a quarter say they attend religious services weekly or more.

Americans have not come to terms with how this cultural shift will affect so many facets of society — and that’s no more apparent than when it comes to the future of the Republican and Democratic Parties.

The impact on the GOP is rather obvious. While conservative religious groups remain strong in America (evangelicals are not vanishing, for example), the number of religiously unaffiliated (“nones”) continues to rise and the vague middle of the religious spectrum continues to shrink. Meanwhile, conservatives face an increasingly “woke” corporate culture and fading support on the left for old-fashioned First Amendment liberalism (think “religious liberty” framed in scare quotes).

Things get interesting — especially in the context of the Times op-ed world — when Burge discusses complications now facing Democratic Party leaders.


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

'Nothing in particular' is the growing American religion niche few are studying

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
'Nothing in particular' is the growing American religion niche few are studying

While working on the 1985 book "Habits of the Heart," the late sociologist Robert N. Bellah met "Sheila," who described her faith in words that researchers have quoted ever since.

"I can't remember the last time I went to church," she said. "My faith has carried me a long way. It's Sheilaism. Just my own little voice." The goal was to "love yourself and be gentle with yourself. … I think God would want us to take care of each other."

A decade later, during the so-called "New Age" era, researchers described a similar faith approach with this mantra -- "spiritual but not religious."

Then in the 21st Century's first decade, the Pew Research Center began charting a surge of religiously unaffiliated Americans, describing this cohort in a 2012 report with this newsy label -- "nones."

Do the math. "Nones" were 10% of America's population in 1996, 15% in 2006, 20% in 2014 and 26% in 2019. This stunning trend linked many stories that I have covered for decades, since this past week marked my 33rd anniversary writing this national "On Religion" column.

Obviously, these evolving labels described a growing phenomenon in public and private life, said political scientist Ryan Burge of Eastern Illinois University, author of the new book, "The Nones: Where They Came From, Who They Are, and Where They Are Going."

But hidden under that "nones" umbrella are divisions that deserve attention. For example, the 2018 Cooperative Congressional Election Study found that 5.7% of the American population is atheist, 5.7% agnostic and 19.9% "nothing in particular."

"When you say 'nones' and all you think about is atheists and agnostics, then you're not seeing the big picture," said Burge, who is a contributor at the GetReligion.org website I have led since 2004. "Atheists have a community. Atheists have a belief system. They are highly active when it comes to politics and public institutions.

"But these 'nothing in particular' Americans don't have any of that. They're struggling. They're disconnected from American life in so many ways."


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Why are U.S. voters so wary about electing atheists? What about voting for evangelicals?

, , , , , ,

THE QUESTION:

Why are U.S. voters so wary about electing atheists?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

Political firsts are piling up!

Joe Biden was America’s first Catholic vice president elected alongside the first Black president, Barack Obama, and hopes to be its second Catholic president. Running mate Kamala Harris would be the first female, first African-American, and first Asian-American as vice president. Jimmy Carter was not the first evangelical president but the first whose faith got such scrutiny. (See note below on how Americans view evangelical candidates.)

In other landmarks on major party tickets, losing nominees for president include the first woman, Hillary Clinton, the first Latter-day Saint, Mitt Romney, the first Eastern Orthodox candidate, Michael Dukakis, and the first Catholic, Al Smith, in 1928. Vice presidential hopefuls on losing tickets include the first Catholic, William Miller, the first woman, Geraldine Ferraro, and the first Jew, Joseph Lieberman.

Ted Cruz was the first Latino to win a primary election, and Pete Buttigieg the first openly gay candidate to do so. The halls of Congress have welcomed numerous Blacks, women, Latinos and those of other immigrant ethnicities, as well as Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims.

One exception. “Why is it so hard for atheists to get voted into Congress?” That’s the title of an October article by Pitzer College sociologist Phil Zuckerman for theconversation.com that was picked up by The Associated Press, patheos.com, Religion News Service and other outlets.

In a Gallup Poll last year, Americans said they’re willing to elect a president who is:


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

How powerful are 'nones' in Democratic Party? That's a complex issue for reporters

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sorry to bring this up again, but I really have to because of the many religion-news angles unfolding in the final weeks of this year’s presidential race, and lots of U.S. Senate races as well.

Hang in there with me. We are heading toward a puzzling passage in a recent Religion News Service analysis that ran with this headline: “ ‘Humanists for Biden-Harris’ to mobilize nonreligious vote.”

Now, that flash back: Frequent GetReligion readers will recall that, in the summer of 2007, political scientist and polling maven John C. Green spoke at a Washington Journalism Center seminar for a circle of journalists from around the world. The topic was press freedom in their home countries, but most of the journalists — especially those from Africa — wanted to talk about the young Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, who was jumping into the White House race.

The bottom line: Obama was speaking directly to Democrats in the black church, but he was also reaching out to an emerging power bloc in his party — a group Green called the “religiously unaffiliated.” These so-called “nones” were poised to form a powerful coalition with atheists, agnostics and liberal believers. They shared, you see, a common cultural enemy on many issues, as in believers in traditional forms of faith. As I wrote in 2012:

On the right side of the American religious marketplace, defined in terms of doctrine and practice, is a camp of roughly 20 percent (maybe less) of believers who are seriously trying to practice their chosen faith at the level of daily life, said Green. Then, on the other end of the spectrum, there is a growing camp of people who are atheists, agnostics or vaguely spiritual believers. …

In recent national elections this growing camp of secularists and religiously unaffiliated people have formed a powerful coalition with Catholic liberals, liberal Jews and the declining numbers of people found in America's liberal religious denominations (such as the "seven sisters" of oldline Protestantism). Add it all up, Green said in 2009, and you had a growing camp of roughly 20 percent or so on the cultural left.

