Regular readers know that I often check in on the results from The Barna Group, an evangelical Christian polling outfit. On the one hand I think The Barna Group tends to be a bit alarmist (they have a very narrow definition for a "Biblically based Christian," e.g., Catholics don't count), but on the other hand you can be sure that they aren't going to be pushing atheist wishful thinking. So I was really interested when I saw that a new study had come out, A New Generation Expresses its Skepticism and Frustration with Christianity. In short, the authors find that a growing number of young adults are unaffiliated with Christianity, and many are downright hostile toward the religion. The authors are at pains to point that this is not "just a phase," a far smaller proportion of Baby Boomers at the same age were religiously skeptical.
This chart is particularly illustrative:
Source: The Barna Group, Ltd. 2007
The authors of the study paint a picture of a polarized America: while evangelical churches are marginalizing more liberal and moderate "mainline" Protestant denominations, a larger and larger proportion of the population rejects the central position of Christianity within American culture! I believe this is simply a lagging indicator of the fact that Western civilization is no longer fundamentally Christian in its self-identification as it has been since the 5th century (when the elite classical pagan tradition disappeared among the ruling class1). That being said, neither is it post-supernatural, a hostility toward Christianity does not necessarily imply full-throated espousal of scientific materialism. What we have developing is a culture of spiritual pluralism and theological faction. So long as Christianity remains the most powerful organized religious force atheists and non-Christian theists must form an alliance for pragmatic reasons.
In any case, for me the most interesting point was this:
Even among young Christians, many of the negative images generated significant traction. Half of young churchgoers said they perceive Christianity to be judgmental, hypocritical, and too political. One-third said it was old-fashioned and out of touch with reality.
Interestingly, the study discovered a new image that has steadily grown in prominence over the last decade. Today, the most common perception is that present-day Christianity is "anti-homosexual." Overall, 91% of young non-Christians and 80% of young churchgoers say this phrase describes Christianity. As the research probed this perception, non-Christians and Christians explained that beyond their recognition that Christians oppose homosexuality, they believe that Christians show excessive contempt and unloving attitudes towards gays and lesbians. One of the most frequent criticisms of young Christians was that they believe the church has made homosexuality a "bigger sin" than anything else. Moreover, they claim that the church has not helped them apply the biblical teaching on homosexuality to their friendships with gays and lesbians.
Christianity will change on this subject, just as it has (in the generality) changed on divorce, that seems clear. The key is to remain relevant without pandering; often easier said than done.
1 - Paganism persisted among Neoplatonist intellectuals until the rise of Islam (and via the Sabeans of Haran down to the 10th century), so that is why I specified the ruling class. Additionally, I do understand some might object that great European states such as Lithuania remained pagan down to the 14th century. That is a fair point, but I hold that the "West" derives most anciently from the Greco-Roman tradition, non-classical accretions arrived in subsequent centuries.
Assuming this survey is reasonably accurate, it is a fascinating and, to me, pleasantly surprising indictment of evangelical Christianity. I'll be interested to follow up on this in the future.
I'd say the results are overall unsurprising. Fundamentalism is divisive - I'd say in fact as its goal is to divide people among believers and unbelievers, it's essentially a gamble that there end up being more "us" than "them" - and it brooks no middle ground.
I blame the evil Intertubes.
30 years ago, when I was a teen, there was almost no access to skeptical writing and no visible confrontation to Christianity.
Kids these days (get off my lawn!) who enter discussions on the web, or who do basic Googling, will be bombarded with rational thought and have their safe, churchy ideas shredded with no mercy. Some of it has got to be sticking.
on the other hand you can be sure that they aren't going to be pushing atheist wishful thinking.
I'm confused -- aren't these Christian grouped always portraying themselves as a beleaguered minority under attack? Wouldn't their biases (oh no, God is dying!) be congruent with your atheist wishful thinking (yes! god is dying!)?
Although christians have historically opposed themselves to "paganism," I think a convincing argument can be made that christianity, instead of replacing paganism, actually became pagan. Christian belief more closely resembles "paganism" than it does judaism. The most glaring example is that christianity is a polytheistic religion, despite all the three-in-one oil used to get people to swallow the trinity.
I'm confused -- aren't these Christian grouped always portraying themselves as a beleaguered minority under attack? Wouldn't their biases (oh no, God is dying!) be congruent with your atheist wishful thinking (yes! god is dying!)?
sometimes. and sometimes not. depends on the situation and circumstance.
Christian belief more closely resembles "paganism" than it does judaism. The most glaring example is that christianity is a polytheistic religion, despite all the three-in-one oil used to get people to swallow the trinity.
these sort of typological debates comparing characters are less important than how the groups perceive themselves.
