Eric Weiner, correspondent for National Public Radio in the US and author of a book on happiness, published a bizarre editorial in yesterday’s New York Times. I suppose it was written to promote his latest book, Man Seeks God: A Flirtation with the Divine, which describes his return to faith after a bout in the hospital:
Man Seeks God came about after a health scare landed me in the hospital. I was in pain, awaiting a diagnosis, when a well-meaning nurse asks me a simple, blunt question: “Have you found your God yet?” This out-of-the-blue query nags, prods, and ultimately launches me on a far-flung journey to do just that. And so I am off, searching the globe for a faith that fits.
That reminds me of Francis Collin’s conversion from atheism to faith, which he describes in Salon:
And one of my patients, after telling me about her faith and how it supported her through her terrible heart pain, turned to me and said, “What about you? What do you believe?” And I stuttered and stammered and felt the color rise in my face, and said, “Well, I don’t think I believe in anything.” But it suddenly seemed like a very thin answer. And that was unsettling. I was a scientist who was supposed to draw conclusions from the evidence and I realized at that moment that I’d never really looked at the evidence for and against the possibility of God.
Weiner summarizes his book, but doesn’t reveal the ending:
For most of my life, I have been a “spiritual voyeur,” privy to a wide range of religious practices, but never seriously considered these concepts in my own life. I was an agnostic by default. Face to face with my own mortality, though, and spurred on by the question of what spiritual principles to impart to my young daughter, I decide to correct this omission, undertaking a worldwide exploration of religions and hoping to come to a personal understanding of the divine. In other words, I wanted to answer the nurse’s question.
If anything has the earmarks of a bestseller, this does. The public likes nothing more than books reassuring them that there really is a Sky Father out there (remember Heaven is for Real?). In his New York Times piece, “Americans: Undecided About God?“, Weiner reassures us that, despite the decline in religiosity in America, faith really is alive and well here—it just needs some good p.r.
Weiner’s piece doesn’t begin well:
For a nation of talkers and self-confessors, we are terrible when it comes to talking about God. The discourse has been co-opted by the True Believers, on one hand, and Angry Atheists on the other. What about the rest of us?
As if no religious moderates have weighed in in the discussion! In fact, there seem to be more religious moderates complaining about the co-opting of the discourse than there are True Believers and Angry Atheists engaged in that discourse. And really, are all atheists “angry”? That’s just a perjorative adjective, meant to slur them. I don’t think anyone, for instance, would describe Dan Dennett as “angry”.
Although there are scary people out there who claim no religious affiliation, it turns out, according to Weiner, that most of them really embrace God:
The rest of us, it turns out, constitute the nation’s fastest-growing religious demographic. We are the Nones, the roughly 12 percent of people who say they have no religious affiliation at all. The percentage is even higher among young people; at least a quarter are Nones.
Apparently, a growing number of Americans are running from organized religion, but by no means running from God. On average 93 percent of those surveyed say they believe in God or a higher power; this holds true for most Nones — just 7 percent of whom describe themselves as atheists, according to a survey by Trinity College.
A bit of Googling has not turned out a Trinity College survey that gives the figures described by Weiner, but I did find a Trinity College survey from 2008: the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) Report (pdf at link). The survey asked the key question, “What is your religion, if any?”
The results showed that the “nones” (“Nones/No Religion) comprised 15%, not 12%, of the population (up from 8.2% in 1990). And that ARIS survey includes, under the “Nones”, those who used the terms None, No religion, Humanistic, Ethical Culture, Agnostic, Atheist, Secular. As that ARIS report notes:
This bloc can be described as the non-religious, irreligious and anti-religious bloc. It includes anti-clerical theists, but the majority are non-theists.
