Slashdot Mirror


Religious Affiliation Shrinking In the US

gollum123 notes new U.S. demographic data from the Pew Research Center which show that the percentage of Americans declaring affiliation with a particular religion has declined sharply since 2007. Americans identifying as Christian dropped from 78.4% in 2007 to 70.6% in 2014. Those describing themselves as atheist, agnostic, or simple having no affiliation took up most of the slack, rising from 16.1% to 22.8%. Members of non-Christian faiths collectively rose from 4.7% to 5.9%. Despite the overall decline, the demographics within the Christian group are getting much more racially and ethnically diverse. The willingness of respondents to marry outside their religious affiliation is also on the rise. The median age of unaffiliated adults is dropping, while the median ages of mainline Protestants and Catholics are rising. The study estimates that 85% of adults age 70 and over are Christian, while only 56% of adults ages 18-24 are Christian. They also say that each individual generation has shown a slight decrease in religious affiliation compared to their statistics in 2007.

18 of 866 comments (clear)

  1. 23 down, 77 to go by Rob+Kaper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Subject says it all.

    1. Re: 23 down, 77 to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Call me a "religiphobe" all you want. I have good reasons for it and in proud of it.

      Religion is outdated nonsense that causes wars and suffering. It also leads to all sorts of bad laws and morals, like being abti-abortion or gay marriage.

      There's no reason to be religious in this modern world. People who are religious are idiots and should be treated like second class citizens.

    2. Re: 23 down, 77 to go by Guy+From+V · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm fairly certain humanity would find plenty of reasons to wage war if religions were not around to blame it on.

    3. Re: 23 down, 77 to go by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People who are religious are idiots and should be treated like second class citizens.

      Well, it's good to know that just because you're atheist you don't think any different than the religious folks you despise so much. Idiots with opinions like, "people who disagree with me should be treated like second class citizens," was the entire purpose behind the First Amendment. I'm reassured it won't stop being relevant as the current population ages.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
  2. Re: News for nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is very important, because religious wackos tend to be the ones against modern science and technology.

  3. We need a republican president ASAP! by Billly+Gates · · Score: 5, Funny

    These scary views of global warming and evolution are causing people to burn for eternity in hell for not believing in GOD!!

    We need a pro God president to change the culture of this country so people stop thinking for themselves! It is only a matter of time before we anger him by voting for things Jesus did like providing healthcare and support for the poor and sick and our nation will fear his wrath.

  4. Inconsistent by EzInKy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd say it is because of Christian inconsistencies. On the one hand they state that God's love is unconditional, on the other they say if you don't love God and follow His laws you will go to hell. There is no logic to religion.

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  5. Being comfortable around crazy by sjbe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    maybe the relig-a-phobes will calm down now.

    Turn on the evening news tonight. Tell me how many stories you hear that at their core is some form of religious fighting or tribal bigotry. Israel/Palestine. Shiite/Sunni. Most acts of terrorism. Gay bashing. Anti-abortion protests. So called religious restoration acts (actually bigotry in disguise). Child abuse by priests. Oppression of women. It goes on and on. Tribal warfare, bigotry, hatred. While you don't need religion for these things, there can be no argument that religion frequently exaggerates these conflicts.

    Would you be comfortable around a group of people who greatly outnumber you and who base a big part of their world view on something so fundamentally irrational and tribal and many of whom have a demonstrated propensity for violence?

    1. Re:Being comfortable around crazy by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think that most religions are good and that very few of them condone these acts.

      Even though I'm not religious, a surprising number of the religious people I've met are really first-rate human beings. But none of them are what you would call "zealots".

      Maybe that's the problem: zealotry. Every one of us has to come to some accommodation with death, moral questions, and the randomness of the universe. If a myth helps you then I actually think that's kind of a beautiful way to go. If you believe that your myth now has to be reflected in society and the world around you, and you act on that belief in any other way than simply showing yourself as an example, then we have a problem.

      I kind of like the fact that people react differently to the Big Questions.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  6. Pressuring the majority? by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We live in a world of empiricism, where the concepts of faith and religion are - if not outright mocked and denigrated - are under constant pressure.

    Not in the USA we don't. Go to certain parts of this country and openly mock religion and let me know how that works out for you. There are several states where it is technically illegal for me to hold public office if I am an atheist. There mere fact that close to 3/4 of people openly are affiliated (at least loosely) with some form of organized religion proves that your thesis is nonsense.

    The benefits that faith brings to individuals and societies are trivialized.

    Because in most cases they are trivial in comparison to the problems organized religion brings. There is no benefit that religion brings that necessitates belonging to an organized religion. We're supposed to forgive and forget all the misery, bigotry, tribalism and wars caused by religion just because they open some hospitals and food banks which are really just thinly disguised efforts to convert others to their tribe? I'm supposed to ignore the idiots trying to push their prayers in public schools or theology in the science classroom? I'm supposed to be ok with priests fondling children and never going to jail for it? I'm supposed to overlook the continual and ongoing wars between various religious groups across the world?

