Are you religious? What criteria come to mind in answering that question? When evaluating how "religious" someone is, social scientists and the general public tend to rely on the frequency of religious activities, strength or type of religious beliefs, relative importance of religion in one's life, or some average of these aspects of religious life.
However, in reality it is very difficult to measure someone's overall religiousness, religiosity or how religious she is on some sort of scale. Although it is common to hear one person describe another as "religious" or "not religious," what exactly does that mean?
Certainly, some people are highly religious in all three of the above aspects and some are not religious at all. In our study of young people in the United States (The National Study of Youth and Religion), we find that 20 percent are highly religious in all aspects and only five percent are not religious at all. This leaves 75 percent of the population as more difficult to classify.
One person might feel extremely close to God and believe religion inspires his or her life, but never attend religious services. Another person may attend religious services regularly, and yet feel distant from God or not prioritize religion over other dimensions of life. Not everyone would agree which of these two individuals is "more religious" because we possess varied schematics for how different aspects of religiousness meld together and compare to each other.
Perhaps the problem is assuming that religiousness runs from low to high on a continuum; that it can be easily summarized with a single measure like IQ or temperature. In our recent book, we offer an alternate way of classifying religiousness: a set of profiles of religiousness based on common patterns in how individuals combine their religious beliefs, practices and salience.
One unique profile of religiousness fitting 20 percent of 16- to 21-year-olds in the U.S. is that of the "Adapters." They have strong belief in and connection to a personal God. Religion is inspirational to them, but Adapters are not the most regularly involved in churches, temples or mosques. This may be by choice, but in our study these are often economically disadvantaged youth who face barriers to regular religious involvement like lack of transportation or inflexible work schedules.
One of our study participants who fits the Adapter profile well is Diego*, a young Latino man who sees himself as very religious, describes God as "a father figure who is always there for me" and prays daily. About his faith, Diego says, "I take it for what it is. I don't follow it to the core. And, I think God understands me like that." He says, "I would like to go to church more, but I don't know if it's the first thing on my list." There are issues of poverty and alcoholism in Diego's home that have made it difficult for him to attend Mass regularly. He also finds youth group frustrating because he views the leaders as out of touch with the kind of support he and his peers need.
There are numerous reasons Adapters may not be heavily engaged in religious institutions. Just because someone does not attend religious services regularly does not necessarily mean that their beliefs, private religious practices or the importance of faith in their life are significantly unlike those who do.
Another interesting profile of religiousness is characterized by some belief in God, but rare religious practice and little value placed on religion. This is the style of religiousness for 24 percent of 16- to 21-year-olds in the U.S. We label them "Avoiders," for they seem to avoid either a religious or irreligious identity.
Brandon is an Avoider. He says that religion "never came up" in his family of origin. He did attend a church youth group with friends several years back. He learned that God exists and "sits back and watches out for you." Brandon has not been back to church and does not care to. He says, "I believe in religion, but I just don't choose to go down that path."
Few would consider Brandon to be religious. He himself says, "I am not religious." However, Brandon is unlike youth who have no belief in God. In contrast to the Avoiders, we find a small group of 16- to 21-year-olds (5 percent) who can clearly articulate why they do not believe in God and express confidence in this view. These youth, who we call Atheists in our book, typically have parents who are atheist and highly educated.
Interestingly, we find that on certain outcomes, such as happiness and self-reported health, Atheists report doing as well as those who have religious profiles that mix strong beliefs with frequent practice and a high importance placed on religion. Atheists do, however, use alcohol, smoke and engage in sexual activity more than other youth -- behaviors shown to negatively affect health on average.
Much prior research using a low-to-high measure of religiousness suggests it is correlated with individual health and well-being. As one goes up (or down) so does the other. The relative well-being of the small percent of Atheists in the population, however, is obscured in large-scale studies by the much larger group of Avoiders -- those with some level of belief, but no active practice -- who tend to have poorer health and well-being than Atheists.
Perhaps it is not just the presence (versus absence) of religion in one's life that leads to perceived happiness and health. It is possible that having a well articulated system of belief or meaning (whether religious or irreligious) also contributes to well-being.
