ArticlePDF Available

American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

The 1990s was the decade when the The 1990s was the decade when the The 1990s was the decade when the The 1990s was the decade when the "secular boom" occurred "secular boom" occurred "secular boom" occurred "secular boom" occurred ----each year 1.3 each year 1.3 each year 1.3 each year 1.3 million more adult Americans joined the million more adult Americans joined the million more adult Americans joined the million more adult Americans joined the ranks of the Nones. Since 2001 the annual ranks of the Nones. Since 2001 the annual ranks of the Nones. Since 2001 the annual ranks of the Nones. Since 2001 the annual increase has halved to 660,000 a year. increase has halved to 660,000 a year. increase has halved to 660,000 a year. increase has halved to 660,000 a year. In terms of Belonging (self In terms of Belonging (self In terms of Belonging (self In terms of Belonging (self----identification) 1 identification) 1 identification) 1 identification) 1 in 6 Americans is presently of No Religion, in 6 Americans is presently of No Religion, in 6 Americans is presently of No Religion, in 6 Americans is presently of No Religion, while in terms of Belief and Behavior the while in terms of Belief and Behavior the while in terms of Belief and Behavior the while in terms of Belief and Behavior the ratio is higher around 1 in 4. (Fig.
Content may be subject to copyright.
American Nones:
The Profile of the No Religion Population
A Report Based on the
American Religious Identification Survey 2008
Principal Investigators
Barry A. Kosmin & Ariela Keysar
with
Ryan Cragun and Juhem Navarro-Rivera
AMERICAN NONES: THE PROFILE OF THE NO RELIGION POPULATION
Barry A. Kosmin and Ariela Keysar with Ryan Cragun and Juhem Navarro-Rivera
The 1990s was the decade when the
The 1990s was the decade when the The 1990s was the decade when the
The 1990s was the decade when the
"secular boom" occurred
"secular boom" occurred "secular boom" occurred
"secular boom" occurred -
--
-
each year 1.3
each year 1.3 each year 1.3
each year 1.3
million more adult Americans joined the
million more adult Americans joined the million more adult Americans joined the
million more adult Americans joined the
ranks of the Nones. Since 2001 the annual
ranks of the Nones. Since 2001 the annual ranks of the Nones. Since 2001 the annual
ranks of the Nones. Since 2001 the annual
increase has halved to 660,000 a year.
increase has halved to 660,000 a year. increase has halved to 660,000 a year.
increase has halved to 660,000 a year.
(Fig.3.1)
(Fig.3.1)(Fig.3.1)
(Fig.3.1)
Whereas Nones are presently 15% of the
Whereas Nones are presently 15% of the Whereas Nones are presently 15% of the
Whereas Nones are presently 15% of the
total adult U.S. population, 22% of
total adult U.S. population, 22% of total adult U.S. population, 22% of
total adult U.S. population, 22% of
Americans aged 18
Americans aged 18Americans aged 18
Americans aged 18-
--
-29 years self
29 years self29 years self
29 years self-
--
-identify as
identify as identify as
identify as
Nones. (Fig.1.2)
Nones. (Fig.1.2)Nones. (Fig.1.2)
Nones. (Fig.1.2)
In terms of Belonging (self
In terms of Belonging (selfIn terms of Belonging (self
In terms of Belonging (self-
--
-identification) 1
identification) 1 identification) 1
identification) 1
in 6 Americans is presently of No Religion,
in 6 Americans is presently of No Religion, in 6 Americans is presently of No Religion,
in 6 Americans is presently of No Religion,
while in terms of Belief and Behavior the
while in terms of Belief and Behavior the while in terms of Belief and Behavior the
while in terms of Belief and Behavior the
ratio is higher around 1 in 4. (Fig. 1.17)
ratio is higher around 1 in 4. (Fig. 1.17)ratio is higher around 1 in 4. (Fig. 1.17)
ratio is higher around 1 in 4. (Fig. 1.17)
Regarding belief in the divine, most Nones
Regarding belief in the divine, most Nones Regarding belief in the divine, most Nones
Regarding belief in the divine, most Nones
are neither atheists nor theists but rather
are neither atheists nor theists but rather are neither atheists nor theists but rather
are neither atheists nor theists but rather
agnostics and deists (59%) and perhaps
agnostics and deists (59%) and perhaps agnostics and deists (59%) and perhaps
agnostics and deists (59%) and perhaps
best described as skeptics. (Fig.1.17)
best described as skeptics. (Fig.1.17)best described as skeptics. (Fig.1.17)
best described as skeptics. (Fig.1.17)
The most significant difference between the
The most significant difference between the The most significant difference between the
The most significant difference between the
religious and non
religious and nonreligious and non
religious and non-
--
-religious populations is a
religious populations is a religious populations is a
religious populations is a
gender gap. (Fig. 1.17)
gender gap. (Fig. 1.17)gender gap. (Fig. 1.17)
gender gap. (Fig. 1.17)
Whereas 19% of American men are
Whereas 19% of American men are Whereas 19% of American men are
Whereas 19% of American men are
Nones only 12% of American women
Nones only 12% of American women Nones only 12% of American women
Nones only 12% of American women
are Nones. (Fig. 2.1)
are Nones. (Fig. 2.1)are Nones. (Fig. 2.1)
are Nones. (Fig. 2.1)
The gender ratio among Nones is 60
The gender ratio among Nones is 60 The gender ratio among Nones is 60
The gender ratio among Nones is 60
males for every 40 females. (Fig.1.1)
males for every 40 females. (Fig.1.1)males for every 40 females. (Fig.1.1)
males for every 40 females. (Fig.1.1)
Women are less likely to switch out of
Women are less likely to switch out of Women are less likely to switch out of
Women are less likely to switch out of
religion than men.
religion than men.religion than men.
religion than men.
Women are also less likely to stay non
Women are also less likely to stay nonWomen are also less likely to stay non
Women are also less likely to stay non-
--
-
religious when they are born and raised
religious when they are born and raised religious when they are born and raised
religious when they are born and raised
in a non
in a nonin a non
in a non-
--
-religious family.
religious family. religious family.
religious family.
Most Nones are 1st generation
Most Nones are 1st generation Most Nones are 1st generation
Most Nones are 1st generation -
--
-
only 32%
only 32% only 32%
only 32%
of "current" Nones report they were None at
of "current" Nones report they were None at of "current" Nones report they were None at
of "current" Nones report they were None at
age 12. (Fig.1.10)
age 12. (Fig.1.10)age 12. (Fig.1.10)
age 12. (Fig.1.10)
24% of current Nones (and 35% of 1st
24% of current Nones (and 35% of 1st 24% of current Nones (and 35% of 1st
24% of current Nones (and 35% of 1st
generation or "new" Nones) are former
generation or "new" Nones) are former generation or "new" Nones) are former
generation or "new" Nones) are former
Catholics. (Fig. 1.10)
Catholics. (Fig. 1.10)Catholics. (Fig. 1.10)
Catholics. (Fig. 1.10)
Geography remains a factor
Geography remains a factor Geography remains a factor
Geography remains a factor -
--
-
more than 1
more than 1 more than 1
more than 1
in 5 people in certain regions (the West,
in 5 people in certain regions (the West, in 5 people in certain regions (the West,
in 5 people in certain regions (the West,
New England) are Nones.
New England) are Nones.New England) are Nones.
New England) are Nones.
Class is not a distinguishing characteristic:
Class is not a distinguishing characteristic: Class is not a distinguishing characteristic:
Class is not a distinguishing characteristic:
Nones are not different from the
Nones are not different from the Nones are not different from the
Nones are not different from the
general population by education or income.
general population by education or income. general population by education or income.
general population by education or income.
(Figs 1.6 & 1.7)
(Figs 1.6 & 1.7)(Figs 1.6 & 1.7)
(Figs 1.6 & 1.7)
Race is a declining factor in differentiating
Race is a declining factor in differentiating Race is a declining factor in differentiating
Race is a declining factor in differentiating
Nones. Latinos have tripled their proportion
Nones. Latinos have tripled their proportion Nones. Latinos have tripled their proportion
Nones. Latinos have tripled their proportion
among Nones from 1990
among Nones from 1990among Nones from 1990
among Nones from 1990-
--
-2008 from 4% to
2008 from 4% to 2008 from 4% to
2008 from 4% to
12%. (Fig.1.4)
12%. (Fig.1.4)12%. (Fig.1.4)
12%. (Fig.1.4)
The ethnic/racial profile of Nones shows
The ethnic/racial profile of Nones shows The ethnic/racial profile of Nones shows
The ethnic/racial profile of Nones shows
Asians, Irish and Jews are the most
Asians, Irish and Jews are the most Asians, Irish and Jews are the most
Asians, Irish and Jews are the most
secularized ethnic origin groups. One
secularized ethnic origin groups. Onesecularized ethnic origin groups. One
secularized ethnic origin groups. One-
--
-third
third third
third
of the Nones claim Irish ancestry.
of the Nones claim Irish ancestry. of the Nones claim Irish ancestry.
of the Nones claim Irish ancestry.
(Figs 1.4 & 1.5)
(Figs 1.4 & 1.5)(Figs 1.4 & 1.5)
(Figs 1.4 & 1.5)
Nones are much more likely to believe in
Nones are much more likely to believe in Nones are much more likely to believe in
Nones are much more likely to believe in
human evolution (61%) than the general
human evolution (61%) than the general human evolution (61%) than the general
human evolution (61%) than the general
American public (38%). (Fig. 1.15)
American public (38%). (Fig. 1.15)American public (38%). (Fig. 1.15)
American public (38%). (Fig. 1.15)
Politically, 21% of the nation's
Politically, 21% of the nation's Politically, 21% of the nation's
Politically, 21% of the nation's
independents are Nones, as are 16% of
independents are Nones, as are 16% of independents are Nones, as are 16% of
independents are Nones, as are 16% of
Democrats and 8% of Republicans. In
Democrats and 8% of Republicans. In Democrats and 8% of Republicans. In
Democrats and 8% of Republicans. In
1990, 12% of independents were Nones, as
1990, 12% of independents were Nones, as 1990, 12% of independents were Nones, as
1990, 12% of independents were Nones, as
were 6% of Democrats and 6% of
were 6% of Democrats and 6% of were 6% of Democrats and 6% of
were 6% of Democrats and 6% of
Republicans. (Fig. 2.1)
Republicans. (Fig. 2.1)Republicans. (Fig. 2.1)
Republicans. (Fig. 2.1)
Highlights
HighlightsHighlights
Highlights
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
Contents
ContentsContents
Contents
Introduction
Introduction Introduction
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................i
ii
i
Methodological Note
Methodological Note Methodological Note
Methodological Note .............................................................................................................................ii
iiii
ii
Part I
Part I Part I
Part I Profile of the No Religion (None) Population 2008
Profile of the No Religion (None) Population 2008Profile of the No Religion (None) Population 2008
Profile of the No Religion (None) Population 2008
A.
