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

[AntiSocialite]

"Something, however, must replace religion's wisdom and insight."

I was raised non-religious, I can count on one hand how many times my parents and I went to Church, and I will not in any way subscribe to the above statement. The small amount of wisdom and insight that come from religion could just as easily come from Aesop's fables, Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers, or hell even a sappy sitcom. You are much better off gleaning wisdom and insight from your parents. And before anyone gets all hot and bothered, yes I realize not everyone has ideal parents to glean wisdom and insight off of; but most everyone has a trusted teacher, aunt, uncle, grandparent, older sibling or other such role model that would be a far better teacher than some guy who interprets (with all their own bias and prejudice) any religious text. And lets not forget why we need those interpreters (preachers, imams, rabbi), because if the masses actually read these texts they might realize what jumbled, hypocritical, brutal, mess that they truly are.

[j0em0mma]

Agreed, it's patronizing and demonstrative of the real problem: Religious people do bad things, but since they think they are above everyone else, then we must do even worse things, and need their "insight." They claim the goodness that humanity has in general and misappropriate it to their cults, then tell us we're the ones who need salvation.

[nicole44]

i am religious an d i feel i live a good life, dont do bad things and have compassion for my fellow man, dont believe i am above any person or the law and feel the only one who can judge you is God. I find that very offensive that you would call me a bad person when you dont know me. i feel that everyone has falts and respect all religions that have a good message of God's love. I am just baffled that the subject of religion sparks so mauch hatred in people that are supposed to be so inclusive and tolerent. I know that there are nut cases in any religion but they are such a small demographic. the only reasont hat you hea about them so much is because their views are crazy and controversial. How often do they do news stories or write sensational headlines about the average person who goes to church on Sundays and donates to charity then makes dinner for the family by 6? I bet none because thats not very interesting is it?

[Phreaked]

The "nut cases" as you put it are not a small demographic but a medium one with a very loud voice. To those of us who do not subscribe to your particular brand of religion, or any brand, we don't just consider the evangelicals or suicide bombers; they are just the extreme example. People going door to door to tell me how worthless my life is because i don't follow what they do, the ones preaching abstanince only as the only way to fight STD's or prevent teenage/unwanted pregnancy and ones that tell me science is wrong/evil/sin are also nut cases. It's not THAT you believe, its that you want to MAKE ME believe, usually by legally enforcing it, what you believe. True belief cannot be legislated or brought forth through coercion but that is what most main religions have done for 2000+ years.

The main reason that you see so much anger is that those who non believers have been ostracized for most of the past 2000yrs and are finally being heard by a large audience and that audience (religious or not) see we have morals and values, often greater than those who preach that they have the best morals and values. It is unfortunate non-believers have the same issues that those believers do, the extremists. By and large we believe in tolerance and acceptance we just want the same from the religious side and have not had it for a good long time.

[HeevenSteven]

Secular Europe is such a bad evil place; eh?

The best religion ever had to offer is what all of our major religious traditions are based on--the golden rule. If you need a sky daddy to spank you into being good to your neighbor, then I wouldn't want to be your neighbor.

[sandystranger]

Wisdom and insight come from many sources and if you are not open to them because you focus solely on religion, you will miss out on a lot. Personally, some of my sources were Mark Twain, Andy Taylor, Dear Abby, ABC AfterSchool Specials, Atticus Finch, Little House on the Prairie, bumper stickers, teachers, Cat Stevens, and on and on.
I rarely have any trouble deciding what is right and wrong, and neither does my son who was raised with no religion whatsoever.

[HawkeyeWest]

I'm an atheist, and I'm an ethical person. Everything atheist I know well is an ethical person. So, there is very good reason to believe that, at least for the vast majority of people, being an atheist doesn't make it harder to be an ethical person.

However, for the sake of argument, let's say that being an atheist does make it harder for some people to be ethical. First, that obviously is irrelevant to whether I'm warranted in inferring that there is a God. Analogously, believing in heliocentrism may have contributed to some people being less ethical than they would be if they believed in believed in geocentrism, but I'm quite sure that the earth revolves around the sun.

(continued)

[HawkeyeWest]

(continued)

Moreover, if person’s X’s believing in God makes it easier for X to be more ethical, then that should weigh in favor of its being good for X to believe in God. However, if believing in God makes SOME people more ethical, that doesn't mean that people, IN GENERAL, should believe in God. First, there is good reason to believe that, at least for the vast majority of people, being an atheist doesn't make it harder to be ethical. Second, it is likely that there is no God. And having warranted beliefs is an end in itself. For example, someone's believing that he has been abducted by aliens might help him not be depressed, but there is still something problematic about his believing that he has been abducted by aliens.

Finally, even if X’s belief in God helps X be ethical, that is not SUFFICIENT for it to be good for X to believe in God. As I said, having warranted beliefs is an end in itself. And there probably is no God.

[jdj81]

As you fear, I was raised as a "secularist". You're right, it was not easy. I grew up in a predominantly Republican, conservative Christian town. Some kids were not allowed to hang out with me because I didn't attend church. A few tried to pick fights. Even some of my teachers were weird about it. All this despite being such a cool kid with no behavioral problems, good grades, etc.

That says more about religion than it does about secularism. I was never a jerk about religion. If folks would've left me alone, religion would not have been a concern. In fact, realizing I wasn't Christian was something of an epiphany. I remarked to my mom, "I thought I was Christian because all the white people are Christian!" I was 8.

All these years later, well into adulthood, we can tally the scorecards. I don't drink, smoke, or do drugs--never tried any of those vices even once. I've never "hooked up" or cheated on a girl. Remember back in college when every class had that one person who'd finish his/her essays three weeks in advance--I was that guy. I see and talk to my parents often. On the other side, some of the other kids from my childhood are now booze hounds, strung out, in jail, dropping out of second marriages, etc. And some of them have been successful too, sure. The point is I don't think you have anything to fear from a secularized youth.

[HeevenSteven]

That's right; religion has always been about the in group and the out group. It's about common identity more than morality.

[UltraClassic]

With out religion, one must put one's faith in what? Science? Yah, I can buy that. Man? Not hardly. I'm not religious but there is some wisdom in the saying that "those who believe in nothing with fall for anything." For some reason, Hitler, Stalin and Lennon come to mind.

[leftwingpatriot]

I think you mean Lenin unless you think John Lennon was as evil as Adolf and Uncle Joe

[wondering]

John Lennon did write "Imagine" ...

: )

[Phreaked]

Head in sand much?
Stalin followed Marxism and famously stated "“Religion is the opium of the masses”, Hitler was part Jew and raised Roman Catholic, and its Lenin (Russian) not Lennon (AKA The Beatles, at least by context i think thats what you mean) and he was Baptized Russian Orthodox. I think the saying should be those that believe anything without proof will fall for anything. Want a good example take a serious look at Scientology or the history of Mormonism, you'll laugh yourself into hysterics.

[patricksmom]

In bring up Hitler as a person with a Catholic background you just bring up a bad apple. THere were many Catholics and Christians in Nazi Germany who gave up their lives rather than to follow that maniac.

[NowWhatFolks]

I really hope you meant Lenin.....

[dctackett]

first of all, why must one have "faith" to "put" in something?

it's not about believing in "nothing," it's about believing in reality as we experience it and have come to know it, not whatever story you've been trained to believe.

[TryToBeFlexible]

So, we should believe something that just isn't true, due to some guess that it might have some benefit? Not scientific.
My parents were secular, they raised us kids as secular. My parents never stole, lied, or struck us kids, or each other. None of my siblings have ever had a brush with the law, or been violent, or any of the other things that supposedly you need religion to protect against. In fact, just by observation, it seems most criminals do have a religious background.
It seems it would make more sense to just train youngsters to be ethical, than to try to fool them with bizarre religious beliefs, hoping that some moral content can be found within it (and that the darker more violent aspects of it won't instead come to the fore).

[Kanye East]

gotta love these comments. their reaction to a simple, logical piece that happens to be about Christianity (and one of the few today mention something which might be interpreted as good)? vitriol.

[jayrayspicer]

Sorry, but it's not logical to conclude that losing religion is a bad thing, since we have empirical counterexamples in Japan, Scandinavia, etc.

[LeonBNJ]

To me the issue is not that many are rejecting the concept of a Supreme Being, but of the physical organizations of faiths. This is especially true in most of Europe where few go to faith services regularly. Greater levels of education have also challanged the beliefs of faith. We have seen all faith beliefs, their leaders and followers horribly abuse and murder others over belief and non-belief. We also have in most places secular governance unlike centuries ago where faith groups were the defacto governance of all as well as a great separation of faith and state. This is probably a natural evolution for the entire world.

[gloudil]

"religion's wisdom and insight"

WHAT??

Religion is a virus, and the sooner we can rid humanity of it, the better.

[prostock69]

Agree! How about replacing "religion's wisdom and insight" with rational-s­uperstitio­us free thinking. Now that would improve society greatly! Accept, I think religion is more like a cancer that keeps coming back than a virus.

[patricksmom]

Please tell me how rational thinking would deal with the sick, the terminally ill, refugees etc. I wonder if some one person's rational thought would deny them options.

[swampthing]

Did you just credit religion with "wisdom" and "insight"? Please give me a break. Superstition is just superstition. It is not moral. It is not wise. It is lying. It is making something up and then pretending you "received" it from a supernatural being. That is fraud.

As for the idea that people are "bad," what do you think transpires when you're taught from childhood that humanity is bad? You live up to the expectation, that's what.

Religions like Christianity REINFORCE bad behavior by telling you it's pointless to pursue ethical heights. We don't have to be perfect; but in the trying we are much more likely to be kind and decent.

Judaism has a much more positive outlook on humanity because it recognizes no such thing as original sin. Getting kicked out of a garden is not a "fall," it merely means you are now mortal (and that childbirth will hurt and that it will be difficult to make things grow in the desert.)
Buddhism flat out states that beings are innately good and that any misbehavior is an acquired malady that can be cured in this lifetime.

