In the last 100 years, the global Christian population has
shrunk by approximately three percent.
Moreover, the Christian demographic has shifted from a predominantly
Northern Hemisphere (European and Americas) dominion to a Southern Hemisphere (Non-European
based) population.
Today, Christians make up approximately 31.7 percent of the
world’s population; almost 61% of that number reside in the Global South. Source
Concurrently, adherents of Islam make up approximately 23
percent of the global population with just over 1.5 billion followers.
So what is the next largest religious group in the
world? It’s a loaded question – since
religion doesn’t play a part in it.
Depending on the study, the non-religious make up between 16-20 percent
(1.1 – 1.35 billion people) of the world’s population – outdistancing Hinduism
by a healthy percentage.
Interestingly, No Religion appears to be the fastest growing
“religion” on the planet – outpacing Islam.
As these numbers continue to accelerate, we can expect more attention
and demographic study to be brought to bear on the Nones. Pollsters, demographers, and social
scientists will attempt to define and categorize the political views, income
distribution, educational levels, support to charities, community involvement,
etc., etc. of the non-religious in order to better understand the behaviors of
this godless group.
The first order of business that needs accomplishing is to
understand what the Nones are and what they are not – it is in no way, shape or
form a homogenous grouping. Possibly the
only single common denominator shared is that they do not identify with
Christianity, Islam, or any other large world religion.
The make-up of Nones, while nowhere near as diverse as the number of Protestant sects, is still wide-ranging, and is only partially made
up of the traditional usual suspects – atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, and
skeptics. It also includes desists,
theists, secularists, spiritualists, humanists, and flippant pagans. Buddhists, another 6 percent of the world
population can, and should, be included in these numbers as well which would
elevate Nones to an aggregate whole just behind Christianity worldwide.
Atheists, as a subset of the non-religious, are a relatively
small group comprised of by best estimates to only account for 10% of the
Nones. This may have to do more with the
negative connotation associated with the label "Atheist," as most agnostics in
reality are atheist as well, just on a different part of the belief scale. Theist discrimination likely plays a large
role in avoidance of self-describing as atheist – especially when surveys
indicate most American’s hold atheists in similar esteem as rapists.
Studies on non-believers have only recently began to emerge
in force, largely due to the fact that in years past the data was viewed as
inconclusive based on the small population or data sets. Some clear traits of atheists can be
extrapolated based on education and income:
Consider
the Human
Development Report (2004),
commissioned by The United Nations Development Program. This report ranks 177
nations on a “Human Development Index,” which measures societal health through
a weighing of such indicators as life expectancy at birth, adult literacy rate,
per capita income, and educational attainment. According to the 2004 Report,
the five highest ranked nations in terms of total human development were
Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands. All five of these
countries are characterized by notably high degrees of organic atheism. Of the
top 25 nations ranked on the “Human Development Index,” all but one (Ireland)
are top ranking non-belief nations, containing very highest percentages of
organic atheism. Conversely, of those countries ranked at the bottom of the
“Human Development Index” -- the bottom 50 -- all are
countries lacking statistically significant percentages of atheism.
Higher
education is positively correlated with atheism, agnosticism, and secularity. For example, 42 percent of Americans claiming
to have ‘‘no religion’’, 32 percent of American atheists, and 42 percent of
American agnostics have graduated from college – all higher than the percentage
of college graduates in the general American adult population, which is 27
percent. Attending college as well as graduate school – and having an
‘‘intellectual orientation’’ – are also significant predictors of who will
reject or abandon their religion at some point in their life. Furthering the
link between education ⁄ intellectualism
and secularity, recent studies have found that secular people score markedly
higher on tests of verbal ability and verbal sophistication when compared
religious people, and secular people also score markedly higher on indicators of
scientific proficiency than religious people. And Larson and Witham found that
among the members of the United States National Academy of Sciences, only 7
percent claimed to believe in a personal God and only 8 percent believed in
immortality, and Ecklund and Scheitle report that professors at America’s top
universities are far more likely to be atheists than the general American population.
