Está en la página 1de 47

Varieties of irreligious experience in the American Northwest

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion
October 21, 2006 (Portland, Oregon)

© Frank L. Pasquale, flpasquale@comcast.net


Research Associate, ISSSC, Trinity College, Hartford, CT

Differentiation of forms of religion and religiosity has been elaborate and detailed.
Distinctions are made among major “traditions,” churches, sects, and denominations, new
religious movements and cults, degrees of orthodoxy (e.g., fundamentalist, orthodox, liberal),
theistic and non-theistic forms, extremist and mainstream, serious and neutralized (Adorno,
Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford, 1950), humanistic and authoritarian (Fromm, 1950),
committed and consensual (Allen and Spilka, 1967), healthy-minded and sick-minded (James,
1902), healthy and neurotic (Pruyser, 1977), mature and immature (Allport, 1950), extrinsic and
intrinsic (Allport, 1950; Allport and Ross, 1967), quest (Batson, Shoenrade and Ventis, 1993),
and seekership (Rousseau, 1998), among others. Distinctions have been made between
traditionalist, centrist, and modern Evangelicals, Mainstream Protestants, and Catholics (Green,
2005) and among different ideas of God (Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion, 2006;
Hammersla, Andrews-Quallis, and Frease, 1986; Kunkel, Cook, Meshel, Daughrty, and
Hauenstein, 1999). Increasingly, attention is being paid to distinguishing “spirituality” from
“religiosity” (Zinnbauer, et al., 1997; Zinnbauer and Pargament, 2000; Neff, 2006).
When it comes to forms of “irreligion” or those with “naturalistic” worldviews, however,
differentiation has been limited, at best. Typologies and research categories have typically been
based on theological or culturally commonplace distinctions rather than detailed study (e.g.,
“atheist,” “unbeliever”). Others aggregate very different types of individuals and idea-systems,
from “atheists” to the unaffiliated religious (“nones,” the “unchurched”).
Useful theological distinctions have been made concerning forms of “atheism,”
“unbelief” (e.g., Marty, 1964), and religious “indifference” (e.g., Sommet, 1983).
Distinguishable classes of “apostates” (Hadaway, 1989) and the “unchurched” (Hale, 1977 and
1980) have been identified. But these shed limited light on distinguishable forms of skeptical,
“naturalistic,” non-theistic, or non-supernatural ways of thinking (and related behavior).
Insights can be gleaned from a voluminous philosophical and advocacy literature pertinent to
such ways of thinking, but again, detailed empirical investigation “on the ground” has been
sparse.
As J. Russell Hale noted some time ago in his study of “unchurched” types:
1
[w]e know more about who the churched people in America are, what they
believe, what they call themselves, what practices they prefer, and how they are
organized than we do about the unchurched. . . .They have been treated as if, as a
residual category—those left after the others have been counted—they were one
homogeneous category. (1980: 97)

Similarly, sociologist Glenn Vernon observed in 1968 that


[m]uch attention has been given to research which explores the differential
characteristics of various religious groups and the correlates of religious
affiliation. Considerable attention has also been given to differences which are
related to various types or degrees of religiosity. Nonaffiliates may be included
among those studied, but they are rarely singled out for specific analysis.
. . .[T]he atheist, agnostic, and nonbeliever to some degree have become second-
class citizens. The public media are less likely to take the ‘nonaffiliated’ into
account in stories designed for public consumption. Visibility of the group is
reduced accordingly; the public image is blurred and indistinct. (1968: 220)

Despite progress made in recent decades addressing these concerns regarding “nones” or
the “unchurched,” much the same can be still be said concerning those who are atheists,
agnostics, or nonbelievers. This may be attributable, in part, to a tendency to view and study the
non- or irreligious as a comparative contrast group against which to better understand the
religious. They are not often investigated as a direct subject of inquiry in their own right.
Even a slightly closer look, however, suggests greater diversity of reported identities,
idea-systems, and associated behavior than would be assumed based on existing research
literature or prevalent assumptions. More detailed and differentiated typologies of irreligious
individuals, worldviews, and associated social and organizational behavior—drawn from direct
empirical, rather than popular, cultural, or theological, work—have yet to be developed.
Anthropologist Beatrice Whiting once spoke about the need to “unpackage packaged
variables.” “Religion” and “irreligion,” “the religious” and “nonreligious,” are such packaged
variables. Each of these terms represents a range of ways in which human beings make sense of
their existence and existence in general (or forms of existential and metaphysical wondering).
They represent a considerable array of distinguishable idea systems, lifestyles, cultures,
traditions, and social forms, human groups, and institutions.

2
The aim of the present research has been to “unpackage the packaged variable” of
individuals whose worldviews or ways of thinking are substantially or affirmatively
“naturalistic,” non-theistic, non-supernatural, or non-transcendental (in brief, the “this-
worlders”—or “nots” rather than “nones”). Another way of characterizing the target population
is those who think and act (or think of their behavior) as though there is no immaterial reality
beyond, apart from, or interlaced within material reality and its properties. They are people who

 eschew theistic, supernatural, or transcendental worldviews,


 do not identify with traditions or institutions that embrace such worldviews,
 may be indifferent to “ultimate” or metaphysical questions and concerns
or hold affirmatively non-transcendental or “naturalistic’ worldviews, and
 substantially avoid public or private behavior associated with, or interpreted (by the
actor) as a reflection of, transcendental ideas (e.g., prayer, worship, incantation or
conjuring, interaction with spiritual entities).

No matter how much care is taken with definitions, the dividing lines between
classifications are often elusive, particularly regarding something as complex as people’s
metaphysical stances or their “worldviews.” As has often been said of “religiosity,” we are
dealing with multi-dimensional phenomena and continua rather than neat-and-discrete
categories. Determination of whether someone’s way of thinking is “substantially or
affirmatively this-worldly” is inevitably a judgment call from both emic (the speaker’s/actor’s)
and etic (“outside” observers’) vantages.

What to call them


It has been a challenge to settle upon a satisfactory label for the target population in this
research. It is narrower than the “unchurched” or “nones,” but from several vantages, broader
than “atheists” or “atheists and agnostics.” I have previously proposed and used “nots”(or those
holding worldviews that are not theistic, supernatural, or transcendental) in order to clearly
distinguish them from “nones” (Pasquale, n.d.). The negative cast of the term, however, is
problematic, since it suggests a primary or substantial focus on negation (e.g., of “religion” or
“religious” ideas or institutions). All members of the target population do not focus substantially
or primarily, or to the same degree, on negation of “religion” or religious ideas or institutions.
In fact, despite the title of this paper, “nonreligious” and “irreligious” are also problematic in
that some members of the target population may exhibit or report ideas, behaviors, or affiliations
3
often construed as “religious.” “This-worldly” and “this-worlders” fairly represent the defining
characteristic(s) of the target population of interest without the negative cast of “nots” or the
ambiguity of “nonreligious” or “irreligious.” They will be used in the remainder of this paper.

Research plan, methods, and status


The present research grew out of several years’ observation of secular humanist and
atheist groups, regionally and nationally, which gave way to a series of semi-structured
interviews designed to probe the ways of thinking and acting of both affiliated and unaffiliated
this-worlders. It became apparent that while they share substantially or affirmatively this-
worldly ways of thinking, these are hardly uniform. A small minority affiliate with
organizations that espouse such ways of thinking, but the vast majority do not. Diversity of
idea-systems and related behavior is observable among both affiliates and non-affiliates. Some
have actively researched named philosophies or schools of thought and adopted a particular
approach. Many have not, preferring to formulate their own ways of thinking in their own
terms. When asked to define a range of terms often associated with this-worldly philosophies,
unaffiliated interviewees frequently find it difficult to do so clearly or definitively (e.g.,
“atheist,” “agnostic,” “humanist,” “naturalist,” or “skeptic”). Moreover, although substantially
or affirmatively this-worldly, taken in totality, the ways of thinking and behaving of some prove
difficult to place in customary categories (such as “religious” or “secular” or “nonreligious”).
Consider, for example:

 a self-described nonreligious skeptic and agnostic who participates without belief


with other women in eclectic, “pagan-like” celebrations of life and nature for the
“color and connectivity” they offer
 an intensely anti-religious atheist who engages in group Buddhist meditation and
yoga as therapy and for its ability to provide a degree of detachment and equanimity.

The aim of this project has been to take a fresh and detailed look at people whose
worldviews are substantially or affirmatively this-worldly, and behavior, attitudes, and other
variables related to such worldviews. Rather than approach the target population by imposing
existing linguistic and conceptual frames, the effort has been made to
a) note the language, concepts, and preoccupations that frame and anchor the ways of thinking
among this-worlders in their own terms, and

4
b) allow both emic (from the actors’ perspective) and etic (from an external observer’s
perspective) patterns or types to emerge.
The current phase of research involves:
1) Participant observation in local, regional, and national groups and organizations that
espouse this-worldly ways of thinking together with monitoring of websites, email-
exchanges, and printed material (for “atheist,” “freethought,” “humanist,” “secular
humanist,” “Judaic humanist,” “rationalist,” “secular,” “skeptic,” and similar groups)
2) Semi-structured interviews with this-worlders who are affiliated with groups
pertinent to their worldviews and those who are not. Fifty of these, lasting between 2
and 4 hours, have been completed to date, of whom 25 are male and 25, female; 25
are affiliated with groups that espouse this-worldly philosophies (humanist, atheist,
and skeptic) and 25 are not; ranging from 18 to 87 years of age, with a mean age of
62.4 years)
3) A survey of affiliates of groups espousing this-worldly philosophies in the Pacific
Northwest (more than 20 groups in Oregon, Washington, and southern British
Columbia—atheist, ethical culture, freethought, rationalist/skeptic, secularist, and
UU, Judaic, and secular humanist ). Data from a pretest version of the survey has
been collected and analyzed for one group (secular humanist; total mailing list of
150; n=105). A revised version of the survey is currently being fielded to other
groups in the region (Appendix I).1 Completed returns are just being received,
allowing for informal “eyeball,” but not systematic, analysis in time for inclusion in
this paper.
4) Discussions and interviews with group officers or representatives on group history,
philosophy, activities, and current status.
5) Additional in-depth interviews to be performed following survey analysis (to probe
findings from the survey data with both affiliates and non-affiliates).
A survey of this-worlders who are not affiliated with groups pertinent to their
worldviews
is planned following the completion of the current survey of affiliates (either through on-line
methodology or as part of a random sample survey of Oregon and Washington residents).
Following is a preliminary sketch of the domain, or an emerging “map” of
distinguishable varieties, as well as pervasive themes, among this-worlders in the Pacific
Northwest.

5
How this-worlders describe and distinguish themselves
There is a widespread tendency to refer to this-worlders summarily as “atheist(s)” or
“atheist(s) and agnostic(s).”2 Many, however, express concern about popular (mis-)
understanding of “atheist” or uncertainty about its precise meaning, and avoid it for these
reasons. Some use “humanist” as a euphemistic substitute for “atheist” or “agnostic.” Some use
“atheist(ic)” in describing their way of thinking, but not as an identity label. For some, it is
simply considered an inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading characterization of their ways of
thinking. Many avoid “agnostic” as ambiguous or as a sign of ambivalence, noting that it can
refer to mere indecisiveness about certain metaphysical matters (such as the “existence of God”),
or to a more definitive affirmation that some matters are beyond human knowing. For example:
Do you consider yourself religious or nonreligious?
Nonreligious.
What do you mean by that?
I’m not affiliated with any institution. If somebody asks, “what faith are you?”
I would say “none.” I don’t use the words ‘atheist’ and ‘agnostic,’ or anything
I just simply say “none,” I’m not affiliated. . . .
You say you don’t use the words ‘atheist’ or ‘agnostic’
For myself.
Why is that?
I think they are sort of loaded words. When I was a fiancee to my husband,
I remember coming home one day and my mother said a neighbor came over and
nervously said to her, ‘Is it true that [your daughter] is getting married to an
atheist?’ I was shocked at the word and shocked at the question and I could see
that my mother was upset. My mother—who did not go to church and so far as I
knew was not a particularly religious person. I think that ever since then I’ve
been aware of how that word was so loaded and so undefined. And I said to my
mother, ‘Well, I don’t think that [he] thinks about God. He doesn’t believe there
is one, but it’s not like he goes around beating his drum saying “there is no
God.”’
. . .So, when people ask me, ‘Do you believe in God,’ I say no. But I don’t label
myself. . . .It’s just not an issue that—I don’t care. I cannot prove whether God
exists or doesn’t exist, so I just don’t spend any time thinking about it. . . .I just
don’t see any point in putting a label on myself.
Why do you think that is?
Well, I think labels, first of all, are damaging, because they get in the way of
conversation or dialogue. The minute we label, then we have a set of
assumptions, and it’s like closing a door.
[Later, she indicated that she had adopted “secular humanist” to describe herself:]
I probably would not have used that word for myself except for, a few years ago,
when I started getting really involved in the political scene, and thinking about
what to call myself, I guess. You know, I suspect it became important to me, as
—again I don’t like labels, but in this climate of false Christianity, I had to find a
way to define myself in the face of all of that. [Female, 62; non-affiliate]

Do you consider yourself religious or nonreligious?

6
I consider myself nonreligious. In my case this means that I have no belief in
a higher power or higher consciousness. . . .I often refer to myself as an atheist,
but of course all that means is that I do not believe in a God. There are. . .a lot of
other elements to my philosophy of life that are not covered by the term, atheist,
such as humanist. I could say I am politically a liberal. I could say that I am a
naturalist. I could say I am a rationalist. These are all things that describe
my approach to life. . . .I seek natural explanations for observed phenomena.
I don’t depart from the assumption, unless I get evidence to the contrary, that
there are natural explanations for observed phenomena. And while I
acknowledge that there might be natural phenomena that we are not aware of yet,
I believe that they are in principle knowable to human beings, and that we do not
need to resort to unexplainable spiritual beliefs to explain these phenomena.
[Female, 37; German-born U. S. citizen; former humanist group affiliate]

‘Atheist’ has negative connotations. I’m careful about using it, even though it’s
a perfect description of how I am. I’m more an ‘atheist’ than an ‘agnostic.’
There is no evidence for any supreme being or any of that religious claptrap.
What about agnostic or agnosticism?
‘Agnostics’ are those who don’t know if there is or isn’t a God. Or it can mean
you can’t know. It’s confusing, but I may use it for particular audiences, like I do
‘humanist’ instead of ‘atheist.’ [Male, 58; secular humanist affiliate]

The terms or phrases—and their combinations—used by this-worlders to describe,


identify, or distinguish themselves vary considerably. Some, particularly group affiliates, tend
to prefer particular descriptors; others use multiple terms to describe various aspects of their
worldviews; and still others shun labels, preferring to carefully describe their ways of thinking in
detail (or to avoid discussing such matters all).
The serviceable acronym, SUNINSHARFAN, helps to keep the most frequently used
terms in mind: Skeptic, Unbeliever, Nonbeliever, Irreligious, Nonreligious or Non-theist,
Secular, Humanist, Agnostic, Rationalist, Freethinker, Atheist, and (philosophical) Naturalist or
Non-transcendental. This is by no means exhaustive. Less frequently heard terms include
“empiricist,” “monist,” “objectivist,” and “materialist.” “Infidel” and “heathen” are occasionally
used, provocatively, proudly, or tongue-in-cheek (as in “Internet Infidels”). “Bright(s)” is of
recent coinage and is promoted by some in an effort to change public perceptions of “atheists,”
“nonbelievers,” or “freethinkers” much as “gay(s)” has for homosexuals.
Many of these distinctions are emically,3 culturally, or ideologically significant. The
degree to which they are psychologically or sociologically significant (that is, with respect to
attitudes, psychological correlates, patterns of social behavior or societal engagement) remains to
be seen.

7
The complexity of self-descriptions is suggested by survey responses from a secular
humanist group (n=105 of 150 listed affiliates), who were asked to choose any of eight terms
they would or do use to describe their ways of thinking (or write in others):
Descriptor Percentage of respondents Mean self-description
who chose the term as “religious”
(0=not at all; 8= very)

Humanist(ic) 89 % .97
Atheist(ic) 55 .81
Scientific 54 .95
Secular(ist) 53 .89
Skeptical 42 .86
Naturalistic 36 .84
Agnostic 32 1.03
Anti-religious 26 .78

Individuals were also asked to indicate how “religious” they consider themselves,
producing uniformly low scores. The specific combinations of terms chosen by these
respondents vary considerably, defying simple summary. Survey data from the larger sample
will further elucidate differences in self-descriptions and how these are related to differences in
specific ideas and reported behaviors. (Respondents are also being asked to identify the
particular term[s] they prefer most or consider the most accurate labels for their ways of
thinking.)

Distinctions among affiliated this-worlders


Some 20 named direct-contact groups that espouse explicitly this-worldly philosophies in
Oregon and Washington, two in Idaho, and three in southern British Columbia have been
identified. Self-descriptions of these groups (based on group name and self-descriptions) are:

Key descriptor in name Description in literature Number

Humanist Humanist 11
Secular Secular, humanist 3
Atheist Atheist 3
Skeptic, rationality,
sensible explanations Skeptic 4
Freethought, “brights” (Mixed this-worldly) 3
Ethical culture Ethical culture 1

8
Not included here are student groups on college campuses or all “humanist” subgroups in
Unitarian fellowships and churches. The former tend to coalesce or dissipate from year to year,
and the latter vary considerably in formality or informality. Separately, the Internet has
spawned networks of like-minded individuals who maintain email contact and may meet in
small groups for discussion, socializing, or special events (as in “Meet-ups” of atheists,
humanists, freethinkers, and so on). Coalescence into direct-contact groups or meetings among
these networks is difficult to document, but in Seattle, for example, there are individuals who
maintain network contact primarily via email, but meet with one another occasionally and/or
appear at the events of some of the groups listed above. Lastly, there are self-described
“secular” networks and direct-contact groups or “salons” whose participants are substantially
this-worldly, but for whom matters metaphysical (“religious” ideas or their rejection) are
subordinated to other subjects of interest (as in some Great Books, church-state separation, or
other topical gatherings). Discussions with representatives and participants indicate a general
sense that many or most of their colleagues are “nonreligious” or “not particularly religious,” but
this said, there is a deliberate reluctance to speak of such (private) matters, at all. This might be
characterized as “secularism as subordination or privatization of metaphysical concerns.”
The size of the direct-contact, explicitly this-worldly groups is often difficult to ascertain.
Email and “snail-mail” lists range from 30 to 300, but these may include dues-paying members
or active participants, occasional audience members, and passive recipients of email
announcements or newsletters (both within and outside the region). Moreover, some names on
many of these lists are duplicative, since an undetermined number of individuals are members or
supporters of multiple groups. More accurate data on multiple membership and various
categories of participation (active membership, occasional participation, monetary support only,
email participation only) should emerge from incoming survey data.
Each of these groups presents a distinctive combination of attributes to prospective
participants. Some interviewees and affiliates report having “shopped around” until they found
the balance of focus, ideas, style, and activity that felt personally comfortable or satisfying. In
lower-population areas, interested individuals may participate in the “only game in town,”
whether or not this fully conforms to personal predilections, and/or maintain contact with like-
minded others through email and regional or national events of pertinent national organizations.
“Humanism” is one of the most widely used descriptive terms among affiliated this-
worlders in the region, but it defies simple definition (Pasquale, 2004). The following
definition, formulated by one group,4 offers a fairly representative sense of the intended meaning
among group affiliates in the region:
9
Humanism is a philosophy for those who seek improvement in this life by
 applying reason, science, and free inquiry to solving human problems
 advocating freedom, happiness, and progress for all humanity
 using the democratic process to seek justice and fairness in all societies
 supporting moral principles that have been validated by consequences
 accepting kinship with the natural world
 holding humans responsible for human destiny
 seeking natural rather than supernatural explanations.

Distinctions are sometimes made by members of humanist groups between “takes” on


(secular) humanist philosophy represented by the American Humanist Association5 and the
Council for Secular Humanism. The former, like Unitarian humanism, traces its legacy directly
to Humanist Manifesto I (1933), which was penned by a group of Unitarian ministers who
sought to describe a “religion” sans supernaturalism. The Council for Secular Humanism, under
the leadership of secular humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz, splintered from the AHA in the early
1980’s (as CODESH, Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism). The former still bears
some signs of its Unitarian roots (such as references to a non-supernatural “religious humanism,”
sponsorship of humanist “celebrants,” “ministers,” or “officiants,” incorporation as a religious
not-for-profit organization), whereas the latter exhibits a more severe skepticism and strict non-
religiosity (with respect to its incorporation as a not-for-profit educational organization, overt
religious criticism, emphasis on reasoned and skeptical inquiry, and so on). At the local level,
partisans of each “brand” of humanism can be found, although many group affiliates seem
dimly, if at all, aware of such historical, organizational, or philosophical distinctions. Regional
groups generally consider themselves affiliates of both national organizations (and others), even
among those that are recognized chapters of the American Humanist Association.
There are a number of recurring issues observable in many humanist groups in the
region. Among these are:
 managing a tension or achieving a balance between religious criticism and positive
affirmation of “humanist values” or “secular ethics”
 the (in)advisability of inculcating children with any particular worldview rather than
providing broad exposure and allowing children to formulate their own views
 acceptance/accommodation or rejection/discouragement of expressions of
“spirituality.”
“Humanists” in Unitarian fellowships explicitly shun “God-talk,” “supernaturalism,”
“transcendentalism,” or what might be called thick spirituality (interest in speaking in terms of
“higher levels of consciousness,” a “sense of the other,” “reverence,” “connectedness,” or

10
“spirituality”). A shift in Unitarian Universalism (from the top and on the ground) toward
increased “God-talk” and “spirituality” in recent years, however, has caused consternation
among many UU humanists. Representatives in several Northwest UU fellowships report
disgruntlement among humanists and loss of some members to (secular) humanist, or other,
groups and interests. Those who remain within Unitarian churches and fellowships endeavor to
maintain the integrity of their worldviews through humanist group meetings, educational
programs, and/or coordinated action and advocacy within their congregations.
Humanistic Judaism is devoted to the celebration and perpetuation of selected aspects of
Jewish culture and Judaic tradition without reference to theism or supernaturalism. Local groups
are affiliates of the Society for Humanistic Judaism, founded by Sherwin Wine (once called the
“atheist Rabbi”). Public observances of the Judaic ritual calendar are deftly stripped of
supernatural references, yielding celebrations of Jewish history and cultural identity with a
thematic emphasis on ethical commitment to human well-being. The emphasis on public or
“congregational” participation in Judaic ritual (sans supernaturalism), however, prompts
recurring debate, locally and nationally, about whether, and in what ways, “HJ” is or is not
“religion.”
Ethical culture societies are part of a movement founded by Felix Adler, a professor of
oriental languages and literature, in New York in the late 1800’s. He sought to frame a
“religion” that subordinated personal metaphysical commitments to a central focus on ethical
commitment to the intrinsic worth and well-being of all people. Reference is made to “faith,”
“religious feeling,” and “humanism” in Adler’s texts and those of the American Ethical Union.
The discipline of subordinating personal metaphysics to ethics, however, has proven an elusive
goal. Many who participate in local societies (like that in the Northwest) consider themselves
“secular,” “humanistic,” or “nonreligious.” Some Northwest residents who have had experience
with ethical culture societies elsewhere indicate that they affiliate with humanist groups as the
only available approximation to ethical culture in their localities. They report discernible
differences, most notably, stronger emphasis on affirmative atheism, secularism, or open
religious criticism in the humanist groups with which they affiliate. This said, ethical culture
members report difficulties involved in accommodating a range of metaphysical views or
sensibilities—some wishing to talk of “spirituality” and others finding such expressions or
modalities distasteful or objectionable.
Self-identified “skeptics” or “rationalists” often distinguish themselves from individuals
and organizations that focus on metaphysics (or its rejection), religion (or its criticism), or
particular philosophical schools. Their focus lies with logical, critical, empirical, and scientific
11
evaluation of purported phenomena and truth claims. Many in local skeptic networks or
societies are members of Michael Shermer’s Skeptic Society or Paul Kurtz’s Committee for
Skeptical Inquiry (formerly CSICOP, or the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of
Claims of the Paranormal). At an annual skeptics meeting in the region, a member indicated that
she and her husband have sampled “atheist” and “secular humanist” groups and have been
puzzled or amused by signs of affirmative rejection of purported phenomena about which there
is, or can be, no evidence. Several of her colleagues concurred with this view. As such, skeptics
often describe their metaphysical stance as “agnostic” (that is, setting aside questions or
purported phenomena that cannot be subjected to empirical inquiry as untestable or
unknowable). This said, depending upon the scope of their skepticism, self-described skeptics
may or may not hold substantially or affirmatively this-worldly or “nonreligious” worldviews.
More will be said of this, below.
Affiliated atheists share with many humanist colleagues a this-worldly perspective that is
critical of “religion,” together with an emphasis on logic, rationality, skepticism, and empirical
assessment of truth claims. They exhibit a vigorous skepticism about “superstitious” behavior
and paranormal phenomena, as well. This said, from group to group and over time, their
character and central focus varies. This ranges from a defensive posture concerning the rights
and reasonableness of an atheistic perspective to a more “active and hostile” (Campbell, 1972,
1977) criticism of religion, “superstition,” or “irrational” thought and behavior. There is active
involvement in maintaining church-state separation (locally and nationally) and affirmation of
“secular ethics” and values. Some participants define their “atheism” narrowly, as a rejection of
specific forms of theistic belief with which they feel they are familiar (such as the “Abrahamic”
monotheisms, religious “extremism,” or “fundamentalists”). Some proclaim their “atheism”
broadly, aggressively, defiantly, or proudly. Others are more guarded, tentative, or
discriminating. Many are members of such national organizations as American Atheists, the
Freedom from Religion Foundation, or other organizational members of an Atheist Alliance, all
of which tend to be aggressively critical of “religion” in their public utterances.
Affiliated this-worlders are often members or supporters of multiple local groups and/or
related national organizations. (Some indication of the frequency of multiple affiliations in the
Pacific Northwest will emerge from the survey data currently being collected.) The
combinations are many: Unitarian + (secular) humanist; Judaic Humanist + AHA Humanist;
Humanist + Atheist; Skeptic + Atheist, and so on. Based on interviews and participant
observation, some of the reasons for multiple local membership or participation include:
a) growing dissatisfaction with one group and exploratory participation in another
12
b) different benefits experienced in different groups, or compensation for perceived
limits of the character or activities of particular groups
c) personal or social ties with more active or dedicated members of particular groups
d) desire to provide support for multiple groups whose philosophies or activities one
endorses
e) selective, temporary, or occasional participation based on particular group initiatives,
or announced speakers or topics at the meetings of various groups.
There is general regard among members of many of these groups as skeptical or
nonreligious comrades-in-arms. There is shared concern about misrepresentation or
misunderstanding of nonreligious people, erosion of church-state separation, public and political
influence of conservative religion, and aspects of American domestic and international policy.
For several years a “Secular Symposium” drew together affiliates of atheist, freethought,
humanist, and skeptic groups in the region. Recently, a “Freethought Coalition” of such groups
has been organized in one city with the aims of sharing similarities and differences, holding joint
events, and collaborating on issues of common cause. An annual picnic near the U. S.-Canadian
border has drawn members of such groups from both countries for some fifteen years.
This said, there are also notes of “irreligious sectarianism” and criticism. In a meeting of
secular humanists, an audience member proclaims, “We have our fundamentalists, too. They’re
called ‘atheists.’” In an atheist meeting across town, derisive asides make reference to “a lack of
spine” or “going soft on religion” among “the humanists.” And as already noted, many self-
described skeptics view the definitive rejection of purported metaphysical phenomena by atheists
or secular humanists with puzzlement or critical amusement.
These groups visibly struggle for public recognition and legitimacy. Most hold regular
meetings, maintain websites, and produce newsletters and other publications. Many sponsor
lecture series, participate in topical civic marches, and staff informational booths at local or
regional fairs. Some produce media programs (e.g., for community access cable television) and
sponsor psychological and counseling services for the nonreligious (“Humanist Counseling
Services” and SMART [Self-Management And Recovery Training] support groups for non-
religious individuals struggling with alcoholism or other addictions—an alternative to 12-Step
programs). Despite such efforts in public education and participation, there is widely reported
awareness (from survey data, personal experience, published material, and public utterances in
the media) that they represent a generally maligned or misrepresented minority.

Focus of attention.

13
This-worldly ways of thinking may also be distinguished on the basis of priorities,
dominant preoccupations, or central focus of attention. In interviews, particular attention was
paid to the scope, coherence, and dominant preoccupations in peoples’ ways of thinking. The
following orientations are among the most salient:
 Anti-religiosity
 broad-brush or indiscriminate
 fine-brush or discriminating
 Affirmative/alternative naturalism
 Skepticism or empiricism
 thoroughgoing
 selective
 “Metaphorical use” of religious ideas or practices
 Metaphysical indifference
 absorbed
 profoundly indifferent

These are neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive, but rather, reflect emphases that
have become apparent in the course of the interviews, observation, or repeated interaction and
familiarity over time. No attempt is made to establish prevalence here, but rather, only to
identify distinguishable orientations. These are preliminary and subject to change following
survey data analysis and follow-up interviews.
Anti-religiosity or religious criticism. Criticism of “religious” ideas, traditions, or
institutions is a dominant element or preoccupation in the idea-systems of many, but by no
means all, individuals interviewed or observed. As indicated earlier, among members of one
secular humanist group for which survey data have been analyzed (n=105), 26 percent accepted
the term “anti-religious” as a self-description. This said, the majority of respondents viewed
religion as “a harmful [rather than positive] force in human affairs” (0-8 scale; mean=5.88;
median=6.65) and reported being “angry about the role, dominance, and/or effects of religion in
the world” (mean=5.34; median=6.21).
Among some, criticism of “religion” is described as a long-standing and central focus.
Among others, it is described as a more recent development in reaction to resurgence of public
religiosity in the United States or around the world. Informal review of surveys being received
indicates that a majority of respondents report that they have become more explicit or vocal
about their skeptical or nonreligious ways of thinking as a result of a “resurgence of religion in
recent times.”6
While reference is frequently made to “religion” in global terms, when probed, the
referent phenomena are often (explicitly or implicitly) particular traditions, institutions, or types,

14
most often Christian, monotheistic, theistic, “extremist,” or “fundamentalist.” In this sense, such
stances represent what Colin Campbell (1972) called “irreligion,” which he restricted to “hostile
or alienative” rejection of specific (“religious”) idea-systems and/or institutions within an actor’s
cultural frame of reference. Some individuals tend to paint “religion” or “religions” with a
broad, critical brush. Some tend to distinguish among identified forms or aspects of “religion.”
For example:
Do you consider yourself religious or nonreligious?
Oh, nonreligious. You didn’t even have to ask me that!
In what sense do you mean that?
I don’t believe a goddamned word they say. It’s a crutch. I’ve been thinking
about it, and thinking to myself, how best to define it. I think that so many
people consider themselves religious, in this culture particularly, I think it’s
different in other countries, but in this country, for one thing, there’s some
social approbation that comes with it. In a lot of people’s lives it provides a
support system of some kind.
You mean social? Intellectual?
Well hardly intellectual, because it’s fake. The whole thing. It provides people
with social and emotional support. It provides them with answers to questions
that they can’t answer, and apparently there’s something—this is as far as I got in
my thinking and my walks, thinking about this—apparently there’s some need in
the human condition to have an answer to the unanswerable, and so the best
answer to the unanswerable is Oh, God! God!. . .
Think back in history—how did the Bible start? The Bible got written by a
bunch of men, right. A bunch of monks. And they presumably were getting
together a bunch of accepted knowledge, or the received wisdom. You know,
and so they write all this down and then they say, this is what you should believe,
and then all the dunk-offs come along, and they believe it, ah, because they need
something, and then they don’t need to think about it any more, if it answers that
question for them, if they have that question. [Female, 79, retired fundraiser;
non-affiliate]

[Speaking of Russia] Now they’re going back to religion again. I hate to


see the church gain power again because it becomes political power. And I
believe that religious-political power is not beneficial to society, because
essentially it’s based on myth. And there’s a lot of mind-control that goes on,
and people are controlled. It’s as bad as the so-called brainwashing they had
under Communism. It’s a religious brainwashing, to get people to follow you,
just like what goes on in the Moslem countries, same thing. So I see it as—I
think that the benefits of religion are overshadowed by the disadvantages of it, in
my opinion. . . I wish there were a whole lot more skeptics on the planet to
combat the bad effects of too much religion. I essentially think that truth is
important. . . and that the scientific method, you can’t beat it. You find truth, and
if it worked out that you find that you’ve made a mistake, you admit it and you
keep going and you look for the truth, and religion has no part in that. They
know the truth, they know the answers, that’s it. What is true today may not be
true tomorrow. My main concern is that people are open to making an
adjustment in their belief about what is true as evidence is compiled. Whereas, if

15
you have absolutes, there is no question about anything, ever. Religion tends
toward absolutism. Their truth is based on absolute beliefs. [Male, 69, retired
high school teacher; recent humanist group affiliate]

There’s also the whole issue, that’s come up many times in conversations with
people, about whether religion is a force for good or for evil in the world, over
the years.
What would you say your position is on that?
Um, it might have been—I might have answered “evil,” but on the other hand,
it’s
not really fair to attribute some of these things to religion. So maybe we can say
that it’s a force for, I don’t want to say good, but a force for happiness, anyway,
for people, because people need it, I mean, so. . . Any power is subject to abuse
and any time any religious, religions had power, they’ve abused it, and/or fought
wars, and so, is that really the religion, or is that the nature of power? Because if
you take what religion’s done in the world, and what’s been done in its name,
then it’s probably been a force for evil. [Male, 62; entrepreneur; non-affiliate]

People who belong to any particular religion become imbued with the rightness
of it. Therefore, they are right and those who do not follow them must be wrong.
And ultimately, your responsibility is to perpetuate what is right, and that evolves
to the point of killing those who are wrong. And we’ve witnessed that, well
daily, today. . .in London, Madrid, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan. It’s basically driven
by religion.
Are all religions equally destructive?
No. I don’t see anything particularly destructive about Buddhism, or Taoism,
other than a bunch of people who intimidate others to give them their wealth
so that they can sit around and basically profess their religion, but it’s not a
harm to society.
In other words, alms to the monks…
Yes.
But on a large-scale basis, not as destructive as, you mentioned Christianity,
Islam..
Oh no. Sure. Islam is number one. Without a doubt, the tenets of Islam and
their attitudes and treatments of women, despite the references to quotes from
the Qu’ran, are horrendous. Christianity is definitely number two. Judaism,
eh, kind of more live and let live. They are a culture of their own, in the sense
that they’re—except for the extremists, and of course there are those—I don’t
have a bone to pick with the Jewish religion. [Male, 68, retired businessman;
humanist affiliate]

In affirmative (or alternative) naturalism, a deliberate effort is made to avoid wholesale


generalizations about, or dismissal or rejection of, “religion(s).” The central focus or emphasis
is on a positive and affirmatively (or at least substantially) naturalistic or this-worldly way of
thinking (often described as a positive alternative to the “religious”). Many self-identified
“humanists” view this as a critical distinction between themselves and (their perception of) self-
identified “atheists.” As one humanist group president said at a recent freethought picnic,

16
“Atheists seem to concentrate on criticism of what’s past and present; I like to think that
humanists concentrate on building an alternative and positive future.” This said, many humanist
affiliates (observed and interviewed) express frustration at the prevalence of “religion-bashing”
among their colleagues. And there are those who identify themselves as “atheist” or “atheists,”
both affiliated and unaffiliated, who dwell more on affirmation of this-worldly thinking,
“consequence-based” ethical decision-making, social responsibility, and values than wholesale
religious criticism. For example:

[One interviewee described herself as “a-religious” and Jewish “by heritage


only.” She simply does not think in terms of religion or supernatural ideas and
never has. “We live, we die, and hopefully in between we do something
worthwhile.” Her father is “adamantly anti-religious.” He considers it
“hogwash.” She is more like her mother, whose attitude is that “religion is O.K.
for some, but not for me.” She considers it important to be committed to
something greater than oneself. What drives her, what fulfills her, is “helping
people, particularly children.” This has led her to pursue a pediatric nursing
degree in her 40’s. To be human is to “be with others, to contribute.” She
considers people “intrinsically good” and herself an optimist. With regard to an
observation that most human beings gravitate toward religion, she said:]
I think it’s comforting. I think it requires less thought. Again, it’s kind of like
being wrapped up in your favorite blanket, when you’re sad and down and cold.
It’s just a comfortable feeling that you, there is no fear of the unknown. You
know exactly what to expect when you go to church or go into synagogue or
to temple or whatever. You know what to expect, because it is defined, and
you know how it’s defined. And I think that people like organization, like
to have definition in a lot of ways. I’m not saying that’s good; I’m just saying
that’s what people are like. . . .
Net-net, would you say that religion is a net-positive or a net-negative in
human experience?
Human experience, probably, ooh. That’s hard to say [laughs], ’cause I can think
of the death and destruction that’s occurred as a result of beliefs, organized
religion; we’re going through that currently. . . .
I’d be hard-pressed to say that religion is a net-positive or a net-negative. I really
would. I haven’t thought about it. Thinking about the positives and thinking of
the negatives—it would be hard to say. [43, female; nursing student; non-
affiliate]

[A woman who shifted from Unitarian humanist to secular humanist affiliation,


as
the former began shifting toward “God-talk” more than ten years ago, said:]
My philosophy is that I will find that which is positive wherever I find it, and
even
with people who believe in God. For instance, the Sisters of the Road were
probably started by Catholic sisters. I don’t know that. To me it doesn’t matter.
What they’re doing is wonderful. I support what they’re doing, and they don’t
base it on a belief in God. They’re just doing what is positive and beneficial. So
this is one of the things that is important to me.
17
You’ve used the word ‘positive’ several times. What do you mean by ‘positive’?
Well, considering the consequences—what happens when something occurs.
If it’s negative, if it puts people down, if it destroys the quality of. . .living, not
only for one person, but for everybody. It’s based on the consequences, and I
have to use the ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ as not having religious connotations,
rather than ‘good’ or ‘bad.’ That has more of a moral connotation and I’m
talking about the effect that it has. . . .The words ‘good’ and ‘bad’ to me have
been infused, anyway, by society, with kind of a moralistic approach, and I’m
interested in the consequences.
Obviously this question of moral issues, or positive and negative consequences,
is very central to your way of thinking.
Yes, very much so.
[Later:]
I don’t like labels, so I try to avoid them whenever possible, because other people
understand in their way what this word means, which may be different from my
intention when I say it.
For example? What about ‘humanism’—you’ve used that a number of times.
That’s the organization that I belong to, and the set of beliefs, or the principles,
I endorse. But I certainly have met many, many ‘humanists’ that don’t follow
those principles, and, so it’s the principles that I endorse, which are identical,
with
one exception, to what the Unitarian principles are.
What is that exception?
An openness to—they use the word ‘spirituality,’ but it’s—they’re more open to
people who are still on that searching journey than the humanists are, which I
think is a big mistake. I think we should be more accepting of people who are,
are considerate of their being on a journey. . . .
[Later:]
My primary motivation in the humanist group is for social change, social action,
and it’s been a frustration to me, because I don’t think it’s going very far. . . .
I mean, I thoroughly enjoy being with like-minded people, but I can have a social
life without that group. . . . Maybe a soft majority is there not for social action or
change. I think socializing is a big thing. I think—hearing an affirmation of
nonreligious input. And for some, I think it is kind of therapy on their journey in
opposition to childhood, past Christian influence. [Female, 78; secular humanist
affiliate]

[One interviewee is a retired farmer and county surveyor who began to question
religious beliefs early in childhood. Exposure to science, Darwin’s concept of
evolution, and thinking through contradictions in religious beliefs led him to a
scientific, this-worldly, and “common sense” view of existence. He has long
enjoyed investigating the workings of, nature, from a scientific perspective. He
describes himself as atheist, and has discussed his point of view with others, both
of like and unlike mind, but said:]
I don’t begrudge anybody their religious beliefs, ’cause I think it’s a placebo.
They need it to get through life, and that’s fine. I don’t think they—they’re
religious, but they don’t know why. . . . I don’t believe what they believe, but I
give them full right to believe what they do. . . . As long as they don’t try to
convert me. . . . I think it is their full right to believe what they believe, and I

18
wouldn’t try to convince them that they aren’t right, but it isn’t right for me.
Live and let live?
Yeah. [Male, 87; non-affiliate]

If you had to describe your philosophy to someone briefly what would you say?
I would say most important is valuing life. And basing the things that you do on
what is good for life. And what is good, what is right is defined by the
consequences. Whether your actions are good or not is defined by their
consequences to other human beings. And it’s not something, there’s no dogma.
To me humanism is a process. It’s an evolving philosophy. It’s something that
gives you, not a set of beliefs, but a set of ways for you to decide on what to
believe, and it’s open to change as new information, for development. . . .
[Later; speaking of religious people] A lot of them are good people; they’re
gonna do good things, but, but [long pause]
So you’re saying there is good religion and not so good religion?
Exactly. To me, where you see religions becoming cults, where you see them
saying, or censoring information, where you see them ostracizing people, ah,
where you see them not grounded in reality and withholding medicines from
people because of their dogma. Those are bad religions.
What would be examples of good religions?
Good religions—I think my wife’s liberal Christian religion is good. Christianity
is very broad. It has its cults, it has its liberal sides, and on the liberal side I think
there are some very good religions. There’s people who don’t take the written
word of, like, the Bible as literal dogma. They use it maybe as a guide for some
of their thinking, stimulating their thought. [Makes reference to a local lecturer]
I think he’s a great example of that. He’s a liberal Christian, and he takes the
good from it and he uses his head and he decides things based upon, you know,
reality. [Male, 49; tech-industry engineer; humanist group affiliate]

[One individual provided the following written summary developed years ago:]
My philosophy of life: be committed to living your own life—don’t meddle in
the lives of others or let them meddle in yours. Keep shy of preachers and
politicians. Before you act always consider how that act may affect others.
Assume that natural explanations of phenomena are more reliable than those
evoking the supernatural. Consider all decisions to be tentative—revocable if
evidence suggests previous error. Try to maintain harmony within yourself and
with others and the environment. . . .Don’t whine. Learn as much as you can,
live your life as well as you can, and quit as gracefully as you can. [Male, 79;
atheist group affiliate]

Skepticism. References to skepticism are widely made by this-worlders. Among those


for whom “skeptic” or “skeptical” is a dominant or primary self-description, it is necessary to
distinguish between thoroughgoing and selective forms of skepticism. The former hold
substantially or affirmatively this-worldly orientations; the latter may not.
In a survey of the membership of his Skeptic Society, Michael Shermer (2000) found
that 35 percent thought it very likely or possible that “there is a God (a purposeful higher
intelligence that created the universe).” The remainder indicated “not very likely,” “very

19
unlikely,” or “definitely not.” Interestingly, 77 percent indicated that they felt that “religion is
‘always’ or ‘sometimes’ a force for morality and social stability,” (2000: 74), suggesting a focus
or attitude that is not primarily anti-religious. In a follow-up survey, 14 percent of the members
described themselves as “theists,” 23 percent, “agnostics,” and 32 percent, “atheists.” In
conversation with a representative of CSICOP, it was mentioned that a certain percentage of
members have, through the years, expressed discomfort about its close association with a sister
organization that is strongly devoted to secular humanism. These members describe themselves
as skeptical, yet religious. My observations and discussions in the Northwest have indicated the
same distinction between theistic or religious and this-worldly, atheistic, or “nonreligious”
skeptics.
Selective and thoroughgoing skeptics share a central focus on the critical, logical, and
empirical evaluation of evidence for truth claims. How do we know what is true? What
methods must be applied to produce reliable and valid evidence for the truth or falsehood of
claims to reality, factuality, agency, or causation? As one participant in an annual skeptic event
said, “here the emphasis is on method, method, method” (in other words, through what means
can human beings determine what is verifiably true). As a result, both share a critical focus on
what are deemed to be “superstitious,” “paranormal,” or “pseudo-scientific” ideas, claims, or
purported phenomena.
Among selective or focused skeptics, critical and empirical scrutiny is applied to truth-
claims or purported phenomena which, it is felt, can be subjected to systematic scientific
scrutiny. With regard to metaphysical matters held to be (probably or definitely) beyond the
scope of scientific inquiry, however, selective or focused skeptics may make particular
commitments on bases other than empirical or scientific (e.g., extrapolation from what is known
with evidence beyond the empirical, an unprovable personal sense, “faith,” or “choice”).
Thoroughgoing skeptics apply their skepticism more aggressively to metaphysical, as
well as “superstitious,” paranormal, and pseudo-scientific, matters. Some characterize their
attitude about the former as “agnostic” (i.e., unknowable); others are more affirmatively
“atheist” or “nonreligious.”
“Metaphoricals.” One of the most interesting orientations to emerge is that of
individuals whose worldviews are substantially or affirmatively this-worldly, but who
consciously utilize selected “religious” or “transcendental” ideas as ideas, in particular ways or
for particular purposes. This was most clearly articulated by a self-described scientific and
empirical agnostic (as an affirmation of the unknowability of certain metaphysical matters),

20
Indian-born, U. S. college-educated, a U. S. citizen, and engineer with a high-technology firm
(male, 48; non-affiliate):
In the Hindu-Buddhist tradition is the idea that there is salvation in an afterlife,
but an infinite number of chances that you’ll get at achieving this salvation—
and whether you achieve this and when you achieve it, right? After one lifetime
or a thousand lifetimes depends upon the actions that you take, right? The karma,
which is—at the heart of it is taking responsibility for the outcomes of your
actions. . . .
So, the Western, Abrahamic conception of time is that time is linear. It goes in
one direction and, you know, one lifetime—salvation or damnation. And in the
other tradition, time is circular. You can go around many times, and eventually,
you know, you can transcend it. . . .If you’re not doing the right thing, you’re
caught in the whirlpool, if you do the right thing then you get out of that
whirlpool. You’re delivered. So, then, when I was talking about viewing
religion metaphorically, it’s really these two central metaphors that I was
thinking about. There is a set of questions in our lives that in the strict sense
are metaphysical. So let’s consider the questions: what is the meaning of my
life, how do I live my life? . . .
Between these two metaphors that I described, I clearly have a preference—
which of these two metaphors I would like to turn to when I consider these
questions. It’s the belief system or religious system in which I have an
innumerable set of chances to achieve salvation; one in which I have to take
responsibility for my actions, and if they are good and fair and helpful and
supportive of others in my society, then I have a better chance of salvation.
That’s a system that is far more attractive. When I consider, how do I live my
life, that is a good way for me to live my life. . . .
Your agnosticism—the agnosticism of which you spoke beginning earlier in your
life—where is it?
I am still agnostic. If you were to take religious texts literally and then say,
you know, is there a God, can you prove it, can you disprove it, I have the
same sense—no, one cannot devise experiments that can prove it or disprove it.
It does not really—it’s not a horribly interesting question. It doesn’t excite me
a whole lot. So, in that sense, nothing has changed. But if you take religious
traditions and religious texts in this metaphorical sense, which is in the
non-literal sense, it provides you a framework within which to think.

While this individual (the 47th of 50 interviews, to date) has been the most articulate and
explicit about a “metaphorical” orientation, a retrospective review of prior interviews and other
discussion notes suggests such a perspective among others. For example, references to
“spirituality” may be metaphorical. Although the reality of a force that binds all things or all
living things together is rejected, some report a willingness to think as though this is the case.
This may remind them that what they do has repercussions or “ripple effects” beyond themselves
or particular circumstances. More will be said of this-worldly senses of “spirituality,” below.
As a result of these expressions, survey items concerning views on several metaphysical
issues include a response-category designed to assess a “metaphorical” stance (Appendix I):

21
Even though I doubt or reject the reality of this, or view this as a human construction,
I like to think as though there is.

Informal analysis of surveys received to date indicates that some individuals are selecting
this response regarding particular metaphysical issues or ideas. It will be of interest to see how
widely distributed this is among which types of affiliates or self-descriptions, and with regard to
which issues or ideas. There is reason to suspect that there are greater numbers of metaphoricals
among unaffiliated this-worldlies (and, indeed, those categorized or self-identified as
“religious”), but this question remains for a later phase of research.
Metaphysical indifference. It is difficult to characterize the foregoing as “indifferent” to
matters metaphysical. Whether directly or indirectly, such individuals exhibit keen interest in
what questions can or cannot be meaningfully addressed by human beings, how to make this
distinction, making “metaphorical” use of metaphysical ideas, or whether and how to combat
metaphysical positions that seem to them untenable or problematic in human affairs. The
indifferent report that they do not concern themselves much, or at all—pro or con—with such
matters. Some may describe themselves as “agnostic.” For example:
[The following interviewee reported a general lack of interest in matters
metaphysical, preferring to discuss human experience in political, economic,
psychological, or sociological terms. He characterizes himself as nonreligious
and
generally skeptical. With regard to the question of a higher power, for example:]
I mean, not particularly do I believe in some higher power, but I’m also
comfortable leaving that an open question.
Do you think that such questions are answerable?
Maybe someday, when I die, maybe. I don’t know. I don’t have a strong urge
to find an answer to that question.
If you don’t have a strong urge to answer the question, do you have a strong
urge to contemplate it or not?
I don’t spend a whole lot of time thinking about it. [Male, 48; non-affiliate]

Among the metaphysically indifferent are individuals who report or exhibit a central
focus substantially other than philosophical, metaphysical, “religious,” affirmatively
“nonreligious,” or anti-religious. They have found one or more interests, pursuits,
preoccupations, or activities that give focus and a satisfactory degree of meaning, purpose, and
coherence to their lives. They might be called the absorbed. For example:
[One interviewee described a virtually all-consuming enthusiasm for art and the
beauty of nature. Even as she raised her three children, she was involved in art,
particularly contemporary Western, as student, lecturer, researcher, and museum
docent. She was raised in a nonreligious Jewish household where social
responsibility was stressed, but in which religious instruction was neither
provided

22
nor encouraged. As she said:]
I have no belief in a divinity. I’m very interested in the topic itself, how people
and cultures have developed around any belief in a divinity, but I suppose you’d
say it’s a sociological or philosophical interest.
Let’s turn to the philosophy of life that you have. Often individuals who are
religious are so because it answers certain questions about ultimate aspects of
human existence. How do you address those kinds of issues, or do you?
I guess I sort of stopped thinking about those questions a long time ago in college
when I was finding myself, as most kids might have been, and not having been
brought up with any answers, and having entered a course in religion in college
as part of my curriculum, I thought about it, but I guess I don’t think in terms of
any great purpose, except as we make it for ourselves in the world
[unintelligible] so I really don’t have any need to ask or answer those questions,
except in a practical sense, I guess. [Female, 74; non-affiliate]

Among the 50 interviewees, one individual could be characterized as profoundly


indifferent—to religion, to metaphysical or “ultimate” questions, and to much else. A retired
city employee (65), he reads history and observes contemporary political, social, and
international affairs with a professed degree of detachment and dismay. Among the remaining
49 interviewees and the many this-worlders to whom I have listened or with whom I have
interacted, both affiliated and unaffiliated, signs of such profound or general indifference are
rare. The question becomes, yet again, one of focus of attention, priorities, preoccupations: to
what are people indifferent and to what are they not? Where do they look for meaning, purpose,
coherence, or fulfillment in life? How do they think and speak of this? (Survey respondents are
being asked to indicate their positions on a number of “ultimate” or metaphysical ideas or
questions, and to what extent they think about such matters. They are also being asked what
most gives their lives a sense of meaning.)

Societal skepticism among affiliates and non-affiliates.


Apart from distinguishable types or orientations, there are selected themes that appear to
be pervasive among the this-worldlers observed, interviewed, or surveyed to date. I wish to
touch on only one of these here.
Metaphysical skepticism is, of course, a defining theme among this-worldlers. An
equally pervasive theme might be called “societal skepticism.” The destructive potential of
human beings in groups and institutions, and how to overcome this, is a recurring preoccupation.
Theirs is often a conscious and critical posture toward uncritical group or institutional
participation or immersion. This is equally true among both affiliated and unaffiliated “nots,”
but while the former direct this attitude more toward the religious, the latter often direct it
toward both religious and irreligious (or other ideological or cultural) groups. Interviewees
23
make frequent reference to “brainwashing,” “demagoguery,” “mind control,” “the psychology of
groups,” “tribalism,” “herd behavior,” “totalitarianism,” and so on. “Religion” (or metaphysical
thinking in general) is frequently viewed as one of the more powerful forces in human affairs
that fosters uncritical group participation, immersion, or solidarity. Again, some are monolithic
in this view of “religion”; others discriminate among distinguishable forms, some of which are
held to foster “blind” group immersion more than others.
Societal skepticism is often obscured by reference to individualism or low sociability or
social need. Among some, societal skepticism seems as though it may be an ideological
rationalization for limited sociability, but this is by no means true of all. Most interviewees and
survey respondents (to date) describe active family and social lives, as well as organizational
involvement.7 In response to a query about the most important sources of meaning in life,
secular humanist survey respondents (n=105) most often cited family, friends, and general social
relations. Even among the most socially and organizationally active this-worlders, however, one
finds notes of societal skepticism. One interviewee, a community leader and self-described life-
long atheist and secular humanist with an impressive record of formal organizational roles and
one of the most extensive friendship and acquaintance circles in his city, stated that:
Despite all my involvements it may be that my nature is such that I’m not
somebody who is a true believer in anything that I join. . . .I may just have a
skeptical turn of mind that goes back to an early age. I can be enthusiastic, but
not committed to do something on the basis of a doctrine.

Existing data clearly suggest that the vast majority of this-worlders are not affiliated with
organizations that espouse this-worldly philosophies. Using 4-5 percent as a conservative
estimate, at least 10 million U. S. American adults may hold substantially or affirmatively this-
worldly philosophies. At best, affiliates of the principal this-worldly organizations number in
the low hundreds of thousands.8 Similarly, compared with an estimated 500,000 Oregon and
Washington this-worlders, at best, affiliates of this-worldly groups number in the very low
thousands.
What limits affiliation among this-worldlers with organizations that espouse or advocate
this-worldly philosophies? Again, there is some evidence that social interest or involvement
tends to be comparatively lower among this-worldly individuals (e.g., Bainbridge, 2005). This
may well play a part. But another answer—from the actors’ vantage—is that they simply see no
need to do so or are averse, in principle, to organizing on the basis of existential or metaphysical
stances.
While many affiliated this-worlders direct their skepticism outward, most acutely toward

24
anything they deem to be “religious,” “supernatural,” or “irrational,” the unaffiliated (like some
skeptics) often direct this to groups organized on the basis of religion or irreligion. An
unaffiliated interviewee, for example, described her father and his colleagues (in both humanist
and atheist groups) as “too dogmatic,” and as such, “no different from the very phenomena they
criticize.” Other non-affiliates who are familiar with such groups point to an ironic or objection-
able unanimity of political and ideological views among members, or ethnocentric myopia. As
an 86-year-old self-described atheist said of atheists gathering in organized groups:
I think it defeats its own purpose. Once you get into a group, then you want
everyone to think the same way, and then one thing comes [to another]. I mean,
we started with twelve apostles and look what’s happened. . . .I just can’t
imagine being part of a group and saying, ‘We’re all atheists. Aren’t we swell.’
You see, that’s the next thing that happens. We’re smarter than the rest of these
guys. And if only they thought like us, there wouldn’t be all these wars, and all
this trouble. See what happens!? [Female, 86; non-affiliate]

Another unaffiliated interviewee said of organized humanist groups:


From what I know of humanism, we need to take care of one another right here
and right now.
How do you know about humanism?
Well, I’ve read about it, I’ve studied it, the Humanist Manifesto, all of that stuff.
[Later:]
When I’ve gone to humanist meetings, it seems like intellectual masturbation, and
I’m really more about ‘social’ and ‘connecting.’
Define ‘intellectual masturbation’—what does this look like, sound like?
They’re showing how smart they are, how logically they can get to the
conclusions, how much data they’ve collected, and de, de, de.
Data about what?
About their philosophy being the better way to go.
That brings up the concern about proselytizing you mentioned earlier. So you
have the same reaction here?
I do, I do. And so, O. K.! Everybody here agrees with you, and yes, look at all
those fundamental Christians that are so awful and making our lives tough. Ohh
Kay—how about if we do something for each other, now? . . . I think we can only
talk about how awful the others are, and sooner or later we have to realize, the
others are us, just in a different place, and they may be hungry, or thirsty, or not
have the books, or need shoes, or whatever. So, let’s take care of this circle, and
then once we’ve done that, then gone up Maslow’s pyramid, maybe we can
expand the circle. [Female, 54; non-affiliate]

Comparatively limited interest in matters philosophical may also discourage affiliation


on this basis. Interviewees frequently indicate that the interviews are personally rewarding since
they prompt more systematic reflection than is typical. Even among affiliates, there is evidence
that despite an ideological or philosophical basis for affiliation, direct or sustained attention to
philosophical reflection has limited appeal. For example, in one humanist group, weekly

25
lectures focus on “four broad areas relevant to Humanism: human well-being, science & reason,
secularism, and humanities, culture, and morality.” The philosophy of humanism is not
explicitly listed and, indeed, whenever member opinions about lecture topics have been solicited
in recent years (through internal surveys), this topic garners the least amount of interest. Greater
interest lies with politics, economics, science, topical news issues, religion, and global affairs
rather than humanist philosophy: what are human challenges and what can be done about them.
A habitual question put to lecturers is “What can we do about it?”
Ambivalence about, or aversion to, public promotion of labeled philosophies or
“proselytizing” is also involved. Many stress a “live and let live” attitude regarding
metaphysical ideas or commitments. The notion of participating in an organization whose
objective, in part, is to promulgate a specific metaphysical stance flies in the face of a prevalent
feeling that this simply should not matter in human affairs as much as it seems to. They prefer
to downplay metaphysics and religiosity or irreligiosity altogether, and relegate all of this to
quiet personal preference.
In this connection, there is ambivalence in some quarters about children’s philosophical
education. On the one hand, interest in expanding the ranks of the “rational” or “nonreligious”
is voiced (by both affiliates and non-affiliates). On the other, there is resistance to explicit
irreligious “inculcation” or “brainwashing.” The great majority of interviewees and survey
respondents report that they have emerged (or “escaped”) from religious backgrounds. Many
vow not to repeat the mistake of “blind culture transmission” with their own, or others’,
children. There is great store placed on “free choice” in matters metaphysical. Informal analysis
of incoming survey responses indicates that most respondents feel that children should be given
“a broad understanding of philosophical and/or religious thought” and allowed to make their
own choices, rather than receive “a solid grounding in a particular philosophy or religion.”
When asked about the importance of a children’s program the response pattern among
humanist survey respondents was notably ambivalent (with a mean of 3.3 and a median of 3.0 on
a 5-point scale, from “not at all” to “very important”). Some of this is attributable to the fact
that most members of this group are past their child-rearing years. But it is also the case that
opinion has been openly divided concerning whether or how (much) to explicitly promote
“nonreligious” worldviews, and there is general aversion to “proselytizing” in a “religious”
manner.9 Several interviewees professed ignorance of the metaphysical views of their grown
children, suggesting that this is as it should be.
The theme of societal skepticism should not be construed as avoidance of all social,
group, or institutional involvement. Consistent with their worldviews, this-worlders typically
26
speak of human problems and their solutions in political, economic, cultural, technological, or
scientific terms. Rather than address such issues en masse on the basis of their worldviews,
however, this is more often done as concerned citizens in issue-specific groups or organizations.
As one secular humanist affiliate observed:
I have thought about. . .my own frustration that we, as an organization, do not
do more to make ourselves more visible and offer more to the community [as a
group]. But, as I looked at who joins . . .and what we do as a group, I finally
came to the conclusion that an organized group of do-gooders is not what [we
are] about. We have a member who volunteers her time at Outside-In, counseling
youth in matters of sexuality; we have a member who organizes and gets [a
gender-rights] group off the ground; we have a member who is a legislator. . .
attempting to positively influence our state laws; we have a member who is a
psychologist who heads a volunteer alternative program to Alcoholics
Anonymous; we have a couple who spends their vacation at [a voter education
and registration group]; we have a member who puts in. . .time and energy in a
cable TV show to provide an opportunity for those who are out there doing the
work to be heard. I could go on and on. I realized that [this organization] is
where we all come together to be renewed, and to find encouragement and
strength to continue what we do individually, every day. (Female, 52; affiliate)

The matter of “spiritual/ity.”


“Spiritual/ity,” “religious and spiritual,” and “spiritual but not religious” have become
commonplace terms in both popular and social scientific discourse in recent years. Attempts
have been made to identify the (intended) meanings of these terms, but they continue to be used
widely and often without clarification or definition.
It has become clear from the present research that this-worlders may make reference to
“spiritual/ity,” but typically in deliberately non-transcendental or “nonreligious” senses.
Taking another look at self-descriptions among secular humanist survey respondents
(n=105), “spirituality” ratings were higher than “religiosity,” but still quite low:

Descriptors Mean Mean


respondents self-description self-description
apply to as “spiritual” as “religious”
themselves: (0=not at all; (0=not at all;
8=very much) 8=very much)

Naturalistic (n=38) 2.46 .84


Agnostic (n=33) 2.09 1.03
Scientific (n=58) 2.05 .95
Humanist(ic) (n=89) 2.03 .97
Secular(ist) (n=56) 1.97 .89
Atheist(ic) (n=58) 1.60 .81
Anti-religious (n=27) 1.56 .78
Skeptical (n=44) 1.43 .86
27
Some respondents seemed willing to use “spiritual/ity” in restricted ways. In written
comments, six simply indicated that they did not understand what this means. Among 40 who
supplied substantive comments or definitions, 35 explicitly avoided or rejected theistic,
supernatural, or transcendental content.10 The pervasive meaning was that of appreciation for
existence or emotional connection with people, humanity, all living things, or nature.
Superficially, it might be said that many of these people are “spiritual.” But what does this
mean? Their use of the term surely does not reflect the transcendental intent or worldview of an
Evangelical Christian or Wiccan. Representative comments were:
• “. . .in awe of natural processes, not spiritual in a religious sense”
• “. . .awe and wonder, but I don’t believe there is a conscious spirit or being”
• “Just a vague feeling of being connected to humanity and nature”
• “Making connections with others is ‘spirituality’”
• “Interest in astronomy” or “. . .in a variety of social issues”
• “Music and nature can move me in a way I can only describe as ‘spiritual’”
• “Music and emotion”
• “Spirit means ‘breath.’ I enjoy breathing.”

Unaffiliated interviewees who make reference to “spiritual/ity” have been equally careful
to parse their meanings so that there is little or no suggestion of supernaturalism or (ontological)
transcendentalism.
This raises broader questions about the meaning and accuracy of terms used both by
social scientists and the people we study. In both popular and scientific discourse “spirituality”
and “spiritual but not religious” typically signify unchurched or “alternative” religiosity in some
(often undefined but clearly suggested) transcendental sense. If and when this-worlders refer to
“spiritual/ity,” however, this is likely without reference to supernaturalism, trancendentalism, or
religiosity in ideological, identity, behavioral, or affiliative terms. This would seem to reflect a
limitation of language. English does not provide clear and simple means to convey a cognitive
or emotional sense of “connectedness” or appreciation for existence parallel to “spiritual/ity,”
sans transcendentalism or its suggestion. Some this-worlders indicate that they struggle with this
fact.

Looking forward.
Meaningful distinctions (both emic and etic) are to be made among individuals whose
worldviews are substantially or affirmatively this-worldly, at least with respect to self-
identification or -description, ways of thinking, dominant preoccupations, and selected attitudes.
The degree to which such distinctions are sociologically or psychologically significant (with

28
respect to physical or emotional well-being, social and institutional involvement, personality
styles, authoritarianism, dogmatism, ethnocentrism, and other correlates) remains to be seen.
Additional insights should emerge from incoming survey data.

29
References

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., and Sanford, R. N. (1950) The
authoritarian personality. New York: Harper & Row.

Allen, R. O., and Spilka, B. (1967) “Committed and consensual religion: A specification of
religion-prejudice relationships,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 6: 191-206.

Allport, G. (1950) The individual and his religion. New York: Macmillan.

Allport, G. (1966) “The religious context of prejudice,” Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 5: 447-457.

Allport, G. and Ross, J. M. (1967) Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 5: 432-443.

Bainbridge, William Sims. (2005) Atheism. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on


Religion, 1 (Article 2). http://www.religjournal.com

Batson, C. D. and Schoenrade, P. (1991) “Measuring religion as quest: 1) Validity concerns,”


Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30(4): 416-429.

Batson, C. D., Shoenrade, P., and Ventis, W. L. (1993) The religious experience: A social-
psychological perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.

Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion. (2006) “American piety in the 21st century: New
insights to the depth and complexity of religion in the US.” ‘www.baylor.edu/content/
services/document/php/33304.pdf.’

Bishop, G. (1999) “The polls—trends: Americans’ belief in God,” Public Opinion


Quarterly, 63: 421-434.

Campbell, C. (1972) Toward a sociology of religion. New York: Herder and Herder.
-------. (1977) “Analysing the rejection of religion,” Social Compass, 24: 339-346.

Clark, W. (1958) The psychology of religion. New York: Macmillan.

Fromm, E. (1967 [1950]) Psychoanalysis and religion. New York: Bantam Books.

Green, S. (2004) “The American religious landscape and political attitudes: A baseline for
2004. ‘http://pewforum/org/publications/surveys/green-full.pdf’

Hadaway, C. K. (1989) “Identifying American apostates: A cluster analysis,” Journal for


the Scientific Study of Religion, 28(2): 201-251.

Hale, J. R. (1977) Who are the unchurched? An exploratory study. Washington, D. C.:
Glenmary Research Center.
-------. (1980) The unchurched: Who they are and why they stay away. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

30
Hammersla, J. F., L. C. Andrews-Quallis, and L. G. Frease. (1986) “God concepts and
religious
commitment among Christian university students,” Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 25(4): 424-435.

Hunsberger, B. and B. Altemeyer. (2006) Atheists: A groundbreaking study of America’s


nonbelievers. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.

Kunkel, M. A., S Cook, D. S. Meshel, D. Daughtry, and A. Hauenstein. (1999) “God images:
A concept map,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 39(2): 193-202.

Marty, M. (1964) Varieties of unbelief. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

National Opinion Research Center. (2005) General Social Survey (GSS). ‘http://webapp.icpsr.
umich.edu/GSS/’.

Neff, J. A. (2006) “Exploring the dimensionality of ‘religiosity’ and ‘spirituality’ in the Fetzer
multidimensional measure,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 45(3): 449-459.

Pasquale, F. L. (2004) “The humanist focus of attention,” religious humanism, 23(2): 28-43.
---------. (n.d.) “The nonreligious in the American Northwest.” Paper delivered at “Who is
secular today?” Annual research conference of the Institute for the Study of Secularism
in Society and Culture, June, 2006.

Pruyser, P. (1974) “Problems of definition and conception in the psychological study of


religious unbelief.” In Eister, A. W. (Ed.), Changing perspectives in the scientific
study of religion. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 185-201.

Rousseau, N. (1998) “A typology of seekership.” Research in the Social Scientific Study of


Religion, 9: 75-96.

Sommet, J. (1983) “Religious indifference today: A draft diagnosis.” In Jossua, J. and


C. Geffré (Eds.), Indifference to religion. New York: Seabury Press, 3-10.

Stark, R., and W. S. Bainbridge. (1987) A theory of religion. New York: Peter Lang.

Vernon, G. (1968) “The religious ‘nones’: A neglected category,” Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 7: 219-229.

Zinnbauer, B. and Pargament, K. I. (2000) “Capturing the meanings of religiousness and


spirituality: One way down from a definitional tower of Babel.” Research in the
Social Scientific Study of Religion, 12: 23-54.

Zinnbauer, B., Pargament, K. I., Cole, B., Rye, M. S., Butter, E. M., Belavich, T. G., Hipp, K.
M., Scott, A. B., and Kadar, J. L. (1997) “Religion and spirituality: Unfuzzying the
fuzzy,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36(4): 549-564.

31
Thank you very much for your assistance in this research.
Your complete and honest answers will help fill in many gaps in current knowledge.
Please do not indicate your name. All responses and findings must remain anonymous.
Feel free to add written comments on the last page or on the survey itself that clarify your
responses.

1. How old are you: ______ years 2. Your sex: ___ Male ___ Female

3. Where were you born? City/State: ___________________ Country ________________

4. If not born in the U. S., at what age did you come to this country? ______ years of age

5. If other than your birthplace, where did you live during your childhood and adolescence:

_____________________________________________________________________

6. How long have you lived in the Pacific Northwest: _____ years or _____ months

7. What is your ethnic/cultural/regional


background (Check any that apply): ___ African-American ___ Asian ___ Jewish

___ European/Caucasian ___Latino ___ Native American Other: ___________________

8. What is your educational background? ___ high school ___ some college work, no degree

Degrees, a. degree: _______ major field: _____________________ year received: _______


diplomas,
certificates b. degree: _______ major field: _____________________ year received: _______
received
c. degree: _______ major field: _____________________ year received: _______

9. What is, or has been, your primary work (job, role, profession, career):

________________________________________________ Number of years: _______

________________________________________________ Number of years: _______

If you are or were a teacher, for what grade(s) or educational level(s)? _________________

. . .and in what subject(s)? ____________________________________________________

10. What is your current work status:

___ Employed ___Retired ___ Between jobs Other: __________________________

If not formally employed, your current activity/ies: ___________________________________

11. Your parents’ ages:

Mother: _____ years of age


32
If deceased, her age when she died: _____ years How old were you when she died: _____
years

Father: _____ years of age

If deceased, his age when he died: _____ years How old were you when he died: _____
years

12. Your parents’ marital status:

How long have your parents been (or were they) married to one another: _____ years

If your parents were divorced, how old were you when they divorced: _____ years old

13. As a child, by whom were you raised?

___ Birth-father ___ “Step”-father ___ No male Other: _____________________

___ Birth-mother ___ “Step”-mother ___ No female Other: _____________________

14. In general, have you felt:

___ Closer to your mother ___ Closer to your father ___ Equally close to both

___ Close to neither Other: _________________________________________

15. What is (or was) your mother’s religious or philosophical orientation?

Not at all religious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very religious

Religion/denomination or nonreligious philosophy, if any: __________________________

If she changed during her lifetime, from what to what? __________________________

Roughly how old were you when she changed her orientation? __________ years old

16. What is (or was) your father’s religious or philosophical orientation?

Not at all religious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very religious

Religion/denomination or nonreligious philosophy, if any: __________________________

If he changed during his lifetime, from what to what? __________________________

Roughly how old were you when he changed his orientation? ___________ years old

17. Generally, how strict or lax were religious expectations during your upbringing? ____ None at all

____ Lax/voluntary ____ Occasional/special services ____ Weekly services ____Strict/strong

33
18. Have you had formal religious education or training; what kind and for how long? ___
None

___ Full-time religious schooling. Denomination: _____________ Ages: ____ to ____

___ Weekly or occasional classes. Denomination: _____________ Ages: ____ to ____

Other (e.g., academic coursework): ___________________________ Ages: ___________

19. At present, if defined in supernatural or transcendental terms, are you . . .

Not at all religious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very religious

If not religious, at about what age would you say you realized this? _____ years of age

If “religious” in some other sense, please describe: _____________________________

______________________________________________________________________

20. At present, if defined in supernatural or transcendental terms, are you. . .

Not at all spiritual 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very spiritual

If “spiritual” in some other sense, please describe: _____________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

21. If you have changed your religious or philosophical orientation at any point in your life,
from what to what, and roughly at what age(s)?

From (denomination/orientation): to: at age(s):

________________________ _________________________ _________ years old

________________________ _________________________ _________ years old

22. In general, do you feel that religion is generally . . .

A harmful force 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A positive force


in human affairs in human affairs

and/or (check) ___ It is much too complex a phenomenon to generalize about in this way

23. If you have (or had) siblings, how religious are (or were) they? ___ No siblings
(Check “brother” or “sister” AND “older” or “younger” for each):
Don’t
Brother Sister Older Younger How religious: know

___ ___ ___ ___ Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 Very ?


34
___ ___ ___ ___ Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 Very ?
___ ___ ___ ___ Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 Very ?
___ ___ ___ ___ Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 Very ?
___ ___ ___ ___ Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 Very ?
___ ___ ___ ___ Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 Very ?

24. Marital history: Are you currently: ___ Married ___ Partnered ___ Single

If ever married. . . How long: Ended due to: Spouse’s religiosity


Divorce Death Not at all Very DK

If married now: ____ years 1 2 3 4 5 ?


Prior marriage: ____ years ___ ___ 1 2 3 4 5 ?
Prior marriage: ____ years ___ ___ 1 2 3 4 5 ?
Prior marriage: ____ years ___ ___ 1 2 3 4 5 ?

25. a) Number of children: biological ______ adopted/foster ______ by marriage ______


b) Number of grandchildren: biological _______ by marriage _______
c) How religious are your children:
Son Daughter Current age How religious (circle one for each child):
__ __ _______ years Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 Very ?
__ __ _______ years Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 Very ?
__ __ _______ years Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 Very ?
__ __ _______ years Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 Very ?
__ __ _______ years Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 Very ?
__ __ _______ years Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 Very ?

26. Has religion ever been the basis for conflict in your life? ___ No, not really ___ Yes, at work
(Check any that apply)

Yes: ___ with parents ___ with siblings ___ with spouse ___ with children ___ with friends

27. Would you or do you use any of the following terms to describe your way of thinking?
(Check any that apply)
___ agnostic ___ atheist(ic) ___ anti-religious ___ humanist(ic)
___ naturalistic ___ scientific ___ secular(ist) ___ non-theist(ic)
___ skeptic(al) ___ non/unbeliever ___ freethinker Other: _______________

28. Which term(s) do you prefer or consider most accurate: ________________________________

35
29. What have been the most significant factors in the development of your way of thinking?
(such as a parent/parents, teacher(s), spouse/partner, friends or colleagues, reading, your own
independent thought & observation, religious/philosophical upbringing [positively or negatively],
a particular experience or experiences, particular writer(s) or thinker(s) . . . other influences.)

___________________________________ ____________________________________

___________________________________ ____________________________________

If reading or particular writers/thinkers, describe: ________________________________________

If a particular experience or experiences, describe:


________________________________________

30. To what extent would you say that a resurgence of religion in recent times has
. . . strengthened the nonreligious or skeptical character of your way of thinking:
Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very much
. . . made you more vocal or public about being nonreligious or skeptical:
Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very much
. . . motivated you to seek out others of like mind or become (more) involved in
nonreligious or skeptic organizations:
Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very much

___ (Check if) you were already as nonreligious, skeptical, or vocal as one can be.

31. To what extent would you say that you are angry about the role, dominance, and/or effects
of religion in the world?
Not at all angry 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very angry

32. About what aspects of religion have you ever been skeptical, doubtful, concerned, or
critical?
__________________________________ ____________________________________
__________________________________ ____________________________________
__________________________________ ____________________________________
33. Do you consider your own life overall . . .

Not at all worthwhile 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very worthwhile

34. What would you say gives you the greatest sense of meaning in life?
__________________________________ ____________________________________
__________________________________ ____________________________________

35. Do you feel that human life or existence is, in general . . .

36
Not at all meaningful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very meaningful

or (check): ___ this is not a meaningful question to me

36. How important to you is. . . Not very Extremely

. . .honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

. . .justice 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

. . .compassion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

. . .responsibility for one’s own 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


actions and well-being

. . .responsibility for acting to improve 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


human well-being and our world

. . .moderation in one’s appetites and emotions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

. . .helping others in need 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

. . .treating others considerately 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

. . .treating others fairly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

. . .critical, logical thinking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

. . .guiding children to think


critically and logically 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

. . .guiding children to be ethical 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

. . .giving children a solid grounding in a


particular philosophy or religion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

. . .giving children a broad understanding of


philosophical and/or religious thought and
letting them choose their own way of thinking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
37. With regard to a general or “ultimate” purpose or direction in human life or all of existence. .
.
(Please check one option that best reflects your way of thinking)

___ This makes no sense to me; I don’t think there is any such thing
___ I don’t know and don’t think this is something human beings can know
___ This may be; I’m just not sure
___ Sometimes I think this is so and sometimes I do not
___ Even though I doubt or reject the reality of this, or view this as a human
construction,
I like to think as though there is
___ There is probably something like this, but I have no idea about its actual nature
___ This is something I definitely think exists or is the case

37
I generally think about this issue. . .

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Quite a lot

38. With regard to a being, entity, or higher power beyond, apart from, or transcending nature
(call this “God” if you wish). . . (Please check one option)

___ This makes no sense to me; I don’t think there is any such thing
___ I don’t know and don’t think this is something human beings can know
___ This may be; I’m just not sure
___ Sometimes I think this exists and sometimes I do not
___ Even though I doubt or reject the reality of this, or view this as a human
construction,
I like to think as though there is
___ There is probably something like this, but I have no idea about its actual nature
___ This is something I definitely think exists or is the case

I generally think about this. . .

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Quite a lot

39. With regard to an impersonal force or energy that courses through and connects all living
things or everything that exists (call this “spiritual” if you wish). . . (Please check one
option)

___ This makes no sense to me; I don’t think there is any such thing
___ I don’t know and don’t think this is something human beings can know
___ This may be; I’m just not sure
___ Sometimes I think this exists and sometimes I do not
___ Even though I doubt or reject the reality of this, or view this as a human
construction,
I like to think as though there is
___ There is probably something like this, but I have no idea about its actual nature
___ This is something I definitely think exists or is the case

I generally think about this. . .

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Quite a lot

40. With regard to a personal essence, spirit, or soul apart from our physical bodies or
continuing
beyond our physical lives (or through multiple lifetimes). . . (Please check one
option)

___ This makes no sense to me; I don’t think there is any such thing
___ I don’t know and don’t think this is something human beings can know
___ This may be; I’m just not sure
___ Sometimes I think this exists and sometimes I do not
___ Even though I doubt or reject the reality of this, or view this as a human
construction,

38
I like to think as though there is
___ There is probably something like this, but I have no idea about its actual nature
___ This is something I definitely think exists or is the case

I generally think about this kind of thing. . .

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Quite a lot

41. Do you think that the degree of order or patterning we perceive in nature is most likely
attributable to: (Please check one option)

___ Properties that are intrinsic to the nature of the physical universe or all that exists,
and nothing more
___ A coherent organizing principle that we cannot, or do not yet, fully comprehend,
that is pervasive throughout the physical universe or all that exists
___ An organizing principle or force that in some way transcends the physical universe
or all that exists
___ An impersonal, but in some sense intelligent, creative force that has brought all
that exists into being
___ A personal and in some sense intelligent creative force, or “God,” with which
human beings can make contact or have a communicative relationship
___ An omniscient, omnipotent, intelligent God that designed and created all that exists

Other: ______________________________________________________________

42. With regard to the terms “spiritual” and “spirituality” . . . (Check any that apply)
___ I (tend to) avoid these terms; they do not apply to me or my experience
___ I may use these terms, but only in psychological or experiential senses
___ as a special state of being at peace or equilibrium or harmony
___ as a process or experience of greater awareness or higher consciousness
___ as a general feeling or experience of connection with others or nature
___ I use these terms to refer to something (a force, energy, or entity or multiple forces
or entities) that exist(s) beyond physical nature and its properties, and with which
I/we can make contact

Other: _______________________________________________________________
43. With regard to “praying” or “prayer” . . .

___ I do not use these terms in connection with myself, my experience, or my behavior

___ I may use these terms in connection with myself, but only to describe a form
of behavior that is reflective, meditative, or calming, rather than communication
with a supernatural entity or contact with a “spiritual” force

___ I use these terms to describe a process through which I/we communicate or make
contact with something (a force, energy, or entity) that exists beyond physical
nature and its properties
39
Other: _________________________________________________________________

44. With regard to “meditation”. . .

___ I (tend to) avoid this term; it does not apply to me or my experience

___ I may use this term in connection with myself, but only in a psychological or
experiential sense (as a discipline or experience of concentration or focus,
mental relaxation, emptying the mind, or increasing awareness or insight)
___ I (tend to) avoid this term, but do engage in activity of this kind

___ I use this term to refer to an experience I/we can have at a higher plane,
or a connection with something (a force, energy, entity, or multiple forces
or entities), that exist(s) beyond physical nature and its properties
Other: _________________________________________________________________

45. To what extent do you think the following phenomena are real, actual, or effective (check one each):
Definitely Probably Possibly Definitely
Don’t
not know
Communication with the dead ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
“Mind-reading” or telepathic communication ___ ___ ___ ___
___
Predictive power of astrology or horoscopes ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Hypnosis; inducement of hypnotic states ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Healing effects of prayer by unknown others ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Prediction of events in or through dreams ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Existence of “Bigfoot” or “Sasquatch” ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Existence of ghosts or haunting ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
The healing efficacy of acupuncture ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Healing efficacy of homeopathy ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Past visits to earth by UFO’s or alien beings ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

46. Throughout your life, has your physical health generally been . . .

___ Poor ___ Fair ___ Good ___ Excellent ___ Highly variable over time

47. At the present time, what is the condition of your physical health?

Poor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Excellent

48. Have you experienced any chronic, traumatic, or life-threatening illnesses,


conditions, or addictions? ___ No

40
Yes: _____________________ at age(s): _____ _____________________ at age(s) _____

49. Throughout your life, has your mental and emotional health generally been . . .

___ Poor ___ Fair ___ Good ___ Excellent ___ Highly variable over time

50. At the present time, what is your general sense of mental and emotional health?

Poor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Excellent

51. Have you had experience with, diagnosis of, or treatment or medication for
mental or emotional disorders? ___ No

Yes: _____________________ at age(s): _____ _____________________ at age(s) _____

52. Do you, in general, make friends easily?

Not really 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very much so

53. How much do you like to be involved or immersed in group activity?

Not so much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very much

54. Generally in your life, have you tended to be politically. . .

Conservative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Liberal
Moderate

55. What is your current political affiliation:

___ Democrat ___ Independent ___ Republican Other: ____________________

56. What is your attitude about keeping church and state, or religion and government, separate?

Strict separationists 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 We can never be


take this too far too vigilant about this
57. Would you consider yourself generally . . . (Please check one that best applies to you)

____ Optimistic ____ Pessimistic ____ Neither particularly optimistic nor pessimistic

____ Realistic ____ Cynical Other: _____________________________________

58. Which of the following words and phrases describe your views about nature? (Check any that apply)

___ precious ___ delicate ___ a mystery ___sacred ___ spiritual

___ to be protected ___ to be used ___ to be experienced, enjoyed ___ to be understood

___ a source of peace ___ a source of personal energy ___ a source of inspiration

41
Other: _________________________________________________________________

59. For which charitable, community, educational, medical, research, advocacy, or political causes
or
organizations have you volunteered or donated money? (Check one or both)
Volunteer(ed) Donate(d) money
____________________________________________ ___ ___
____________________________________________ ___ ___
____________________________________________ ___ ___
____________________________________________ ___ ___
____________________________________________ ___ ___
____________________________________________ ___ ___
____________________________________________ ___ ___

60. What is the general annual range of your contributions to causes, “charities,” or organizations:

___ Less than $100 ___ $100-$500 ___ $500-$1,000 ___ $1,000-$2,000 ___ $2,000-$5,000

___ $5,000-$10,000 ___ more than $10,000 (Note: please include donations to political causes)

61. What is your current annual household income?

___ Less than $20,000 ___ $20,000-40,000 ___ $40,000-60,000 ___ $60,000-80,000

___ $80,000-100,000 ___ more than $100,000

62. What is your total household wealth (total assets minus debt)?

___ Less than $25,000 ___ $25,000-50,000 ___ $50,000-100,000 ___ $100,000-500,000

___ $500,000-$1 million ___ More than $1 million

63. Please indicate any LOCAL philosophical or religious groups, clubs, or organizations
where you are an active member, an occasional participant, only a monetary contributor, or only
an email or newsletter recipient:

(Check one for each group or organization )


Group, club, or organization Active Occasional Monetary Email/news
member participant contributor recipient
_____________________________ ___ ___ ___ ___
_____________________________ ___ ___ ___ ___
_____________________________ ___ ___ ___ ___

64. For each of the following organizations (or publications), are you or have you been a
member
(or subscriber)? (Check one blank for each organization or publication that applies to you.)

42
Long-time Recently Sometimes Was, but Never
supporter began no longer

American Atheists ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

American Humanist Association/


The Humanist ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Council for Secular Humanism/ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___


Free Inquiry

CSICOP/Skeptical Inquirer ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Ethical Culture Society, Ethical Union ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Freedom from Religion Foundation/ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___


Freethought Today

The Skeptic Society/The Skeptic ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Society for Humanistic Judaism ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Americans United for Separation


of Church and State/Church & State ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

American Civil Liberties Union ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Other national or international philosophical or advocacy organizations:


____________________________ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
____________________________ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

(Circle one)
65. What are your interests or motivations for supporting or Not Very
participating in such organizations (in items 63 and 64)? at all much

A source of information and intellectual stimulation 1 2 3 4 5

Learning & reinforcing a philosophy/worldview/way of thinking 1 2 3 4 5

Educating the public about the philosophy/worldview 1 2 3 4 5

Meeting and socializing with like-minded people 1 2 3 4 5

A place where I as a skeptical or nonreligious person feel at ease 1 2 3 4 5

Activism or advocacy in the community, society, or


world from the perspective of my philosophy 1 2 3 4 5

Collaborating with others in doing work that benefits


the community and the world around me 1 2 3 4 5
43
Counteracting the dominance or effects of religion 1 2 3 4 5

Other: __________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5

66. What is your attitude about death? ___________________________________________


________________________________________________________________________

67. To what extent would you say that you fear death?

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Quite a lot

68. Have you read any published psychological or sociological studies of atheists, humanists,
skeptics, or the “nonreligious”?

___ No ___ Yes If yes, which one(s): _________________________________


__________________________________________________________________________

69-70. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following:

We all benefit from having a diverse mix of both religious and nonreligious people in the
world.
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree

People with my way of thinking are generally discriminated against in society.


Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree

71. Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements by
assigning a number to each of them using the following scale:
Strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree

____ It is important to distinguish what we can or do know from mere fancy or speculation.
____ Some forms of what people call “religion” are dangerous and some are benign or
beneficial.
____ Skeptical or nonreligious people can be as closed-minded or dogmatic as religious people.
____ It is impossible to be tolerant or accepting of all human ways of thinking or behaving.
____ It is dangerous for human beings to be uncritically devoted to any particular group,
society, belief system, or ideology (including my own).
____ It is more productive to focus on sound thinking and evidence for truth claims than on the
shortcomings of religion(s).
____ It is important to focus our own and our children’s attention on values and aims beyond
material consumption or consumerism.
44
____ I would be very unhappy if a close friend or family member became a religious fundamentalist.
____ The human species will be better off when it outgrows its tendency toward superstition,
supernaturalism, and the will to believe without evidence.
____ Religions and supernatural beliefs tend to foster excessive devotion to particular groups,
ideologies, or lifestyles.
____ I prefer the company of people who think logically and speak clearly or unambiguously.
____ It is important for people to exercise a reasonable degree of uncertainty about all things—
including our own most cherished conclusions or ideas.
____ Supernatural and superstitious beliefs deserve to be ridiculed.
____ It is important to cultivate acceptance of ways of thinking and behaving different from
one’s own.
____ It is more important to create positive alternatives to religions than to simply criticize
them.
____ I would be equally unhappy if a close friend or family member became extremely
religious
or anti-religious.
____ Sometimes I enjoy the “touchy-feely” style of communication some call “spiritual.”
____ Whether you are religious or nonreligious is, in the final analysis, of little concern. What
is
important is whether you are an ethical, considerate, responsible, reasonable person.
____ There are some things in human experience that are of fundamental importance, like logic,
rationality, and critical evaluation of evidence for truth claims.
____ There are valuable pieces of wisdom in religious texts and traditions.
____ Skeptical or nonreligious people are likely to be ethical, considerate, responsible, and
reasonable more consistently than religious people (who vary more widely in these ways)
72. What is your attitude about each of the following (please check one blank for each
issue):
Completely Acceptable Should be Completely
acceptable with limited or
unacceptable
reservations discouraged
Abortion ___ ___ ___ ___
Sexual relations before marriage ___ ___ ___ ___
Sex with someone other than one’s spouse ___ ___ ___ ___
Sexual relations between same-sex partners ___ ___ ___ ___
Same-sex marriage ___ ___ ___ ___
Sex between a legal adult and a minor ___ ___ ___ ___
Divorce ___ ___ ___ ___
Use of embryonic cells for research, therapy ___ ___ ___ ___

45
Genetic research & manipulation in general ___ ___ ___ ___
Physician-assisted suicide ___ ___ ___ ___
Death-penalty (for serious crimes/criminals) ___ ___ ___ ___
Legalization of marijuana use ___ ___ ___ ___

Please add any comments that clarify your responses:


Question number _____ Comment or clarification: __________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Question number _____ Comment or clarification: __________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Question number _____ Comment or clarification: __________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Additional comments or clarifications: _____________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Thank you again for your participation in this work!

Notes

46
1
Direct costs of survey deployment have been defrayed by a Shand Award from the Society for the Scientific Study of
Religion.
2
As, for example, in Hunsberger and Altemeyer’s recently published study of members of atheist and humanist groups
(2006)
3
Refers to ‘emic,’ a term used by anthropologists to denote perceptions, concepts, or categories from the vantage of
culture-members in their own terms; as distinguished from ‘etic,’ or from the vantage of outside observers (such as social
scientists).
4
By general agreement with participating groups, references to particular groups by name are being avoided.
5
The American Humanist Association capitalizes “Humanism” to denote a this-worldly sense of the term.
6
This set of items was not included in the secular humanist group (pretest) survey.
7
A check of GSS cumulative data suggests different rather than substantially less social and organizational involvement
among those giving a-theistic and agnostic responses compared with believers in God. For example:

Don’t Don’t Some Some- Believe Know


believe know power times w/ doubts God exists

Average memberships reported 1.66 1.72 1.87 1.50 1.85 1.79

% of category with membership in:


> Professional societies 24.6 29.4 22.9 16.7 17.9 13.5
> Sports clubs 20.0 20.5 23.8 23.3 24.7 16.2
> Literary or art groups 15.4 11.8 17.5 8.3 6.9 9.9
> Youth groups 10.8 7.1 7.1 10.0 10.4 10.4
> School service groups 7.1 15.1 11.2 9.2 14.2 15.0
> Political groups 4.6 10.2 4.6 7.5 4.1 2.9
> Service groups 4.6 9.5 15.9 7.6 11.9 10.6
8
Personal communication, Tom Flynn, Center for Inquiry, based on the Council for Secular Humanism’s estimate and an
estimate published in Free Inquiry, as well as available data on circulation or membership at the American Ethical Union,
American Atheists, American Humanist Association, Council for Secular Humanism, Committee for the Investigation of
Claims of the Paranormal, Freedom from Religion Foundation, Society for Humanistic Judaism, and The Skeptic Society
(membership survey).
9
There are some notable differences concerning children’s education among nonreligious organizations. Great store is
placed on children’s guidance in the two Humanistic Judaic groups. Paralleling their ritual emphasis, this focuses on
Judaic heritage and ethical guidance sans supernaturalism. Other humanist groups vary: one has emphasized humanistic
children’s education in the past, but this has faded as the founders’ children have aged; others have not pursued such
programs due to disinterest or divided opinion. The rise of humanist and atheist summer camps in the U. S. has rekindled
interest in educational programs among members of local groups. There seems to be general agreement among most
nonreligious groups on the value of educating for ethics and critical thinking, but I know of no formal programs in the
region.
10
The five whose comments suggested transcendental meanings present complex response patterns. Numbers indicate
ratings on an 8-point scale from “not at all” to “very.”

Comment Religiosity Spirituality Self-descriptions


“Pantheistic” 1 3 Humanist, Scientist
“Only in a kind of pantheistic way” 2 4 Agnostic, Humanist, Scientist
“I pray when I’m troubled” 3 2 Agnostic, Humanist
“Reality is in essence spiritual” 4 4 Atheist, Humanist, Scientist
“I believe there is a collective spirit” (no response) 5 Atheist, Humanist, Scientist, Skeptical

También podría gustarte