In that survey, only 0.67% of all Americans described themselves as “atheists,” but I couldn’t find the proportion of Nones who were self-described atheists. [UPDATE: As J. Navaro points out in a comment below, the data for “Nones” who are nonbelievers is contained in a second 2008 document at the link above, “American Nones: The Profile of the No-Religion Population.” And in that document we find that while 7% of American Nones are indeed “atheists,” saying “there is no such thing as God,” 19% are “hard agnostics (“there is no way to know”) and a further 16% are “soft agnostics” (I’m not sure). These add up to 42% of the Nones being atheists or agnostics, a figure that Weiner doesn’t mention. So Weiner’s statement, “On average 93 percent of those surveyed say they believe in God or a higher power; this holds true for most Nones,” is completely misleading, for 93% of Nones certainly do not believe in God or a higher power!]
Now perhaps only 7% of Nones, as Weiner notes, are atheists, but that really underestimates the number of these who don’t believe in God. As we know, many people who are effectively atheists don’t like using that unpopular label, and might well call themselves, “agnostic,” “seculars,” or “humanists”. But perhaps Weiner is using a different survey.
At any rate, Weiner reports that he used to mock God until that health scare:
I used to be that way, too, until a health scare and the onset of middle age created a crisis of faith, and I ventured to the other side. I quickly discovered that I didn’t fit there, either. I am not a True Believer. I am a rationalist. I believe the Enlightenment was a very good thing, and don’t wish to return to an age of raw superstition.
We Nones may not believe in God, but we hope to one day. We have a dog in this hunt.
I’m not quite sure what he means that “we Nones hope to believe in God one day.” Do even most Nones hope to believe in God? And how will they achieve that hope if they have no religious belief? The problem with Weiner is that in this piece he claims to speak for all Nones, but that’s arrant nonsense.
And I, for one, am a None who’s offended by Weiner’s conflating the positive effects of religions with whether religious claims are true:
Nones don’t get hung up on whether a religion is “true” or not, and instead subscribe to William James’s maxim that “truth is what works.” If a certain spiritual practice makes us better people — more loving, less angry — then it is necessarily good, and by extension “true.” (We believe that G. K. Chesterton got it right when he said: “It is the test of a good religion whether you can joke about it.”)
Shades of Andrew Sullivan! “Truth” is what you make of it, apparently.
It’s a curiously discursive piece that seems to go nowhere. In the end, Weiner bemoans the fact that religion isn’t much fun these days, and has become a solitary pursuit. He proposes, as did Julian Baggini, a new and less Goddy religion:
There lies the problem: how to talk about the private nature of religion publicly.
What is the solution? The answer, I think, lies in the sort of entrepreneurial spirit that has long defined America, including religious America.
We need a Steve Jobs of religion. Someone (or ones) who can invent not a new religion but, rather, a new way of being religious. Like Mr. Jobs’s creations, this new way would be straightforward and unencumbered and absolutely intuitive. Most important, it would be highly interactive. I imagine a religious space that celebrates doubt, encourages experimentation and allows one to utter the word God without embarrassment. A religious operating system for the Nones among us. And for all of us.
In other words, he’s telling us we should all be Quakers or Unitarian Universalists. Good luck with that, Mr. Weiner! It always amuses me when someone tells religious people that they should jettison their faith in favor of a new and different one. It’s like telling Democrats that they really should be Republicans. Why, exactly, would they give up their cherished beliefs for some crazy Apple Religion? Will Southern Baptists, or Catholics, drop their faith and follow Weiner?
And it hasn’t escaped my notice that a religion that encourages doubt might not be consonant with one that “allows one to utter the word God without embarrassment.”
I’m baffled why the New York Times would publish such an incoherent piece, though it wouldn’t be out of place at the Guardian.
h/t: John Brockman
I would admit only that for a time after deciding my profile fit the atheist label, back in the deep recesses of my mind there was a nagging doubt, and a question, whether God was observing me or not. With time, and with further research, more evidence, and discoveries of the lack of evidence, that nagging doubt, and question, of god’s existence, his presence, has evaporated. I used to feel guilty when I “blasphemed” a god, now I feel much better about it.