A. A.
A. Socio
SocioSocio
Socio-
--
-demographics
demographics demographics
demographics ....................................................................................................1
11
1
Figure 1.1
Figure 1.1Figure 1.1
Figure 1.1
Gender Distribution of Adult Nones
Gender Distribution of Adult Nones Gender Distribution of Adult Nones
Gender Distribution of Adult Nones
and U.S. Adults 2008
and U.S. Adults 2008 and U.S. Adults 2008
and U.S. Adults 2008 .........................................................................1
11
1
Figure 1.2
Figure 1.2Figure 1.2
Figure 1.2 Age Distribution of Adult Nones
Age Distribution of Adult Nones Age Distribution of Adult Nones
Age Distribution of Adult Nones
and U.S. Adults 2008
and U.S. Adults 2008 and U.S. Adults 2008
and U.S. Adults 2008 .........................................................................1
11
1
Figure 1.3
Figure 1.3Figure 1.3
Figure 1.3 Marital Status of Adult Nones
Marital Status of Adult Nones Marital Status of Adult Nones
Marital Status of Adult Nones
and U.S. Adults 2008
and U.S. Adults 2008 and U.S. Adults 2008
and U.S. Adults 2008 .........................................................................2
22
2
Figure 1.4
Figure 1.4Figure 1.4
Figure 1.4 Racial and Ethnic Composition of Adult Nones
Racial and Ethnic Composition of Adult Nones Racial and Ethnic Composition of Adult Nones
Racial and Ethnic Composition of Adult Nones
and U.S. Adults 1990 and 2008
and U.S. Adults 1990 and 2008 and U.S. Adults 1990 and 2008
and U.S. Adults 1990 and 2008 .......................................................3
33
3
Figure 1.5
Figure 1.5Figure 1.5
Figure 1.5 Selected Ancestry of Adult Nones 2008
Selected Ancestry of Adult Nones 2008 Selected Ancestry of Adult Nones 2008
Selected Ancestry of Adult Nones 2008 ...........................................3
33
3
Figure 1.6
Figure 1.6Figure 1.6
Figure 1.6 Educational Attainment of Nones and U.S. Adults
Educational Attainment of Nones and U.S. Adults Educational Attainment of Nones and U.S. Adults
Educational Attainment of Nones and U.S. Adults
Age 25 Years and Over, 1990 and 2008
Age 25 Years and Over, 1990 and 2008 Age 25 Years and Over, 1990 and 2008
Age 25 Years and Over, 1990 and 2008 .........................................4
44
4
Figure 1.7
Figure 1.7Figure 1.7
Figure 1.7
Household Income Distribution of Adult Nones
Household Income Distribution of Adult Nones Household Income Distribution of Adult Nones
Household Income Distribution of Adult Nones
and U.S. Adults 2008
and U.S. Adults 2008 and U.S. Adults 2008
and U.S. Adults 2008 .........................................................................4
44
4
Figure 1.8
Figure 1.8 Figure 1.8
Figure 1.8 Political Party Preference of Adult Nones
Political Party Preference of Adult Nones Political Party Preference of Adult Nones
Political Party Preference of Adult Nones
and U.S. Adults 1990 and 2008
and U.S. Adults 1990 and 2008 and U.S. Adults 1990 and 2008
and U.S. Adults 1990 and 2008 .......................................................5
55
5
B.
B. B.
B. Origins
Origins Origins
Origins ...........................................................................................................................6
66
6
Figure 1.9
Figure 1.9Figure 1.9
Figure 1.9 Family Background of Adult Nones 2008
Family Background of Adult Nones 2008 Family Background of Adult Nones 2008
Family Background of Adult Nones 2008 .........................................6
66
6
Figure 1.10
Figure 1.10Figure 1.10
Figure 1.10
Religious Background of Nones
Religious Background of Nones Religious Background of Nones
Religious Background of Nones
and U.S. Adults 2008
and U.S. Adults 2008 and U.S. Adults 2008
and U.S. Adults 2008 .........................................................................7
77
7
C.
C. C.
C. Geography
Geography Geography
Geography ....................................................................................................................9
99
9
Figure 1.11
Figure 1.11Figure 1.11
Figure 1.11 Geographic Distribution of Nones
Geographic Distribution of Nones Geographic Distribution of Nones
Geographic Distribution of Nones
and U.S. Adults 2008
and U.S. Adults 2008 and U.S. Adults 2008
and U.S. Adults 2008 .........................................................................9
99
9
Figure 1.12
Figure 1.12Figure 1.12
Figure 1.12 Percentage Distribution of the None Population
Percentage Distribution of the None Population Percentage Distribution of the None Population
Percentage Distribution of the None Population
by Census Division 2008
by Census Division 2008 by Census Division 2008
by Census Division 2008 .................................................................10
1010
10
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
Contents
ContentsContents
Contents
Part I
Part I Part I
Part I Profile of the No Religion (None) Population 2008
Profile of the No Religion (None) Population 2008Profile of the No Religion (None) Population 2008
Profile of the No Religion (None) Population 2008
D.
D. D.
D. Belief, Belonging, and Behavior
Belief, Belonging, and BehaviorBelief, Belonging, and Behavior
Belief, Belonging, and Behavior................................................................................11
1111
11
Figure 1.13
Figure 1.13Figure 1.13
Figure 1.13
Regarding the existence of God,
Regarding the existence of God, Regarding the existence of God,
Regarding the existence of God,
do you think…?
do you think…?do you think…?
do you think…? .................................................................................11
1111
11
Figure 1.14
Figure 1.14Figure 1.14
Figure 1.14 Do you think that a horoscope
Do you think that a horoscope Do you think that a horoscope
Do you think that a horoscope
can predict your future?
can predict your future? can predict your future?
can predict your future? ..................................................................12
1212
12
Figure 1.15
Figure 1.15Figure 1.15
Figure 1.15 Do you think that human beings, as we know them,
Do you think that human beings, as we know them, Do you think that human beings, as we know them,
Do you think that human beings, as we know them,
developed from earlier species of animals?
developed from earlier species of animals?developed from earlier species of animals?
developed from earlier species of animals?...................................12
1212
12
Figure 1.16
Figure 1.16Figure 1.16
Figure 1.16 Life Cycle Rituals of the Nones and
Life Cycle Rituals of the Nones and Life Cycle Rituals of the Nones and
Life Cycle Rituals of the Nones and
U.S. Adults 2008
U.S. Adults 2008 U.S. Adults 2008
U.S. Adults 2008 ..............................................................................13
1313
13
Figure 1.17
Figure 1.17Figure 1.17
Figure 1.17 Belonging, Belief, and Behavior by
Belonging, Belief, and Behavior by Belonging, Belief, and Behavior by
Belonging, Belief, and Behavior by
Sub
SubSub
Sub-
--
-groups of Nones and U.S. Adults
groups of Nones and U.S. Adultsgroups of Nones and U.S. Adults
groups of Nones and U.S. Adults .............................................14
1414
14
Part II
Part II Part II
Part II The Nones Amongst US
The Nones Amongst USThe Nones Amongst US
The Nones Amongst US
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.1Figure 2.1
Figure 2.1 Nones as a Percentage of Socio
Nones as a Percentage of SocioNones as a Percentage of Socio
Nones as a Percentage of Socio-
--
-demographic Categories
demographic Categories demographic Categories
demographic Categories
in the U.S. Adult Population, 1990 and 2008
in the U.S. Adult Population, 1990 and 2008 in the U.S. Adult Population, 1990 and 2008
in the U.S. Adult Population, 1990 and 2008 ...............................17
1717
17
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.2Figure 2.2
Figure 2.2
Nones as a Percentage of the Population
Nones as a Percentage of the Population Nones as a Percentage of the Population
Nones as a Percentage of the Population
by U.S. Census Division 2008
by U.S. Census Division 2008by U.S. Census Division 2008
by U.S. Census Division 2008 .........................................................18
1818
18
Figure 2.3
Figure 2.3Figure 2.3
Figure 2.3 State Rankings by Percentage None 2008
State Rankings by Percentage None 2008 State Rankings by Percentage None 2008
State Rankings by Percentage None 2008
.......................................19
1919
19
Part III
Part III Part III
Part III The Growth of the None Population in the United States, 1990
The Growth of the None Population in the United States, 1990The Growth of the None Population in the United States, 1990
The Growth of the None Population in the United States, 1990-
--
-2008
20082008
2008
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.1Figure 3.1
Figure 3.1 The Growth of the Adult None Population
The Growth of the Adult None Population The Growth of the Adult None Population
The Growth of the Adult None Population
1990
19901990
1990-
--
-2008
2008 2008
2008 .......................................................................................
20
2020
20
Conclusion
ConclusionConclusion
Conclusion
..........................................................................................................................................
21
2121
21
The Authors
The AuthorsThe Authors
The Authors
........................................................................................................................................
23
2323
23
i American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion PopulationAmerican Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
One of the most widely noted findings from the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS
2008), which was released in March 2009, was the substantial increase in the No Religion segment of
the U.S. population, whom we designate as “Nones.” The Nones increased from 8.1% of the U.S.
adult population in 1990 to 15% in 2008 and from 14 to 34 million adults. Their numbers far exceed
the combined total of all the non-Christian religious groups in the U.S.
Who exactly are the Nones? “None” is not a movement, but a label for a diverse group of people
who do not identify with any of the myriad of religious options in the American religious
marketplace – the irreligious, the unreligious, the anti-religious, and the anti-clerical. Some believe in
God; some do not. Some may participate occasionally in religious rituals; others never will.