    I believe people need faith in proportion to their misery.

    And I disagree with you on this. People do not have a biological need to believe in fancy mythologies even in times of stress. It demonstrably is not required. Some find comfort in doing so (which is fine) but then some inevitably feel the compulsion to try to force their bizarre ideas on the rest of the world. If believing in something irrational helps you get through the day I have no problem with that as long as you keep it to yourself.

    1. Re:Pressuring the majority? by Adambomb · · Score: 5, Informative

      Holy Heck, as a Non-American I thought your claim that there are states that ban atheists from being elected was probably an exaggeration or simply an interpretation of how it is hard in many places to be elected if one is a self-declared atheist. Hit a google search and figured i'd put this in there in case others were thinking like I was but don't bother to follow up.

      Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1:
      No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

      Maryland, Article 37:
      That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

      Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265:
      No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

      North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8
      The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

      South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4:
      No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

      Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2:
      No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

      Texas, Article 1, Section 4:
      No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

      from here and the wiki page they probably got it from.

      If i had more time i'd look to see if there are cases of anyone actually being denied in the recent past or unseated after the fact but the fact that these provisions even exist to begin with is pretty awful.

      --
      Ice Cream has no bones.
  7. from gallup by buddyglass · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here are Gallup's historical trends up to 2013. Some things to note:

    1. The % of those who say religion is a "very important" part of their life has remained roughly constant.
    2. The % of those who says religion is only a "fairly important" part of their life has showed more consistent decline.
    3. The % of "nones" seems to be mostly cannibalizing from the "fairly important" group, who are essentially nominal believers. The % of people who are "devout" seems to be more-or-less holding its own.
    4. The % of people who claim to have attended church or synagogue in the last 7 days has remained roughly constant.
    5. The % of people who self-identify as "evangelical or born-again Christians" has remained roughly constant (except for an elevated plateau from 1998 to 2002).
    6. The % who self-identify as "evangelical or born-again" is actually higher (40%) in 2013 than it was in 1992 (36%).

    1. Re:from gallup by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Here are Gallup's historical trends up to 2013.

      This is the most insightful post here so far.

      The real trend seems to be away from a "default" position of "Yeah, I guess I believe in God, and maybe I'm a Christian" to "Yeah, I don't really care that much."

      Is that an actual shift in values, or is it just that it's more socially acceptable now to acknowledge that you don't care about religion that much? A few decades ago, these people may have just gone to church on Christmas and Easter, but otherwise showed no daily signs of being "religious," but it was just the default way of things.

      Nowadays, these people may still go to church on Christmas and Easter or whatever because it's family tradition, but they behave precisely the same way as they did decades ago... it's just now they feel more free to admit that there are other things they do. (It's worthwhile to remember that socialization was very different a few decades ago; churches were an important hub for communities and still are, but now we have a lot more possible ways to participate in both real-world and virtual communities.)

      Basically, the percentage of people who are "devout" and attend church regularly has remained roughly the same. The people who were essentially "meh" before probably still are, but they've found other ways of filling their time and social calendar than attending an occasional church BBQ.

      That isn't to say there aren't significant shifts, but I'd be more likely to interpret this as a social shift rather than one in the number of "believers." After all, we seem to still have record numbers of nonsense shows on TV concerning ghosts, aliens, and whatever other crap. People are still willing to believe in all sorts of mystical weirdness (though I'd be interested in seeing some more recent polls than in that link) -- it's just becoming less institutionalized.

  8. It's worth noting... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    While it'd be fun to take out the atheist triumphalism drum, it's worth noting that the thing being measured is religious affiliation not 'theological position' or 'amount of magical thinking done per day', or 'even the vaguest knowledge of how empiricism works'.

    Religious affiliation is quite significant, of course, it's obviously notable that substantially more people both can't be bothered to get their ass out of bed on Sunday morning and are willing to admit that they have no formal affiliation(historically, at least in the US, you might not actually attend all that often, or pay that much attention; but denying association was somewhat transgressive). It's also significant for the hopes of various religious groups to exercise political power through organized bloc voting (the 'moral majority', not that it was ever either, sure isn't going to be done any good by the evangelical protestant numbers, nor is the ability of bishops to bluster during election season going to improve with those catholic numbers.

    However, it's by no means the case that religious non-affiliation is necessarily anything other than pure disinterest, or vague belief in supernatural entities(probably shaped by a layman-level understanding of whatever your parents nominally believed, with any overtly objectionable parts left on the cutting room floor). There may also be a story about atheism here; but that isn't really the poll result.

