Secularism on the rise in the USA

December 28, 2014 • 3:00 pm

by Grania

Salon has posted an except from Phil Zuckerman’s new book Living the Secular Life: New Answers to Old Questions. Zuckerman is a professor of sociology and secular studies at Pitzer College in California, I mentioned him briefly in my post “Will Religion Ever Disappear?”, and this new excerpt makes me want to read his book.

This extract focuses on why America has moved towards secularism.

What is going on? How do we explain this recent wave of secularization that is washing over so much of America?
The answer to these questions is actually much less theological or philosophical than one might think. It is simply not the case that in recent years tens of millions of Americans have suddenly started doubting the cosmological or ontological arguments for the existence of God, or that hundreds of thousands of other Americans have miraculously embraced the atheistic naturalism of Denis Diderot.

He points at the Religious Right that since the 1980s has steadily alienated both moderates and left-wing Americans from Christianity as it allied itself more closely with the Republican party. He also points to the pedophile scandals in the Catholic Church that alienated substantial numbers of its former members. Zuckerman also attributes the demise of faith to the increased proportion of women working outside the home.

British historian Callum Brown was the first to recognize this interesting correlation: when more and more women work outside the home, their religious involvement—as well as that of their families— tends to diminish. Brown rightly argues that it has been women who have historically kept their children and husbands interested and involved in religion. Then, starting in the 1960s, when more and more British women starting earning an income through work outside the home, their interest in—or time and energy for—religious involvement waned. And as women grew less religious, their husbands and children followed suit.

The general rise in acceptance of homosexuality and the dawn of instant access to the Internet has also caused many people to distance themselves from their former religions. Traditional religions continue to stigmatize homosexuality, and this view is now largely regarded as morally repugnant and damaging.

The fact that Americans today between the ages of eighteen and thirty are the generation most accepting of homosexuality in the nation’s history, and are simultaneously those least interested in being religious—and the fact that the states that have legalized gay marriage tend to be among the most secular—might be coincidental, but I highly doubt it.

Finally, the Internet has given people an unprecedented way to communicate ideas and issues that they have with their religion. It allows them to reach out to people going through the same challenges as they, and of course, exposes people to the multitude of sites devoted to debunking religious claims or comparing religions’ origins and rituals. But Zuckerman thinks there may be even more to it that this:

. . . perhaps most subtle, the Web may be partly responsible for the rise of irreligion simply by what it is, what it can do, what it can provide, how it functions, and how it interfaces with us and our minds and our desires and our lives. The Internet may be supplying something psychological, or feeding something neurological, or establishing something cultural via its individual-computer-screen nexus, something dynamic that is edging out religion, replacing religion, or weakening religion. The entertainment available on the Internet, the barrage of imagery, the simultaneity, the mental stimulation, the looking and clicking, the hunting and finding, the time-wasting, the consumerism, the constant social networking, the virtual communication—all of it may be undermining religion’s ability to hold our interest, draw our attention, tap our soul.

This doesn’t mean that Zuckerman feels that religion will disappear. Nevertheless, he feels that the argument that the ‘faith instinct’ is innate to all humans is untrue, pointing out that, with between 450-700 million non-believers in the world, non-belief can hardly be regarded as aberrant or unnatural. He uses this analogy to illustrate the point, one which bound to upset some people:

For yet one more analogy, consider violent crime. It is just as widespread as religion and dance. It exists in all societies and cultures, past and present. And yet we know that not all people are violent criminals. Most aren’t. So just because a phenomenon exists in all human enclaves does not make it innate or natural to all people.

[JAC note: I find this comparison flawed. One can in fact make a good case that humans do harbor “aggression genes” that were adaptive in our ancestors, but that are either expressed only when appropriate or whose expression has been muted by the overlay of modern culture. Many of us have the impulse to physically injure someone we dislike, but keep that under control.  One can’t make such a good case for the innateness of religious belief, as its adaptive advantages aren’t as obvious, nor do we see religion in our closest primate relatives, as we do aggressive behaviors.]

