Statistical changes in American religious life

[ColoradoGuy]

Trinity College in Connecticut has issued their latest assessment of the state of American religious groupings. Called the American Religious Identification Survey, you can find a summary here (http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/) and a complete copy (it's 26 pages) here (http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/AmericanReligionSurvey-ARIS/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf). It compares the early 1990s with 2008 (with one additional data point in 2001).

The overall trend is a decline from 86% to 76% in Americans identifying themselves as Christians. Most of this decline comes from what's been called "mainline Protestant denominations." Fifteen percent claim no religion. Interestingly, an increasing number of Americans now prefer a non-denominational designation.

A few other tidbits. The overall number of Catholics hasn't changed much, but the axis of this population has shifted to those areas higher in Hispanics. Mormons are unchanged proportionately, but Baptists are less numerous as a percent of the population.

A summary quotation of interest: "It looks like the two-party system of American Protestantism--mainline versus evangelical--is collapsing . . . . A generic form of evangelicalism is emerging as the normative form of non-Catholic Christianity in the United States."

It's interesting reading.

[Guffy]

I have been watching this trend for some time now. I've read that church membership has been in decline since the 60s. I've also read that while church membership is in decline peoples individual perception of their own spirituality has been growing. I wonder if this happening in non-Christian religions.

[rugcat]

How are the Quakers doing?

[AMCrenshaw]

Does this survey church membership, religiosity, or just identity?



AMC

[ColoradoGuy]

How are the Quakers doing?
We're chugging along just fine. In fact, for some time now a majority of American Quakers are not what we call "birthright" (meaning having Quaker parents) but are what we call "convinced," the Quaker term for converts. Besides members, most Quaker meetings also have at least as many "attenders," folks who come, participate in the Meeting, but aren't ready to convince for one reason or another. Useless wars always bring quite a few new people to us. But unprogrammed Friends are still a tiny sliver of American religion -- about 200,000 in the US, I believe.

[ColoradoGuy]

Does this survey church membership, religiosity, or just identity?



AMC
It's a survey of self-described identity -- how people think of themselves. The link to the summary is just one page and is quite useful.

[James81]

A generic form of evangelicalism is emerging as the normative form of non-Catholic Christianity in the United States."[/I]



Is this what the bible talks about in Revelation as the Leaodecian church? "Neither cold nor hot and he'll spew them out of his mouth?"

[Monkey]

Adherents of New Religious movements, including Wiccans and self-described pagans, have grown faster this decade than in the 1990s.

From what I understand, this category grew tremendously in the 1990's, so that's really saying something.

Pretty soon, we'll break the 1% mark!


*sigh*


ETA: Where do they get off calling "self-described pagans" a New Religious Movement? The OED originally said that "Pagan" was a term of Christian origin, basically used to denote, well, heathens, but in the book listing corrections and additions to the OED, it said that the term "Pagan" was actually much older than previously believed. It was originally used by "self-described pagans" who were, to quote (albeit from memory), "polytheistic nature worshippers". NRM my tookus. :D

[ColoradoGuy]

Is this what the bible talks about in Revelation as the Leaodecian church? "Neither cold nor hot and he'll spew them out of his mouth?"
I can't see the connection -- can you explain?

[Mac H.]

The overall trend is a decline from 86% to 76% in Americans identifying themselves as Christians.Even more interesting ... only 34% of American adults self-identify as being 'born again' or 'evangelical' Christians.

Almost by the definition of 'evangelical', these are the people who actively want others to be Christian.

So does that means that 66% of Americans aren't particularly interested in whether people are Christian or not ?

Mac

[veinglory]

In line with the survey discussed a few months ago, it seems that is of the shifts (lack of interest in converting others).

[TerzaRima]

I only looked at the summary, but I'll have to look at the longer document--I'm sure it breaks this stuff down by age and education level. It would be interesting to see how boomers' kids (what's the demographic term for them, millennials?) identify.