So, the next time you size up someone's religiousness, think about the three aspects of religiosity discussed here and how they are uniquely combined. It is not just a matter of being religious (or not). For most people, religious identities are personal mixes of different aspects of religion with varying levels of priority. These distinctive profiles of religiousness deserve more consideration than quick placement on an over-simplified scale from low to high.
*Names have been changed to protect the privacy of our research participants.
Lisa D. Pearce is an associate professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Melinda Lundquist Denton is an assistant professor of sociology at Clemson University.
Rabbi Sid Schwarz: Youth, Religion and Social Responsibility: Part I
National Study of Youth and Religion | National Study for Youth ...
Implications of National Study of Youth and Religion Findings for ...
National Study of Youth and Religion | Insights into Religion
Study: Teens serious about religion - U.S. news - msnbc.com
"Interestingly, we find that on certain outcomes, such as happiness and self-reported health, Atheists report doing as well as those who have religious profiles that mix strong beliefs with frequent practice and a high importance placed on religion. Atheists do, however, use alcohol, smoke and engage in sexual activity more than other youth -- behaviors shown to negatively affect health on average."
Just had to put something in there to put a negative spin an atheism...
"Interestingly, we find that on certain outcomes, such as happiness and self-reported health, Atheists report doing as well"
Hey, atheists are happy and healthy...(let's add something that taints that though):
"Atheists do, however, use alcohol, smoke and engage in sexual activity more than other youth -- behaviors shown to negatively affect health on average."
Where is the evidence of this?
You can't just write this with no supporting evidence!
I would assume (at least from my personal experience) that just the opposite is true.
I lived in TN/GA for 5 years and my friends (all Christians) did the most partying, drinking, and premarital sex than I did.
I suspect this research as well because it relies on a 16-21(the actually study stated 16-23yr olds) to articulate clearly why they dont believe in god, to be classified an atheist. That is a single dimension of qualified atheism, while the article states there several qualifications for being religious. This tactic naturally lowers the numbers of the qualified atheist by narrowing down the qualifications, while the "religious" kid can outright say he chooses to not "go down that path" of religion, and still be classified as religious.
The other most obvious overreach is the assumption that these qualified religious kids have the ability to articulate clearly why they believe there is a god. It does not say this was a requirement to being religious, but it is in being atheist. I am not sure if the study is biased, but the variance of kids who do not know why they think what they think, and those who know exactly why, should be taken into account.
I'd like to see the supporting data for this claim. I'm an atheist and practically all of my friends and acquaintances are atheists/agnostics/non-religious. While we all do enjoy an occasional stiff drink or use of a particular smoking herb, (casual sex isn't something associated with any atheist I know) I implore you to show that it negatively affects any of us. Every atheist I know is highly educated (usually advanced degrees in science or the humanities), very functional and recreational in terms of their use of certain substances, and the ones in relationships are all loving, committed, and monogamous.
However, most of the studies I've read about religious people, especially fundamentalist sorts and evangelicals, show that such people tend to have highly dysfunctional lives. There are many studies that show a correlation between religiosity and such things as substance abuse, domestic violence, support for torture, higher rates of divorce, infidelity, porn addiction, and other sorts of behavior that can't in any way be compared to atheists.
Maybe the atheists were more honest in their replies? Just sayin.... :)
By the way, the research quality and writing style of this article would be fine, if written by a pair of high school juniors...by two "associate professors"...uh, not so much.
How is that considered God's "love"?
So you really believe that He who created all human beings is going to cast two-thirds of His creations into Hell?
And remember this always -- the Bible said that the sun revolves around the earth. Galileo, who proved otherwise, was prosecuted by Christians who used the Bible to prove him wrong. That trial occurred in 1633, and in the year 2000 Pope John Paul II finally apologized for getting that whole sun-revolving-around-the-earth thing all wrong.
So, what else did the Bible get so very wrong?
He was taught that God exists without any proof to back this up. He may have 'learned" it, but cannot prove it.
Just another of those unwarranted and unexamined statements that we should all call out.
http://musingsofwdw4.blogspot.com/2011/01/nature-of-faith.html
Is the Dalai Lama not spiritual, for in instance, because he heads a large organized religion?
And you have it backwards. The Dalai Lama heads a large organized religion BECAUSE he is spiritual, and he brings that depth of understanding to his teachings which are spiritual in nature and not dogmatic.