Ramesh Ponnuru points to a new piece by Lyman Stone that says the decline of religion in America is mostly among the young. In fact:
Most of the decline in religion is actually among children, and virtually all of it among people under age 22.
This is crazy. Stone presents a whole bunch of charts that are limited to teens but ignores the easiest source of data around: the General Social Survey, which has asked about religious beliefs since 1972 and breaks everything down by age. Then, when he does finally get around to the GSS, he shows only the data for belief in God. But here's the growth of people saying they have "no religion." Nothing much happened in the '70s and '80s, but then secularization took off:
In absolute numbers, young people have always been less religious than older people. In 2021 twice as many young people declared no religion as did the 65+ age group. But in 1994 it was nearly five times as many. Secularization has grown far more among the old than the young.
Here is church attendance:
Church attendance has been declining ever since 1972. In this case secularization has grown most strongly among the middle-aged, and there's not a big difference between young and old. The number of people who never go to church has tripled or more among every age group.
Stone's biggest point is that secularization starts in childhood. I imagine this is more or less true, but I can't say the data really backs it up. The number of older adults who are non-religious has gone up about 5x since 1994, and these are people whose childhoods were in the '50 and '60s—or even earlier. This is long before any countercultural secularization was in play. An awful lot of the decline in religion has happened among full-grown adults.
Not sure I understand Kevin's charts here. Wouldn't the base year index normally be 100%, not 0%? And why not include the actual numbers (% saying "No Religion") or "Never Attend Church" by age group? Wouldn't that be more illuminating?
The y-axis is percent change since the start of the graph, so that starts at 0%. Drum wants us to focus on the changes rather than the absolute amounts, so that's what he graphed. The absolute amounts would also be useful information, but here we are.
Thanks, understood on your first point. On the actual numbers I'd think they'd be important context, as "fastest growing" usually means "smallest starting point", so this kind of analysis can be misleading about relative ending points. I know my man KD is all about transparency in the numbers, not just taking the cut at them that makes your point. Just sayin'.
There's a 450 percent increase in "no religion" in the 65+ cohort since 1994. So what does that mean? Does it mean that if 10% of that cohort were "no religion" in 1994, then today 450 percent of 10 percent, or 45 percent, now have the "no religion" preference? Do I have that right? Or does it mean there's a 450 percent increase, so it would now be 55 percent? Some explanation would be helpful. This is not the first time our host has posted graphs that are hard to interpret.
The figures are misleading without absolute percentages. The "no religion" preference for the 18-34 cohort is up 200 percent. But if in 1994 22.5 percent were "no religion" and only one percent of the over 65 group were, then there would still be a 10 to one advantage in the younger group today.
Presumably the 18-34 cohort in 1994 were not the same people as the same cohort in 2021. So is the increase in each cohort due to the fact that the religious are aging out of the survey, or is it because fewer people are "getting religion" with age than before, or are people actually losing their religion as they get older?
Thank you, 'swhere I'm coming from
Your summary is essentially correct, I think: it's charting the *change* in how people in a particular population cohort respond to the question. Roughly 4x as many people over 50 now say they aren't religious/don't regularly attend church as they did 50 years ago. A healthy majority of boomers probably still do consider themselves religious and belong to a religious community of some kind, but 50 years ago, it was virtually everyone, so that's a big drop.
A lot of people 65+ experienced countercultural secularization when they were young. Somebody born in 1950 was a kid when Elvis moved his hips and was in high school during the British Invasion and antiwar protests, and they are now 73.
Speaking as an atheist, I would not describe anyone who believes in a deity as non-religious. "Does not participate in organized religious activities" is not the same thing as "non-religious".
Yes, it is. "Spiritual but not religious" is a really common identification.
Nope. "Non-religious" means "has no religion" which means "atheist or agnostic". If you believe in the existence of a deity, you are religious.
I suppose it's possible to be spiritual while being atheist or agnostic, but it seems an unlikely combination.
Not at all. I have several friends who are agnostic, but attend a church for the social and spiritual fellowship.
nope. Spiritual doesn't mean religious.
Yes, the line can be blurry. for example , Buddhism is more spiritual than a religion per se but is often lazily considered as such due to the large number of people that follow the philosophy.
