Pharyngula

Posted by: Dennis N | October 23, 2008 12:56 AM

The Catholic line fails to take into account all the non-practicing adherents, who really aren't all that Catholic.

Posted by: Shaden Freud | October 23, 2008 12:59 AM

The real demographic trend data I'd like to see are those for fundamentalists - or to a rough approximation, Southern Baptists et al., and other folks celebrating the universe's birthday today.

Posted by: Kytescall | October 23, 2008 1:03 AM

"The Catholic line fails to take into account all the non-practicing adherents, who really aren't all that Catholic."

I agree. There are a lot of people out there who are what my mother (who was raised Catholic) calls "Tribal Catholics" - that is, people who label themselves Catholic pretty much because they feel that it's part of their family heritage, and not necessarily because they really believe the doctrine.

Posted by: Katkinkate | October 23, 2008 1:10 AM

I wonder what happened in the early 90's to kick off the up-trend. Any ideas?

Posted by: Stark | October 23, 2008 1:18 AM

I feel good to be one of those protestants turned non-belief. :)
Yay I'm a statistic!

Posted by: Jadehawk | October 23, 2008 1:24 AM

well, let's hope we don't fall into another Dark Ages before we get anywhere significant... it seems that in history, the most enlightened periods are often followed by being overrun by (militant, and better organized) barbaric, religious hordes :-p

Posted by: Jeff Milner | October 23, 2008 1:26 AM

I wonder what happened in the early 90's to kick off the up-trend. Any ideas?

The Internet (the world wide web to be specific).

Posted by: SteveC | October 23, 2008 1:33 AM

^^^ Jeff Milner's
>> I wonder what happened in the early 90's
>> to kick off the up-trend. Any ideas?
>
> The Internet (the world wide web to
> be specific).

Exactly right, I came here to say this.

Prior to this, the believer who was beginning to doubt had no one to turn to no way to find others -- or even if there *were* others -- who thought similarly.

In the '90s, it became a matter of typing a few words into altavista, dogpile, yahoo, google, etc. and it was immediatly obvious that to a doubter that at least they were not entirely alone.

This ability is unprecedented in history.

I predict the surviving religions will have invariably declared the internet to be a deadly sin.

Looking on the bright side of that prediction... good riddance.

Posted by: Robin | October 23, 2008 1:37 AM

I welcome any positive news like this, but perhaps I've become jaded over time. A lot of people I know are liberal to moderate, but still can't get away from religious thinking. Many of them are good and wonderful friends who are liberal, open-minded, and not religious... and are still against gay marriage. Sometimes on vaguely religious grounds because they're used to that way of thinking, sometimes on the basis of ignorance of homosexuality, and nothing to do with religion.

So a drop in religion doesn't necessarily equate to a corresponding increase in rationality, liberalism, or whatever you want to call it. The lapsed catholic may not suddenly be in favor of abortion.

What is needed is a "rationality index" that can assess people's points of view independent of religion. It can ask questions about social issues, political stances, yes, religion too, and whatever metrics are deemed useful to determine one's outlook in life. Then as religion falls (which is always good news) we can also assess the changes in people's attitudes, which is probably changing at a different rate.

Posted by: Kel | October 23, 2008 1:43 AM

Now that's change we can believe in

Posted by: Ted Powell | October 23, 2008 1:54 AM

Janet, #10:

That seems to imply that the only religions that count are the Catholic and Protestant branches of Christianity and Atheism, when this country and world are made up of much more than that.

Posted by: Muzz | October 23, 2008 2:03 AM

I would like to see the questions for this also. Not to wet blanket the joy or anything but I have heard that people identifying themselves as non-denominational christians are on the rise and are particular enough to file themselves under 'none' just to make the point.

Posted by: maxamillion | October 23, 2008 2:14 AM

Posted by: Shaden Freud | October 23, 2008 12:59 AM
.. and other folks celebrating the universe's birthday today.

I did, the candles are a bugger though.

Posted by: cactusren | October 23, 2008 2:15 AM

While its nice to see a rise in the "unaffiliated" category, its not quite as rosy as that graph makes it look. If you check out the data from the Pew Forum, where the data for that graph was drawn from, (http://religions.pewforum.org/affiliations), the "unaffiliated" category breaks down to:
Atheist, 1.6%
Agnostic, 2.4%
Nothing in particular 12.1%

While I hope the people identifying as "nothing in particular" are rationalists who simply don't want to be labelled as atheist or agnostic, this could also include people who attend various churches, or the new agey types, who can be just as crazy as fundies, though in different ways. So while I'm glad to see the overall trend of non religious affiliation rising, it doesn't actually mean that atheists make up that sizable a portion of the population.