Sure, it's important how groups perceive themselves, but lots of groups have obviously biased views of that. Take the Nazis in WW II. They thought they were the good guys. The christian view of "christians vs pagans" is an excellent example of framing. Anyone who diagrees is, by their definition, pagan. I think it's worth pointing this out.
The christian view of "christians vs pagans" is an excellent example of framing. Anyone who diagrees is, by their definition, pagan. I think it's worth pointing this out
many christians have accused muslims of being 'pagan' (though more well informed ones will just say heathen or something like that). despite the fact that islamic monotheism is arguably more stringent than christian monotheism. so the issue i wanted to emphasize is that the number of traits different between two groups isn't that important, the fact that there are two groups is the big thing. e.g., christians in the medieval period might have justified the murder of jews because they "killed our lord" (usually in defiance of the local church hierarchy!), but that was packaging, the substantial difference is they were Other (with different interests and so on).
I think an interesting question is what will fill the spiritual void of a post-Christian West. If human nature has, as I think the evidence shows, evolved an in-built tendency towards spirituality and supernaturalism ... then some new religion will arise. Or an old religion will adapt.
I think environmentalism works as a synthesis of Christianity and paganism (nature-worship) for many people. It keeps ideas like the garden of Eden, and the inherent sinful nature of man ... but allows for homosexuality as just another aspect of nature. The idea being that anything produced by Nature cannot be evil. This new type of scientism tries to include science as a source of authority for the supernatural worldview instead of having to fight it as the older religions do with various implausible miracles and magical revelations.
This new type of scientism tries to include science as a source of authority for the supernatural worldview instead of having to fight it as the older religions do with various implausible miracles and magical revelations.
it isn't scientistic. at least, if it is scientistic, then so is catholic thinking predicated on 'natural law.'
"If human nature has, as I think the evidence shows, evolved an in-built tendency towards spirituality and supernaturalism ..."
I don't think this is the case. More likely, the same urge that makes scientists is the urge that caused the development of religion - namely, trying to explain why things happen.
Right, I agree, I used the word "scientism" (which I stole from a friend) in an ironic sense. To me, scientism, is anything that tries to use the vocabulary of science to lend an air of authority to what at heart is really a supernatual belief. Astrology is a good example: although the scientific vocabulary it uses is now centuries old and silly.
A lot of new religious movements try to springboard off popular scientific ideas. I'm sure you've seen the many new-agey, Buddhist quantum physics books that are popular in the "Metaphysics" section of most bookstores.
I think for many people environmentalism is highly attractive because it combines scientific authority and vocabulary with real base-level human supernatural instincts: purity, Armageddon, sin, public cleansing rituals (recycling), stark Good and Evil differences. I think the fairly rapid spread of Green parties in politics over the last few decades is that it taps into this deep-seated impulse in humanity.
In my experience it's also the most post-Christian subgroups (wealthy, educated) in America and Europe who are most attracted to the Green movement -- which I think indicates it is fulfilling a similar role for those people.
To be clear, I'm an atheist, I just think people have evolved built-in religious/spiritual drives (just like our many other social instincts) and that if Christianity no-longer satisfies that urge for large portions of the West, then something else will.
Sorry, I was agreeing with Razib's comment on natural law and Catholicism (ie it's not scientific). Should have quoted his comment in my reply.
More likely, the same urge that makes scientists is the urge that caused the development of religion - namely, trying to explain why things happen.
it's more complicated than that. see in gods we trust by atran or religions explained by boyer for a sophisticated psychological explanation. the short of it is that there are many reasons, though teological thinking is one of the primary ones. those treasons summed up likely result in a strong propensity toward humans finding religious narratives plausible.
In my experience it's also the most post-Christian subgroups (wealthy, educated) in America and Europe who are most attracted to the Green movement -- which I think indicates it is fulfilling a similar role for those people.
be careful about this. environmentalism in europe has a blood & soil strain which pops up now and then. in the USA neopaganism is generally culturally of the left, but in europe it is just as often to be found on the right (as part of a rejection of judaic christianity, etc. see the rise of 'odinism').