Well, scholars of religion mostly consider Buddhism a religion because Buddhism makes specific truth claims about an afterlife.
How is the “Never Attend Church” question asked? I think lots of people “attend” church on Christmas and maybe Easter. And weddings, funerals and baptisms. Are they considered churchgoers?
We had daily bible readings when I was in first grade. This was a public school. I was raised Roman Catholic and attended church every Sunday until my second year in grad school, when I realized I really didn't believe any of that dreck and was just using it as a social club. I never went back, even though I've been a professor at a Jesuit Catholic University for over 36 years. My four siblings were also raised Catholic and all of us are atheists or agnostics. I don't find the argument that what happens in childhood sets a lifetime trajectory very convincing.
I became an atheist around age 40. Looking back I have often wondered if that was my mid-life crisis, since I never did the usual "buy a Corvette and have an affair" thing. But now it seems clear that I was just following a trend.
But church leaders know that if they don’t get kids brainwashed before, say, high school, they’re unlikely to ever convince them to believe their bullshit stories.
Bingo
I joined the Catholic Church when I was in my 30s. Growing up I went to church maybe a couple times a year. Probably ten times total in my 20s. I obviously do not think they are "bullshit stories".
Every year there are about 20-30 adults (18+) that go through the 10 month RCIA program to join the Church. And that's just at my specific parish church.
I'll bet a lot of those folks are just converting from another denomination so they can get married in the church or get a kid baptized or whatever. Probably very few are atheists or agnostics suddenly joining the Catholic church.
I'd generally agree with that.
How many leave in that same time period?
Not many. We just had a multi million dollar project to expend the church and increase seating to a little about 1,100. We have mass Saturday at 5:30, and Sunday at 7:30, 9:00, 11:00, 12:30, and 5:30. They are all usually at least 80% full plus the chapel usually has people in there with the mass on the video screen.
Your anecdata is very convincing.
It's very common for women of childbearing age to suddenly become more religious after having children. Something about "the miracle of birth " or maybe the idea that someday they'll die and never see their kids again gets them to start thinking about life after death.
For me, "secularization" started when I first opened a biology book. After we finished with the Krebs Cycle I was convinced that God was a terrible engineer or a fable.
Do you REALLY believe that disembodied ghosts created at the Dawn of the Universe have been stumbling around in the Fifth Dimension for 14 billion years, eager to put on a meat suit in order "to learn"? And then we go back, either to a nicer version of the Fifth Dimension or to Crispy Critterville.
To learn what? What is "useful" to a disembodied ghost? C'mon now, be creative. This is your chance to get Mega Brownie Points with the Big G. "Own" the snarky Lib.
Our vision of God has always said more about (wo)mankind than about whatever may or may not rule the universe. God created man in his image? Give me a break, why would he have tits or a navel, or an appendix? Or, in the case of the Christian god, be so dam jealous. Far more likely that man created God in his image.
Exactly.
Well, we'll all find out the truth eventually.
I blame the "Moral Majority"
This was also my first thought. The oldest cohort is the one that was around to be alienated by that stuff.
That said, it could also be that churches used to be a big part of social life for the elderly but now they are all on instagram all day.
The Catholic Church has suffered mightily from moral corruption, defending and promoting the abuse of minors. More recently the Evangelicals are also suffuring for moral corruption, dropping Jesus Christ to worship Trump, and replacing "turn the other cheek" with "grab them by the pussy" in the process.
The Catholic Church is rotten to the core, it's always been but it could no longer be ignored by the turn of this century. My home parish growing up was apparently the parish they stashed the problem priests because it did not have a school, they built the school in 1968 my parents bought a house nearby and suddenly the Bishop decided that there wouldn't be a school there., so the school sat empty for decades only used for Sunday school. In the 1980s the Monsignor was confronted by former altar boy about what he'd done to him and was quietly assigned to the "Chancellery" and then committed suicide. Then a few Monsignors later the guy loved to sunbathe in his speedo so that the kids at the newly opened school could see him. Majorly creeped out parents eventually got the guy moved. Then after that one of the priests was having an affair with a married parishioner.
It gets even better, the Bishop for the Diocese my grandmother was active in, the one where her son my uncle was a priest assigned to was Theodore McCarrick. He was at Grandma's funeral. Now he's escaped punishment by running out the clock, he's now too senile to stand trial!