The positive religions have caused a fraction of the heartache in this world that the two main anti-human varieties (Christianity & Islam) have.

[Kanye East]

It's a lot faster to just write "I'm an anti-christian hypocrite.­"

[Phreaked]

It's not being a hypocrite if he speaks the truth. The point i believe he is trying to make is best put in the words of Ghandi "I wish your Christians were more Christ like" You know turn the other cheek, love thy neighbor do unto others... and so forth instead of things such as the crusades, Salem witch trials, Spanish inquisition.

[BluestateGuyInTX]

If you are so right why does it bother he is "wrong"? One thing you have to understand: Christians have been using coercion for centuries to force people into their way of thinking. This makes people who don't happen to share your belief in Christianity fed up. You don't get to ignore the last 20 centuries and assume that all non-Christians don't have a right to be bitter and tired of preaching. The preaching is often a precursor to persecution. So, run along and believe whatever you want to but don't expect other people to be silent about the things that people have done in the name of religion or Christianity.

[Paulo1]

As someone who tends towards a Sufi outlook on my relationship with God and a Universalist view of salvation I would ask you not to broadly paint Christianity or Islam. Though I do agree that the current dominant trends and sects in both are Anti human and arguably demeaning to God.

[patricksmom]

You are ignorant of Christianity swampthing. Christianity does not say that it is pointless to pursue ethical heights, but believe through grace we become better people.

[melodramy]

Well, I am not ignorant of Christianity, I lived and breathed it for 26 years. And I agree that one of the messages is that no human is good or can be good; trying to achieve ethical heights is indeed pointless. "The goodness of humanity is like a filthy rag" no matter what we do. Our only salvation is to "believe" the right thing, and if we do, God's revulsion with our filthiness is somehow magically abated. Even the bumper stickers proclaim proudly, "I'm not perfect, just forgiven!" Talk about abdicating responsibility and not caring about achieving ethical heights! So yes, he was correct to say that this is indeed one of the messages of Christianity. The "no-matter­-what-I-do­-to-the-wo­rld-around­-me-I'm-co­ol-if-I-as­k -forgivene­ss-from-a-­deity brand of morality, is a corruption of ethics. So is the notion in Christianity that "all sins are equal." I was personally taught that a white lie or swearing was an equally heinous sin as murder in God's sight. So little things that harm no one, and things that harm others...n­o big difference. Sure, for some people that will have the intended affect of making them deathly afraid to utter a swear word or tell someone their hair looks great when it doesn't. For others, it minimizes murder down to just another little "oops" to be forgiven for. That too is corruption of ethics.

[RedInGeorgia]

Again, this article, and so many religionists come from the basic assumption that someone cannot be a moral and good person without religion.

Quite the contrary, there is a whole body of philosophical works, both in Moral Philosophy and in the Philosophy of Religion that refutes this.

A code of ethics, a moral person, and a life lived in a "good-ly" way can all exist without some call to a "Daddy in the Sky".

[Kanye East]

even in an intro phil class you learn that no phil theory is immutable. far from it.

[BluestateGuyInTX]

Huh? How is this observation relevant to what RedInGeorgia said?

[wondering]

Another in the long line of articles on this website devoted to poking a stick in the secularist's eye.

Although your interpretation of Dennett's view is wrong (as other's have pointed out), let's accept your premise for the time being - the notion that this is an argument about Original Sin. I have a question for you : Which came first, human societies or organized religion? Clearly organized religions are highly abstract constructs that can develop only if people are already living in communities - and such people will by necessity already have in place moral and ethical codes to deal with each other. I.e., people are born with a capacity for morality. The notion of Original Sin is a religious one (see Aquinas) used to keep the sheep in the fold.

But there is one way in which I would (seemingly) agree with you : it is probably worthless to think that the removal of religion would automatically result in warm, loving communities. Although it is true that religions have forced many horrors upon us - female genital mutilation in North Africa, the Inquisition, ad infinitum - the TRUE human universal that trumps even religion is tribalism. And tribalism has a much greater capacity for harm. What religions do, is they allow for a loose morality that can be used to justify all manner of horrors - i.e., if god does not smile upon those "others", why we can do anything we want to them.

.

[Kanye East]

"Another in the long line of articles on this website devoted to poking a stick in the secularist's eye."

rotfl.

[melodramy]

You're a real peach.

[itmaybetoolate]

What exactly is religion's (meaning christianity) insight? That people can be manipulated into being loving and compassionate by promising them a "throne of gold" after they die? Aren't compassion and love based on the recognition of our common "human-ness" and the development of empathy more genuine, long-lasting, and, in the final analysis, real?

[MoeB]

Exactly. I always wonder when I get into debates with my religious friends about goodness and empathy, kindness, compassion, etc., why they seem to think that doing the right thing because you get a reward in the "afterlife", is somehow better than doing the right thing because it's the RIGHT THING to do, and not because there's some reward waiting for me.

[force fed up]

The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad.

--Friedrich Nietzsche

[patricksmom]

From Nietzsche.­...the father of despair that "the Christian resolution is to find the world ugly and bad and has made the world ugly and bad>"