Nones are easily misunderstood. On the one hand, only a small minority are atheists. On the other
hand, it is also not correct to describe them as “unchurched” or “unaffiliated” on the assumption
that they are mainly theists and religious searchers who are temporarily between congregations. Yet
another incorrect assumption is that large proportions of Nones are anti-rationalist proponents of
New Age and supernatural ideas. As we will show, they are more likely to be rational skeptics.
The aim of this report is to provide detailed evidence and reliable statistics on just who the Nones
are, their sentiments, the process by which they have grown, and their place in contemporary
American society. Data from 1990 is presented to highlight selected characteristics where change
over time is particularly notable. We also try to predict the future trajectory of the Nones and so
their likely impact on where society is headed.
Introduction
ii
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion PopulationAmerican Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) 2008 is a random digit dialed (RDD) survey of
a nationally representative sample of 54,461 adults. Of those, 7,407 are Nones, or individuals who
responded to the question: What is your religion, if any? with “none,” “atheist,” “agnostic,” “secular,”
or “humanist.” For these 7,407 people, basic socio-demographic information was collected (e.g., age,
sex, etc.). A randomly selected, nationally representative subset of those 7,407 cases, 1,106 people,
was asked an additional series of questions on behaviors and opinions that provide further insights
into the profile of Nones. The subset is a nationally representative “silo” of Nones. Additionally, a
random subset of the overall 54,461 participants totaling 1,015 individuals were asked some of the
same questions as the None silo. This “national silo” is a random subsample and is representative of
the general U.S. adult population. The 1990 data in this report are from the National Survey of
Religious Identification; a nationally representative sample of 113,713 adults among whom 9,899 self
-identified with one of the above None categories.
The sampling error for the full ARIS 2008 is +/- 0.31%. For the No Religion sub-sample, the
sampling error is +/- 2.38%.
For further information on the ARIS series methodology see:
http://www.trincoll.edu/Academics/AcademicResources/Values/ISSSC/archive.htm or
Barry A. Kosmin and Ariela Keysar, Religion in a Free Market: Religious and Non-Religious Americans,
Ithaca, NY, Paramount Market Publishing, 2006.
The data collection for the ARIS series was conducted by ICR - International Communications
Research of Media, PA.
Methodological Note
1 American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion PopulationAmerican Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
There are some characteristics that distinguish the Nones from the general U.S. population, but two
stand out, gender and age. Nones are disproportionately male, 60%, while women actually make up a
slight majority of the general U.S. population, 51% (see Figure 1.1). Additionally, Nones are
significantly younger than the general population: 30% are under age 30 and only 5% are 70 years or
older (see Figure 1.2). The median age of adult Nones is 41 years, compared to 46 years in the
general U.S. population. These two demographic differences help explain some of the other ways in
which Nones differ from the general U.S. population.
Figure 1.3 contrasts the marital statuses of Nones and the general U.S. population. The first two
columns compare the two groups without adjusting for the difference in ages between them. Based
on these numbers, Nones are more likely to be single and never married and less likely to be married
or widowed. However, that is largely because they are younger. The right half of Figure 1.3 presents
Part I
Part IPart I
Part I
Profile of the No Religion (None) Population 2008
A.
A. A.
A. SOCIO
SOCIOSOCIO
SOCIO-
--
-DEMOGRAPHICS
DEMOGRAPHICSDEMOGRAPHICS
DEMOGRAPHICS
Figure 1.1
Figure 1.1Figure 1.1
Figure 1.1
Gender Distribution of Adult Nones and U.S. Adults 2008
Gender Distribution of Adult Nones and U.S. Adults 2008Gender Distribution of Adult Nones and U.S. Adults 2008
Gender Distribution of Adult Nones and U.S. Adults 2008
U.S. Adults
U.S. AdultsU.S. Adults
U.S. Adults
(N= 54,461)
Nones
NonesNones
Nones
(N= 7,047)
0%
0%0%
0%
20%
20%20%
20%
40%
40%40%
40%
60%
60%60%
60%
80%
80%80%
80%
100%
100%100%
100%
51
5151
51
49
4949
49
60
6060
60
40
4040
40
Male
MaleMale
Male
Female
FemaleFemale
Female
Figure 1.2
Figure 1.2Figure 1.2
Figure 1.2
Age Distribution of Adult Nones and U.S. Adults 2008
Age Distribution of Adult Nones and U.S. Adults 2008Age Distribution of Adult Nones and U.S. Adults 2008
Age Distribution of Adult Nones and U.S. Adults 2008
U.S. Adults
U.S. AdultsU.S. Adults
U.S. Adults
(N= 54,461)
30
3030
30
42
4242
42
Nones
NonesNones
Nones
(N= 7,047)
23
2323
23
5
55
5
0%
0%0%
0%
20%
20%20%
20%
40%
40%40%
40%
60%
60%60%
60%
80%
80%80%
80%
100%
100%100%
100%
22
2222
22
38
3838
38
28
2828
28
12
1212
12
18
1818
18-
--
-29
2929
29
30
3030
30-
--
-49
4949
49
50
5050
50-
--
-69
6969
69
70+
70+70+
70+
2
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion PopulationAmerican Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
the two groups as if they had an identical age structure. When this is done, the differences in marital
status shrink, though they do not disappear entirely. Nones are still less likely to be married and
more likely to be single and never married, but not substantially so. Of note, there is no difference in
divorce rates between the two groups when adjusted for age.
That there are relatively minor differences in marital status between Nones and the general U.S.
population once age is taken into account introduces an important finding in this report: In many
respects, Nones are growing very similar to the general U.S. population. As any numerical minority
increases in size it regresses to the mean or becomes more like the majority. Thus, as Nones
increased from 8% to 15% of the U.S. population, they became more representative of the average
population.
The growing similarity of Nones to the general U.S. population is seen also in the racial and ethnic
composition of Nones, as shown in Figure 1.4. In all, whites are slightly more likely to be Nones
while blacks are slightly less likely, but the differences are relatively small. That blacks, who are
generally considered to be the most religious racial/ethnic group in the U.S., make up 8% of the
None population suggests that this shift in the religious marketplace is widespread and penetrating
deeply into traditionally religious populations.
The most striking change among the racial and ethnic groups is among Hispanics. In 1990 they
comprised 6% of U.S. adults and 4% of adult Nones. In 2008 Hispanics doubled their percentage of
the U.S. adult population to 13% and tripled their proportion among adult Nones to 12%. This
means that Hispanics are not only the fastest growing racial group in America in general, but are the
fastest-growing minority group among Nones. This, too, is a noteworthy finding considering the
stereotype of Latinos as a deeply religious population.
Figure 1.5 presents some rather interesting data about the ethnicity of Nones within the non-
Unadjusted Percentage
Unadjusted PercentageUnadjusted Percentage
Unadjusted Percentage
Nones
NonesNones
Nones
U.S. Adults
U.S. AdultsU.S. Adults
U.S. Adults
Nones
NonesNones
Nones
U.S. Adults
U.S. AdultsU.S. Adults
U.S. Adults
Single, Never Married 39 25 33 28
Married 45 53 49 52
Divorced/Separated 11 13 12 12
Widowed 3 7 6 8
Total
TotalTotal
Total
100%
100%100%
100%
100%
100%100%
100%
100%
100%100%
100%
100%
100%100%
100%
Age
AgeAge
Age-
--
-Adjusted Percentage
Adjusted PercentageAdjusted Percentage
Adjusted Percentage
Figure 1.3
Figure 1.3Figure 1.3
Figure 1.3
Marital Status of Adult Nones and U.S. Adults 2008
Marital Status of Adult Nones and U.S. Adults 2008Marital Status of Adult Nones and U.S. Adults 2008
Marital Status of Adult Nones and U.S. Adults 2008
3 American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion PopulationAmerican Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
Hispanic white population. Individuals of Irish descent make up 33% of Nones, which is a much
larger percentage than the 12% who claim some Irish ancestry in the general population according
to the 2008 American Community Survey. Likewise, individuals of British and Italian descent make up a
disproportionate percentage of the None population. While not every possible ethnic or cultural
ancestry was asked about in ARIS 2008, these findings do seem somewhat surprising. Interestingly
the Irish and Jewish Nones had the most balanced gender ratios i.e., above average numbers of
women. The Nones of Irish descent were not particularly unique in other ways, but many did report
being raised Catholic, which may help explain their disproportionate representation among the
Nones (see Figure 1.10).
Figure 1.5
Figure 1.5Figure 1.5
Figure 1.5
Selected Ancestry (Single and Multiple) of Adult Nones 2008
Selected Ancestry (Single and Multiple) of Adult Nones 2008Selected Ancestry (Single and Multiple) of Adult Nones 2008
Selected Ancestry (Single and Multiple) of Adult Nones 2008
Percent of Nones
Percent of NonesPercent of Nones
Percent of Nones
(N= 1006)
Irish 33
3333
33
British
1
20
2020
20
Italian 9
99
9
Jewish
2
4
44
4
1
Persons of British ancestry includes British, English, Scottish, and Welsh.
2
See ARIS Special Report The Changing Profile of American Jews 1990-2008 available at:
http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/reports/AJIS2008.pdf
White
WhiteWhite
White
Black
BlackBlack
Black
Hispanic
HispanicHispanic
Hispanic
Asia
AsiaAsia
Asia Other
OtherOther
Other
Figure 1.4
Figure 1.4Figure 1.4
Figure 1.4
Racial and Ethnic Composition of Adult Nones and U.S. Adults 1990 and 2008
Racial and Ethnic Composition of Adult Nones and U.S. Adults 1990 and 2008Racial and Ethnic Composition of Adult Nones and U.S. Adults 1990 and 2008
Racial and Ethnic Composition of Adult Nones and U.S. Adults 1990 and 2008
U.S
U.S U.S
U.S
Adults
AdultsAdults
Adults
1990
19901990
1990
(N= 113,713)
2008
20082008
2008
(N= 54,461)
1990
19901990
1990
(N= 9,899)
2008
20082008
2008
(N= 7,047)
Nones
NonesNones
Nones
0%
0%0%
0%
20%
20%20%
20%
40%
40%40%
40%
60%
60%60%
60%
80%
80%80%
80%
100
100100
100
77
7777
77
13
1313
13
6
66
6
4
44
4
69
6969
69
11
1111
11
13
1313
13
2
22
2
5
55
5
80
8080
80
10
1010
10
4
44
4
6
66
6
72
7272
72
8
88
8
12
1212
12
3
33
3
5
55
5
4
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion PopulationAmerican Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
Also reflective of the growing “normalization” of Nones are the relatively minor differences in socio
-economic characteristics between them and the general population. Figure 1.6 compares Nones and
the U.S. population on educational attainment and Figure 1.7 compares the two groups on house-
hold income. While there are slight variations in educational attainment, what is really
notable is that the differences are virtually negligible. The greatest difference between the two
groups in any particular category is 3 percentage points. Also included in Figure 1.6 are the
respective numbers on this variable for the two groups in 1990. It was clear in 1990 that Nones were
more educated than the general U.S. adult population. While that is still the case today for university
graduation rates, the gap has narrowed.
There is also no significant difference in the median household incomes of the two groups in Figure
Percent of Nones
Percent of Nones Percent of Nones
Percent of Nones
Less than High School 19 17 23 15
High School Graduate 30 25 34 27
Some College 22 24 19 26
College Graduate 19 20 15 17
Post Graduate 10 11 7 9
Other/Refused <1 3 2 6
Total
TotalTotal
Total
100%
100%100%
100%
100%
100%100%
100%
100%
100%100%
100%
100%
100%100%
100%
Percent of U.S. Adults
Percent of U.S. AdultsPercent of U.S. Adults
Percent of U.S. Adults
1990
19901990
1990
(N= 9,899)
2008
20082008
2008
(N= 7,047)
1990
19901990
1990
(N= 113,713)
2008
20082008
2008
(N= 54,461)
Figure 1.6
Figure 1.6Figure 1.6
Figure 1.6
Educational Attainment of Nones and U.S. Adults Age 25 Years and Over 1990 and 2008
Educational Attainment of Nones and U.S. Adults Age 25 Years and Over 1990 and 2008Educational Attainment of Nones and U.S. Adults Age 25 Years and Over 1990 and 2008
Educational Attainment of Nones and U.S. Adults Age 25 Years and Over 1990 and 2008
53
5353
53
47
4747
47
U.S. Adults
U.S. AdultsU.S. Adults
U.S. Adults
(N= 54,461)
Figure 1.7
Figure 1.7 Figure 1.7
Figure 1.7
Household Income Distribution of Adult Nones and U.S. Adults 2008
Household Income Distribution of Adult Nones and U.S. Adults 2008Household Income Distribution of Adult Nones and U.S. Adults 2008
Household Income Distribution of Adult Nones and U.S. Adults 2008
52
5252
52
48
4848
48
Nones
NonesNones
Nones
(N= 7,047)
Over $50,000
Over $50,000Over $50,000
Over $50,000
Under $50,000
Under $50,000Under $50,000
Under $50,000
0%
0%0%
0%
20%
20%20%
20%
40%
40%40%
40%
60%
60%60%
60%
80%
80%80%
80%
100%
100%100%
100%
5 American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion PopulationAmerican Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
1.7. Controlling for age does not change these percentages (not shown). The lack of substantial
differences between Nones and the U.S. population on these two characteristics supports the
assertion that Nones in the U.S. have grown increasingly similar to the general U.S. population in the
last two decades in terms of social class.
One area where Nones do differ from the general U.S. population is in their pattern of political
party preference. A plurality (42%) of the Nones consider themselves independents; 34%
Democrats; and 13% Republicans. In the general population, 29% consider themselves
independents, 34% Democrats; and 24% Republicans. (See Figure 1.8.)
From 1990 to 2008, there was a shift among Nones away from Republicans to Democrats. In the
general population, the shift away from Republicans was more toward independents than toward
Democrats. Because the Nones grew substantially in absolute numbers during that time, we cannot
say whether this was a widespread defection from the Republican Party or a growing affinity for the
Democrats by new None voters.
Figure 1.8
Figure 1.8 Figure 1.8
Figure 1.8
Political Party Preference of Adult Nones and U.S. Adults 1990 and 2008
Political Party Preference of Adult Nones and U.S. Adults 1990 and 2008Political Party Preference of Adult Nones and U.S. Adults 1990 and 2008
Political Party Preference of Adult Nones and U.S. Adults 1990 and 2008
U.S
U.S U.S
U.S
Adults
AdultsAdults
Adults
1990
19901990
1990
(N= 113,713)
2008
20082008
2008
(N= 54,461)
1990
19901990
1990
(N= 9,899)
2008
20082008
2008
(N= 7,047)
Nones
NonesNones
Nones
27
2727
27
21
2121
21
42
4242
42
34
3434
34
13
1313
13
42
4242
42
35
3535
35
29
2929
29
29
2929
29
34
3434
34
24
2424
24
31
3131
31
0%
0%0%
0%
20%
20%20%
20%
40%
40%40%
40%
60%
60%60%
60%
80%
80%80%
80%
100%
100%100%
100%
Democrat
DemocratDemocrat
Democrat
Republican
RepublicanRepublican
Republican
Independent
IndependentIndependent
Independent
Other/Refused/DK
Other/Refused/DKOther/Refused/DK
Other/Refused/DK
7
77
7
11
1111
11
10
1010
10
11
1111
11
6
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion PopulationAmerican Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
This report explores an area that the ARIS 2008 Summary Report did not address, namely the origins
of the None population. By origins we are referring to their religious roots – the types of homes
they were raised in and the religious identity of their parents. There are several questions in the ARIS
2008 that allow us to explore their origins
.
Nones were asked: When you were growing up did your parents... (a) identify with the same religion, (b) identify
with different religions, (c) one identify with religion and the other not, or (d) neither identify with a religion. This
question makes it possible to determine what percentage of the individuals who identify as Nones
today were raised in homes where they had a None parental role model, which would increase their
odds of being a None.
Figure 1.9 shows that the majority (73%) emerged from religious homes, the vast majority of which
were homogeneous. Only 18% were raised by parents of different religious identifications. Twenty-
seven percent of Nones had a non-religious parental role model.
A question asked of both the None sub-sample and a random sample of U.S. adults was the
participant's religious identification at age 12. This information allows us to determine two things
that are important to understanding the origins of the None population in the U.S. First, it tells us
how many Nones were either raised that way or opted out of religion very early in their lives.
Second, it tells us how many Nones opted out of religion after the age of 12, i.e., how many are
switchers to non-religion. Just as many religious groups calculate retention rates for their adherents
to determine how well they are retaining their membership, this combination of questions allows us
to estimate retention rates for the Nones.
Figure 1.10 presents the seven religious groups that contribute the most people to the None
population in the U.S. The numbers in the first column are the percentage of individuals who
B.
B. B.
B. ORIGINS
ORIGINSORIGINS
ORIGINS
Percent
PercentPercent
Percent
(N= 1,106)
Neither Parent Identified with a Religion 17
One Parent Identified with a Religion, One did not 10
Both Parents Identified with Different Religions 18
Both Parents Identified with the Same Religion 55
Total
TotalTotal
Total
100%
100%100%
100%
Figure 1.9
Figure 1.9Figure 1.9
Figure 1.9
Family Background of Adult Nones 2008
Family Background of Adult Nones 2008Family Background of Adult Nones 2008
Family Background of Adult Nones 2008
7 American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion PopulationAmerican Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
currently identify as Nones who reported their religious identification at age 12 as each of those
respective religions. The second column gives the corresponding percentages for the U.S. adult
population. Thus, 32% of Nones were Nones by the age of 12, whereas only 9% of people in the
U.S. generally were Nones at the age of 12. Of note, next to those who are raised as Nones,
Catholics are the single largest contributor to the None population; 24% of the None population are
former Catholics. This is, of course, not surprising given the fact that Catholics make up about one-
fourth of the U.S. population. The third column which shows the proportion of “new Nones,”
those who switched out of religion, shows that 35% are former Catholics. “Christians” and
Methodists are also over-represented among switchers to No Religion but Baptists are under-
represented.
Figure 1.10 lays the groundwork for determining retention rates, but does not provide all the
necessary information. In a sense, there are two retention rates to be calculated here: (1) What
percentage of those raised as Nones remain Nones? And (2) What percentage of those raised
religious remain religious? The answers are somewhat surprising, but require explanation. Of those
who reported being Nones at 12 years of age, 59% were Nones at the time they participated in the
ARIS 2008. That means 41% of “raised Nones” joined a religion after the age of 12. Interestingly
41% is the national average for switching for all religious groups. In contrast, among those reporting
a religious identity at 12 years of age, 12% were Nones at the time of their participation in ARIS
2008. The religious retain 88% of those raised religious. This would seem to favor the religious. But
we also know that the Nones are growing at the expense of the religious. This is due to the relative
sizes of these populations in absolute numbers.
Percentage of Nones
Percentage of NonesPercentage of Nones
Percentage of Nones
(N= 1,106)
Percentage of U.S.
Percentage of U.S. Percentage of U.S.
Percentage of U.S.
Adults
AdultsAdults
Adults
(N= 1,015)
Identified as None at Age 12 32 9
Identified as Catholic at Age 12 24 26
Identified as “Christian” at Age 12 11 11
Identified as Baptist at Age 12 7 16
Identified as Methodist at Age 12 5 4
Identified as Lutheran at Age 12 3 5
Identified as “Protestant” at Age 12 3 5
Identified with All Other Religions at Age 12 15 24
Total
TotalTotal
Total
100%
100%100%
100%
100%
100%100%
100%
Percentage of New
Percentage of New Percentage of New
Percentage of New
Nones
NonesNones
Nones
(N=804)
N/A
35
16
10
7
5
5
22
100%
100%100%
100%
Figure 1.10
Figure 1.10Figure 1.10
Figure 1.10
Religious Background of Nones and U.S. Adults 2008
Religious Background of Nones and U.S. Adults 2008Religious Background of Nones and U.S. Adults 2008
Religious Background of Nones and U.S. Adults 2008
8 American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion PopulationAmerican Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
Mathematically, Nones can lose a larger percentage than the religious and still grow as a percentage
of the population because they are starting as a smaller percentage of the population. Another way
to look at this is to present religious switching as a percentage of the total population. Since they
were 12 years of age, 4% of Americans switched from None to religious but 11% of Americans
switched from religious to None, a 7% imbalance favoring Nones. So long as the religious remain a
numerical majority, Nones can continue to lose a greater percentage to religion than the religious
lose to non-religion and yet still grow as a proportion of the population.
