Last year, the president of the largest atheist organization in the United States spoke to a group of students organized for the 2011 Secular Student Alliance leadership conference. A focal point of his talk on the future of atheism was the idea of a "sleeping giant," or what he called the "30 percent under 30" -- the nonreligious Americans who would shape the future of our national discourse on religion.
Though that figure was slightly off -- under the most recent survey figures available last year, 25 percent of Americans under 30 were religiously unaffiliated, and only about 7 percent of them identified as atheist or agnostic -- the statement was oddly prescient. This week, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life released their most recent figures, revealing that the number of people who identify as religiously unaffiliated is growing rapidly -- particularly among people born in the 1980s and 1990s. So the nonreligious do indeed seem poised to assist in shaping the future of religious discourse, but perhaps not in the way some might have predicted.
People who monitor trends regarding religious affiliation in the United States have noted for several years now that the percentage of the American public that doesn't affiliate with a religious tradition is growing at an astonishing rate, but even they may be surprised by Pew's latest findings. The percentage of Americans with no religious preference, often referred to as the "nones," has grown nearly 5 percentage points in the last five years to include about 1 in 5 Americans. For Americans under 30, the growth has been even more pronounced -- to nearly 1 in 3.
There are many possible reasons people might disaffiliate from religion. Some simply stop believing in religious claims -- sure enough, 12 percent of the "nones" identify as atheist and 17 percent identify as agnostic. But for many, their lack of religious affiliation may have more to do with identity politics than belief. In fact, the majority of the religiously unaffiliated seem to carry some beliefs associated with religious thinking. Sixty-eight percent of nonreligious Americans claim to believe in a god or universal spirit (strangely, this includes 38 percent of atheists and agnostics), and 40 percent pray at least once a month. Still, if we hope to understand this notable shift away from religion in American life, and where this growing demographic stands, we need to start including them in the conversation about religion and values. And that means believers and nonbelievers need to start paying attention.
In a time when debates about same-sex marriage, reproductive rights, capital punishment, epidemic hunger and even Big Bird dominate American discourse -- frequently bolstered by the language of "morality" and "values" -- it is of paramount importance that we understand the values held by the religiously unaffiliated. With an astonishing degree of ignorance about religious diversity in the United States, and a quickly emerging group with an ambiguous standing toward religion, the need for dialogue and education is only growing. As the number of religiously unaffiliated people climbs, and a younger generation becomes a more influential voice in society, it will become necessary to include and understand these voices in our broader national discourse.
Though the Pew study is certainly insightful, another way -- perhaps one of the best ways -- to better understand the "nones" is by directly engaging them in dialogue on the grassroots level. Over the last several years, the number of nonreligious people participating in interfaith dialogue has grown significantly; the Secular Student Alliance reported that 1 in 5 of their college and university affiliate groups participated in interfaith programs in 2011, and Interfaith Youth Core consistently works with atheists, agnostics and the religiously unaffiliated. This trend must continue. Religious individuals and communities should be proactive about reaching out to the religiously unaffiliated, and inviting them to share their perspectives in a way that doesn't patronize them or discount their experiences and ideas. The Pew study is perhaps one of the strongest indicators we've seen that moving toward a more constructive dialogue between the religious and nonreligious is urgent. The religious and the religiously unaffiliated (including atheists and agnostics) surely share many common values, and now is the time to begin to identify them.
How will the nonreligious respond to interfaith outreach? The picture put forward by the Pew survey isn't entirely clear, and the "nones" seem to have a complicated relationship with organized religion. Though about 70 percent of them think religious organizations are too involved with money and politics, about 80 percent think that religious organizations help bring people together, build communities, and play an important role in helping the poor and those in need. To quote from Pew's report: "a majority of the religiously unaffiliated clearly think that religion can be a force for good in society."
These "nones" aren't likely to think that we're a Christian nation, but they also aren't likely to think that churches, mosques, synagogues, temples and the like are obsolete. They recognize that religious communities and individuals are an active, relevant force in our society -- and often, an extremely positive one -- even if they don't align themselves with a particular tradition. Because they seem unlikely to identify with the values or behaviors of religious fundamentalists -- or with rigid anti-theists, for that matter -- their voice feels like a new one. And in an age seemingly defined by polarization and tribalism, a potentially transformative one.
So let's start listening to it.
For more on the religiously unaffiliated, watch Religion and Ethics NewsWeekly's "None of the Above: The Rise of the Religiously Unaffiliated" miniseries this month on PBS.
Chris Stedman is the Assistant Humanist Chaplain at Harvard and the author of 'Faitheist: How an Atheist Found Common Ground with the Religious' (Beacon Press, Nov. 6). Vlad Chituc is a lab manager and research assistant in a social neuroscience lab at Duke University and the former president of the Secular Student Alliance at Yale. Both contribute to the atheist-interfaith blog NonProphet Status.