My opinion is that ignorance is the main reason people find religious narratives plausible. Of course I'm being hyperbolic; I suspect there are many reasons for it. Among them would be the fear of death/hope for personal survival. But (I'm imagining here), many primitive religions appeal to the supernatural to explain things like tree limbs falling on people (the tree god must have been mad), or storms (we must placate the sea god). This is clear in modern fundamentalism, in which a god is supposed to do things that we (actually, more like "they") can't explain. We also want meaning in life. We do things for a purpose, we think, so things must be done to us for a purpose.
mark, it's more complicated than that. i'm not going to say more because above explain why it's more complicated than i ever good. your idea is the germ of it of course, but if we stopped at the sort of logic you're using there's no point in having a discipline like psychology or anthropology.
jim,
If human nature has, as I think the evidence shows, evolved an in-built tendency towards spirituality and supernaturalism ..."
What evidence? If human beings have an in-built tendency towards spirituality and supernaturalism, why do rates of theism and "spirituality" vary so dramatically between different countries and cultures, and why have they changed so dramatically over time? That kind of variation suggests that such beliefs are driven by cultural, economic and political factors rather than an innate tendency. Or, at least, that if there is such a tendency it is relatively weak, and can be overcome through education or other cultural influences on beliefs, perhaps like any innate tendencies we may have to racism or sexism.
If human beings have an in-built tendency towards spirituality and supernaturalism, why do rates of theism and "spirituality" vary so dramatically between different countries and cultures, and why have they changed so dramatically over time?
you obviously don't understand how innate tendencies operate:
http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2006/11/innate_atheism_variation_acros.php
Or, at least, that if there is such a tendency it is relatively weak, and can be overcome through education or other cultural influences on beliefs, perhaps like any innate tendencies we may have to racism or sexism.
yes. it can be overcome. they did that in soviet russia by changing incentives and messages from on high. but theism made a come back with the "appropriate" educational measures were no longer taken:
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/01/atheism-is-not-robust.php
razib,
Yes, there may be some innate tendency towards supernaturalism/"spirituality," just as for racism and sexism. But the huge variation in the incidence of such beliefs between cultures and across times indicates that the tendency, if any, is weak. The dramatic rise of atheism in, say, Sweden, and the dramatically greater incidence of atheism in, say, Britain as compared to Ireland, cannot be explained by Soviet-style suppression of theism in either Sweden or Britain. Atheism has grown in Sweden and Britain (and many other countries) organically, as more and more people in those countries have freely abandoned belief in God or never acquired it in the first place.
It's not just religion that is in decline in the developed world, but supernatural belief more broadly.
But the huge variation in the incidence of such beliefs between cultures and across times indicates that the tendency, if any, is weak.
to argue about whether the tendency is 'weak' or 'strong' isn't very coherent. rather, we're talking about the proportion of variation of a character explained by genetic variation. that proportion varies depending on the strength and force of the other characteristics.
The dramatic rise of atheism in, say, Sweden, and the dramatically greater incidence of atheism in, say, Britain as compared to Ireland, cannot be explained by Soviet-style suppression of theism in either Sweden or Britain. Atheism has grown in Sweden and Britain (and many other countries) organically, as more and more people in those countries have freely abandoned belief in God or never acquired it in the first place.
sure, sure. but 1) most surveys still show atheists in a minority (see links above), 2) which begs the question why the hell the majority in developed nations still need to believe in bronze age tales? you say that the propensity toward theism is weak. why? because the frequency of atheism is rising? so what? people have been predicting the death of theism since the 18th century, for me the question is why do so many people believe in bronze age tales in modern nations? that suggests to me that the propensity is actually 'strong,' but as i said, we're really not talking about anything coherent here if we imagine that theism is a quantitative trait....
It's not just religion that is in decline in the developed world, but supernatural belief more broadly.
the decline of belief in god and religion doesn't necessarily mean that supernatural belief is going to go down as much as you think. e.g., east asian cultures are rather areligious compared to the west traditionally (and still today), but there's a lot of bizarre supernaturalistic beliefs in astrology and what not that abound. granted, the strength and coherency of these beliefs is weaker than say young earth creationism fostered by christian fundamentalism. but we're not living in a manichaean world.
By the way, I am sure Zuckerman would agree with the view you attribute to Barrett that "the growth of atheism is predominantly due to social forces." But I'm sure Zuckerman would also argue that the evidence clearly indicates that those "social forces" are not forces that positively socialize people into atheism, but the decline of forces that socalize people into theism. Perhaps the most obvious example of this is the decline in the number of children socialized into a religion by their parents. The conditioning of children seems to be one of the key ways in which religions maintain themselves across generations.
sure, sure. but 1) most surveys still show atheists in a minority (see links above),
Religion and supernaturalism are still deeply entrenched in the cultures of all countries, even Sweden and Britain, and it will take decades for their influence to wither away to insignificance. The rise of atheism and the decline of theism are on-going. There is no clear endpoint. There's no evidence of a "minimum rate of theism" that a country or culture cannot go below.