[Higgins]

I only looked at the summary, but I'll have to look at the longer document--I'm sure it breaks this stuff down by age and education level. It would be interesting to see how boomers' kids (what's the demographic term for them, millennials?) identify.

What is strange about the millenials (that's the term) is that its not their birth cohort (unlike baby boomers) that defines them, but the moment the began arriving in college. They seem to be a generation defined as much by the impenetrability of their wired lives as by the circumstances of their origin. It's as if they were born of the etherial media in which they are embedded as much as by the belated sexual efforts of their relatively colorless late boomer progenetors.

[Guffy]

They seem to be a generation defined as much by the impenetrability of their wired lives as by the circumstances of their origin. It's as if they were born of the etherial media in which they are embedded as much as by the belated sexual efforts of their relatively colorless late boomer progenetors.

och! Higgins that was harsh. but seriously this is a very good and telling quote. I've done a little bit of study on this generation and they have some very interesting ideas.

Is this what the bible talks about in Revelation as the Leaodecian church? "Neither cold nor hot and he'll spew them out of his mouth?"

No James81 these churches are also called Bible Churches. They are not affiliated with a main stream denomination. They are usually centered around a single individual. Some times they have a connection to a denomination but have broken away for some reason. This is of course a broad generalization.

The Leaodecian church on the other hand had lost their passion for their first love, Jesus

[Higgins]

och! Higgins that was harsh. but seriously this is a very good and telling quote. I've done a little bit of study on this generation and they have some very interesting ideas.



As a very early Baby Boomer, I have to say that the millenials are the most happily eccentric and brilliant bunch to come along since my generation. It's true they are a bit narcissistic at least to the untutored outward eye, but this seems quite adaptive and is generally part of their often ironic self-conscious charm.

[Guffy]

I haven't heard "millenials" (makes you wonder how much studying I've done) but it fits. Their are a lot of things I like about this group, but somethings drive me batty.

Most of my study has been as it relates to spirituality.

[Higgins]

I haven't heard "millenials" (makes you wonder how much studying I've done) but it fits. Their are a lot of things I like about this group, but somethings drive me batty.

Most of my study has been as it relates to spirituality.

The millenials I know best are an astoundingly sophisticated crew and they don't seem to be as quick to dismiss spiritual pre-occupations as did the youth of my youth, who were fiendishly hedonistic in all contexts. Of course we had the numbers and few adult supervisors while the millenials are perhaps the most over-supervised generation of all time.

[TerzaRima]

I would bet that as children, the millennials were less likely to attend church regularly, or to receive religious education. Boomer reaction to orthodoxy, new family constellations where Mom remarries and stops going to church, etc.

It's true they are a bit narcissistic at least to the untutored outward eye, but this seems quite adaptive and is generally part of their often ironic self-conscious charm

You know I love the medical students, but I'd say this is spot on. People, I get it. Your parents and Barney the dinosaur said you were special every single day and you really took it to heart. By the same token, they have a level of confidence that I would have killed for at age 23, so. But we're getting off religious life a bit.

[Monkey]

I turn 30 next month, so be nice, people!
:roll:

[ColoradoGuy]

Here's another recent snapshot, showing percentage by age of Americans identifying as Protestant, Jewish, Catholic, or none. The age range is 18 (far left bar) to 89 (far right bar). You can see that the younger ages are less likely to choose Protestant and more likely to chose "none." Catholic and Jewish look about the same.
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j244/ColoradoGuy/religionyoung.jpg

[Gehanna]

There is a problem with statistics and religion in that they both serve man. Not God.

I highly recommend inserting the words, "of the group of people who responded to the survey,..." in the sentences of statistical conclusions drawn from data obtained through a voluntary response sample.

Sincerely,
Gehanna

[Guffy]

remember when we talk about statistics and generalities we are talking about patterns, not individuals, no individual matches the generalities.

[AMCrenshaw]

There is a problem with statistics and religion in that they both serve man. Not God.