Posted by: Clemens | October 23, 2008 2:24 AM

Wow, after reading this I just checked the numbers for Germany.

We're roughly 30% atheist, 30% catholic and 30% protestants, but to these two xtian denominations I have to add that most members of them are also just "tribal" members.

Most atheists don't officially leave church due to two main reasons:

1.) Still many Germans dream of a classical wedding in a church.

2.) Most kindergardens/pre-schools are catholic or protestant and they are "members only". So if you're a woman and you plan to keep your job after giving birth and not to stay home for six years until primary school kicks in, you better stay with the flock. That's disgusting...

Posted by: woodstein | October 23, 2008 2:31 AM

Here's a question:
What happened at around 1993-98 -- when the rise in Atheist appears to have started -- and how can we make it happen more often?

Posted by: woodstein312 | October 23, 2008 2:38 AM

oops... sorry.. I mean the rise in the "none" category.

Posted by: SmartLX | October 23, 2008 2:40 AM

I wonder about the drop in Protestantism. Many of the current crop of evangelicals identify themselves as Baptist, Assembly of God (Palin) or simply non-denominational. I'd feel much better if I saw a graph similar downward trend for "Christian".

Posted by: watercat | October 23, 2008 3:02 AM

There was an interesting discussion on catholics at Bitch PhD a while back. She describes how people can reject every single tenet of catholic dogma--explicitly deny the infallibility of the pope and the bible--yet still call themselves catholics, based on their social activities and such. I guess that's "tribal catholics"?

I've been talking with a lot of muslims, hoping to find the same attitude--muslims could admit the koran is not the literal word of god, and still call themselves muslims, in the same way the catholics do. The world be better off, but I haven't had much luck finding such an attitude. It seems to be all or nothing for prots & muzzies. (?)

Posted by: jmd | October 23, 2008 3:03 AM

In any case, that Catholic line needs to come down.

Posted by: Wowbagger | October 23, 2008 3:16 AM

I guess we just keep doing what we're doing - fighting the good fight and keeping the religulous from getting their way on education, morality and the like.

YouTube has to have played some part. Half of what's been so successful is simply encouraging them to give themselves away as the irrational loons they are; when you can see, in living colour, the rank stupidity and evil of a frenzied believer, it's much harder to consider it tolerable to share beliefs with such a person - especially when you're told possessing that belief makes you a better person.

They're their own worst enemies in many ways.

Posted by: pcarini | October 23, 2008 3:18 AM

Richard Wolford @ #12

I wonder what happened in the early 90's to kick off the up-trend. Any ideas?

The Internet, IMO. When the web first came to light, I was convinced that it would be the fall of religion. I had already seen the power of the Internet itself, but the web really brought it all together. Religion needs to keep people stupid and away from other opinions, which is impossible when other opinions are a click away.

This. I also think that this apparent worldwide increase in fundamentalism might just be an (ab)reaction to how the internet is affecting their lives. Certainly it's been a profound change for all of us, and some people just aren't going to deal with it well. They're circling their wagons to shield themselves from the scary outsiders.

Being ever the optimist, I think that their children will, as a necessity, grow up to be more moderate or at least more worldly than their parents. They know that their parents are cultural dinosaurs who will never get a handle on the information world, and hopefully will see their religious beliefs for the truly reactionary force that they are. In the online situations where I interact with people younger than myself, I'm always surprised by how many of them self-identify as atheists, and how many more are critical of religion. There is the occasional VenomFangX or whoever, but I think they're in the overwhelming minority.

Posted by: god | October 23, 2008 3:32 AM

This is 06. Were almost 09 anyone got any more recent info.

Posted by: Wowbagger | October 23, 2008 3:38 AM

John Knight wrote:

Sure. All we have to do is replace the Christian religious tradition that formed the basis of Western civilization and American republicanism with the new shiny secular religion of progressivism. It worked so well the last time.

Yeah, because it's the Democratic Party in the US that's more like the Nazis. How's your German, John? Can you tell me what Gott Mit Uns means?

Posted by: Kel | October 23, 2008 3:47 AM

Sure. All we have to do is replace the Christian religious tradition that formed the basis of Western civilization and American republicanism with the new shiny secular religion of progressivism

Posted by: Joanna | October 23, 2008 3:51 AM

Looks good! Let's keep up the good work! :-D

Posted by: Wowbagger | October 23, 2008 4:07 AM

Just look at Christianity's attitude towards absolute monarchy: First, it was justified by saying it mirrored the heavenly hierarchy: One god with his subordinate angels, saints etc, ergo one king with his subordinates. Then, all of a sudden, democracy is what the Bible always told us to do because we're all equal in God's eyes.