The bottom line: This coalition was emerging as the dominant voice in the modern Democratic Party on matters of culture and religion.

In those days, Green was doing quite a bit of work with the Pew Research Center — so this was a foretaste of the information that would create waves of headlines with the 2012 release of the “ ‘Nones’ on the Rise” studies.

At press events linked to the release of that data, Green said, once again:


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Would the United States of America be better off without all that tacky religion stuff?

, , , , , ,
Would the United States of America be better off without all that tacky religion stuff?

THE QUESTION:

“Would America Be Better Off Without Religion?”

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

That provocative big-picture question is the title of an article by grad student Casey Chalk, which we’ll turn to after some ground-clearing. Atheism (or its cousin, agnosticism) isn’t what it used to be. Folks who didn’t believe in God used to mostly downplay it while polite public debate engaged certain thinkers like Bertrand Russell (“Why I Am Not a Christian,” 1927) or J. L. Mackie (“The Miracle of Theism,” 1982).

In recent times, faith has been thrown more on the defensive, not just by skepticism from without but damaging developments from within — Horrid scandals of sexual predators among Christian clergy. Angry Protestant splits over whether to shed traditional sexual morals. Terrorism by Muslim sects and certain Buddhists and Hindus.

Well-publicized “new atheists” have emerged more aggressively to attack believers as not merely mistaken but downright stupid, even evil.

Take James Haught, who wrote for the Freedom From Religion Foundation that because people are getting smarter they “perceive that magical dogmas are a bunch of hooey — just fairy tales with no factual reality…. Right before our eyes, supernatural faith is dying in America.” (Actually, there’s a slide, not death.) Notably, Haught was West Virginia’s most important journalist, as longtime editor of the Charleston Gazette.

Such bludgeoning can have limited persuasive power except among those already convinced. But Max Boot offered an interesting new anti-faith line this year in a Washington Post column (behind a pay wall). This Soviet immigrant is a public intellectual to reckon with, as a senior fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations and acclaimed author (also conservative Never-Trumper on cable newscasts).

“Too much religion is bad for a country,” Boot contended. He made that case by compiling nation-by-nation statistics on e.g. per capita gross domestic product, unemployment, poverty, homicide, life expectancy, infant mortality, education and political liberties.


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

Super Tuesday thinking: When will press get the religion factor among moderate Democrats?

, , , , , , ,

So what did we learn, as the Democratic Party roadshow passed through South Carolina?

What can reporters look for, during Super Tuesday, in terms of factual details that point to the dividing line between Sen. Bernie Sanders and the rest of the party faithful? Here’s another way of stating that question: What is it, precisely, that makes a ‘moderate’ Democrat a ‘moderate Democrat’?

Catching up with my reading after a busy weekend (my family, as Orthodox Christians, just headed into Lent), I think there are two think pieces that will help journalists and news consumers see part of the big picture.

Consider this dramatic double-decker headline from New York Times columnist Charles M. Blow:

Warnings From South Carolina

With Biden’s victory, minority and religious voters demand attention.

Here’s a key passage to think about:

… (W)ith Biden’s blowout victory in South Carolina, he breathed new life into his limping campaign, offering new hope not only to his campaign but also to moderate Democrats who have yet to settle on a primary champion.

But, aside from Biden’s victory, exit poll data from the state offers a number of warnings and signals for Democrats moving forward.

Once again, that question: What is a “moderate” Democrat in this context?

Among other things, a “moderate” Democrat is someone who frequents a sanctuary pew (#SURPRISE). Here is Blow’s take on that, as Democrats continue to — yes — pray for Barack Obama 2.0.

Look at the numbers here!


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

More Ryan Burge charts: Is there a 'cradle gap' that leads to a 'pew gap' in politics?

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Here is one of those #DUH statements about religion in America: Journalists and political activists have been talking about the “God gap” (also known as the “pew gap”) between the two major political parties for several decades now.

Here’s another obvious statement: There is no sign that this debate will end anytime soon.

Most of the time, people argue about (all together now) white evangelical Protestants — when the real swing voters in American life are ordinary Sunday-morning Catholics (see this GetReligion post related to this subject).

However, GetReligion contributor Ryan Burge has — on Twitter and in his Religion in Public blog posts — been doing a bang-up job that today’s Republican Party is packed with all kinds of white churchgoers, not just evangelicals. While we think of Mainline Protestant denominations as culturally “liberal,” that is more true about the ordained folks in the pulpits and the professionals in the ecclesiastical bureaucracies than in the pews.

This brings me to two Burge charts that are really interesting when studied together.

First, consider this statement with the first chart:

A Republican was twice as likely to be raised a evangelical than a Democrat. And much more likely to be raised a mainline Protestant.

In other words, is there some kind of “cradle gap” the precedes the “pew gap”?

Also, how important are these trends anyway, for journalists who are trying to understand the various cultural camps inside today’s Republican and Democratic parties?


Please respect our Commenting Policy