Secular Life in Post-Christian America

Less than five years after Christian America's greatest political achievement -- the reelection of George W. Bush in 2004 -- Newsweek magazine announces "The Decline and Fall of Christian America" on its April 13 cover. The issue's lead article is "The End of Christian America" by Jon Meacham.

These stories, and there have been many, begin with the 2009 American Religious Identification Survey that was released in March. That survey showed a rapid increase in secularization in America, doubling since 1990 and a drop in all kinds of religious affiliation. That report brought into sharp focus changes that, in retrospect, were obvious.

But, actually, the story is both less and more momentous than the headline. It is less momentous because even with the doubling of secularists since 1990, only 15% of respondents in ARIS identified as secular. That means that America is still a very religious country and even a very Christian one. Nor will that change any time soon. (Meacham acknowledges this in the article.)

The story is more momentous, however, because growing secularization at some point reaches a cultural tipping point. At that point, and for the first time, large numbers of people begin to reach adulthood without religious training.

Of course there have always been atheists, in America and everywhere. But until recently, almost all atheists have been grounded in traditional religious teaching. They have been in the position of the Atheist relative in Woody Allen's film, Crimes and Misdemeanors, arguing against God at the family Seder. This is true as well of the leading atheist writers of today. They have all been shaped by religion.

In the near future, this will cease to be true. Today, we are still a Judeo-Christian culture with a sizeable secular representation. Tomorrow, we will become a secular culture with a sizeable Judeo-Christian representation.

This is not likely to mean that other religious traditions will step into the cultural vacuum. Interest in Buddhism, for example, has been spurred by religiously trained Christians and Jews who are looking for something else. That Buddhist growth may lessen in a secular culture.

As I have argued on this blog and in my book Hallowed Secularism, the easy assumption that secular culture will be healthy without religion may prove to be false. Secularists have an unwarranted confidence in themselves and in a new cultural formation. In contrast, I think raising children without religion is quite difficult.

Let me take a specific example. Daniel Dennett came to the New School in New York City in March and told an audience that they should all repeat to defenders of religion that "people can be good without religion." Dennett presumably exults in the decline of Christianity.

But religion by and large does not claim that it makes people good. Instead, religion, and especially Christianity, begins with the proclamation that people are not good. We lie, we cheat, we steal, we cheat on our spouses and we allow a billion people in the world to live on a dollar a day.

Which is more realistic about human nature, Dennett or the classic Christian view? And what, and for that matter how, will you teach your children the truth about such matters?

Undoubtedly, the decline of religion is inevitable in a scientific culture. Something, however, must replace religion's wisdom and insight. I assume that whatever that something turns out to be, it will have to borrow from the best of what religion has to offer if it wants to be successful in promoting human flourishing.

Comments

[RobinLandseadel]

Ah------no.

Christianity is, was and forevermore shall be a problem all by itself.

[j0em0mma]

George Carlin:

"...And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money!"

http://www.rense.com/general69/obj.htm

[RoloTomassi]

Now that's what I'm talking about--George knew the real score!

[WilliamP]

I love that routine. It's hilarious and very, very true.

[DIdaho]

"What's missing from the comments here is a total lack of respect for a differing view. Religion helps a lot of people in their day to day lives."

Okay, let's clarify. Every single religion I know of claims it is the "only" way. It's real obvious in Christianity, that "the only way to the Father is through me" and Islam "there is no God but God and Mohammed is his prophet" and in the otherwise more inclusive Jewish faith you shall still "have no other Gods before me" and those who've received the commandments are the "chosen people."

Religion, by definition, has a total lack of respect for a different view. Otherwise it's not religion. I don't know of any atheists who begrudge a religious person if they've found something that helps people in their daily lives. Now, I'll grant, I will secretly believe religious people have a mental disease. But the difference is that my atheism in no way demands that everybody be atheists - I make no claim at all that only my philosophy can yield salvation. I would under no circumstances call anybody immoral, misguided, lost or damned because they don't believe the same as I do.

Whereas every religion does. You might not, as an individual parishioner, demand subservience of all others. You might not personally hate or condemn those who aren't in your church. But your church does - or it's not a church.

