Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Religious Nones: The bigger picture shows increasing polarization

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

On recent Sundays, we’ve been pointing to discussions of the rise of the Religious Nones (people who say they have no religion) – and what that means and doesn’t mean. (Here and here, for example).

It doesn’t mean that former theists have become atheists or even that they are likely to. The driving factor is the collapse of mainline Protestantism, leaving people who are vaguely theist without a religious identity. Many questions lie beyond that change but first, a note about identity…

The Catholic Church is in big trouble too. But the nature of the problem is a bit different. “Catholic” is a multigenerational identity. People can think of themselves as Catholic even if no one since their grandparents’ day has ever been to mass. Put another way: They don’t think they’re atheists (that’s scary). They just continue to say they are Catholic—even if they can’t recite the Lord’s Prayer. No one challenges them on the point. Why bother? One suspects it’s roughly similar with Islam in the Middle East.

By contrast, let’s say that no one in your family has darkened the door of a mainline liberal church since your grandmother did, occasonally, in the 1960s. You probably won’t think of yourself as a member. Truth be told, such a church never had much impact on the culture around it. In recent decades, it probably became largely indistinguishable from the surrounding culture from which it got all its ideas. Its disappearance would have little cultural impact.

The rise of the Nones does mean something important, however: Those who care about the Big Questions are more visibly polarized:

Consider, for example, the percentage of Americans who report that their religious affiliation is “Strong.” This percentage has fluctuated a bit over the decades, but the most recent survey puts it at 34 percent, a number that has remained basically unchanged since 1975, when 35 percent of Americans reported a strong religious affiliation. Apparently, the rise of the Nones is not attributable to a decline in religious enthusiasm among the most strongly committed.

By contrast, the decline in the percentage of Americans who say their religious affiliation is only “Somewhat strong” appears steadier, particularly in recent years. In 2006, about 12 percent of Americans told the GSS surveyors that their affiliation was “Somewhat Strong.” In the most recent survey, that percentage has fallen to only 4 percent. That is a significant drop… Confirmation bias is always a problem when one looks at data like this. Still, the 2018 report suggests that Americans are becoming deeply divided in our attitudes toward religion, a subject about which I’ve written elsewhere. Mark Movsesian, “The Devout and the Nones” at First Things

Movsesian goes on to explain that the divide leaves a deeper mark now on American politics, with Religious Nones being the largest group in the Democratic Party (30%) and 70% of declared Republicans believing in the “God of the Bible.” The “religious left,” incidentally, now seems to be largely an artifact of thinkmags, although it was an important force decades ago.

Visible polarization enables issues to become more politicized than they otherwise could be.

Whatever happens with science issues as a result won’t be dull.