These findings suggest something very important about the Nones: While there are many inter-
generational Nones (people raised as Nones), the majority of Nones, 66%, are first-generation or
“(de) converts” to non-religion. Only 32% are second generation or longer. Since the Nones
continue to lose a considerable percentage of their population the result is that there is considerable
“churn” among the Nones – people drop out of religions and return quite frequently.
There are a couple of additional findings worth noting here. Looking at retention by gender, Nones
are more likely to retain men than women: 66% of men who reported no religion at age 12 were
Nones at the time of their participation in ARIS 2008, but only 47% of females who reported no
religion at age 12 remained Nones. Of those who reported having a religion at age 12, 15% of men
left while only 9% of women did. It appears that American women have a greater affinity for
religion than men. And conversely men have greater affinity for secularity than women.
A generational cohort analysis explains much of the recent growth in the number of Nones among
young adults. Generation X and Generation Y are the motor for this population increase but in
different ways. Generation X (born 1960-78) had a very high retention rate of Born Nones (71%)
while Generation Y (born 1979-90) has an above average rate of switching to None from a
religious identity at 12 years of age (16%).
9
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion PopulationAmerican Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
Figure 1.11 presents information on the geographic distribution of Nones compared to the general
population in the U.S. in 1990 and 2008. The table is divided into the four regions defined by the
Census – Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. The notable consistent differences are in the South
and West. A comparison over time shows that the distribution of Nones is now less western and
more normalized than in 1990. Yet differences remain. While 36% of the U.S. population was in the
Southern states in 2008, only 29% of Nones were located in those states. The West has 30% of
Nones but only 23% of the overall U.S. population.
The indents of Figure 1.11 provide a finer mesh showing how Nones and the adult population of
the U.S. fit into the nine Census divisions. Nones are particularly under-represented in the East
South Central and West South Central divisions and over-represented in the Pacific division.
C.
C. C.
C. GEOGRAPHY
GEOGRAPHYGEOGRAPHY
GEOGRAPHY
Percentage of Nones
Percentage of Nones Percentage of Nones
Percentage of Nones
Percentage of U.S. Adults
Percentage of U.S. Adults Percentage of U.S. Adults
Percentage of U.S. Adults
GEOGRAPHY
GEOGRAPHYGEOGRAPHY
GEOGRAPHY
1990
19901990
1990
(N= 9,899)
2008
20082008
2008
(N= 7,047)
1990
19901990
1990
(N= 113,713)
2008
20082008
2008
(n= 54,461)
Northeast Region
Northeast RegionNortheast Region
Northeast Region
17
1717
17
20
2020
20
21
2121
21
19
1919
19
New England Division 5 7 5 5
Middle Atlantic Division 12 13 16 14
Midwest Region
Midwest RegionMidwest Region
Midwest Region
22
2222
22
21
2121
21
24
2424
24
22
2222
22
East North Central Division 17 16 17 15
West North Central Division 5 6 7 7
South Region
South RegionSouth Region
South Region
26
2626
26
29
2929
29
35
3535
35
36
3636
36
South Atlantic Division 15 16 18 19
East South Central Division 4 4 7 6
West South Central Division 7 8 10 11
West Region
West RegionWest Region
West Region
35
3535
35
30
3030
30
20
2020
20
23
2323
23
Mountain 8 9 5 7
Pacific 27 21 15 16
U.S. Total
U.S. TotalU.S. Total
U.S. Total
100%
100%100%
100%
100%
100%100%
100%
100%
100%100%
100%
100%
100%100%
100%
Figure 1.11
Figure 1.11Figure 1.11
Figure 1.11
Percentage Distribution of Nones and U.S. Adults by Census Region and Division 1990 and 2008
Percentage Distribution of Nones and U.S. Adults by Census Region and Division 1990 and 2008Percentage Distribution of Nones and U.S. Adults by Census Region and Division 1990 and 2008
Percentage Distribution of Nones and U.S. Adults by Census Region and Division 1990 and 2008
10 American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion PopulationAmerican Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
Figure 1.12 maps the actual location of the Nones by Census Division. As expected this shows that
1 in 5 of the Nones are to be found in the Pacific states but it also reveals that there are very large
populations of Nones in the East North Central and South Atlantic divisions which each account
for 1 out of 6 of American Nones.
The rate at which people from different regions join the None segment of the population is not
uniform, but Nones are growing in every geographic region in the U.S, unlike most religious groups.
As a result Nones are increasingly similar to the general population in residential location and sub-
stantial pockets of Nones now can be found everywhere in the U.S.
Figure 1.12
Figure 1.12Figure 1.12
Figure 1.12
Geographic Distribution of the None Population by Census Division 2008
Geographic Distribution of the None Population by Census Division 2008 Geographic Distribution of the None Population by Census Division 2008
Geographic Distribution of the None Population by Census Division 2008 (N= 7,047)
New England
Middle Atlantic
South Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
21
7
13
16
6
16
East South Central
4
8
West South Central
9
Mountain
Pacific
11
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion PopulationAmerican Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
Figure 1.13 reports responses to a question about belief in God for the None population and the
general U.S. population. Not surprisingly, Nones are substantially less likely to believe in a personal
God; only 27% of Nones believe in a personal God compared to 70% of adults generally. Of
interest, however, is the relatively small proportion of Nones who are atheists – just 7%. The
largest single group among the Nones is theists, but hard and soft agnostics, if combined, account
for 35% of the Nones, as compared with 10% of the U.S. population. The proportion of people
believing in a higher power but not a personal God who can be classified as deists in both
populations is notable.
Figures 1.14 and 1.15 compare the None population to the general U.S. population on two belief/
attitude items: Belief in horoscopes and acceptance of evolution. Neither Nones nor most American
adults put much credence in horoscopes – about 17% of both populations say either “maybe” or
“yes” when asked if horoscopes can predict the future. That there is no difference between these
two groups runs contrary to the claims of some that the Nones are particularly receptive to New
Age and Spiritualist beliefs. An area where Nones do differ substantially from the general population
of the U.S. is in their acceptance of human evolution. Whereas only 17% of the general population
of the U.S. definitely accepts human evolution, 33% of Nones do. The proportions that reject it
outright are inverted, with 36% of the general U.S. population saying that humans definitely did not
evolve but only 17% of Nones. We interpret this finding as suggesting that Nones do not put much
credence in creationist teachings and prefer to arrive at their beliefs independent of religions.
Figure 1.16 depicts the results of three separate questions that relate to rituals at three points in the
life-cycle of people. They show that for Nones there is a decline in participation in religious rituals
between birth and death but for the general population there is little change in the rate of
participation (around 70%) over the lifespan. The left-hand column of the figure labeled “Initiation”
depicts the results of the question: Did you have a religious initiation ceremony, such as a baptism, Christening,
D.
D. D.
D. BELIEF, BELONGING AND BEHAVIOR
BELIEF, BELONGING AND BEHAVIORBELIEF, BELONGING AND BEHAVIOR
BELIEF, BELONGING AND BEHAVIOR
Response
Response Response
Response
Category
CategoryCategory
Category
Percentage Nones
Percentage NonesPercentage Nones
Percentage Nones
(N= 1,106)
There is no such thing Atheist 7
There is no way to know Hard Agnostic 19
I’m not sure Soft Agnostic 16
There is a higher power but no personal God Deist 24
There is definitely a personal God Theist 27
Percentage US Adults
Percentage US AdultsPercentage US Adults
Percentage US Adults
(N= 1,015)
2
4
6
12
70
Don’t Know/Refused N/A 7 6
TOTAL
TOTALTOTAL
TOTAL
100%
100%100%
100%
100%
100%100%
100%
Figure 1.13
Figure 1.13Figure 1.13
Figure 1.13
Regarding the existence of God, do you think…?
Regarding the existence of God, do you think…?Regarding the existence of God, do you think…?
Regarding the existence of God, do you think…?
12 American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion PopulationAmerican Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
circumcision, confirmation, bar mitzvah or naming ceremony? Among Nones, 55% did have some sort of
initiation ceremony, supporting the finding above that most of the Nones are first-generation
converts to no religion. In comparison, 71% of the general U.S. population reported an initiation
ceremony. Since almost 80% of Americans claim a religious identification, we can assume that
millions of religious identifiers in the U.S were not initiated in any formal way into the religious
group with which they identify.
This assertion is supported by the evidence found in the middle and right-hand columns of Figure
1.16. Not surprisingly, 55% of Nones answered “No” to the question: Were you married in a religious
ceremony? However, 27% of the general population also said “No,” suggesting that a large number of
people, although a minority of the religious population were not married in a religious ceremony.
The third portion of Figure 1.16, labeled “Funeral,” also illustrates this finding. The question
participants were asked was: When you die, do you expect to have a religious funeral or service?
Figure 1.14
Figure 1.14Figure 1.14
Figure 1.14
Do you think that a horoscope can predict your future?
Do you think that a horoscope can predict your future?Do you think that a horoscope can predict your future?
Do you think that a horoscope can predict your future?
82
8282
82
11
1111
11
U.S. Adults
U.S. AdultsU.S. Adults
U.S. Adults
(N= 1,015)
6
66
6
83
8383
83
12
1212
12
Nones
NonesNones
Nones
(N– 1,106)
5
55
5
0%
0%0%
0%
20%
20%20%
20%
40%
40%40%
40%
60%
60%60%
60%
80%
80%80%
80%
100%
100%100%
100%
1
11
1
No
NoNo
No
Maybe
MaybeMaybe
Maybe
Yes
YesYes
Yes
Refused
RefusedRefused
Refused
Figure 1.15
Figure 1.15Figure 1.15
Figure 1.15
Do you think that human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals?
Do you think that human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals?Do you think that human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals?
Do you think that human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals?
17
1717
17
21
2121
21
U.S. Adults
U.S. AdultsU.S. Adults
U.S. Adults
(N= 1,015)
16
1616
16
36
3636
36
33
3333
33
28
2828
28
Nones
NonesNones
Nones
(N= 1,106)
13
1313
13
0%
0%0%
0%
20%
20%20%
20%
40%
40%40%
40%
60%
60%60%
60%
80%
80%80%
80%
100%
100%100%
100%
10
1010
10
17
1717
17
9
99
9
Definitely
DefinitelyDefinitely
Definitely
Probably
ProbablyProbably
Probably
Probably Not
Probably NotProbably Not
Probably Not
Definitely Not
Definitely NotDefinitely Not
Definitely Not
DK/Refused
DK/RefusedDK/Refused
DK/Refused
13
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion PopulationAmerican Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
Overwhelmingly, 66% of Nones answered “No”; 27% of the general U.S. population also said
“No.”
Digging a little deeper into the second question about a religious marriage ceremony provides some
additional insight into the Nones. When responses to this question are compared by sex, it turns out
that women are less likely to have been married in a religious ceremony than are men, 46% vs. 51%.
While the difference is not particularly large, it is somewhat surprising considering women are
generally more religious than men. What this likely reflects is the partner’s religiosity: Women who
are Nones are more likely to be married to Nones than are men who are Nones. Males who are not
religious likely concede decision-making regarding the wedding to their wives, who are more likely to
be religious. It may also be the case that female Nones are just as likely to be married to someone
who is religious and simply dictate a secular wedding, but the ratio of men to women among Nones
(3 to 2) suggests that this is unlikely.
Figure 1.17 contrasts six different groups: all Nones; four sub-groups of Nones – male Nones,
female Nones, Nones under age 30, and Nones with college degrees (over age 25); and the general
Figure 1.16
Figure 1.16 Figure 1.16
Figure 1.16
Life Cycle Rituals of the Nones and US Adults 2008
Life Cycle Rituals of the Nones and US Adults 2008Life Cycle Rituals of the Nones and US Adults 2008
Life Cycle Rituals of the Nones and US Adults 2008
U.S
U.S U.S
U.S
Adults
AdultsAdults
Adults
(N= 1,015)
Religious
Religious Religious
Religious
Initiation
InitiationInitiation
Initiation
Religious
Religious Religious
Religious
Marriage
MarriageMarriage
Marriage
Religious
Religious Religious
Religious
Funeral
FuneralFuneral
Funeral
Religious
Religious Religious
Religious
Initiation
InitiationInitiation
Initiation
Religious
Religious Religious
Religious
Marriage
MarriageMarriage
Marriage
Religious
Religious Religious
Religious
Funeral
FuneralFuneral
Funeral
Nones
NonesNones
Nones
(N= 1,106)
43
4343
43
55
5555
55
2
22
2
55
5555
55
43
4343
43
2
22
2
26
2626
26
71
7171
71
3
33
3
27
2727
27
72
7272
72
1
11
1
27
2727
27
66
6666
66
7
77
7
66
6666
66
20
2020
20
14
1414
14
0%
0%0%
0%
20%
20%20%
20%
40%
40%40%
40%
60%
60%60%
60%
80%
80%80%
80%
100%
100%100%
100%
No
NoNo
No
Yes
YesYes
Yes
DK/Refused
DK/RefusedDK/Refused
DK/Refused
14 American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion PopulationAmerican Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
U.S. adult population. The top portion of the table compares the six groups on their reported
religious identity when asked, What is your religion, if any? The middle portion reports beliefs toward
God. The bottom portion reports the percent that had or plan to have each of the three religious
rituals discussed previously – initiation, marriage, and funeral.
As regards belonging, several differences are noteworthy. First, women Nones are less likely to
identify as “atheist” or “agnostic” than are males. Younger Nones are more likely to identify as
“agnostic” than are all Nones. And Nones, in general, are substantially more likely to self-identify
All Nones
All NonesAll Nones
All Nones
Male Nones
Male NonesMale Nones
Male Nones
Female Nones
Female NonesFemale Nones
Female Nones
Nones Under
Nones Under Nones Under
Nones Under
Age 30
Age 30Age 30
Age 30
Nones with
Nones with Nones with
Nones with
College Degree
College DegreeCollege Degree
College Degree
U.S. Adults
U.S. AdultsU.S. Adults
U.S. Adults
Belonging
BelongingBelonging
Belonging
(N= 7,047) (N= 54,461)
Atheist 5 6 3 6 5 1
Agnostic 6 7 5 9 6 1
Other <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
No Religion 89 87 92 85 89 13
Total
TotalTotal
Total
100%
100%100%
100%
100%
100%100%
100%
100%
100%100%
100%
100%
100%100%
100%
100%
100%100%
100%
15%
15%15%
15%
Belief
BeliefBelief
Belief
(N= 1,106)
(N= 1,015)
Atheist 7 8 6 5 11 2
Hard Agnostic 19 21 17 24 26 4
Deist 24 25 22 23 25 12
Theist 27 21 36 25 15 70
Don’t Know/
Refused 7 6 6 6 5 6
Total
TotalTotal
Total
100%
100%100%
100%
100%
100%100%
100%
100%
100%100%
100%
100%
100%100%
100%
100%
100%100%
100%
100%
100%100%
100%
Behavior
BehaviorBehavior
Behavior
(N= 1,106)
(N= 1,015)
Soft Agnostic 16 19 13 17 18 6
Percent Had
Initiation Ceremony 55% 55% 55% 53% 62% 71%
Percent Had
Religious Wedding 43% 47% 39% 36% 44% 72%
Percent Expect
Religious Funeral 20% 20% 21% 28% 14% 66%
Figure 1 .17
Figure 1 .17Figure 1 .17
Figure 1 .17
Belonging, Belief, and Behavior by Sub
Belonging, Belief, and Behavior by SubBelonging, Belief, and Behavior by Sub
Belonging, Belief, and Behavior by Sub-
--
-groups of Nones and U.S. Adults
groups of Nones and U.S. Adultsgroups of Nones and U.S. Adults
groups of Nones and U.S. Adults
15
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion PopulationAmerican Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
as atheist or agnostic than are adults in the U.S. population generally.
As far as belief goes, again, female Nones exhibit more traditional religiosity with 36% reporting a
belief in a personal God (theist) as compared to 21% of male Nones. Also striking is the effect of
having a college degree; only 15% of Nones with a college degree are theists while 11% are atheists.
Finally, in terms of behavior, two things stand out. Nones under the age of 30 are more likely to
expect a religious funeral, which could be because for them death is a remote possibility and less of a
“real issue.” In contrast, only 14% of Nones over 25 with a college degree expect a religious funeral.
This figure suggests that Nones over 25 with a college degree are the most secular Nones.
16 American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion PopulationAmerican Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
This section of the report illustrates how the None population fits into and impacts American
society.
Figure 2.1 provides a slightly different perspective on the None population by presenting their share
(in percentage) among various elements of the U.S. population at two points in time, 1990 and 2008.
Thus, in 2008, 19% of adult males in the U.S. are Nones, compared with 12% of adult females. Of
interest is the very large proportion of young people who are Nones: 22%, which is double their
share in 1990. If the Generation Y cohort remains non-religious as it ages, the percentage of the U.S.
population made up of Nones will continue to rise. As we pointed out earlier the educational and
income profiles —while never very different— have normalized.
One item of note in Figure 2.1 is the large percentage of Asians who are Nones, 29%. This is a
larger share than for any other racial/ethnic group. Part of the explanation is the demographics of
Asians in the U.S., who are disproportionately male, well-educated and residents of the West. But it
may also be due to other factors, like the low levels of religiosity in many Asian countries, like Japan
and China.
Figure 2.1 also shows how Nones are becoming more similar to the general population. The last part
of the table reiterates one exception to this normalizing trend, our findings regarding political party
preference. While the percentage of Democrats who are Nones is similar to their percentage among
the general U.S. population, Nones are overrepresented among independents and
underrepresented among Republicans. Today Nones make up less than one-sixteenth of
Republicans, and a similar percentage as in 1990. By way of contrast Nones have grown to over one
in five of independents in 2008.
Figure 2.3 ranks the states by the percentage of the population that is made up of Nones. Of
interest here (though not shown) is the change that has taken place since the ARIS 2001. In ARIS
2001, the states with the highest percentage of Nones were the Pacific Northwestern states (i.e.,
Oregon, Washington, and Idaho). While most of these states are still among the top 10, several
states in New England are now at the top with more non-religious segments – including Vermont
(34% Nones) and New Hampshire (29%). There are now three geographic divisions in the U.S.
which are particularly non-religious: the Pacific Northwest, New England, and the Mountain States
(as illustrated in Figure 2.2).
Part II
Part IIPart II
Part II
The Nones Amongst US
17
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion PopulationAmerican Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
CATEGORY
CATEGORYCATEGORY
CATEGORY
SUB
SUBSUB
SUB-
--
-CATEGORY
CATEGORYCATEGORY
CATEGORY
1990
19901990
1990
(N= 113,713)
2008
20082008
2008
(N= 54,461)
Nones
NonesNones
Nones
U.S. TOTAL 8 15
Gender
Gender Gender
Gender
Male 11 19
Female 6 12
Age
Age Age
Age
18-29 Years 11 22
30-49 Years 9 17
50-69 Years 5 13
70 Years and Older 5 7
Marital Status
Marital Status Marital Status
Marital Status
Single, Never Married 12 22
Married 7 14
Divorced/Separated 19 15
Widowed 4 7
Race & Ethnicity
Race & Ethnicity Race & Ethnicity
Race & Ethnicity
White (Not Hispanic) 8 17
Black (Not Hispanic) 6 11
Hispanic 6 13
Asian N/A 29
Other 16 19
Education
EducationEducation
Education
1
11
1
Less than High School 7 15
High School Graduate 7 13
Some College 9 13
Graduated College 10 16
Graduate School or more 11 17
Technical School/Other 6 10
Refused 4 9
Income
IncomeIncome
Income
2
22
2
Under Median Household Income 8 15
Over Median Household Income 9 16
Political Party
Political Party Political Party
Political Party
Preference
Preference Preference
Preference
Democrat 6 16
Republican 6 8
Independent 12 21
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.1Figure 2.1
Figure 2.1
Nones as a Percentage of Socio
Nones as a Percentage of SocioNones as a Percentage of Socio
Nones as a Percentage of Socio-
--
-demographic Categories in the U.S. Adult Population,
demographic Categories in the U.S. Adult Population, demographic Categories in the U.S. Adult Population,