I'm not sure I'd agree, even in those days I might have called myself Christian. But consider that knowledge of creation might be linked to a knowledge of the Creator.

AMC

[ColoradoGuy]

There is a problem with statistics and religion in that they both serve man. Not God.

I highly recommend inserting the words, "of the group of people who responded to the survey,..." in the sentences of statistical conclusions drawn from data obtained through a voluntary response sample.

Sincerely,
Gehanna
The polling science of the longer link in my opening post is actually quite good. Read it if you want the details, but I think their sampling technique is solid.

[maxmordon]

From what I understand, this category grew tremendously in the 1990's, so that's really saying something.

Pretty soon, we'll break the 1% mark!


*sigh*


ETA: Where do they get off calling "self-described pagans" a New Religious Movement? The OED originally said that "Pagan" was a term of Christian origin, basically used to denote, well, heathens, but in the book listing corrections and additions to the OED, it said that the term "Pagan" was actually much older than previously believed. It was originally used by "self-described pagans" who were, to quote (albeit from memory), "polytheistic nature worshippers". NRM my tookus. :D

From the Royal Dictionary of Spanish Language, translated by me:

From the Latin Paganus, villager, from Pagus, village. It took the meaning of Gentile in Ecclesiastical Latin because of the rural resitence of Christianization

[Monkey]

The Oxford English Dictionary is one of my trusted sources.

[Gehanna]

I did read it.

Here is a quote from it:


Table 4 shows that when asked about the existence of God less than 70 percent of Americans now believe in the traditional theological concept of a personal God.


Now let's look again ...

Table 4 shows that when asked about the existence of God, 69.5%, believe there is definitely a personal God. That 69.5%, can be rounded up to 70% which certainly is not less than 70% because, statistically speaking, it is 70%. Then again, statistically speaking, it can remain as 69.5% depending on intent.

In this case, I find the use of bias highly evident! Even satan knows how important presentation is.

Sincerely,
Gehanna

[veinglory]

When the sample is 1000 people 69.5% is less than 70%. i.e. you can have more than one whole person less than exactly 70% of the sample.

[maxmordon]

The Oxford English Dictionary is one of my trusted sources.

Sorry, apparently is not Online free, so we have to settle with Wiktionary:

From Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_language) paganus (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paganus) (“‘peasant, rural, rustic’”), later "civilian". The meaning "not (Judeo-)Christian" arose in Vulgar Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgar_Latin), probably from the 4th century.[1] (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Pagan#cite_note-0) It is unclear whether this usage is derived primarily from the "rustic" or from the "civilian" meaning. English usage from the 15th century. As a self-designation of neopagans attested since 1990.

[deathwizard]

I turn 30 next month, so be nice, people!
:roll:

You look 20 in your photo!

[Gehanna]

When the sample is 1000 people 69.5% is less than 70%. i.e. you can have more than one whole person less than exactly 70% of the sample.

Is that the rule or a preference?

The above is a legit question that is not intended as sarcasm.

Sincerely,
Gehanna

[AMCrenshaw]

695 ...whole people. The five could be considered significant enough not to round. Plus it is best not to round in case these numbers figure into other equations. Even if the presentation of the original stat is rounded up (for whatever reason), the raw number is still needed.


AMC

[Gehanna]

Version 1:
Table 4 shows that when asked about the existence of God less than 70 percent of Americans now believe in the traditional theological concept of a personal God.

Version 2:
Table 4 shows that when asked about the existence of God nearly 70 percent of Americans now believe in the traditional theological concept of a personal God.

Version 3:
Table 4 shows that when asked about the existence of God 69.5% of Americans believe in the traditional theological concept of a personal God.

It takes a human to pollute the purity of numbers. Beware contextual rounding!

Sincerely,
Gehanna

[Dawnstorm]

It takes a human to pollute the purity of numbers. Beware contextual rounding!