Donohue, in his latest obnoxious missive (calling for adoption of atheists), also used this trick: Mixing years of data.
It is interesting that purity of disbelief is a requirement, yet purity of belief is never considered. It must count for something, for example, that most American Catholics don’t ‘believe’ or practice most of what is stressed as important by the Vatican. In other words, it’s OK to count half baked Christians as Christians, but half baked Atheists are also Christians. No fair!
I sort of understand where Weiner is coming from on this and wrestle with some of the questions he posed. If believing something that is not necessarily “true” helps to make people better, less angry and helps to get them through the day is it really a bad thing? Is the fact that religious belief appears to be so deeply ingrained in the human psyche an indication that it provides an evolutionary advantage and does evolution care about the truth or falsity of religious claims as long as it somehow gives ‘believers’ a reproductive edge?
Religion tends to be a closed system but not entirely so. Change inevitably seeps in through the cracks and religion generally speaking appears to be moving in a more moderate and tolerant direction. The internet has flattened the world as people, especially younger people become more exposed to other beliefs and perspectives. Ray Kurweil in his book The Singularity Is Near calls for a new religion based on ethics, mutual respect and knowledge. I get the sense that ‘believers’ and various religious systems are slowly moving in that direction and religious fundamentalism is being left in the dust.
Yes and no. I agree that tolerance is increasingly valued within religions but, if by moderation you mean movement away from an emphasis on belief in supernatural events, I don’t think that’s happening. As a Tillich-inspired generation dies off, Catholicism and mainstream Protestantism seem to be moving in a theologically more conservative direction to compete with the evangelicals.
“I’m baffled why the New York Times would publish such an incoherent piece, ”
I think that you overestimate the NYT readership. 🙂
I would then have asked the well-meaning nurse the simple, blunt question, “Why the hell hasn’t your ass been fired yet?”.
I am happy to say that in the UK she almost certainly would have been out the door.
A major reason I’m gearing up to emigrate is the crappy health care system here. A minor reason is the fear that I won’t be able to leap off my deathbed and slap the shit out of the inevitable healthcare provider asking me that question.
Thank you sir for that little piece of your mind you gave that weiner guy. Evidently, he cannot be anymore ingnorant. We should inform thinkatheist.com, atheistnexus and others about it. Thank you.
He’s redefining the meaning of true. What he wants is to live in a way that makes sense to him, that’s all. He calls that “true”. He could call it yambo-mambo as well.
One thing is what feels good and another thing is what there is.
The typical mind fallacy: generalising from yourself to everyone. This works somewhat, in that humans are pretty similar cognitively — but is the wellspring of a great deal of foolishness.
A religious space that celebrates doubt—
doubt about what? Angels and pins? Or is this space going to get into politics and social issues like the older religious spaces?
encourages experimentation—
experimentation to test what? faith healing?
allows to say God without embarrasment
Dude wants to encourage experiments, but when his idea fails to experiments to the point of becoming embarrassing to even talk about, he doesn’t dismiss the idea; instead, he prefers to re-brand it in a fresh and cool looking way (just as cool as Steve Jobs’ products) That’s what cranks do.
So, apparently there are no atheists in foxholes…
At least that’s what the message appears to be here.
Bleh.
Why is the NYT publishing all this nonsense? Must be a commercial benefit.
Weiner’s got what Dan Dennett called “faith in faith.” It doesn’t matter WHAT brand of poorly evidenced supernaturalist assumptions you believe — the important thing is that you beeeelieeeeve.
He’s confusing a serious search for truth with a self-help seminar. If you’re “looking for God” you’re going to find something you’ll call God. It could be anything. Anything you want!
That is not a good sign that you’re on to something “above” yourself.
I think this piece is an insult to the very values of reason and the Enlightenment which Mr. Weiner professes to care about. No, he doesn’t wish to return to an age of raw superstition. He instead wants to create an age of highly-refined and processed superstition where the worship goes down smooth. God as Wonder Bread and Cheez-Whiz.