demographic Categories in the U.S. Adult Population,
1990 and 2008
1990 and 20081990 and 2008
1990 and 2008
1 Adults 25 years of age and older.
2 Median household income $30,000 (1990) and $50,000 (2008).
18 American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion PopulationAmerican Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.2Figure 2.2
Figure 2.2
Nones as a Percentage of the Population by U.S. Census Division 2008
Nones as a Percentage of the Population by U.S. Census Division 2008Nones as a Percentage of the Population by U.S. Census Division 2008
Nones as a Percentage of the Population by U.S. Census Division 2008
New England
Middle Atlantic
South Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
20
22
15
13
13
East South Central
10
11
West South Central
19
Mountain
Pacific
15
19
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion PopulationAmerican Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
Figure 2 .3
Figure 2 .3Figure 2 .3
Figure 2 .3
State Rankings by Percentage None (N=54,461) 2008
State Rankings by Percentage None (N=54,461) 2008State Rankings by Percentage None (N=54,461) 2008
State Rankings by Percentage None (N=54,461) 2008
Rank
RankRank
Rank
Percent
Percent Percent
Percent
Nones
NonesNones
Nones
State(s)
State(s)State(s)
State(s)
1 34 Vermont
2 29 New Hampshire
3 28 Wyoming
4 (Tied) 25 Maine, Washington
6 (Tied) 24 Nevada, Oregon
8 (Tied) 23 Delaware, Idaho
10 22 Massachusetts
11 (Tied) 21 Colorado, Montana
13 19 Rhode Island
14 (Tied) 18 California, District of Columbia
16 (Tied) 17 Arizona, Nebraska, Ohio
19 (Tied) 16 Michigan, New Mexico
21 (Tied) 15 Indiana, Iowa, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin
28 (Tied) 14 Connecticut, Florida, Missouri, New York, Utah
33 (Tied) 13 Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland
36 (Tied) 12 Minnesota, South Dakota, Texas
39 (Tied) 11 Alabama, Kansas, Oklahoma
42 (Tied) 10 North Carolina, South Carolina
44 (Tied) 9 Georgia, Tennessee
46 (Tied) 8 Arkansas, Louisiana
48 7 North Dakota
49 5 Mississippi
20 American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion PopulationAmerican Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
Figure 3.1 presents data on the Nones relative to the entire U.S. adult population at three points in
time, 1990, 2001, and 2008, reflecting the three waves of the ARIS. Several points are worth noting:
First, while the percentage of the population made up by Nones has not quite doubled since 1990,
the total number of adults who are Nones grew by over 20 million people, jumping from 14.3
million to 34.2 million.
All the indicators show that the major growth in the None population occurred during the 1990s,
with annual growth averaging nearly 1.3 million people. Nones doubled their numbers and
contributed almost 47% of the total national population growth in that decade. The growth rate has
slowed at the beginning of the 21st Century. At their current rate of increase in the 2000s, Nones are
adding to their ranks about 660,000 adults each year. The rate of growth of the Nones still exceeds
the national rate of population growth but they now comprise a reduced percentage of the rate of
the nation’s population growth at 23%. The causes of the remarkable secular boom of the 1990s
and its leveling off in the 2000s obviously requires further examination and suggests the need for
continued tracking of the None population over time.
Part III
Part IIIPart III
Part III
The Growth of the None Population in the United
States, 1990-2008
1990
19901990
1990
2001
20012001
2001
2008
20082008
2008
Total Number of Nones
Total Number of NonesTotal Number of Nones
Total Number of Nones
14,331,000
14,331,00014,331,000
14,331,000
29,481,000
29,481,00029,481,000
29,481,000
34,169,000
34,169,00034,169,000
34,169,000
Total U.S. Adult Population
Total U.S. Adult PopulationTotal U.S. Adult Population
Total U.S. Adult Population
175,440,000
175,440,000175,440,000
175,440,000
207,983,000
207,983,000207,983,000
207,983,000
228,182,000
228,182,000228,182,000
228,182,000
Increase in Total Number
of Nones N/A 15,150,000 4,688,000
Increase in Total U.S.
Adult Population N/A 32,543,000 20,199,000
Nones as a Percenage of U.S.
Nones as a Percenage of U.S. Nones as a Percenage of U.S.
Nones as a Percenage of U.S.
Adult Population
Adult PopulationAdult Population
Adult Population
8.1
8.18.1
8.1
14.1
14.114.1
14.1
15
1515
15
Growth of None
Population N/A 106% 16%
Growth of U.S. Adult
Population N/A 18.5% 9.7%
Nones’ Share of the
Growth of U.S. Adult
Population
N/A 46.6% 23.2%
Figure 3 .1
Figure 3 .1Figure 3 .1
Figure 3 .1
The Growth of the Adult None Population 1990
The Growth of the Adult None Population 1990The Growth of the Adult None Population 1990
The Growth of the Adult None Population 1990-
--
-2008
20082008
2008
21
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion PopulationAmerican Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
As it has grown larger, the no religion or None population is no longer a fringe group and the
“None” choice in terms of (ir)religious identification is now attracting wide swaths of Middle
America. As a result Nones are coming to resemble the U.S. general population in terms of their
marital status, educational attainment, racial/ethnic makeup, and income. Yet compared to the
general U.S. population they are still disproportionately male, younger, and more likely to be
Westerners and political independents.
This report reveals features of the Nones that were not widely recognized before. There is a variety
of belief in God among the Nones, ranging from theism to atheism, though the largest proportion
(59%) is agnostic or deist. Nones are not particularly superstitious or partial to New Age beliefs.
Nones are more accepting of human evolution than the general U.S. population. Nones do not seem
interested in religious rites of passage, like baptisms, religious marriage, or religious funerals. There is
a shift in the geographic pattern among the Nones with New England now challenging the
Northwest as the most secularized region in the U.S. Finally, this report notes the considerable
amount of churn among the Nones. Two-thirds are first-generation Nones, while many born-Nones
are now religious.
American Nones embrace philosophical and theological beliefs that reflect skepticism rather than
overt antagonism toward religion. In their commitment to reason and science they also continue the
tradition of the late 18
th
Century American Enlightenment. Such views and opinions echo those held
by many of the founding fathers and leaders of the American Revolution such as Franklin, Jefferson,
and Paine.
The most important and statistically significant finding is that American women are more religious
and less secular than men in their belonging, belief and behavior. Whereas 19% of American men
are Nones, only 12% of women are Nones. This is the biggest differentiator of the religious and non
-religious populations and is the one social factor that has not narrowed since 1990. Women are not
only less likely to switch out of religion than men but are also less likely to remain non-religious
when they are born into a non-religious family. Moreover, even when they self-identify as Nones,
women are less likely to be atheists and to take hard skeptical positions than men. These gender
differences are functioning as a brake on the growth of the Nones and the secularization process in
the U.S. Whether the gender differential is due to nurture or nature needs to be investigated further.
Today there is not a single demographic group of people in the U.S. that does not include Nones.
Nones exist among the married, widowed, divorced, and never married. Nones exist among
Conclusion
22 American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion PopulationAmerican Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
Democrats, Republicans, and independents. Nones exist among the least educated and the most
educated. Nones exist among the poor and the rich. Nones exist among every racial and ethnic
group. Nones exist in every geographic region in the U.S., making up anywhere from 1 in 20 to 1 in
5 adults.
In many ways, Nones are the invisible minority in the U.S. today —invisible because their social
characteristics are very similar to the majority. Intriguingly, what this suggests is that the transition
from a largely religious population to a more secular population may be so subtle that it can occur
under the radar as happened during the 1990s. In the future we can expect more American Nones
given that 22% of the youngest cohort of adults self-identify as Nones and they will become
tomorrow’s parents. If current trends continue and cohorts of non-religious young people replace
older religious people, the likely outcome is that in two decades the Nones could account for
around one-quarter of the American population.
23
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion PopulationAmerican Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
American Nones: The Profile of the No Religion Population
The Authors
The AuthorsThe Authors
The Authors
Dr. Barry A. Kosmin
Dr. Barry A. Kosmin Dr. Barry A. Kosmin
Dr. Barry A. Kosmin
is the Founding Director of the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and
Culture (ISSSC) and Research Professor, Public Policy & Law Program at Trinity College. A sociologist,
Dr. Kosmin has been a principal investigator of many large national social surveys in Europe, Africa,
Asia and the U.S. including the 1990 National Survey of Religious Identification, the American
Religious Identification Surveys of 2001 and 2008 and the recent Worldviews and Opinions of
Scientists-India 2007-08 (http://www.worldviewsofscientists.org).
Dr. Ariela Keysar
Dr. Ariela KeysarDr. Ariela Keysar
Dr. Ariela Keysar
, a demographer, is Associate Professor, Public Policy & Law Program at Trinity
College and the Associate Director of the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture.
She is a principal investigator of the American Religious Identification Survey 2008 and the recent
Worldviews and Opinions of Scientists-India 2007-08. Dr. Keysar was the Study Director of the
American Religious Identification Survey 2001. She is the co-author, Religion in a Free Market:
Religious and Non-Religious Americans, Paramount Market Publications, Ithaca, N.Y., 2006.
Dr. Ryan Cragun
Dr. Ryan CragunDr. Ryan Cragun
Dr. Ryan Cragun
is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Tampa in Tampa,
Florida. His research interests include: secularization, religious change, Mormonism, and religious
independents/seculars. His current research is looking at several ways in which secular society
interacts with religious fundamentalism.
Juhem Navarro
Juhem NavarroJuhem Navarro
Juhem Navarro-
--
-Rivera
RiveraRivera
Rivera
is a Research Fellow at the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and
Culture and a PhD. Candidate in Political Science at the University of Connecticut. His research
interests include: religion and politics, public opinion, and political representation.
Program on Public Values
Trinity College
300 Summit Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06106
USA
Phone: (860) 297-2381
E-mail: isssc@trincoll.edu
www.americanreligionsurvey
www.americanreligionsurveywww.americanreligionsurvey
www.americanreligionsurvey-
--
-aris.org
aris.orgaris.org
aris.org
© Copyright ISSSC 2009
ARIS 2008 was made possible by grants from Lilly Endowment, Inc. and the Posen Foundation.
The Program on Public Values comprises the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture and
the Leonard E. Greenberg Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life.
Cover Image: Proportion of Nones by State 2008 (see Figure 2.3, page 19).