See also: Researchers: Rise In “Religious Nones” Masks Growth In Evangelicalism

and

For The First Time, “No Religion” Is The Most Popular Choice For Americans

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
There seems to be much terminology confusion with fundamental concepts. Christianity is not a religion. It’s a personal relationship between every Christian and his/her Savior/Lord. In religions salvation is at the end. In Christianity salvation is at the beginning. That’s why religious people try to do things to please God and thus hope to get His favor. In Christianity we try to please God because we already got His favor first. We do it in return to His amazing grace.PaoloV
May 29, 2019
May
05
May
29
29
2019
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
Doubter@305, I didn’t read it that way. I thought it was clear that the survey was talking about people not associating themselves with a specific religion, but in many cases still retaining spirituality. I didn’t interpret this as becoming atheist. I have many friends who are spiritual, believe in a higher being, but completely reject the God portrayed by Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Most of this thread, when it hasn’t veered off into accusations and insults, and anti gay rants, has been about why people are leaving organized religion. I suggested that the approach towards homosexuality was a significant factor. But far from the only one. I think another reason, not touched on above, is that people are choosing to spend more of their family time with the family, doing things that they can all enjoy. If God exists, surely he doesn’t give a rat’s ass if people are going to a church. I would think that he would think (I know, presumptuous of me :) ) that it is far more important to spend quality time with your family than to sit in a church and listen to someone, who God has not ordained, to preach to you about what God has ordained.Brother Brian
May 19, 2019
May
05
May
19
19
2019
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
It s interesting that the article writer completely ignores what is a growing segment of the population: those who would self-identify as "spiritual but not religious". Those who reject established religions with all their pomp and circumstance and rituals and inerrant holy books and tithe-consuming clergy, but who also reject materialism and atheism and who still know there is a God and a human incorporeal spirit, and survival of death. Probably this ignoring is because it also is a trend that threatens established Christian churches as much or more than aggressive atheists.doubter
May 19, 2019
May
05
May
19
19
2019
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT
KF
DS, I must weep then pray over those who are doing grave harm to their souls and who are caught up in an agenda of ruin for our civilisation.
Any God who would damn someone's soul simply because they find love with someone of the same sex is a God that is not worth worshipping. And I fail to see how two people in a long term committed relationship are hastening the ruin of civilization. Neither the government nor the church have a place in the bedrooms of the nation.Brother Brian
May 15, 2019
May
05
May
15
15
2019
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
DaveS
Speaking of colors, recall this.
:)Brother Brian
May 15, 2019
May
05
May
15
15
2019
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
I doubt they are "caught up" in anything; that suggests a lack of agency. Rather they (and others like them) are making a deliberate decision to marry, based on their life experience, and most likely do not endorse the destruction of our civilization.daveS
May 15, 2019
May
05
May
15
15
2019
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
DS, I must weep then pray over those who are doing grave harm to their souls and who are caught up in an agenda of ruin for our civilisation. KFkairosfocus
May 15, 2019
May
05
May
15
15
2019
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
KF, I'm just asking about your emotional response to those pictures. This is where you're supposed to empathize with those who have experienced so much abuse over the decades finally having their relationship recognized. Like when the Grinch's heart grew three sizes in one day. Do these pictures bring you no joy whatsoever? Looking back, I have to say June 26, 2015 was one of the happiest days of my life, at least in the last decade or so, even though I don't have that many connections to gay and lesbian people. Further, Americans seem to have accepted the change without much fuss, and it's extremely unlikely that it will be undone, I'm glad to say.daveS
May 15, 2019
May
05
May
15
15
2019
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
DS, try as you might, you face the issue of foundations, what is law? In answering that, you will find the answer to your attempts to dress up calling a sheep's tail a leg as somehow conferring the required reality of being a leg. Fail. KFkairosfocus
May 15, 2019
May
05
May
15
15
2019
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT
KF, Speaking of colors, recall this. And these 90+ year old women, finally getting married after 72 years together (5 years after it was legalized in their state). Does it not warm the cockles of your heart just a bit?daveS
May 15, 2019
May
05
May
15
15
2019
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT
BB, your resort to strawman fallacy just now is further telling. I will note that the lawlessness, benumbing and en-darkening that enabled the abortion holocaust are opening the door to more and more, even as the slippery slope's ratcheting action leads ever closer to the point of collapse. The very fact that you imagine that marriage can be arbitrarily redefined through word magic under colour of law in the teeth of manifest evidence from our nature and function as male and female, underscores the point. FYI, marriage is not a contract that can be changed at will once the balance of power shifts on Plato's mutinous ship of state. KF PS: You may find here a useful balancing perspective: https://uncommondescent.com/laws/logic-first-principles-20-what-is-law/kairosfocus
May 14, 2019
May
05
May
14
14
2019
11:27 PM
11
11
27
PM
PDT
KF
Further, your reaction to the distortion and breakdown of a keystone institution, Marriage, family, individuality is telling.
Really? I’m pretty sure that my marriage and family is the exact same now as it was 15 years ago, just before same sex marriage became legal. I am curious? Is your marriage and family any less? If so, might I suggest that the problem is with you and the commitment you brought in to your marriage, and not the fact that two men can now exchange wedding vows?Brother Brian
May 14, 2019
May
05
May
14
14
2019