    In that sense, the results aren't really too surprising: the liberal protestant and 'cafeteria catholic' congregations have been working their way toward being increasingly irrelevant social activities for years to decades now; some nice people and all that; but pretty light on religion, which meant that they drifted into direct competition with any and all other activities you do with other people, without being obviously more entertaining, conveniently scheduled, or otherwise competitive.

    The more conservative groups tended to retain the religiosity a bit more intensely; but they really got burned by their flirtation with state power(let's say roughly Reagan through Bush II in round numbers). They did get some of what they wanted, though not enough to prevent disappointment; but they burned a lot of religious legitimacy in the process. Remember that jewish radical who said that his kingdom was not of this world? Well, it'd be hard to argue that the evangelical power-brokers hanging out at the 'National Prayer Breakfast' and trying to get Washington to do something about homos and abortionists do. Even if your beliefs are fairly strong, and largely 'Christian' in outline, it's hard to avoid seeing the liberal wing of Christianity as increasingly wishy-washy and irrelevant, certainly not worth going to church with; and the conservative wing as dangerously unfocused on the kingdom of god in favor of trying to achieve local political gains.

  9. Re: News for nerds by Opie812 · · Score: 5, Informative

    your post is a little tl;dr for me, so forgive me if I'm focusing on the wrong details here.

    But:

    "scientism claims that life after death is impossible"

    Science makes no such claims. "Science" would say that there's no credible evidence of life after death therefore it probably doesn't exist. Should credible evidence arise, "science" will re-evaluate.

    --
    I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.
  10. Re: News for nerds by number6x · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This agrees with military research that shows religious believers tend to make better officers. Atheists and humanists have a more difficult time ordering others to their deaths, or directing the killing of other humans. Religious believers handle these tasks better because they have coping mechanisms they can use to justify these actions in the name of a higher power. 'Communist' societies (they were all usually dictatorships and not communist) substituted a belief in the party or the state instead of appealing to 'olde tyme' religion, but the result was the same: You are carrying out [God|The State|The Party]'s will, and so your actions are morally justified.

    When this life is all you have and all you believe in, it becomes very precious and harder to justify destroying life. If, on the other hand, you are convinced that there is paradise waiting for you beyond this life there are all sorts of nasty actions you can justify.

    I really suggest reading Victor Frankl's 'Man's Search for Meaning'. I don't agree with Frankl's later philosophies, but this is a meaningful look into the depths of atrocities that humans can inflict on other humans. Frankl's work helped explain how attitude and belief helped him and others survive Auschwitz. It doesn't directly deal in this subject, but is an amazing account that highlights both the good and the bad outcome of strong beliefs.

  11. Re: News for nerds by CaptainLard · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What's most interesting is that it's usually the most religious people who buy into the Republican Party's ideology, which includes "grabbing whatever you can get" and espousing Ayn Rand-style objectivist philosophy.

    Check out this story on npr: http://www.npr.org/2015/03/30/...

    Basically it would appear religion is in politics for the same reason anything else is, fat cats want more money. Whoda thought?

  12. Re: News for nerds by ranton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Belief systems and the practice of science are as unrelated as music and athletics. There are plenty of excellent scientists that are devout believers in various religions.

    While your second statement is obviously true, that does not help validate your first statement. Every limitation can be overcome, even being a religious scientist. I equate it as being similar to a professional basketball player who is under 6' tall. It is absolutely possible but it does impact your play.

    Neil Degrasse Tyson has a great lecture which goes over how religious thought has impacted some of the greatest minds in history. He also writes about the concept in an article titled "The Perimeter Of Ignorance." As I understood his point, there have been times when great scientific scholars have stopped their pursuit of knowledge because they were content with the "God did it" explanation.

    Newton stopped investigating the movement of planets once his current mathematical knowledge was put to the task of understanding how planets affect each others' orbits. This was the man who invented Calculus and wrote the Principia, but even he was guilty of not pushing forward the boundaries of science because he was content with the "God did it" answer. If not for his religious beliefs, perhaps he would have added inventing perturbation theory to his list of accolades and could have introduced it a century before Laplace did.

    I am not arrogant enough to think I could keep religious beliefs from impacting my ability to investigate the world rationally if even geniuses like Newton couldn't.

    The most troubling causational link he highlights is how the Islamic world lost its place as a center of scientific progress when a radical version of Islam took hold in the 12th century. Over the centuries that followed, the Islamic world went from being the place Algebra was invented to having 0.6% of Nobel laureates in Physics/Chemistry/Medicine with 23% of the world's population.

    My favorite concept from his lecture is the danger of Revelation Replacing Investigation. It is at the core of why scientific thought and religious thought are at opposing sides, even though they can both exist within the same human being.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke