It's fairly common to hear the claim that religious belief in America has been very stable over the years. That's true to some extent, but a look at Gallup's long-term trend data suggests that the long-term stability may be changing, and that change corresponds nicely with the Bush era or perhaps the "war on terror."
The plot below shows data from a question Gallup has asked regularly for decades: "How important would you say religion is in your own life: very important, fairly important, or not very important?"
The place of religion was indeed very stable for decades, at least at the resolution Gallup was sampling. Somewhere between 2001 and 2003, the number of people who found religion "not very important" started rising (as shown by the locally weighted regression, aka "loess" regression), and is now above the level it ever hit in the preceding decades. The number finding religion "very" and "fairly" important is much noisier, but it appears that "fairly" is holding steady, while fewer are finding it "very" important.
The upward trend among the religiously apathetic and the decline in strong religious believers both seem to be resistant to small changes in the data. The softer coloration represents a series of loess regressions based on repeated resamplings (with replacement) of the original data, an approach which helps show the range of variation intrinsic to the data. A straight line could pass through the blue cloud, so there seems to be no change in those numbers, at least none that apparent in the data thus far.
It's noteworthy that the shift away from strong belief and toward indifference precedes the recent spate of atheist books, and falls somewhere between the 9/11 attacks and the invasion of Iraq. Whether those demonstrations of the dangers of religious extremism drove people towards a greater skepticism towards religion is hard to say, but is certainly at least plausible. The trend also follows the defeat of the first round of creationist science standards in Kansas, and corresponds to a shift in attitude on issues from gay marriage to stem cells. It will be interesting to continue following this trend, and see whether it persists.
- Log in to post comments
I've heard some speculation that most of the increase in "not very" reflects a decline in religious nominalism; there are fewer people who identify as "Christmas and Easter, wedding and funeral" Christians.
It's not too surprising to see a post-9/11 blip, because staring tragedy in the face does make people question their faith - compare the secularisation of Europe after the continent got torn apart by two world wars. Assuming the general air of disillusionment lifts next year with a new president and retreat from Baghdad, though, I'm not too sure the scepticism will last. The past six years have been bad, but they're not been THAT bad.
If it were just a decline in nominalism, it would only draw down the "fairly" line, but that one is staying flat. There must be people shifting away from the "very" category to match those shifting away from "fairly" to "not very."
I seem to recall talk of people moving TO religion post-9/11 and post-catastrophe in general. I imagine someone has studied that empirically, but I wouldn't know where to look for those results.
It seems to me that the common understanding of religiousness has changed since politically active fundies helped vote Bush Jr into office. Stem cell research, Terry Schiavo, same-sex marriage, intelligent design, ten commandment on court grounds and public sponsorship of faith-based initiatives have all played out on the public stage. Religiousness used to be personal, reserved and stately; now it's arrogant, in-your-face and uncomprimising. It used to be about love, tolerance and charity; now it's consumed with judgment, bigotry and mindless zealotry. When preachers, megachurch congregations and conservative politicians loudly comdemn to hell supporters of embryonic stem cell research, homosexuality, euthanasia, evolution and atheism, it's not surprising that average people are reconsidering what religiousness means to them.
Ex-drone's comments are reflective of how much polarized, fundamentalist religious groups have hijacked the discussion about religiousness in America. Most of religion, including the core adherents to the five majors (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism) still are "about love, tolerance and charity." I am not sure what you mean by "reserved and stately," but I have the impression that most religious people today do not harbor arrogant, in-your-face attitudes. The so-called 'religious leaders' that get face time in the media, whether on Al Jazeera or Fox News, are the only religious folks I have encountered that qualify as arrogant.
Back to the graph, I am confused about how there is a large cluster of data between 1998 and 2003, but after 2004, there is only one dataset input. What is the explanation for this?
There is actually one sample per year beginning in 2004. There were 3 samples in 2003, 4 in 2002 and 4 in 2001. It's Gallup's choice how often they ask the question. Perhaps they ramped up around the time of the election, and decided to keep asking it for a while after 9/11.
Doesn't surprise me. Aetheism is "cool" now. Sometimes it takes a foxhole to become a believer.
By the way, I'm your neighbor, about 15 miles east. I worked in the science field my entire career, thus find your blog interesting, albeit liberal, not surprising, Lawrence. Nonetheless, I may visit from time to time. :-)
I know quite a few people who are no more religious after serving in Iraq or Afghanistan than they were before. YMMV.
Please feel free to visit any time.
Sometimes it takes a foxhole to become a believer.
Even if true, and I've never seen any justification for that claim ever, that would hardly be an argument in its favor. Surely the value is minimal of a belief system that only seems plausible when you are scared shitless.