“”Si Dieu n’existait pas, il faudrait l’inventer.” — Voltaire
Weiner’s own travails aside, what seems encouraging is his notion that participation in organized religion is declining because organized religion’s participation in politics has left a stink on both of them.
If there’s causation – not just correlation – at work here, then the trend restores some faith in humanity.
Hi Prof. Coyne
I work at ISSSC in Trinity and analyzed the ARIS. In the ISSSC/ARIS report that you link to (“American Nones” (p. 11)) there’s a table of the answers to the question “Regarding the existence of god do you think..?” There 7% of Nones responded “there’s no such thing” which was labeled as “theological atheist”, the other two responses “there’s no way to know” and “not sure” were labeled “hard” and “soft” agnostic, respectively. These represent 35% of the Nones and overall 42% of Nones fall in those atheist/agnostic categories.
There’s more detail in page 14, which shows that 11% of “nones” self-identify as atheists, agnostic, humanist, etc.
Thanks, but I don’t see those data in the 2008 “summary report.” Could you specify which document/report you’re looking at?
Ahh. . . I see now–there’s a separate “American Nones” document that I missed. Thanks!
In addition to the ARIS survey, it’s easy enough to see using the GSS data. Aggregating all those from 1988-2010 who answered both RELIG and GOD questions, the breakdown for the RELIG(4) “Nones” is roughly:
12% “I don’t believe in God” (atheist)
20% “I don’t know whether there is a God and I don’t believe there is any way to find out” (agnostic)
26% “I don’t believe in a personal God, but I do believe in a Higher Power of some kind” (deist)
7% “I find myself believing in God some of the time, but not at others” (intermittent)
14% “While I have doubts, I feel that I do believe in God” (“Thomasite” theists)
21% “I know God really exists and I have no doubts about it” (Generic-brand theists)
Looking at year-to-year, the GSS ranges from 8.5% to 17.4%; I’d expect about 10% is the norm. The GSS, ARIS, and Pew all tend to numbers around that. Note that the Pew survey results strongly indicate that not all those who give the atheist-style response use that term as a self-descriptor.
So technically, yes, most of the Nones have some belief in some manner of God. However, a majority can be painted as Freethinkers, at least.
I’ll also note, UNlike the relatively clear logistic curve in the fraction of Nones within the population versus Cohort, there doesn’t appear to be any sign of a increasing fraction of atheism within the Nones.
Apparently, Mr. Weiner, you have just dipped your toe into a vast fast flowing river for the first time and exclaimed, “My goodness, it’s wet.” Congratulations, it’s a good first step into an investigation of rivers.
By claiming to be an agnostic by default concerning religion, you tell us all that you have not given secular humanism/atheism much prior thought. But no matter, you tell us you will search the world for the right religion to match your needs. Mr. Weiner, will this search be a scientific search for truth, or will you rely upon emotion as did Francis Collins and his three waterfalls and personal tragedy? I may be wrong, but I doubt it is possible to choose a religion by scientific methodology. I strongly recommend you choose your religion by emotion alone. You will be more likely to match your personal view of life with a religious belief by relying on emotion and/or an unexplained/mysterious event. Your recent illness experience is a good first step; the next step is to find a “sign”, as did Dr. Collins. In your state of mind, you are bound to find one sooner or later.
Dead on.
“…a new way of being religious. Like Mr. Jobs’s creations, this new way would be straightforward and unencumbered and absolutely intuitive.”
Like Comte’s “Religion of Humanity,” or the various other secular religions promoted by Voltaire and Mill and Huxley and others?
Perhaps a Jobsian spiritual architect/leader will emerge and succeed where many great minds have failed. But I wouldn’t bet Mitt Romney’s $10,000 on it, much less a dollar of my own.
Somewhat off topic, but I thought this video responded nicely to the deferential treatment religion often enjoys in media and politics:
http://crooksandliars.com/andy-cobb/rick-perry-weak-man
Yeah, and while you’re at it, imagine all the people sharing all the world.