Zuckerman argues that the ‘doubt instinct’ or the ‘reason instinct’ is every bit as inherent as the ‘faith instinct’. Reason may be more difficult than faith, but that doesn’t mean it is any less a part of humanity for it.

The reviews on Amazon for his book are very positive, and they appear to have been written by people who have actually read the book rather than by people trying to skew the system by down-voting, so I think I am going to check this one out.

 

58 thoughts on “Secularism on the rise in the USA”

    1. I’d love to listen to this, but twice now it’s cut out at around 2:17. Do I need to subscribe or pay to get the full interview?

      1. FWIW, I didn’t have any problem listening via the embedded player on the linked page. No subscription or payment required. Also, this is a podcast that is worth subscribing to via your favorite podcast/RSS app (I like BeyondPod for Android devices). I’ve been listening to it every week for a couple of years and seldom think my time would have been better spent listening to something else.

  2. I suspect that religion is a sort of “hijacking” of some other instinct, the broader sort of religion that Einstein identified with, when he called himself a “deeply religious nonbeliever” who revered the “manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty” [2nd quote from “The World As I See It”- other widely attributed but I don’t know the source] I certainly hope there is no “faith” instinct.

    =-=-=

    Conservative religious folk tend to forget that homosexuality was honored in ancient Greece and Rome and in China roughly until the time of the arrival of Christian missionaries in the 13th century CE. Christianity’s vilification of homosexuality is just about the harshest in world history, to my knowledge.

    1. Homosexuality was not viewed as an anomaly in traditional African cultures in past centuries, but things changed drastically with the introduction of the Abrahamic religions in Africa by Arab and European colonists.

      1. Same in the Pacific Islands I know about (which isn’t all of them). Being gay has become bad since Christianity came along.

      1. sub is an abbreviation for submit. It is a customary way of registering to “Notify me of ne comments via email.”

      2. One of the weaknesses of WordPress (and believe me other blogging softwares are far worse!) is that punters can’t simply sign on to follow the comments if they haven’t made a comment themselves. So standard practice, if you haven’t as yet got anything useful to add to the conversation and don’t want to bore people rigid by adding some vacuity (“Great post, Jerry!”), is just to put “sub” (for subscribe). On a site like WEiT the comments are sometimes of great interest.

  6. . . . perhaps most subtle, the Web may be partly responsible for the rise of irreligion simply by what it is, what it can do, what it can provide, how it functions, and how it interfaces with us and our minds and our desires and our lives.

    The internet widens everyone’s vision of their personal community. Faith demands cultural reinforcement and a sense of Us against Them.

    But it becomes harder and harder to sustain beliefs like “everyone believes in God” or even “everyone respects the value of faith” without encountering an opposition which is not railing against Virtue as the propaganda would have it, but making arguments. And it is easier and easier to live as if God does not exist, but we still aspire to be good.

    In my opinion one of the most devastating arguments against the existence of God is what I call the “Argument from Irrelevance.” It is not only conceivable, but practically possible to have all the desires, virtues, values, and aspirations which religion has tried to claim for itself … without being religious. On the personal and communal level a loving secular humanist isn’t significantly different than a loving Christian, Buddhist, New Ager, or what-have-you. It’s not just that it doesn’t matter what you believe about God — it doesn’t matter IF you believe in God.

    Unless you believe things about God which DO distinguish it from good will and reason alone. Then watch out.

    It seems to me that if God really existed then it would be impossible for an ordinary person to live an ordinary, satisfying life without believing in God and caring about God. How could a Truth which is supposed to be as important — no, more important — than “existence exists” and “love matters” rolled up into one be THAT irrelevant?

    The internet is the Agora times a million.

    I was raised without religion. Whenever I read a believer talk about the ‘God-shaped-hole’ or the inner turmoil and anguish of a life lived without any Spiritual insight and faith I know they are talking bullshit.