What a freakish coincidence that this happens to parallel the shift of the balance of power. Amazing, isn't it? And that's how the church - the ultimate re-inventor - manages to keep itself alive.

Posted by: Owlmirror | October 23, 2008 4:27 AM

All we have to do is replace the Christian religious tradition that formed the basis of Western civilization and American republicanism with the new shiny secular religion of progressivism.

You and Piltdown Man should have a fun time debating whether "American republicanism" is properly Christian or rather, as he says "The US has its roots in Enlightenment/Masonic ideology with a dash of Puritanism - both equally facets of the revolution that undermined Christendom."

*snicker*

Copying and pasting from another thread, I note that the very idea of religious freedom is NOT part of the Christian religious tradition... or maybe you think that's too progressively secular:

A while back, when I was researching early Colonial American attitudes towards religion and religious freedom, I found an interesting source: The Massachusetts Body of Liberties. Which does indeed prescribe certain rights and liberties to all.

But it has an... interesting section under "Capital Laws":

1. If any man after legal conviction shall have or worship any other god, but the lord god, he shall be put to death.
   
   

2. If any man or woman be a witch, (that is hath consulteth with a familiar spirit,) they shall be put to death.
   
   
   
3. If any person shall Blaspheme the name of god, the father, Son or Holy Ghost, with direct, express, presumptuous or high handed blasphemy, or shall curse god in the like manner, he shall be put to death.

And that's before the laws that declare murder to be a capital crime. The original also has footnotes that cite the relevant biblical verses that the laws derive from.

Posted by: SEF | October 23, 2008 4:34 AM

I'm still wondering where the Muslims and Jews and so forth are on this graph.

Posted by: Rey Fox | October 23, 2008 4:52 AM

Don't be so hard on John. He's just afraid of the scary black man, that's all.

Posted by: Dag | October 23, 2008 5:25 AM

I swear I read some statistics earlier this year which presented some pretty different trends except that the atheist population was growing.

If this is true though: bitchin'.

Posted by: SEF | October 23, 2008 5:49 AM

@ Bertram #62:

As well as the rest of the falsehoods and flaws in your post, it doesn't even seem to have occurred to you that idiots (or IDiots) might succeed where geniuses have failed. One possible mechanism might be by them being so visibly drooling and hateful that even the not-very-intelligent are embarrassed to be seen in the same (religious) company as them and hence start to distance themselves from religion because of the way its brain-rotting effect is now much more obvious to potential employers, partners etc.

There's a "good" religious reason why religion (including prayer) should be a private affair rather than an attention-getting public demonstration. Viz. that it's such evidently brain-dead behaviour when seen in public that other people can form an accurately low opinion of the believer and the religion gets more and more discredited.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | October 23, 2008 5:53 AM

Discussing religious trends = trying to destroy Christianity?

Paranoid, much? This isn't a graph of troop numbers; it is a representation of social trends.

Not many people here are engaged in any kind of direct anti-religious activity, unless you count education, science, and scientific education as that. In the main, there are personal acts rejecting religion and religiosity, but there is very little organisation.

You may find it enlightening to read the deconversion stories of many of the ex-religious internet personalities; a majority seem to have rejected religion on the basis of their own experience of religion, reaching their own conclusions. It is simple, naked information - freely sought, and freely accepted - that has changed their minds. Do not assume that the process whereby people reject religion is the same as that by which they find it, it often quite the opposite.

Posted by: Masks of Eris | October 23, 2008 5:58 AM

Bertram at #62: Well, of course the Soviets failed. Force fails, reason doesn't. If you tackle a man, he'll spring back up bloody angry at you, but if you convince him it's better to duck and cover, he'll do so gladly.

What you're saying is that since a safe can't be opened by a hammer, it can't be opened at all. We, however, do have a lockpick of reason and a key of truth...

Posted by: Walton | October 23, 2008 6:27 AM

It is also the case, as I believe some have pointed out above, that formally identifying with a religious denomination does not necessarily mean active participation or even belief (as with the many "cultural Catholics", for instance, who are, most often, of Irish or Italian heritage and identify as Catholic because it's in their family tradition, but are not necessarily active in the Church).