I agree. There may well be a perception bias revealed in the phrasing.1 This is why scientists (should) always insist on the numbers (and also the methodology of data collection). We must not confuse the results with the phrasing of the results.

1 It's not necessarily a "bias against God", though. A pessimist Christian might well think "No! Less than 70 % now!"

[veinglory]

Is that the rule or a preference?

It sems like common sense to me. They said "less than" not "a lot less than", "significantly less than"--and it is less than.

If the sample is representative, half a percent is 150000 people.

[veinglory]

I agree. There may well be a perception bias revealed in the phrasing

In context I think the point was clearly to draw attention to shrinkage in God beleiving. That takes into account the whole document, its stated intent and the (religiously-based) institutionthat conducted it. the document is clearly pro-Christian and implicitly alarmed at the shrinkage.

[Cranky]

I turn 30 next month, so be nice, people!
:roll:

Apparently, I fall into this age group as well (between X and Y generations, I guess). Never knew I was supposed to be narcissistic, special little snowflake.

I will agree I'm not keen on organized religion per se. I am nominally a Christian (I believe in Jesus, for example), but I'm not much on church.

Anyways, back to your regularly scheduled thread.

[Monkey]

Max, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but we'll just have to agree to disagree. As I said, I trust the OED and hold it in higher esteem than other dictionaries, and that goes double for anything beginning in "Wiki".

As to the debate on rounding, I think that ColoradoGuy's chart on page one was pretty illuminating, and rounded or not, there was a distinct pattern. Why is it that more people are claiming no religion?

This study is also being discussed in Politics and Current Events. As I mentioned over there, I think that the actual numbers of people who are practicing Christians, Catholics, and Jews are probably lower than the ones who claim these religions..."Christian in Name Only" is a title I've seen people give themselves, and I know people who claim a religion but don't live it and can't even really answer questions about it--it's just how they were raised.

So if they're claiming the religion of their parents, but they don't go to church or practice their religion--or, in many cases, even fully understand it--what are their children going to claim? I suspect that we'll see the rates of agnostics, atheists, deists, and alternative religions growing at a steady pace for a while, until we get to a point where people who claim a religion are primarily the ones who actually practice it and aren't just claiming the religion they were born into.

That isn't to say that I believe you're not a religion unless you practice it; you can have faith and choose not to show any outward sign. You don't need special knowledge. But if you don't act on your faith, or study it, then, IMO, you're less likely to make your religions' case effectively, even to your own children.

[Higgins]

Never knew I was supposed to be narcissistic, special little snowflake.



Apparently the special snowflake memo missed you by about two years.

This reminds me. I had a 27-year-old over for a week at the farm and she ate everything in the whole place worth eating without asking if she could ever. I thought I didn't mind, but I couldn't believe she found every last expensive delicacy down to the small bottle of good olive oil. When I belatedly discovered the incredible extent and precision of her depredations, I did mind sorta. Perhaps the spiritual odyssey of searching the entire place from basement freezer to beer fridge in the barn kept her slim and narcissistic. Obviously these millenials need close
supervision or they get out of hand.

[Higgins]

Max, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but we'll just have to agree to disagree. As I said, I trust the OED and hold it in higher esteem than other dictionaries, and that goes double for anything beginning in "Wiki".

As to the debate on rounding, I think that ColoradoGuy's chart on page one was pretty illuminating, and rounded or not, there was a distinct pattern. Why is it that more people are claiming no religion?

This study is also being discussed in Politics and Current Events. As I mentioned over there, I think that the actual numbers of people who are practicing Christians, Catholics, and Jews are probably lower than the ones who claim these religions..."Christian in Name Only" is a title I've seen people give themselves, and I know people who claim a religion but don't live it and can't even really answer questions about it--it's just how they were raised.

So if they're claiming the religion of their parents, but they don't go to church or practice their religion--or, in many cases, even fully understand it--what are their children going to claim? I suspect that we'll see the rates of agnostics, atheists, deists, and alternative religions growing at a steady pace for a while, until we get to a point where people who claim a religion are primarily the ones who actually practice it and aren't just claiming the religion they were born into.