  7. I wonder if some generational broadening of the concept of “us” isn’t at play, facilitated by Internet culture. I think the Millenials have a much more expansive view of humanity than any past generation could have had, and I think it may be harder to keep kids in the thrall of a local religious community when they can see for themselves that people “just like” themselves live in such diverse circumstances and believe so many different kinds of things – and maybe this is one of Phil Zuckerman’s conclusions, or perhaps so saying the same thing in different words. The world 50 years from now is going to be dramatically different, socially, than it has been, that much is certain!

    1. Ha! I had no idea it would happen so quickly. Amazing.
      My wife should know about this. She’s always trying to get me to turn out lights. With a pocket full of jelly beans I think she could do it in 10 minutes.

      1. 😀

        “Just give me the jelly beans, honey. It’s the least you can do, what with global warming and all.”

    1. When I was a Christian I was embarrassed to admit it because of the bigotry and prejudice I saw so much of. One of the problems I always had, even as a child/teenager in the ’70s, was I couldn’t understand why everybody was so obsessed with whether or not people were gay.

  11. I listened to the interview that Carl indicated and he is quite good. Very interesting about the woman in Mississippi who took the kids out of school and home schooled them because of all the religion in school. Another thought might be to get the hell out of Mississippi.

    Zuckerman also suggests the same thing I’ve heard before when asked how the Atheist can help the most and that is to “come out” as they say and tell people what you are. I’m sure that is much more difficult for some, so easier said than done.

  12. “One can in fact make a good case that humans do harbor “aggression genes” that were adaptive in our ancestors” no problem with that Prof but..
    I put it this way, there are not genes for aggression as such but genes that make aggression possible by way of brain circuitry (modules)and electrochemical action, likewise with our propensity toward belief.
    Our theory of mind capabilities for a virtual world has enhanced the religious, it is up to other brain circuitry (and the internet it seems) to head it off at the pass.

    It is interesting and yet very mundane that women out in the work force can have such an effect, a phenomenon totally unrelated to religion but it does say there is no time for procrastination.
    If there was a reversal of this trend would religiosity rise again? Women’s rights need intense focus as a priority.. less talk more action, family considerations for one.
    Science and reason need to fill the void left by this empty home, how? all I can think of is, educate and eliminate the need for a fairytale meaning to a wonder filled life. All in all it is good news.

    1. My guess is that, it is a combination of things. In many cases it happens because religion isn’t that important to them already, and having a job that takes a wife / mother out of the home for a substantial part of the week means she doesn’t really want to spend the little spare time left to her in a time-consuming activity that doesn’t give that much benefit in return.

      Once she stops going, she stops making her family go with her.

      The other thing, probably less true now than 50 years ago – although it would vary depending on the community, is that the addition of cash of her own and exposure to other communities and ideas lessens the desire to go to the former only other social outlet she had access to.

      1. This is undoubtedly true. There is a complementary effect as the mother that once spent 24-7 brainwashing here children is now reduced to only part of the day. Especially so for the home schoolers. This leaves room for the kids to absorb attitudes of the wider community.

        1. Perhaps too, previously going to Church was one of the few ways women got to interact with others outside the home. Once they have a job, they are getting that contact without the need for Church.

          1. Also, there is the well supported general correlation between religiosity and how hard life is. Given that, it seems plausible that the same correlation would be the case for the group “women.” As the freedom of woman increases, so their religiosity decreases. Just as in the general population.

          2. I’ve always considered that a factor too, darrelle. And that women fully aware of their bleak opportunities in some societies are quite receptive to the idea of being ‘rewarded’ in the afterlife for all their sacrifices.

  14. Some of the Founding Fathers made the argument that the establishment clause would create a free market of religion and so increase religiosity, rather than discourage it. Many think that’s exactly what happened.

    Perhaps the same thing will happen with secularism? Maybe once there’s a critical mass, secularism will explode in the US, the same way support has for gay marriage and marijuana legalization.