Just another faitheist who found a way to make money telling a credulous public what they want tI hear. It’s Chopra Lite.
Weiner by name, Weiner by…Well you get the picture:-)
As one who has been there, it always amazes me when people who have survived a life threatening illness can always thank their “god” and totally ignore the work of the actual life-saving technicians(doctors, nurses, etc.).
I would not want to go to a hospital which allowed any of its personnel to proselytize patients instead of doing their jobs!
Goodness Bless all of the great technicians!
Who are the most reliable technicians in a hospital? The ultrasound staff…
(I’ll get my coat…)
/@
But Weiner is not saying that 93% of Nones believe in god. It could be inferred from his statement that it is 93%, but Weiner is only saying the concept of belief holds true, not the proportion. I guess the clue is in using the word “most” which would change the proportion. It allows Weiner to think “I am being honest here, and it supports my position” whereas I would feel uncomfortable about being misleading.
I agree though that on first reading it is easy to infer, and inferences are like assumptions in that need to be checked and verified.
I think you’re giving Weiner the benefit of too much doubt!
/@
Ah, I seem to have proof-read out a sentence in my comment.
I also agree that the sentence is misleading, and Weiner lets himself get away with it because he can justify to himself a loose interpretation of it as being accurate.
When I saw ‘Nones’ I immediately thought of the 3pm monastic service, or the Roman calendar!
Of related interest, a book published in 5 weeks which will make a minor splash in the UK, as it is by a well-known writer/philosopher Alain de Botton – Religion for Atheists –
http://www.alaindebotton.com/religion.asp
Interesting. I greatly enjoyed his The Consolations of Philosophy.
/@
As they say, let us know how that works out. At present, the folks who control the range of consoling and beautiful rituals and ideas are pretty insistent about the peculiar doctrines. Perhaps Alain has a way around this, but I hope he understands that there are already a lot of heads against that wall.
Nones should be called Feelies. They only bother to believe what feels good. They don’t want to be constrained by religion *or* rationalism, but freely tailor reality to fit their shrugging narcissism, above all. They don’t object to religion because it’s stupid, which barely offends them, but because it’s constraining and often nasty. They see rationalism just the same way — too cramped for their burbling, overeager imaginations and not enough prone to soothe their insecurities, so they lump us all together, the believers in faith and the believers in evidence. They yearn to live in a custom-built, personal bubble of soft soap, consuming a diet of self-spun cotton candy, like Steve Jobs and the Dalai Lama rolled together and tucked into some cosy thumb sucking spot, nestled in velvet cushions overstuffed with pseudo-profundities, and if they can find a way to imagine some amorphous, undemanding sky-daddy cooing over them, so much the better. They leave a god-shaped door open — that is, in the only shape they would be prepared to receive — just in case their dream deity happens to come along to sing them a lullaby. That’s Weiner.
Seems to me that Weiner’s brush with his own mortality is what made him into a closet theist. Pretty understandable, but it surprises me that he apparently lacks the ability to reflect on this and thereby see it’s just his mind playing a trick on him.
“We need a Steve Jobs of religion. Someone (or ones) who can invent not a new religion but, rather, a new way of being religious. Like Mr. Jobs’s creations, this new way would be straightforward and unencumbered and absolutely intuitive. Most important, it would be highly interactive.”
Already happened – her name is (D)oprah and she’s made a lot of money pushing religious B.S.
Steve Jobs was a fake figurehead and PR creation. But you are right, just what magical beliefs need about now.
What is this word “perjorative”? I don’t find it in any of my dictionaries…
I suspect it was a typo. Should probably read “pejorative”
My God (heh), my loathing for these people is inexpressible. I _hate_ this guy.
New York Limousine ?
A good article, thank you! I hope you won’t mind me writing about this article on my website — I will also leave a linkback. Thanks again!