Atheism, Secularity, and Well-Being: How the Findings of Social
Science Counter Negative Stereotypes and Assumptions, Phil Zuckerman
(paraphrased)
Worth noting: the highest levels of non-religious in America
are found in the West and in the North East.
Compare the following graphics:
![]() |
The least religious states in the US in Blue - Source: Pew Forum on Religion |
![]() |
The most educated states in the US in pink - Source: US Census Bureau |
It should be noted that an outlier on religion/education is Mormonism
– which as a group is both highly educated and religious. Source
This is not meant to characterize Christians as
undereducated or ignorant masses, but it is clear that the more educated a
person becomes, the chances that that person will leave religion increases. The Pew graphic above also includes belief in
a “Universal Spirit” qualifier along with God, in essence bloating the number
of “believers” to include deists, spiritualists, and others that would not count among
Christians; however, the correlation is there – the higher level of education
attained is related, even if indirectly, with non-belief in a traditional sense
of a Christian god. Additionally,
studies on educational levels and the impact on income earnings abound, so it
is reasonable to assume that higher educated atheists have a correspondingly
high income level.
Again, this is not to suggest that there are not millions of
highly educated Christians with lofty incomes in this country – this is simply
a means looking at characteristics of the atheist population, both in America
and in the world.
In Mexico, the Catholic News Agency reported in
2008 that: “while most Mexicans remain Catholic, the fastest growing group in
the country is atheists. In a recent
report, the Institute said the number of atheists grows annually by 5.2%, while
the number of Catholics grows by 1.7%.”
The report found that Mexicans “are increasingly more involved in the
new religious movements that are gaining ground in the ambit of the faith,
mainly in rural zones, poor urban areas and indigenous communities,” the report
indicates. “These faithful are characterized by two things: high rates of
illiteracy and low income.” Source
Another fairly common trait found among atheists is their
resistance to group-think. In fact, the
very trait that allows for the rejection of religious dogma tends to also
inhibit their ability to coalesce around a common purpose.
"One
problem of atheism research is that we simply
can't agree on a unified terminology," notes Kosmin. "Every
researcher thinks he is Linnaeus [the father of modern taxonomy] and
invents his own labels." Then he tells of a meeting of secular groups
last year in Washington. They were planning a big demonstration. "But
they
couldn't even agree on a motto," he says. "It was like herding cats,
straight out of a Monty Python sketch." In the end, the march was called
off. Link
Atheism, agnosticism, and general non-belief do not appear
to have the same power to unite a group to a general goal such as Evangelical
Christians – at least politically. While
many non-believers are generally repulsed by the I Love Jesus More Than You
Republican Party, that doesn’t preclude them from being conservative on matters
of fiscal policy, or being single-issue voters on the wide range of policy
concerns.
Unlike religious sectarian counterparts, the label “atheist”
departs no additional meaning beyond non-belief.
If a person identifies themselves as Catholic, or Baptist, or
Pentecostal – the label alone conveys certain information about that person,
based on their beliefs and practices.
One can assume that based on their religious beliefs they are
anti-abortion, conservative in their political outlook, spend time volunteering
with their church, etc. Of course, these
assumptions are based on stereotypes and when informed otherwise, it is always
met with surprise. The labels for the
non-believer serve little other purpose other than a tactic acknowledgement of
a lack of belief.
As a forerunner to the expected multitudes of atheist
studies that will come in the future, Jesse Smith’s “Becoming an Atheist”
offers exceptional insight to what it is to become an atheist in terms of the
sociological identity aspect.
Claiming an atheist identity vocally and using the label had
important implications for respondents. Different factors impelled participants
to “come out of the closet.” Having “known” and thought of themselves as
atheists for a period of time, the desire to claim the identity grew
stronger as they interacted with theists and sought to dissociate themselves
from religion …. These atheists thought of themselves as such before they
applied the label in the presence of others. Unlike some stigmatized and marginalized
identities, atheism is not something that is readily apparent to others, or
that has physical or even social indicators. ….