    1. I don’t think it works like that Greg. Religion probably thrives because of competition between denominations. No national church. Competition drives creative proselytizing. Secularism is not in competition and will replace religion as a single item. I’m sure its success will be based on it’s reasonableness.

      1. ” its success will be based on it’s reasonableness.”

        The original post suggests much of the cause isn’t based on reason at all, but other social changes.

        “Secularism is not in competition”

        Sure it is. Econ 101 is that any product has substitutes, some closer than others. Secular groups compete with religious ones and they compete with each other. We have a lot of secular/atheist/skeptical groups to choose from. An example of a new one is Sunday Assembly, designed to fill a market niche.

        Secularism is like soap, a product that can be packaged and sold.

  15. As much as I personally laud the success of New Atheist tomes in recent years, I think they’ve had almost no effect on secularization on a broader scale. It’s fascinating that secularization has taken place at all with a rising tide of inequality (feeble and insecure minds steeped in the brutalities of life are most prone to piety as a salve). Implementation of the Affordable Care Act, if it’s not gutted by Scalia and Friends in June, is very likely to amplify overall secularization. And it’s not surprising to hear about the role played by educated and empowered women in this trend. Government policies that promote gender equality, provide a support structure and security for moms, emphasize childhood development do the most to reduce economic and social distress. And consequently noxious traits like religiosity are also diminished in proportion. Now if only we could execute every prescription by Joseph Stiglitz’ The Price of inequality, the resultant effect on secularization would eclipse the calls of God is not Great a gazillion times over.

  17. “JAC Note… One can’t make such a good case for the innateness of religious belief, as its adaptive advantages aren’t as obvious, nor do we see religion in our closest primate relatives, as we do aggressive behaviors”
    This remark make me going right back to “The Bonobo and the Atheist” by the primatologist Frans De Waal (I read this book last year). The author (who explicitly admits he is an atheist himself) emphasizes that signs of empathy are frequently evidenced in primates and that “morality is not as much of a human innovation a we like to think”. De Waal also refer to his own blog “Morals without God?” on the New York Times’ website, where he argues that morality antedates religion and that much can be learn about its origin by considering our fellows primates. Later in the book, he cites Jane Goodall’s observation of a “waterfall dance” of a chimp looking like a “rain dance” in humans: “Goodall went on to wonder whether these displays could become ritualized in some animistic religion, and what would happen if chimps could share these feelings with each other”. De Waal suggests that “the awe and wonderment at natural events beyond our control” are among the sources of religion. These are in my view arguments for human genetically influenced behavioral traits favoring religions in human societies (but not for “religious genes“ of course).
    One must also take care not anthropomorphizing the significance of “aggressive behaviors”. For instance, chimpanzees kill for lands, as observed in Uganda. Patrols ambush and slaughter solitary foreign chimpanzees in a bordering part of their territory probably “annexed” earlier. From our “moral“ viewpoint, this may seem awful, but for chimpanzees involved in the risky business of patrolling, it is a way to favor their community, by protecting feedings areas, representing thus a form of altruism.
    Probably an innate tendency for traits favoring aggressiveness and for traits favoring inquisitiveness, empathy and altruism were present in our common ancestor with great apes. In human cultures, these traits contributed to the apparition of religions integrating explanations of natural events, moral rules, altruistic features, and defensive or aggressive precepts.

    1. I am not quite sure I understand your position on the statement from the OP that you quoted, so this might be off base.

      I agree completely with Jerry, and thought exactly the same thing as I was reading the relevant Zuckerman quote, before I read Jerry’s note. It is a very bad analogy. In contrast to his intent his analogy actually strongly supports the opposite.

      The capacity for violence and aggression is innate and natural in humans. And these traits come from much deeper in our evolutionary history than our common ancestor with chimps. It is pretty clear that these traits have a strong genetic basis and were directly selected for way back in our evolutionary history, long before mammals. Obviously this does not mean that all humans will behave aggressively or violently on a regular basis, and in that limited sense that supports Zuckerman’s comparison. But, you can take any human and poke them in the right way and they will respond with aggression and or violence because those responses are built in, and that is exactly the opposite of what Zuckerman was trying to say.

      The genetic and evolutionary history of human’s capacity for religion by contrast appears to be unique to humans, meaning it is much more recent. In any case it is clearly much younger than violence and aggression by an order of magnitude or two. And there is no good evidence, or good arguments even, that the capacity for religion in humans has been directly selected for.

      Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges. Or maybe apples and artificially flavored orange jelly candies would be closer. It is not an accurate comparison, and it supports the exact opposite of what Zuckerman intended.

      1. OK, I try to clarify my point: it was uniquely about the fact that the JAC note mentioned that there are no sign of religion in the great apes, but well signs of aggressiveness. I referred to De Waal to argue that some observed behaviors in apes are consistent with some embryonic religion of animist type. Then I referred to territory protection in chimpanzees to suggest that when we use the word “aggressiveness” about them, we are making an anthropomorphic judgment. Traits like socialization, empathy, altruistic behavior are as much widespread in animals as traits like aggressiveness and competition. It is difficult to know how they were expressed in the first primates 55 million years or more ago and in our late common ancestors with the great apes in the order of 10 million years ago.
        More broadly, my opinion is that faith doesn’t characterize religiosity. You can have faith in non-religious beliefs either and be perfectly happy for instance to feel deeply that you don’t possess an immortal soul. Being religious is not a trait or a behavior, but the adherence to a whole system of beliefs shared by a community. As such, a given religion fulfills at the same time the social, altruistic and aggressive tendencies of a given person, in a mixing which I suspect depends evenly on the person itself and of the message delivered by the given religion at the historic moment. I agree with you that the apples that are altruism, aggressiveness, moral feeling, sense of duty and so on are not similar to religions, which belong to another category, aside with non-religious philosophical systems. Therefore the comparison of the prevalence of religious tendency and of aggressiveness in the human population is indeed inappropriate.

        1. “Then I referred to territory protection in chimpanzees to suggest that when we use the word “aggressiveness” about them, we are making an anthropomorphic judgment.”

          “Traits like socialization, empathy, altruistic behavior are as much widespread in animals as traits like aggressiveness and competition.”

          These two sentences seem contradictory. Surely people do often anthropomorphize, but just as surely chimps are agressive and violent. There is no doubt about that and cautioning about anthropomorphizing seems non sequitur here. Likewise regarding how those traits may have been expressed in early primates. Those traits are much older than early primates, which is a key point.

          On the second part of your comment, I largely agree with you. The capacity for religious belief seems to be a distinctly different category of phenomenon that is a product of other basic traits.

          Thank you for taking the time to explain your comment further. I think English may not be your primary language and I respect that. I wish I could converse in another language as well as you do in English. If I have misunderstood you please disregard.

          1. Thanks you for your last comment. To summarize, it seems that we agree that: 1) aggressiveness and religious belief pertains to different categories and cannot be compared. 2) aggressiveness and violence are earlier adaptations than empathy and altruism (I suggest that the latter appear in social animals).
            NB Guess my primary language. Answer: zlbjaynathntrvfserapu (ROT13 cipher)

  18. OP: “nor do we see religion in our closest primate relatives, as we do aggressive behaviors”

    Surely, {confound that man Dennett!} before religion a fairly sophisticated language had to exist. Signs and grunts “in our closest primate relatives” are totally inadequate to conceive and exchange such a complicated concept. And before science (and any concomitant rational explanations) had to come supernatural “explanations” and thence religion. Hence, as is language, religion is unique to humans -although the apparent respect for their dead in elephants..?

    1. “Surely, {confound that man Dennett!} before religion a fairly sophisticated language had to exist. Signs and grunts “in our closest primate relatives” are totally inadequate to conceive and exchange such a complicated concept.”
      Imagine two anthropoid primates seeing some impressive but infrequent phenomenon, such as lightning or a rainbow for the first time. One conveys her feelings in signs and grunts, and the other shows understanding and empathy by using the same gestures. They share this with others, and before long the community all “performs the lightning ritual”, only later conceptualised as “worshipping the lightning god”.

      2. Reminiscent of 2001 a space odyssey. But it wasn’t lightning, of course, it was hard black thing. I think homonins would have to be a little beyond grunts before they affected religion. You need a concept of a supernatural realm of some sort, which requires a more elaborate medium of discussion. Early on, I would think, every event would be considered natural. The supernatural requires an idea of the distinction.

          1. Certainly the phenomenon comes first and can be ritualized. Chimps do a group thing when it rains where they grab branches and run with them. That could be classified as a ritual. But they don’t think the rain is a reward from God, or some mysterious force, that can be appeased. That takes a deeper level of thought.

  19. I think religion is a result of cultural evolution and has little or nothing to do with biological evolution. It may have been kick-started by our tendency to see patterns in randomness (Jesus on toast) and to make up explanations for them even in the absence of evidence, but that became co-opted as a way for ruling elites to organize societies and to hold on to their positions of power. The religions that were more successful at that became dominant over the less successful. Eventually, the very success of religion, especially Christianity, led to societies organized well enough to develop science, technology, and Enlightenment values, which had led to, if not their downfall, then at least to a diminution of influence.

  20. Just finished reading it after receiving it as a gift from my wife for Xmas. Its an easy read with mostly story telling about people who he interviewed. Each person’s story illustrates a different point about being secular. You really feel like you know Phil (feels like you can use his first name) and the people he interviewed after you read each chapter. It is an interesting way to present an argument. I recommend it for a less “fact” and more “feel” read.

  21. Shuggy (Dec29, 2:17 pm) ” They share this with others, and before long the community all ,’performs the lightning ritual’, only later conceptualised as ‘worshipping the lightning god’.”

    I agree that human religion happened like this, but, far removed from those basic roots, the culture required to erect Stonehenge marking the time of the solstice or the Pyramids as tombs -let alone global organised Christianity, Islam and such. These *are* Religions and I repeat, require elaborate detailed and precise communication unachievable by gestures and grunts.

    That prior comment of mine, I regret, went off at a tangent about language as being essential to religion.
    To take up the subject matter of the Post:

    OP: Zuckerman “..we know that not all people are violent criminals. Most aren’t.”

    What we “know” is that “most” (civilised) people don’t perform violent crimes but this is despite our basic, very ancient instincts: our behaviour is due to a later evolvement and is still largely a *cultural* effect. It quite possibly can even be the result of a strong (cultural) religious belief. There is no evidence that most people are *instinctively* non-violent and non-criminal: there is more evidence to the contrary -at least in respect of some people.

    Violence is a widespread deeply instinctive reaction for personal survival: most contemporary non-violence to other humans is mainly cultural although it is to an extent instinctive (e.g.parental love…altruism are genetic and do have some adaptive advantages for human *communal* survival). So Zuckerman’s analogy of religion to violence is (at least) weak and misleading

  22. Thanks for the reference. Fortunately it is in our local library. I read at it, but was disappointed with his assumption that his terminology was intuitively obvious and his easy way of ignoring religious dynamics.

    For example, while the first Humanist Manifest denoted religious humanism, the second characterized the many types — identified “naturalistic humanism” with too many types to note here, leading to Humanist Manifesto III which makes no reference to religion. In my experience humanism has never had a deity identification and has changed little since beginning, centuries ago, but the use of the religious modifier has changed.

    Today there are humanistic movements in both Christianity and Judaism. They are keeping the values and discarding the deity. Quite a few folks don’t like it. So what? There’s no evidence to refute their view, only opinion and we are free to choose those… or not.

Comments are closed.