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT
KF
BB, the case is very real, I do not need to prove its reality to you,...
The case may be very real. But it mystifies me why you refuse to reveal any details about it. This approach definitely does not support your argument. But you are certainly entitled to keep the facts supporting your argument secret.
Second, a major sign of where our civilisation is is precisely the ongoing abortion holocaust which ever so many refuse to acknowledge,
Sorry, but I wasn’t aware that the abortion issue was caused by same sex marriage. Could you connect the dots for me please?Brother Brian
May 14, 2019
May
05
May
14
14
2019
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PDT
BB, the case is very real, I do not need to prove its reality to you, though your reaction is quite revealing. Second, a major sign of where our civilisation is is precisely the ongoing abortion holocaust which ever so many refuse to acknowledge, by far the worst in human history and mounting up at a Nazi holocaust every two months, approaching a Stalin democide every year, about a Mao every two years. Further, your reaction to the distortion and breakdown of a keystone institution, Marriage, family, individuality is telling. Our duty is to acknowledge evident reality (i.e. to truth), failure in this basic task of mind does not change that reality, here, growing evidence of civilisational chaos, confusion, undermining, disintegration. KFkairosfocus
May 14, 2019
May
05
May
14
14
2019
09:31 PM
9
09
31
PM
PDT
KF
That is not the case I am speaking to, where actual text in one clause establishing a procedure is being flouted and actual text in another place is being in effect re-written, and on the claim that it is established that courts can rewrite Constitutions like that. If you do not see that that is a very dangerous pattern of behaviour, then it is revealing that you cannot see it..
Damn. KF, you still have not done anything other than claim that some court has rewritten a constitution, somewhere, sometime. Do you have a specific example or not? If not...”THE END IS NIGH” will be your epitaph.
That you refuse to acknowledge signs of civilisation disintegration in progress speaks volumes about what you will not acknowledge.
That I refuse to acknowledge signs of civilization disintegration in progress, when I have not observed any, and even after you have refused to provide any examples after being repeatedly asked, definitely speaks volumes. I worked in a sewage treatment plant for ten years, so there is no need to mention the volumes I am speaking of.Brother Brian
May 14, 2019
May
05
May
14
14
2019
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT
BB, there is dangerous judicial activism tantamount to re-writing the Constitution in the USA. That is not the case I am speaking to, where actual text in one clause establishing a procedure is being flouted and actual text in another place is being in effect re-written, and on the claim that it is established that courts can rewrite Constitutions like that. If you do not see that that is a very dangerous pattern of behaviour, then it is revealing that you cannot see it. KF PS: I further think that you are missing the significance of intelligible, built in law of our morally governed nature that Governments, courts or referenda can only acknowledge. If they try to rewrite to suit their preferences or agendas, all they can do is to write unjust oppressive decrees under colour of law. The global holocaust of our living posterity in the womb 800+ millions and adding up at a million more per week, is a capital case in point and it shows a failure to understand where the right to life comes from and why it is the first right. In the American case, there is an asymmetry: a court may properly recognise the right to life, but in robbing a class of living unborn children of that recognition all they have done is to enable holocaust under colour of law. Which is as I have long said, the central evil of our day. For, blood-guilt is the most corrupting influence of all. PPS: That you refuse to acknowledge signs of civilisation disintegration in progress speaks volumes about what you will not acknowledge. It does not affect the reality of a civilisation stubbornly heading for ruin.kairosfocus
May 14, 2019
May
05
May
14
14
2019
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
Hazel
I get the feeling that kf doesn’t understand and/or accept the role of the judicial branch in the United States:
I think that he understands it. But you are probably correct in that he doesn’t accept it. Or, at least, doesn’t accept it when they pass a ruling he disagrees with. It is no secret that he thinks that Roe v Wade was an example of the court rewriting the constitution. But I guarantee you that if the court ever overthrows Roe, he will support their ruling. Even though there will be millions of others who will claim that it is an example of the court rewriting the constitution. The fact that he refuses to provide any examples of the downfall of civilization caused by SSM (or gender identify issues), or specifics on court decisions that are rewriting the constitution, speaks volumes.Brother Brian
May 14, 2019
May
05
May
14
14
2019
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
H, I am NOT speaking of the USA but of a Westminster Parliamentary jurisdiction with a written Constitution in part passed by a referendum process. And, radical judicial activism in the USA is actually part of a much wider problem that tends towards undermining legitimacy of the present governmental order. I am, for cause, seriously concerned that the days of the sort of liberty we have enjoyed are numbered. BB If destabilisation of Constitutional law (including things coming from the Westphalia settlement) does not register with you, nothing will. Nor will the point that pretending that the tail of a sheep is a fifth leg through word magic cannot confer the necessary reality. KFkairosfocus
May 14, 2019
May
05
May
14
14
2019
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
KF, you are still refusing to provide examples of how SSM has caused a decline in civilization or mentioned what court ruling you are talking about. If you have provided this information up-thread just provide the comment number.Brother Brian
May 14, 2019
May
05
May
14
14
2019
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
I get the feeling that kf doesn't understand and/or accept the role of the judicial branch in the United States: you know, the ol' balance of power, three branches thing.hazel
May 14, 2019
May
05
May
14
14
2019
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
BB, you have made my point for all to see. You know nothing about a specific case being appealed by a Government on precisely the grounds that lawmaking (and this involves constitutional provisions here) is the remit of a different governmental process, but are speaking dismissively and are projecting stereotypes including "theocracy." KFkairosfocus
May 14, 2019
May
05
May
14
14
2019
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
H, perhaps, the incident BA77 highlighted involving a leading practitioner and censorship of views rooted in that practice and related analysis is relevant. KFkairosfocus
May 14, 2019
May
05
May
14
14
2019
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
KF
BB, you are talking in ignorance of relevant facts, and no I do not have to provide a proof to you.
With respect, without some examples that we can discuss your cautions are little better than the guy standing on the street corner wearing a sandwich board with "The End is Nigh" on it.
I will simply state that unelected, electorally unaccountable judges should never be in effect rewriting specific provisions of a Constitution...
As I have no idea what rulings you are talking about I have no idea if this is really happening or you simply do not agree with a specific ruling. Maybe I can use an example that I heard about up in Canada. The government of the day passed a law that effectively banned doctor assisted suicide. This law was taken to the supreme court and the court ruled, rightly in my opinion, that the law violated the charter of rights and freedoms. This wasn't the court rewriting the constitution, it was the court ruling on a law with respect to protections under the constitution. There was nothing stopping the government from redrafting the law in such a way that the charter rights were protected, and the court actually recommended that the government do this. To the best of my knowledge, the government didn't.Brother Brian
May 14, 2019
May
05
May
14
14
2019
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
BB, you are talking in ignorance of relevant facts, and no I do not have to provide a proof to you. I will simply state that unelected, electorally unaccountable judges should never be in effect rewriting specific provisions of a Constitution, simply on principles of democratic self government. In this case, there is a further specific provision for judges to recommend amendment if they feel that is advisable, which was ignored and marks a further usurpation. In, a case of an instrument passed by referendum as part of its enactment process scarcely a decade ago. Nor is there a question of "theocracy," which these days too often is a projection to distract from clear will to power manipulations under false colour of law. Perhaps, you will be able to explain for us how moral government, starting with that of the mind through duties to truth, right reason, prudence and justice arises without foundering on the IS-OUGHT gap, on the radical secularism you seem to advocate: ______ . KFkairosfocus
May 14, 2019
May
05
May
14
14
2019
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
KF
BB, it is clear that disintegration has set in,...
Can you provide some real examples of how same sex marriage has contributed to the disintegration of civilization. But none of this "it has weakened marriage" nonsense.
That reminds me of the recent court decision applauded by many that because they get what they wish they do not see the deadly danger of the notion that a judge can unilaterally rewrite a constitution from his bench.
I must have missed the specifics on the ruling you are referring to. But that is irrelevant. Courts are tasked to interpret laws with respect to the constitution. By their nature, all rulings are going to be divisive. They wouldn't end up in court if they weren't. A constitiution is not, and should never be, carved in stone. Cultures and civilizations change. In the last 150+ years we have seen dramatic population increases and a shift from rural to urban living. As well, we have seen dramatic changes in technology and medicine, infant mortality rates and longevity. These changes often require modifications or amendments to constitutions. If a people and its government oppose a court ruling, they have the power to draft new, clearer laws or to amend the constitution. Our government and judiciary are far from perfect, but I will take it any day over a theocracy.Brother Brian
May 14, 2019
May
05
May
14
14
2019
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
PS: Current colour of law concernskairosfocus
May 14, 2019
May
05
May
14
14
2019
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT
Yes, I seriously doubt that the people kf refers to would agree that they have been "responded to appropriately."hazel
May 14, 2019
May
05
May
14
14
2019
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT
KF,
Third, it is clear that we all know or should know the reason for XY and XX chromosomes; that sets the norm, and the fairly rare people with particular medical or psychosocial problems can and have been recognised and responded to appropriately.
Sorry to be blunt, but I suspect you have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps we should listen to the people who have experienced these issues firsthand?daveS
May 14, 2019
May
05
May
14
14
2019
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
DS, first, these issues are active in national and international legal contexts, so your oh its just news sites I don't like, dismissal fails. Second, it is clear that already, we have had cases of indoctrination down to 4 & 5 year olds under cover of compulsory education, e.g. Birmingham (as well as the usual nonsense at Colleges). Third, it is clear that we all know or should know the reason for XY and XX chromosomes; that sets the norm, and the fairly rare people with particular medical or psychosocial problems can and have been recognised and responded to appropriately. What is going on is very different, an ideological agenda of dubious character, and it is already being reflected in distortion of marriage, family, law and personal identity, all of which are foundational to sound community. KFkairosfocus
May 14, 2019
May
05
May
14
14
2019
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
KF,
Do you not see how gender mania is leading to disintegration of even personal identity, much less family and community order?
Based on what I observe in real life (rather than fever-swamps such as Breitbart), we are facing some genuine issues as we come to terms with the fact that not all of us fit neatly into the gender roles dictated to us by our genitalia. How to deal with children experiencing this, for example. I don't care much about gender, to be honest, so I'm not the person to ask about this. I think of myself simply as a citizen of the Cosmos.daveS
May 14, 2019
May
05
May
14
14
2019
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
1 2 3 11

Leave a Reply