At least there was no drag queen story time, though, amirite?
I will show you my imaginary being if you show me yours!!!
Agreed that this was of presenting the data is confusing and even misleading. Eyeballing the charts and with the endpoints Drum mentions, I think something like twice as large a fraction of the young cohort has switched to 'no religion' as in the 65+ cohort.
I know it's just anecdotal but almost every church I'm familiar with has struggled with declining attendance for decades. I know there are some megachurches that exploded, but the trend seems clear.
Megachurches seem to come and go. They are cultish in that they are dependent on a charismatic leader to bring in the crowds (and the funds). Once the charismatic leader dies or gets caught in a sexual or financial scandal, they often disappear. Examples include the Crystal Cathedral founded by Robert Schuller, and the PTL club founded bkey Jim Baker.
Yep -- Bakker lost his church, but has reemerged in recent years with a religion-adjacent grift hawking herbal supplements and other woo. He was recently busted by the FDA for claiming some concoction of his could treat Covid or something.
Frank
We are humans and as such many of us need some spiritual comfort in the many difficult period of life. That's why we had so many type of belief sine men appeared. For 2000+ years we have Christianity and other organize religions taking over Animism.
What comes next is in the making but will be fought dearly by the current organized religion... We need as people to have common values, they should be represented is a new spiritual(s) framework organized or not. this will take a few generations.
Stone's biggest point is that secularization starts in childhood.
If kids aren't indoctrinated into religion early, I'm guessing very few pick it up later. As older cohorts move away from church attendance, their kids aren't going to suddenly start going when they leave home. Religion was always a socially conditioned activity. You did it because you were supposed to. Now you don't.
It's also why there's a growing backlash in conservative evangelical circles against sending your kids to a non-sectarian college or university. Kids get to college and take a religion or history class and *poof!* their goes their unquestioning acceptance of the dogma they grew up with. Not to say that they give up or lose their faith entirely -- it just won't be of the "just believe it because it's in the Bible" variety.
As someone who was never religious I will give my 2 cents. I think young adults may go through the motions and get their kids confirmed and then bail. My parents did that and so did I. My kids may or may not do it. It was the same story for most of my friends regardless of religion
My elderly parents stopped going to church with the pandemic but seriously they stopped being so religious years ago, they needed the social interaction I suppose. But they really stopped feeling guilty about not going when the churches made the stink about being allowed to have services in person. UGH.
"the churches made the stink about being allowed to have services in person"
MUCH more money in the plate than in the mail.....
Give me a break. You do not understand that situation at all and are just being cynical and hateful. For Catholics, there is a huge difference between mass in person and a "virtual" mass. When we take communion, we believe we are actually with God and the host is the actual flesh of God. This does not happen during a "virtual" mass. It has nothing to do with "money in the plate". The parishioners were pushing for in person mass just as much as the Priests.
Can’t molest the kids virtually I guess. The priests that is…
The actual flesh of God is a tasteless wafer of what appears to be styrofoam. Alrighty then.
Jesus said, "this is my flesh and blood". He didn't say this is a symbol of my flesh and blood.
And anyway, my point was that that is what Catholics believe. That is why it was very big deal for them when they couldn't attend mass in person. I'm not preaching and trying to convince others of the validity of transubstantiation. Just that the Church "making a stink", as Anandakos said, was not because priests wanted more in the offering plates. For millions of people, being at mass is hugely important.
And my point was that Catholics believe things that are clearly false.
(Every religion has that problem, of course. But Catholics do seem to crank it up to 11.)
Thanks for your completely irrelevant opinion. It had nothing to do with the conversation. And no one is trying to convince you to join the Catholic Church. But I guess some people never pass up an opportunity to insult Christians.
I just think it's interesting that you chose to engage me and not the guy who brought up child molestation in the Church.
Christians deserve the insults. Their self righteous, holier than though crap has been tolerated for far too long. Peoples religious beliefs should carry the same weight as their views on fantasy football.
Well maybe you should live since about 8 in 10 people in this country try is Christian. But you obviously aren’t really familiar with Christianity and must be basing your opinion in some leftist radical playbook.