2) which begs the question why the hell the majority in developed nations still need to believe in bronze age tales? you say that the propensity toward theism is weak. why? because the frequency of atheism is rising? so what? people have been predicting the death of theism since the 18th century, for me the question is why do so many people believe in bronze age tales in modern nations?
I don't think people do "need" to believe in bronze-age tales, any more than they "need" to believe that one race is superior to another or that men are superior to women. Beliefs of this kind have persisted for so long because the social/political/economic environments in which most human beings have lived for so long have nurtured and sustained those beliefs. But in the last few hundred years, in the west, that environment has changed dramatically. Education, prosperity, mass communication, the rise of science and the decline of traditional ways of life are causing increasing numbers of people to abandon belief in those bronze-age tales.
the decline of belief in god and religion doesn't necessarily mean that supernatural belief is going to go down as much as you think. e.g., east asian cultures are rather areligious compared to the west traditionally (and still today), but there's a lot of bizarre supernaturalistic beliefs in astrology and what not that abound. granted, the strength and coherency of these beliefs is weaker than say young earth creationism fostered by christian fundamentalism. but we're not living in a manichaean world.
Right. There has been some substitution of alternative supernatural belief systems (astrology, New Age, etc.) as traditional religion has declined. But as Steve Bruce has documented, the rise in alternative "religion" hasn't been nearly large enough to compensate for the decline of traditional religion.
Also, even when people who abandon religion retain a vestigial belief in supernatural forces or agents of some kind, that belief tends to be much weaker and less consequential than traditional forms of theism. It's one thing to believe in the God of the Bible or the Koran, and quite another to believe in some vague, ineffable "cosmic force" or "universal spirit" that, unlike belief in a traditional deity, has no particular implications for the way you should live or what you should believe about evolution, etc.
Religion and supernaturalism are still deeply entrenched in the cultures of all countries, even Sweden and Britain, and it will take decades for their influence to wither away to insignificance. The rise of atheism and the decline of theism are on-going. There is no clear endpoint. There's no evidence of a "minimum rate of theism" that a country or culture cannot go below.
you seem to presume that this a primarily cultural phenomenon. i doubt it is, rather, culture extends and elaborates native supernaturalistic intuitions. you can reject those intuitions, but they are still going to be there (analogy: visual illusions, you perceive the illusions though rationally you know it's just your mind). as for the "minimum rate of theism," i suspect that this isn't right. there have always been a residue of atheists in societies no matter the social pressures brought to bear toward religious conformity. this implies, to me, that there are individual differences in the plausibility of religious beliefs for a variety of reasons. some people are probably the other end, they'll continue to believe no matter what.
I don't think people do "need" to believe in bronze-age tales, any more than they "need" to believe that one race is superior to another or that men are superior to women.
platonic thinking (groupishness) is a strong instinct. it can be channeled, but it remains. and even if officially there is a consensus that you shouldn't be racist or sexist implicit tests suggest that these biases remain intact, even in attenuated in some groups, across our society. given the appropriate values on particular parameters a society can be predominantly non-theistic, but once those parameters are shifted back i believe that supernaturalism will bounce back (as it has in russia).
Also, even when people who abandon religion retain a vestigial belief in supernatural forces or agents of some kind, that belief tends to be much weaker and less consequential than traditional forms of theism. It's one thing to believe in the God of the Bible or the Koran, and quite another to believe in some vague, ineffable "cosmic force" or "universal spirit" that, unlike belief in a traditional deity, has no particular implications for the way you should live or what you should believe about evolution, etc.
would tend to agree with this. less because new age beliefs are less pernicious (though i can accept that as well), then that new age beliefs don't orient all in the same direction (i.e., superstitions exist, but they're unorganized).
It's going to take a lot to convince me that there is an innate tendency to believe in the supernatural. I continue to say that religion or belief in the supernatural is simply an ignorant attempt to explain the world, give some emotional comfort and provide a method for the control of a society. The rise of supernatural belief in the former Soviet Union is no more a demonstration of anything innate than an alcoholic's discovery of his hidden stash is a demonstration of the miraculous transformation of dust into scotch.
If human beings have an in-built tendency towards spirituality and supernaturalism, why do rates of theism and "spirituality" vary so dramatically between different countries and cultures, and why have they changed so dramatically over time?
Because "spirituality" and "supernatural" are vague expressions and the ground they cover is constantly shifting. For example, are some "UFO" and "alien" beliefs "supernatural" or "spiritual"? There's nothing supernatural about hypothetical intelligent beings existing elsewhere or even visiting Earth. Yet true believers in aliens never seem to be interested in discussing the possibility of, say, some dull botanical expedition having visited Earth, they dream of benevolent "higher" beings that "watch over us", older, wiser races who have "chosen" a few "special" people to teach their message (and the cosmic message always seems to be summable as "what John Lennon said"), conspiracies and powerful figures/organizations who've sold their allegiance to evil alien forces, seductive beings who conduct dreamy, embarrassing experiments on human genitalia during the night... in other words, all sorts of fantastical stuff that isn't strictly supernatural or spiritual but which people clearly believe in only because it fits their fears or hopes, not because it would make any sense.
Over here (close enough to Sweden), being young and "religious" is widely considered embarrassing, but people still have the same tendencies to believe in destiny, guardian angels, djinns, succubi and such - the same archetypal beliefs just tend to surface in non-religious forms, since religion is out. These may be exactly the same as the religious ones: I've known eg. people (all women, BTW) who reject everything else in Christianity but have unshakeable belief in angels. If belief in "supernatural" or "spiritual" gets embarrasing, those angels and succubi will just morph into the creatures you see in banal "scifi".
All of those irrational beliefs are rooted in culture. What would someone believe in if he had no knowledge of religions and aliens? Belief in the aliens, by the way, is a recent invention and is obviously (to me) actually religious in nature, simply transferring belief in a god to belief in a god substitute (powerful, benevolet aliens with unknowable motives).
Oh, and BTW...
in the USA neopaganism is generally culturally of the left, but in europe it is just as often to be found on the right (as part of a rejection of judaic christianity, etc. see the rise of 'odinism').
Over here neopaganism, if meaning attempted revertion to an ethnic religion, belongs entirely to the ultra-right and random unclassifiable nutties. No lefties there. There's of course no analogous group of neopagans in the US; those New Agey syncretist pagans tend to be leftist everywhere, but those are entirely different groups.
In Finland, rejection of Christianity often does have an ethnic side message, but it's hardly ever about anti-Semitism - Christianity has the taint of Swedishness and/or Russianness (although Finland is highly special, as anti-Semitism here is mainly a recent import and most common in the already secular left). Study of paganism was integral for creating and is still used for maintaining a strongly anti-Swedish and anti-Russian national identity, but people who seriously sing spells are considered nutcases now that the last old believers have been dead for decades.
On the other hand, during last night's Democratic presidential debate on MSNBC, the candidates were asked to quote from their favorite Biblical verse. All of them did, with frightening facility - from the New Testament of course.
And crap like this continues to occur with amazing regularity.
Sorry about the serial posting, but one more thing about the left/right perceptions in the US and Europe: Americans have forgotten about communism and few have visited the results, so they haven't seen how obviously the greatest leftist creation in history is also the worst environmental disaster in history. The left has a lot harder time claiming to be better for the environment when the ex-Soviet-bloc is right next door and some old leftists are handily mocked by digging up old claims about how the Soviet Union with its environmental foresight will triumph as the evil Americans choke on pollution...
It's off topic, but equating the US left, or liberals, with communism is way, way off the mark, especially these days. Since communism was never about communalism but was instead about centralized power and control of society, the US right has far more in common with it than the left does. This is especially true with respect to environmentalism. I also doubt seriously that the wacko-alien-abduction-spiritual crap in the US has any relationship to left vs right politics. It's independent of that spectrum.
jaakkeli, minor point, but the american racialist right has started to shift from christian identity toward nordic neopaganism (if they are religious at all, many are atheist).
Although, wasn't there also a lot of effort on the churches' part to reclaim the "void"?
The point made by several posters seems to be that humanity has built-in tendencies to magical, supernatural thinking. These get expressed in culturally specific ways: nature spirits, gods, angels, aliens, etc.
Among my social class being overtly religious at all is looked down upon, but almost all the women I know strongly believe in "destiny", for example. And all believe that Art expresses Higher Truths. They clearly believe that, when being emotionally moved by a work of Art, they are in communication with a higher plane of being, and not simply experiencing empathy.
The left/right issue involves magical thinking to the degree which people have a natural tendency to demonize their opponents, attributing inhumanly evil traits to their political rivals. Negative ads work because that's how our minds work.
I also do think the doom-mongering of today's environmental rhetoric taps into people's supernatural and religious instincts. New religions usually start with apocalyptic visions, lending a sense of urgency. Everybody wants to believe they are saving the world.
More likely, the same urge that makes scientists is the urge that caused the development of religion - namely, trying to explain why things happen.
The conditioning of children seems to be one of the key ways in which religions maintain themselves across generations.