[Kanye East]

yea, and how many atheists claim theirs is the "only way." grow up. people disrespect people. it has nothing to do with anything.

[j0em0mma]

DIdaho is absolutely correct. Religion creates an additional us-vs-them layer. While all of us to some degree do this, we shouldn't go out of our way to do so, especially for a fairy tale...

[DIdaho]

Fine defense of your loving and inclusive Christ. If I disrespect you, it's because of your actions, not your beliefs. And no, that crap doesn't go out the window, ever, because it's my belief. I just don't blame it on God.

[Kanye East]

"I would under no circumstances call anybody immoral, misguided, lost or damned because they don't believe the same as I do."

good for you. and my guess is all your "i'm not self righteous" crap goes out the window as soon as anyone else does. hypocrite.

[MrTessier]

There are quite a few non monotheistic religions out there. I believe Hinduism in many forms supports different religious views and encourages them. Also, lots of the naturistic religions seem to allow for different doctrine.

I think you got a hold of some rough ones at some point and it's clouded your vision to an extent. I grew up southern baptist and I can certainly empathize! It took a long time to figure out that not everyone believed the same things that they did. Once I did, I found that not all Christians are nut cases, just some of them.

[Endora]

"Religion, by definition, has a total lack of respect for a different view. Otherwise it's not religion. I don't know of any atheists who begrudge a religious person if they've found something that helps people in their daily lives. Now, I'll grant, I will secretly believe religious people have a mental disease. But the difference is that my atheism in no way demands that everybody be atheists - I make no claim at all that only my philosophy can yield salvation. I would under no circumstances call anybody immoral, misguided, lost or damned because they don't believe the same as I do.

--No, you just wrote in the same paragraph that you would "secretly" believe that religious people have a "mental disease." - that certainly doesn't sound judgemental....and writing it on a board is not so "secret" either....

[DIdaho]

Sure. That's my personal opinion. I'm not going to lie about it. But by the same token, I'm not going to claim that God sanctifies that opinion. I'm not going to insist that members of my "congregation" go door-to-door convincing neighbors that I'm right. I'm not going to disqualify candidates from holding office because they don't share that belief and promise to enforce it. I'm not going to disinvite people to my neighborhood barbecue because of their belief, or forbid my children from talking to theirs.

I tried to be as honest as I could. I do believe religion is a mental disease, on the same level as imaginary friends for the lonely. The difference is that I don't look to anybody else to act on that belief, or enforce any of its implications.

[WmC]

"But religion by and large does not claim that it makes people good. " Hard to know what Ledewitz means by this statement. I don't think there's a single prominent person in/on the religious right who would agree with it.

[MrTessier]

I think it's the thought that simply believing a religion doesn't make you necessarilly more morale. Practicing the religion probably does, but we all know there's a difference between talking the talk and walking the walk. I think of mother theres as a good person, not because of her particular religion, but because of the way she lived her life.

[mdlawyer2]

So how is it some religious doctrine asserts that an entire life of immoral behavior is forgiven in the face of a deathbed repentence; while a well lived, even pious life, with a rejection of religion, dooms the individual to purgatory. I guess it's not what you do, it's what you say that counts. Seems to be the philosophy of one of our current day political parties (what a surprise). Religion and politics, the separation of which was a guiding principle in the establishment of our nation (though some would have you believe otherwise), are now "unholy" bedfellows. Argue all you want about the pros and cons of religion, but I know one thing, I certainly prefer (and demand) a secular government to a Christian (or any other religion dominated) government.

[Kanye East]

don't hate the player, hate the game.

you hate both, apparently.

[DIdaho]

Okay, maybe you can define what's hateful here. I read through the post a couple times to see what you see, and I can't find it. I'd suggest that maybe your reaction proves more than all the other words posted here - that somehow a simple suggestion that perhaps living a good life is its own reward is hateful. See, this is what religion does - it makes those who "believe" hate those who don't share that belief.

I think Jesus is a cool guy. I think we'd all be better off following most of his advice. But "hating" those who don't happen to think he walked on water, turned water into wine or was born of a Virgin - I don't think that was part of his message - but it's definitely part of the religion that humans have built around his myth.