**maybe you should move
Sure they are. If you mean by "christian" that they attend Easter service and that's it. Face it, religion in the U.S. is a social signal for many to show they are "good" people regardless of their immoral actions. Claiming you're a christian means nothing about your moral reasoning.
Transubstantiation. Yeah but it was crass of the Bishops to whine, whine about "in person" masses when the Pope was calling for everyone to be careful about the pandemic.
My boomer parents were long-time evangelicals, but also committed Democrats (think Jimmy Carter). Starting in the 2000s with the election of George W Bush, there was a marked shift in the politicization of their church. It got so bad, they eventually left and never really found another community where they felt comfortable, either politically or theologically (they live in a pretty conservative, rural area). I'm sure today that same church has gone all in on the cult of Trump. There are a small number of evangelical Never Trumpers out there at places like Christianity Today and a few other outlets, but it seems they're just pissing into the wind these days.
For those who, like me, found KD's percent-changes confusing, the actual numbers are readily available through the "GSS Data Explorer", for example here is the Religious Preference question:
https://gssdataexplorer.norc.org/variables/287/vshow
It isn't much help, at least to me. "None" goes from 274 in 1994, to 1121 in 2021. But the base (274 of what) is not clear, and I haven't found the breakdown by age brackets.
The problem is that as more and more people identify as non-religious, or at least stop regularly attending church, the people left in the pews and pulpits are increasingly the more fanatical ones, all of whom reinforce each other's prejudices and paranoias. Which in turn drives away the few remaining less-committed types (or just people of faith who don't appreciate every Sunday morning being turned into two hours of earned media for Trump and the Republican Party). Wash, rinse, repeat. Pretty soon you're left with the Westboro Baptist Church.
These are the wrong figures altogether. They show that people may lose their religion at any time of life, may be more likely at advanced age than earlier. Well, duh. The more time you have to become areligious the more likely you will. The data do not show how many olds are areligious compared to how many children. Which we would need to know to judge on whether children lose their religion more often now than they used to.
This sort of discussion is meaningless insofar as it conflates two different issues:
- some sort of belief in some sort of god-like entity(ies)
- the desire for a total world view
The second is always with us, all that changes is how it gets focussed. In Europe the god belief was replaced with Communism and Fascism. In the US it is being replaced with Woke as we speak. This is not even controversial.
The only question of interest is whether any modern totalizing worldview has legs, is capable of bamboozling enough people for long enough to really establish itself. This is not clear; because with modern communication it's easy enough to find, and publicize, the inevitable contradictions in any world view, and to have these poison the beliefs of enough people to limit overtaking society.
Mormonism may be the last one of these that really worked out. Theosophy and Bahai went nowhere. Cao Dai almost made it; perhaps in a different world it might have swept Vietnam and Asia?
Communism looked like it had legs for a long time; perhaps up to the 70s, but in a way it shows my point – the weight of evidence became enough that True Believers simply became more and more rare, until it was obvious everyone was just paying lip service.
We're already seeing this with Woke. Youth Culture, for the first time in maybe 80 years, codes more right than left. (This is not obvious to the media which are so clueless about the phenomenon that EVERYTHING that happens under youth culture is misinterpreted, vide the whole Pepe the Frog idiocy. The usual teenage rebellion that has been with us since Chronos tried to eat his kids is misinterpreted as Nazi'ism by a generation of moronic journalists that simply cannot fathom that youngsters are not interested in worshiping the same gods as those journalists.)
I don't think this means we'll stop the nonsense, however. That desire for a total world view will always be with us. Rather we're probably destined for a great awokening every generation or so as a new round of just-become-adults latches onto something or other and insists that it's not just a good idea, it is the law (of the universe).
"In the US it is being replaced with Woke"
Thanks for the clue I could stop reading.
Of course step one of any successful religion is to ensure that devotees never listen to ideas hostile to the religion...
Would have been equally upset if I said that religiosity in Russia in the 1920s was channeled into Communism?
There are many people (from many angles) making the point I am making (just google "woke as gnostic religion"); an especially interesting such author is John McWhorter's "Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America".
But yeah yeah, I know, he's obviously a self-hating black man whose opinions don't count compared to those of know-it white liberals.
Yeah, I find their opinions just as facetious. But nice try with your "my black friend agrees with me" argument.