Further, on some level declaring an atheist identity is similar to
the coming out process gays experience. That is, though difficult in the
beginning, for some, publicly adopting the label and coming out as an atheist
was an important step toward a new self-concept and a feeling of independence
and empowerment. And like the social stigma faced by those who adopt a marginalized
sexual identity … claiming their atheism not only influenced their
self-concepts, but shaped their future interactions. …
Moreover, the atheist does not step into a “ready-made” identity,
with a specific and definable set of roles or behaviors attached to it. To
contrast, a religious identity is usually comprised of discernable social
behaviors, (e.g. worship, adherence to dietary codes, tithing, professing
belief in specific doctrines) which become the indicators, and to some extent,
the content of the identity. Such is generally absent among atheists …
Important parts of this construction process include appealing to science,
committing one’s self to a secular value-system and articulating and justifying
a moral sense of self …
In the United States, theism is not only the starting point for
any religious identity; its pervasiveness is also what drives atheism.
In closing, although the
non-religious continue to be self-isolated non-conformists, I put forward the notion
that America’s future as a country where religious freedom can flourish is
indelibly tied to the prospect of atheists and Nones banding together as
a political force in order to preserve the secular nature of government
intended by this nation’s forefathers.
However, in order to do so, as Susan Jacoby recently wrote, “American atheists must define themselves, not be defined by the religious.”
Since the 1980s, the far right, especially the religious right, has been masterful at taking control of public language in a way that always places secularism and secular liberalism on the defensive. First, the anti-abortion crusaders seized the brilliant label “pro-life” to characterize anyone who supported legal abortion as “anti-life.” The women’s movement adopted “pro-choice” as an alternative but was never entirely successful at marketing the label, as evinced by the current efforts of those fighting abortion restrictions to characterize themselves as “the real pro-lifers.” Once you start trying to appropriate the meaning of your opponents’ already twisted labels, you’re already halfway to losing whatever battle you’re fighting. Second, the right has made a pejorative out of both intellectualism and liberalism, often equating both with godless secularism.
There is another related, equally important task for the secular movement today. We must reclaim the language of passion and emotion from the religious right, which loves to portray atheists as bloodless, “professorial” (the word always applied to Obama) devotees of abstract scientific principles that have nothing to do with real human lives.
I'd be interested to know whether this shift is a move away from the infrastructure that is dogma and the like that makes up religion. I would hazard a guess that a high percentage of Nones actually are still highly spiritual but have realised that religions are easily co-opted by human frailties and infallibilities and as a consequnce individually probably don't require the institution itself anymore. In a sense we could have a seismic shift to a more "Gnostic" view of spirtuality where the kingdom is found within and not solely dependent on without as many religions forced peoples to believe. The "Gnostic" view in itself also lends itself to self realisation and awareness for illumination which can be far more powerful in many ways than what "without" provides. After all this "Gnostic" view point is really what the core of each of the monothestic religions essentially were at their inception. Whether we talk about the Sufis of Islam or the Essene Gnostic christian set of Jesus what we have today is really the non spirtual human made instituionalised dogma aspect of what religion started as.
ReplyDeleteI think it is the combination of a variety of factors. Obviously megachurches enjoy great popularity, but even they are experiencing a drop in attendance, probably more so to do with the lack of personal connection enjoyed in smaller churches. I wouldn't go as far as to say that this growing group of the irreligious are homogenous in any sense. Many believe in a god or higher power. Many would still consider themselves spiritual.
ReplyDeleteYour view of Gnosticism is interesting. I explored the Gnostic gospels on my journey of leaving Christianity. The Gospel of Thomas was an interesting read as well. When taken in conjunction with the biblical texts, I became convinced of the existence of Jesus, but equally convinced he was nothing more than a man - spiritual, god-fearing, a leader of sorts, but one of many of his time...
@ Sean
ReplyDeleteYes the Gnostic Gospels are indeed interesting.
If you want more info on the practical aspects (rather than historical) of Sufism, Gnosticism & Rosicrucianism (all streams and variations on the same thing) I recommend the following books -
*Start Now!: A Book of Soul and Spiritual Exercises by Rudolf Steiner.
*The Sufis by Idries Shah.
Enjoy!