[Endora]

Because good works alone cannot save you. In the Christian faith you have to accept Jesus, His sacrifice on the cross for you as your source of salvation. The good works are evidence that you have done so.

Consider it from a nonreligious standpoint. If you had an argument with your significant other, and say it was about something on the "honey do" list, that ballooned into a really ugly argument. Later you decide to complete the task on the "honey do" list , but never talk or patch up the hateful things that were said in the argument -- the problem and pain are still somewhat there between the two of you.....simply performing a task without the change of heart, the willingness to say your sorry, isn't enough....

[MoeB]

But would you have completed the task if you DIDN'T have a change of heart? Your example kind of alludes to a 'what's better? actions or sentiment?' debate...to which I don't think there is necessarily a concrete answer to that either way...but I could be wrong.

[JWheels]

The basic tenet that human beings are somehow inherently bad, inherently evil, and inherently 'sinners' that can be 'corrected' through faith is my problem with some religious teachings in this world. Ultimately, as an atheist, the threat of eternal torture in hell has never really moved me.

In my opinion, humans are inherently neutral, meaning they have the potential for both good or evil. Where they end up depends on an enormous multitude of factors, most prominently related to very specific choices made by the individual throughout his or her life. Also, people that are generally good based on their actions, can still commit violent heinous crimes if pushed far enough.

Moral superiority then, is not something anybody can wholly claim. I firmly believe that morals and ethical behavior have zero to do with the religious affilaition of the person in question. Religion has taken a role in some circumstances of helping communicate what is acceptable in our cultures, but that is just one of many ways to gain that knowledge. Religion as guiding principle in general is probably beneficial to the majority of people, but as soon as it crosses the line to trying to control individuals by any means, then it becomes a very negative thing in my eyes.

I ultimately find it ignorant and dismissive of secular folks like myself to say it's objectively harder to raise kids without Jesus/God/Allah/Buddha/Shiva/e-Meter/whatever.

[Kanye East]

lmao. love it. so you can be both good and evil?

[KillTheMessenger]

I can be both good and bad. Evil I can not be.

[JWheels]

Greeting my comment and others on the thread with derision? That's a great example of why there really isn't much discourse on the subject.

Let me address your question though:

Though I don't know you personally, I'm working with the assumption that you are a good and decent person. When you were born, you were a baby, there was very little self-reflection if any, therefore you couldn't make or process moral judgements as you can now. You may have been well behaved but you couldn't have been morally pure, you just were making sure your basic needs (food, hydration, shelter, warmth) were being met. On that same token, would it have been fair for someone to say "That baby is evil!"? No.

You grew into your 'moral standing' so to speak. If you're human, at some point you have probably been so angry at someone that you wished them dead, but you probably didn't try to kill them. Choosing not to act on that impulse and walk away was a positive or 'good' moral judgement, had you chosen to embrace your anger and murder that hypothetical person, that would have been a negative or 'evil' moral judgement. Had you done that, many Christian folks would consider you evil, and you might agree. See how this can be a fluid thing?

[MrTessier]

I agree. But, I don't think you should be upset when someone says it's harder to raise kids without a religious figure. It's just a method, like a doctor spock book for raising kids. I think it's great if a parent puts thought and effort into the way they raise their kids. I would only submit that religious institutions offer a lot of the training on how to be a parent, and some people really don't have anywhere else to find that kind of instruction. I think the real problem is that a lot of folks can't see that there are other ways to accomplish the same thing, and if your not doing it the way they did, then you are wrong.
I judge people that way all the time! When I'm in a walmart and someone has a screaming 10 year old kid screaming because they can't get a toy, I wish there was a pamphlet I could hand them with instructions on how to whoop some booty.

[propitiousmoment]

Excuse me, but classic christianity teaches its adherents to ignore the fact that a billion people in the world live on a dollar a day. You're supposed to suck it up if your circumstances are bad, it's god's will, bla bla bla. All of which is just support for the status quo, i.e., rich people ruling the raggedy masses. Christians are more worried about doctrinal purity than anything else, in my personal experience, which is a root of most of the evils perpetrated by religious systems. It's a shroud for the evil within, a projection of your own evil onto whoever is different and therefore feared. It is possible to root a perfectly valid and, importantly, HUMANE, morality in humanistic principles without resort to fantasies or mythology, and without demanding adherence to obviously false and outworn primitive "beliefs".

[MrTessier]

Wow, that seems pretty far off. What do you mean by "Classic Christianity"? Most folks are upset because of the hipocracy in christianity. If you read about what Jesus was talking about, it's pretty hard to recognize many of the current church structures. His whole message of helping out those less fortunate, and that kingdoms on earth are meaningless, and all that.

[propitiousmoment]

Sorry I should have said organized religions based on the christian mythology.

[Motorinstructor]

Many christians are out there in the trenches feeding and clothing the poor. There are many organizations such as Operation Blessing and Feed the Children that are doing an outstanding job. They are certainly contibuting to the relief of suffering and the betterment of this world.

[TX Atheist73]

But, are they doing it because it's the right thing to do, or because they want to spread their religion? There are plenty of secular charitable organizations out there helping others without pushing their beliefs on others.

[Saskanuck]

While there is wisdom and some good rules in religion, are you sure their origin is in the religious teachings, or were they picked up from other longer standing traditions perhaps with biological/sociological reasons?

Religion doesn't claim to make people good? Really? I've heard a whole lot of people say that you can't be good without religion. They seem to have missed this message somehow.

Third, while I agree that selecting the finer teachings of religion is fine, selection requires rational thought and pulls the religion out of the teaching and throws it into the realm of philosophy (perhaps even psychology and biology) for testing. At this point really, claiming the point as a thing of religion seems rather silly as the idea is tested against reality instead of theology, which presumably measures against a deity's yardstick.

Finally, as to what to teach kids, well how about empathy for others? That has benefits when considering group dynamics, and if done right gives a measure by which to assess actions (does this impact myself or others in a negative way?). It also puts the power of forgiveness, atonement, and acceptance within the hands of those directly involved and not some all powerful being whose forgiveness can be secured by ritual through select gatekeepers who will tell you what is right and wrong (there's power just waiting to be abused). No spoon-fed morals this way, we have to work them through in our heads.

[Archontruth]

"We lie, we cheat, we steal, we cheat on our spouses and we allow a billion people in the world to live on a dollar a day."

People who claim to be very devout do all this stuff too, and for generations the religious people in the US have been more concerned with keeping gays single and suppressing reproductive freedoms than addressing poverty. So don't give us this crap.

The man who doesn't steal because he's afraid of God's punishment isn't moral. The man who doesn't steal simply because it's wrong is the moral being.

[Kanye East]

lmao.

and how do you know stealing isn't moral?

[KillTheMessenger]

I know it because I don't want to be stolen from. I do not want to get killed. I do not want to be cheated on. And because I am a nice guy I do not do these things to others, either. It does not take a religious prophet to see and live by the obvious.

[NowWhatFolks]

I grew up secular, my parents never made me go to church, and I never had any interest. They brought me up with "the golden rule", and it's just amazing how well it applies to just about everything. I'm well adjusted, happily married, never been in trouble with the law, etc. Religion played no part in my rearing and plays no part in my life, other than having to interact with those whom it does. I think the author may be having trouble seeing that raising a child secularly is, at worst, no better than raising a child with religion. It's difficult for someone who was raised to always assume and believe there is a God to understand how one who was not thinks. And vice versa.

[Kanye East]

"the golden rule"? that's a christian belief, buddy.

[j0em0mma]

Like most things, Christians took it, they did not invent it. I celebrate Yule, which y'all call Christmas, and Spring Fertility Festival, which y'all call Easter. And I practice the Golden Rule, which is ancient and whose origins are lost in the mists of time...

[jayrayspicer]

The Golden Rule is a Christian formulation of a belief common to all cultures. Confucius had a similar pronouncement which predated the Golden Rule by hundreds of years. Again, it is arrogant and ignorant of Christians to insist their tradition is the source of morality.

[Scalawag]

It is not exclusively a christian belief. It is common to most religions because it is based upon common sense.

[BarryS]

no it isn't. it was stated long before the "christian bible" and doesn't mention or need God to be invoked. And it make sense--common sense.

[KillTheMessenger]

Actually, it isn't. Basically every other religion and philosophy has something equivalent. It would be a loss for Christianity if we did not have it. But it's not a win that we do.

[charlietuna11]

please tell me how many wars were started by atheists and agnostics> just curious...

[CJ1]

He writes like someone who is beginning to "see the light," but not quite. A nun I spoke to put it best: "Christ is there for those who need him most..." She explained that Christians are most often people that have yet to develop (or evolve) a feeling of love and compassion for their fellow man, a higher ability to love and feel responsible. Thus, they must be given the promise of a "reward," or heaven, and the threat of punishment--Hell. Just as children are rewarded or punished, because they have not developed an adult level of responsibility/self-sacrifice, etc.. She says she teaches and is a nun to teach these adult "children" how to behave, and unfortunately gays, biracial couples, women, have gotten caught in the crossfire of the compromise the church often makes to old, barbaric cultures that the church attempts to assimilate
...Not to bash Christianity entirely...many "graduates" of Catholicism, etc. seem to move on to a secular life of goodness, free from the need for reward/punishment...they just are also not blindly homophobic, sexist, or otherwise illogically-old testament driven (maybe what drove them away from church in the first place?).

[patricksmom]

This nun doesn[t sound like a Catholic nun. Nuns I've spoken to are very aware that many Catholics are motivated by the love of God for mankind and know that God wants tor all. I suppose this same nun tells you that people just go to confession like going through a carwash, then go out and commit the same sins again.

[CJ1]

Actually, she is a very typical nun...teacher with the ruler that puts the "fear of God" into children...and she said "often," not "always," so "many motivated by love" does not contradict what she said. But no on the carwash part...

[CJ1]

other part is awaiting "approval" for some reason, but p.s.: Her comment said nothing about "God's love for mankind." She very much believed and supported that, so not sure what you mean about any conflict there.

[TheBlackCat]

"Interest in Buddhism, for example, has been spurred by religiously trained Christians and Jews who are looking for something else. That Buddhist growth may lessen in a secular culture."

Interesting point. I never actually thought about this, but now that I do.... I myself am a Catholic turned Buddhist, and of the other Buddhists I know (who are Westerners, that is) ALL either converted from another religion, or were born to parents who converted to Buddhism from another religion. I've yet to meet a Buddhist who was secular before hand, or had secular parents who converted.

[melmoid]

I think there is a great deal of truth in what you say. As an atheist I was certainly shaped by a 60 + year exposure to religion. You are probably right that most current atheists came from a religious background. However growing up religious does not mean religious literacy. I saw a recent survey recently that found the majority of Christians thinking Eve was Christ's mother. I read every word of the Old Testament several times and did not find the "God" there to be a moral example for my children or anyone else although thankfully their Sunday school teachers only taught what little good stuff they could find in the text. There is a very interesting new book by Chet Raymo called When God is Gone, Everything is Holy. I think it says a great deal about where "belief" may be headed in the future.

[MrTessier]

Wow, great survey there! I think I'm in the same boat as you are. I haven't read the old testament more then a couple of times, but was always struck by what a brutal God was represented there. And one that seemed to change so dramatically from chapter to chapter. I definitely prefer the "New Testament God", that is if we're given some kind of choice!

[melmoid]

MrTessier-- It is possible to be very fond of Christ and his message without believing in the OT God at all. The early church conflated the OT God and Christ mostly for political reasons. Then of course the concept of the Trinity is one of the most ridiculous ideas ever perpetrated on the mind of man. It manages to leave half the human race and all of nature out of the realm of "god" altogether. Some of the sayings of Christ in the texts that did not make it into the Bible reveal a very pantheistic message.

[j0em0mma]

Maybe you are referring to this kind of "insight", Bruce?

"However, there are some trends to be seen in the data. Those states that do consume the most porn tend to be more conservative and religious than states with lower levels of consumption, the study finds."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16680-porn-in-the-usa-conservatives-are-biggest-consumers.html