I claim to be a CINO. Christian in name only, on grounds that I am culturally Christian and tried sproatically to raise myself as a Catholic. I did not succeed in making myself into much of a Christian, but I think I made a effort of sorts. I think if I recieved some ecclessiastical office I would be more serious about practicing my Christianity. As an Archbishop or something I'm sure I would devote more time to my religion.

[Monkey]

Forgive me if this is too private a question, and of course you aren't compelled to answer, but how would you have answered the survey?

[Higgins]

Forgive me if this is too private a question, and of course you aren't compelled to answer, but how would you have answered the survey?

Non-religious unless given a major ecclesiastically significant office such as an Archbishopric.

I think most people could be converted to some form of heirarchical Christianity if they could have a nice title, a fine residence and a modest stipend. I think holding a Methodist Bishopric or two would be a nice hobby and would feature travel and speaking opportunities, plus a certain amount of pomp and ceremony...I hope.
And I could bless things. I really could. with some ironic conviction even.

[Monkey]

That was an unexpected and pretty darn interesting answer...Thanks. :)

[DMarie84]

I would bet that as children, the millennials were less likely to attend church regularly, or to receive religious education.

Not true with this 24-year-old :) I was raised Christian, though didn't really attend church regularly with the family until middle school. Mom was a bit disheartened with the Catholic church, but now she's a regular attender.

I no longer classify myself as Catholic but more of a non-denom Christian.

I do agree that my generation can be a bit on the narcissitic side. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that the millenials were raised in a period of great prosperity and that they ended up being spoiled throughout their childhood.

I hope I don't come across as narcissitic; I'd like to break the millenial stereotype.

[Ruv Draba]

Here's another recent snapshot, showing percentage by age of Americans identifying as Protestant, Jewish, Catholic, or none. The age range is 18 (far left bar) to 89 (far right bar).As with all such age-based graphs, it's hard to separate cohort effects from age. If the eighteen year-olds were surveyed in ten years' time, would they look like today's 28 year-olds, or much like they do now?

I have some qualitative evidence that religious devotion gradually increases with age. My doctoral supervisor was a scoffing atheist who told religious jokes on a daily basis until his father died. He became a Buddhist within a month. A friend of mine became Buddhist within three months of the death of his mother, and took up smoking too. (I don't know whether Tobacco Buddhism is a faith any more than say, Whiskey Catholicism, but he seems to have embraced both with equal dedication simultaneously :tongue).

[Dawnstorm]

ETA: Where do they get off calling "self-described pagans" a New Religious Movement?

"New Religious Movement" is a fancy term for the "other" category you usually see on questionnaires. It's generally a bit more complex than that, but it doesn't look like they bothered to differentiate:

The 2008 findings confirm the conclusions we came to in our earlier studies that Americans are slowly becoming less Christian and that in recent decades the challenge to Christianity in American society does not come from other world religions or new religious movements (NRMs) but rather from a rejection of all organized religions.

The Taxonomy of the Religious Traditions

...

11. New Religious Movements and Other Religions: Scientology, New Age, Eckankar, Spiritualist, Unitarian-Universalist, Deist, Wiccan, Pagan, Druid, Indian Religion, Santeria, Rastafarian.

So when the Summary says:

Adherents of New Religious movements, inc luding Wiccans and self-described pagans, have grown faster this decade than in the 1990s.

They may just be careless in naming the category (I bet they don't have separate numbers for NRM and other) and highlighting the ones that don't intiuitively fit. Basically, the NRM pool (named as above) catches everything that's not a "World Religion" (which in itself is a peculiar term once you start to think about it).

[Monkey]

Right you are, Dawnstorm.

Regrettably, I haven't had time to read the whole document yet. I wish that I had. But you cleared that up nicely, thanks. :)