I can relate to this; I'm formally a member of the Anglican Church, but no longer attend church (and haven't for some years), and I don't believe in much of the church's dogma (as I've said elsewhere, my own theological standpoint is very broad and liberal). Yet if someone with a clipboard pressed me to state my religion, I would still have to call myself Anglican, simply because there isn't any other label that I can use.

Posted by: gazza | October 23, 2008 6:48 AM

The 2001 UK National Census (every 10 years) had a voluntary religion question - "Jedi Knight" was, I think, the 4th largest notified 'religion' (internet campaign, of course!). Officially I am one myself, so I guess I count as religious in the statisitcs. I promise to switch to atheist next time and take it seriously.

Posted by: MH | October 23, 2008 6:53 AM

CGoldberg #26 wrote "...either that or the Internet will have been so thoroughly changed and regulated that it is no longer a threat. Net Neutrality is very important but there are major, almost inevitable pushes by Telcos that is making it seem that the Internet might not be so free to the public anymore."

Net neutrality does need to be defended. Thankfully, it looks like Google CEO Eric Schmidt might be in line to be Obama's Chief Technology Officer. Both Obama and Schmidt are pro net neutrality.

If McCain wins, I'll expect he'll kowtow to the anti net neutrality crowd, headed by the telcos and supported no doubt by the fundagelicals.

Yet another reason (as if we needed one) to vote for Obama.

Posted by: scooter | October 23, 2008 7:20 AM

Masks of Eris @ 67: Well, of course the Soviets failed. Force fails, reason doesn't. If you tackle a man, he'll spring back up bloody angry at you, but if you convince him it's better to duck and cover, he'll do so gladly.

You're certainly onto something , but it doesn't really apply to times of great carnage and conquest. The Native Americans hardly sprang back up, they were too dead after centuries of genocide, and during the dark ages of the Soviet Empire, nobody was tackled, their entire cultures were disappeared, their is no backlash from mass graves.

The flaw in Bertrand Cabbage @ 62's argument is that Russian Orthodox Christians were 'targetted' for destruction, when in reality, they were simply bombarded with pseudo Marxist propaganda, and ridiculed for being the superstitious idiots that they are.

I was recently bombarded with Marxist propaganda by RCP attendees at the last Atheist Convention, and guess what?

I feel just fine.

Being denigrated by propaganda is the reality of being atheist in the Americas or being Christian in a pseudo Marxist 20th Century State.

It is not to be confused with being exterminated along with your everybody else of your kith and kin that no longer exist.

Posted by: brettc | October 23, 2008 7:30 AM

Cath: thanks for that. Yes, Honest Johnnie's flirtation with the Exclusive Brethren was a potential game changer, had it succeeded. Similarly Tip's flirtation with Hillsong.

I hope that in Australia we'll always be very sceptical of anyone trying to play the religious card. There's so much to like about reality.

Posted by: Arwen | October 23, 2008 7:55 AM

I think a great deal depends on who is asking the question and whether it is completely anonymous (such as whether in person or via the internet). As I was growing up in a Secular Humanist home (not supposed to tell that 'secret' and NEVER allowed to say the word Atheist because someone will come and fire bomb our house if we tell), I usually answered the question with Catholic because I was baptised Catholic because my grandmother cried and cried everyday that I would go to hell if I weren't baptised and then finally had a breakdown and heart attack. My mom and dad had me baptised then because they knew it meant nothing to them and everything to her. But I have never practiced. When family (husband's) and acquaintances ask, I tell them that I am a Buddhist which is acceptable to their sensitivities because it is at least a religion. I do not clarify that I am only a Buddhist in philosophy only because like everything else, the mystical crap is hooey. To strangers and Jehovah's Witnesses, I still tell them I'm Catholic if they ask face to face or via phone (my parents scared me with the fire bomb crap too well). If I'm taking a survey on the internet (which I've taken quite a few), I say that I am an atheist because I'm (mostly) anonymous.

Posted by: Evolving Squid | October 23, 2008 8:02 AM

They will keep their stupidity in their closet to avoid being ridiculed and laughed at.

Which, unfortunately, is a bad thing. You can't deal with a problem when people conceal it. Bizarre beliefs that are forced underground have a nasty way of springing to the foreground in unfortunate, explosive ways.

Better the religiots feel free to speak out so we know where they are and what they're doing.

Posted by: Arwen | October 23, 2008 8:22 AM

OOH! Gazza (#71), I've taken a couple of internet polls where I've declared myself as a Jedi Knight or said I believe in the (un-midichlorian) Force myself... forgot about those answers. lol I guess I just assumed anyone who voted that way was also an atheist...