... One central question in this inquiry is whether spirituality has any relationship to wellbeing and mental health for first-generation and low-income students. Public colleges and universities are virtually secular, despite 78% of college-aged students claim religious affiliation (Kosmin, et al., 2009). The researchers sought to discover if this phenomenon occurred within student subpopulations that are more likely to be first-generation and/or low-income. ...
... However, spiritual formation curricula and services have declined or disappeared completely (Chickering, et al., 2009) from public higher education institutions. This vast disparity between support and students looms large, since in the present era the majority (78%) of students still claim religious affiliation (Kosmin, et al., 2009). This disconnect between public universities and the students they support creates a problem of practice for emerging adults, particularly for first-generation and low-income students whose academic outcomes lag behind their peers despite a growing representation on college campuses (Aruguete, 2018). ...
Article
Full-text available
Mental health and attainment gaps comprise crises on university campuses, especially for first-generation and low-income students. Despite the heritage of spirituality and religious foundations of America’s colleges, current norms have rendered candid discussions of spirituality to be mostly nonexistent. Despite literature linking spirituality with psychological wellbeing, known is little as to what relationship spirituality has with psychological wellbeing and academic performance, particularly among first-generation and low-income students. This study uses a cross-sectional survey design and occurred a public, regional, Midwestern institution. Quantitative analysis found a relationship between psychological wellbeing and academic performance in specific circumstances, and an indirect effect between spirituality and academic performance in the presence of psychological wellbeing. These data presents implications for practitioners.
... This is evidenced in part by new funded research in the area, an international professional organization called the Nonreligion and Secularity Research Network, and two academic journals devoted exclusively to the topic: Secularism and Nonreligion and Secular Studies. There are many reasons for the new interest in this area; a primary one being the much-discussed rise in the number of those who claim no religion in North America, and especially the United States, where the fastest growing "religious" group is the nones (Baker and Smith 2015;Kosmin and Keysar 2006;Kosmin et al. 2009). In this context, the importance of understanding secularity and nonreligion is clear, as is the need for more research in the area. ...
... Despite these challenges, researchers have identified clear patterns regarding variables such as age, race, class, gender, education, and geography that tell us something about who is more likely to be nonreligious and/or embrace a secular identity. Though there is some evidence challenging the degree to which we can actually predict being nonreligious (see Strawn 2019), compared to their religious counterparts, most survey research to date finds that the nonreligious tend to be disproportionately male, are younger, more highly educated, are less likely to be married, and are more progressive in their political views (Baker and Smith 2015;Kosmin et al. 2009;Sherkat 2016;Williamson and Yancey 2013). ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Bloomsbury Religion in North America
... По аналогии библейский пояс выделяют в Швеции (Bibelbältet) по результатам повышенного числа голосов за христианских демократов в лене Йёнчёпинг; а также в Голландии (De Bijbelgordel) -регион Нидерландов (от Зеландии на северо-восток) с сильными консервативными протестантскими традициями (выделяется на основе голосования за Реформатскую партию) 2 см. исследование на данную тему[12] 3 Морозный пояс (Frost belt) упоминается среди прочих поясов на странице в Википедии, однако, как показал поиск, реальной географической привязки это выражение не имеет и используется как некий территориально неопределённый антипод Солнечного пояса. ...
Article
В статье поднимается вопрос о возможности использования понятий коридор и пояс в географической науке. Рассматриваются и типологизируются инфраструктурные, промышленные и др. коридоры. Показано разнообразие различных зон, выделяемых по определённому признаку, - поясов. Особое внимание уделяется поясам США, которые анализируются в том числе с позиции соответствия их линейному типу объектов геопространства. Выявляются различия между коридором и поясом. The article raises the question of the possibility of using the concepts of corridor and belt in geographical science. Infrastructure, industrial and other corridors are considered and typologized. It shows the variety of different zones that are distinguished by a certain feature-belts. Special attention is paid to the US belts, which are analyzed in particular from the point of view of their correspondence to the linear type of geospatial objects. The differences between the corridor and the belt are revealed.
... For example, deciding between believing or belonging, or double-barreled identification questions can force secular individuals into a religious category that they do not belong in ( Converse 1986;Cragun 2016;Day 2011). This divide cuts both ways, however, as not all nonreligious people are atheists -for instance, agnostics clearly have a different belief structure and worldview (Kosmin et al. 2009;Lee 2014). Also, Cragun suggests that Atheists differ from other non-religious groups, through their belief in science, rejection of the supernatural, and criticism of other religions, and need to be studied apart from the group ( Cragun 2014). ...
Article
Full-text available
Anyone who has ever written and distributed a survey knows that the process can oftentimes be drawn out and incredibly tedious. It is almost inevitable that the survey author will realize that they forgot to ask about a specific topic, did not offer enough response options, or did not fully investigate a possible question ordering effect. However, oftentimes these oversights can be seen as opportunities. In the 2010 wave of the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, when individuals were asked about their present religion, the response options did not include a choice for atheists, which is present in all other waves of the CCES. If an atheist was taking the questionnaire in 2010 and did not see the optimal choice that described their religious affiliation, what was their backup option? Using both descriptive analysis and machine learning techniques, we try to determine where these misplaced atheists went in the 2010 CCES. In general, we found that the vast majority chose one of the other religiously unaffiliated options: agnostics or nothing in particular, but a significant minority chose another religious tradition. We believe that these results help illuminate how atheists think about their religious affiliation and give researchers more insight into the religious landscape of the United States.
... The secularization thesis has enjoyed renewed attention in recent decades, prompting scholars across disciplines to reconsider its place in the social sciences as they seek to explain declines in religiosity. As researchers have shown, one of the most welldocumented trends in the sociology of religion has been the increase in the religiously unaffiliated, or 'nones' as they are more popularly known (Baker and Smith, 2009;Kosmin and Keysar, 2008;Putnam and Campbell, 2012;Woodhead, 2017). The Pew Research Center has conducted numerous studies on nones and their recent growth, finding that 23% of the American population (approximately 74 million adults) report no religious affiliation (Smith and Cooperman, 2016). ...
Article
Explanations for the rise of the religiously unaffiliated have regained attention from sociologists in light of recent declines in religiosity. While the secularization thesis has seen revisions across disciplines, few studies link lower levels of religiosity with greater Internet use. This article draws from Charles Taylor’s widely regarded account of secularity and his concept of ‘the buffered self’ to argue that individuals who use the Internet more frequently are less religious. Using data from the Baylor Religion Survey (2017), I find that with higher levels of Internet use, individuals are less likely to pray, read sacred texts, attend religious services, consider religion personally important, or affiliate with a religious tradition. Greater Internet use is further associated with being an atheist, while other media activity such as watching television is not similarly linked. These findings ground Taylor’s theoretical work by specifying empirically measurable, contextual conditions that explain recent declines in religiosity.
Article
The concept of secularization, coined in the 1960s, is at the heart of the debate as to whether new religious movements (NRMs), such as New Thought, are part of a possible re-enchantment or re-sacralization process where the “no religion” or “nones” category plays a significant role. In the studies of scholars such as Bryan Wilson, David Martin, Steve Bruce, Rodney Stark or Peter Berger, the theory of secularization has long been disputed to prove either the decline of religion or the extinction of it. Nevertheless, in the last three decades these scholars have agreed on the fact that secularization is no longer an appropriate concept to describe the evolution of religious beliefs within society. According to all specialists and research studies, “nones” are everywhere in the religious landscape (Pew Research Centre 2012), but has this always been the case? To consider this perspective, I will use the example of the New Thought movement, the American metaphysical new religious movement dating back to the early nineteenth century, which has been part of the shaping of national identity, both as a model of pluralism and a part of spiritual and political dynamism. Are New Thought members the archetypes of the “none” population and of the “none-ing” process phenomenon? This question raises the problem of the religious identification process and its importance in the spiritual and religious landscape of the United States and elsewhere across the world. It directly impacts the debate on the sacralization/secularization process by inviting a novel approach to the explanation of the “none” cohort by querying its role and whether we should look to its “liminal” aspect.
Chapter
The chapter analyzes the religious attitudes and orientations of young people in secular societies. The chapter is based on empirical studies that show tendencies towards individualization and subjectivization of young people’s faith, its mainly subjectively oriented, rather than determined by external structures character, orientation of religious attitudes of young people towards psychological well-being, independent acquisition of the meaning and purpose of life. The chapter notes that such characteristics of youth religiosity make senseless attempts on the part of the state to impose certain religious standards and norms on young people. At the same time, the importance of religious education for the preservation of national traditions and the strengthening of collective identity is noted.
Article
Early religion scholars stressed the importance of institutionalized “rites of passage” to integrate and reinvigorate groups themselves. Surprisingly, little work, however, has explored the efficacy of such rites for the religious lives of individuals. Although research has examined the transformative role of semi‐institutionalized rites like short‐term mission trips and pilgrimages, we shift the focus to consider the potential influence of more fundamental initiation rites such as baptism, first communion, and bar/bat mitzvahs. Utilizing surveys 1 and 4 of the National Study of Youth and Religion and focusing on overall religiosity and disaffiliation as the outcomes, we examine whether experiencing a religious rite of passage during or before one's teenage years predicts the religious outcomes of young adults. We find no difference in religiosity over time between persons who experienced a religious rite passage and those who did not. However, those who underwent a religious rite of passage were 30 percent less likely to disaffiliate between data collection points. Tests for interactions show that the influence of such initiation rites does not vary across religious traditions. Findings suggest the experience of baptism, bar/bat mitzvah, confirmation, or other rites of passage matter primarily as durable markers of social identity, binding adherents to their faith community, if only nominally.
Kosmin is the Founding Director of the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture (ISSSC) and Research Professor, Public Policy & Law Program at Trinity College. A sociologist, Dr. Kosmin has been a principal investigator of many large national social surveys in Europe
  • Dr
  • A Barry
Dr. Barry A. Kosmin is the Founding Director of the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture (ISSSC) and Research Professor, Public Policy & Law Program at Trinity College. A sociologist, Dr. Kosmin has been a principal investigator of many large national social surveys in Europe, Africa, Asia and the U.S. including the 1990 National Survey of Religious Identification, the American Religious Identification Surveys of 2001 and 2008 and the recent Worldviews and Opinions of Scientists-India 2007-08 (http://www.worldviewsofscientists.org).