Follow Chris Stedman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChrisDStedman
Kate Blanchard: Attack of the Spiritual But Not Religious
I see the portion of atheist/agnostics as 5.7%
Where did you get the 7% number?
A second correction: this would be closer to a 2 point rise than a 5 point rise (3.7% to 5.7% atheist/agnostic in 5 years).
Make sure to apply the same rigor to your own research as you are using to criticize Dave Silverman's work. And please let me know if my analysis is incorrect!
We were first specifically referencing the portion of atheists and agnostics under thirty: in the most recent pew survey at the time, 3 and 4 percent of those under 30 identified as atheist and agnostic, respectively. Here's a handy screengrab of the relevant portion courtesy the Friendly Atheist (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2011/08/07/fact-check-please/religious-composition-of-age-groups/)
As for the 5 percentage point rise, we were referencing the rise in religiously unaffiliated in the last 5 years (from about 15 to about 20), not specifically atheists and agnostics.
We know it's sometimes hard to keep these groups straight, but we tried to fact check all of our stats pretty thoroughly.
I was wrong, though, to claim American Atheists were the largest atheist organization in the U.S.; it might be if we understood it pretty narrowly, but AA has membership in the low 4 figures or so, whereas say, FFRF has membership around 16,000.
I've often wondered if the popularity of these "mega" churches is a reflection of the desire to participate in some kind of faith/worship services but without the obligation to subscribe to specific creeds or policies. Perhaps it's easier to stomach an hour or two of "God loves me and everyone" sung by a contemporary band than it is to sit through a berating "turn or burn" speech or squirming uncomfortably when the officiant insults their gay friends with the backing of institutional policy.
While members of these communities couldn't be described as agnostics or atheists, they are "unaffiliated" to a certain extent. They're Christian, but not Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, etc.
I wonder how many of them are included in the "nones".
It's like a Darwinian race against time for homo sapiens.
So you can't just let people live their own lives, you've got to break ties with your relatives who you can't convert. I'm pretty sure that had the exact opposite affect as it was supposed to. I'm an atheist now (not just because of that, but it helped).
National discourse on religion? I wasn't aware that we have one. What is this discourse supposed to accomplish?
"As the number of religiously unaffiliated people climbs, and a younger generation becomes a more influential voice in society, it will become necessary to include and understand these voices in our broader national discourse."
Oh, I think I see. Let me guess... the people best able to lead that discourse, might they be "interfaith activists"?
See, I think Chris is wrong. It's not going to be necessary to include those voices in our national dialog; rather, it's going to be impossible to EXclude them. They're going to speak up and they'll explain themselves -- we don't need to hire spokesmen for them.
Speaking as someone who DOESN'T seek a career in religion, it seems pretty simple to me. Because you're free to chose your religion, all its tenets are just your personal opinions. The statements, "In my opinion we should increase Welfare benefits" and "My faith tells me we should increase Welfare benefits" are identical. Anyone who pretends the latter deserves more weight than the former deserves scorn and ridicule.
And that's where atheists come in. In growing numbers, we're ridiculing the notion religious beliefs deserve more respect than any other opinion. And that's the direction we're pushing our "national discourse on religion." The goal is a society where evidence, not creed, substantiates your opinions.
i.e., the very old, the very young, and the very ugly.
Nobody speaks for them. They would like to stop hearing about all of it. Just in case you cared. Which you don't. You just care about you.
However, substituting citizen identity for religious identity just presents the same problems in a different light. I have not studied "civil religion," but it faces issues of nihilism and alienation, as can be seen with the rise in social conflicts. Insofar as secularism is understood in terms of religion, and it is, we have new wine in old wineskins.
Compare it to so-called "independent" voters, who do not depend on a political party for information but must rely on the mass media or special interest groups. Except for public broadcasting, the mass media is selling political information as well as commercial products. "Independent" voters are forced to decide whose lies to believe. So it is likewise with the religiously "unaffiliated." Better referred to as "uninformed."
It's always the "heretical" (read: minority) churches or religious movements which sided or were "pro" poors: the Early church, the Anabaptists, the "Liberation" church even the 2rise2 of Islam in the west is I believe mor of a social protest than a uniquely religious quest.
I am in my eighth decade, so I recall a world where the population was less than half of what we have now. I see a slow but steady deterioration underway. I see lots of individuals who are working to make life better, but I do not see much in the way of making "the system" better. Our systems are crumbling.
The situation is far from hopeless, but our task for tomorrow is to prepare ourselves for a likely long and painful period of human suffering on a scale we find unbearable. Even an abrupt change in the direction of caring for humans will not prevent the short-term suffering.
I don't know if organized religion in the West is listening. Yes, the pope's last encyclical called for social justice. But if it is government, rather than private religion and charities, that determines our lives, and if it is the people in democracy that govern, the evidence that we can learn from our mistakes is flimsy at best. We are in a new dark ages of global civil war. Sure, religion made lots of mistakes. Now those mistakes are being made by government.