Secularization in America? Not so fast

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 18 February 2018

Is America becoming secular like the rest of the western industrialized world? Most scholars of this topic would say yes as well as, I think, most people would. A recently published paper, using the same data that others have used to conclude that secularization is occurring, comes to a different conclusion.

People vary in their commitment to things, whether it be politics, being a fan of a sports team, a volunteer in the community or religion. Scholars generally divide people into three broad groups based on their religious commitment: little to no commitment/practice (the secular); moderate; and intense. How these categories are specifically defined may differ by study, but generally they show the same thing. Other western industrial countries show an average reduction in the proportion of religious practitioners as well as intensity. This seemed to be the case for the United States as well, until Professors Schnabel and Bock published their article last November (www.sociologicalscience.com/download/vol- /november/SocSci_v4_686to700.pdf).

They disaggregated, meaning break out different groups from the whole, the “not religious,” the moderately religious, and the most intensely religious. While it is true that when aggregated it does appear that Americans are becoming more secular, as the cliché goes, the devil is in the details.

Periodic U.S. data from 1989 to 2016 shows an increase in the proportion of no affiliation with religion, from just under 10 percent to 20 percent. Among those with moderate affiliation, a decline from about 57 to about 42 percent. But among the intensely affiliated, virtually no change from 1989 to 2016 at about 38 percent. These trends suggest that “secularization” is occurring among the moderately affiliated only. The intensely affiliated seem unaffected.

Church attendance shows a similar pattern. There is a drop in sometime church attendance of about 6 percentage points and an uptick in never attend of the same with those who attend multiple times per week holding steady at about 9 percent.

A similar pattern holds for one’s view of the Bible, a steady third view the Bible as the literal work of God, while those who view it as inspired by God but not literal declined by about 5 percentage points and those who view the Bible as a book of fables, increased by 5 percentage points.

Examining prayer, however, shows a different but revealing pattern. Those who do not pray or pray once a week or less are remaining steady at about 22 percent, but those who pray sometimes have dropped from about 52 percent to 48 percent. However, those who pray multiple times a day has increased from about 22 to about 30 percent. This suggests that the movement in praying is from sometimes to multiple times a day, not to less praying.

The authors conclude, contrary to most others, that America is an exception to the otherwise secularizing trends found in other western industrial countries. While the authors admit that it would be possible to just call this an American path to secularization, they prefer to conclude that America is becoming increasingly polarized religiously between the intensely religious and the (more) secular.

The authors argue that this is happening due to the increasing politicization of religion, especially among the most intensely religious. This has turned off the moderately religious, a form of backlash to the increasing politicization. Ultimately, the authors conclude: "… although religion is simply becoming less salient in other societies, it remains important in the public sphere and central to cultural divides in the United States. Therefore, rather than following the pattern we would expect on the basis of the secularization thesis, American religion remains persistently and exceptionally intense."

An implication of this research is that although the portion of the U.S. that is intensely religious has remained constant, in order to do so means that their absolute numbers are growing. The U.S. population has grown by more than 76 million people during the study period (1989-2016). If the intensely religious amount to about 38 percent of the U.S. population, then they have grown by almost 29 million over that period. That is 29 million highly likely conservative voters.

With the growing secularization of the rest of the population, we may find that the intensely religious do find themselves to be a minority in an otherwise secular nation. How will an otherwise secular nation view and treat the significant (and probably more politically powerful than their numbers would otherwise suggest) intensely religious?

Thomas L. Steiger is a professor of sociology and director of the Center for Student Research and Creativity at Indiana State University. Email thomas.steiger@indstate.edu.

Nothing to like about lack of scientific knowledge in U.S.

previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star 2/1/09

TERRE HAUTE — “Don’t you like America?” A student asked me that question in a class last week. What prompted such a question? I was discussing science and stated that Americans generally do not understand what science is. Indeed, a few minutes prior to the student’s question I asked this class of 80 students, “what is science?” I got no response.

As I answered my own question (a philosophy of knowledge) I was going over the limits to science which has something to do with the kind of question that science can answer. The student raised her hand right after I said that Americans’ lack of scientific understanding caused us to waste considerable energy arguing over the teaching of evolution in school and global warming.

I am probably over-reacting, but I teach a lot of first- and second-year students in that class. Students change over time. They are products of the times, the product of the state approved high school curriculum, they are even influenced by the president of the United States. Students were more conservative in the Reagan years and, without knowing what they were doing, embraced the romantic post-modernism of President Bush. I hope future cohorts of students embrace President Obama’s inaugural promise to “… restore science to its rightful place …”

Is it disliking America to cite the National Center for Educational Statistics report on an international comparison OECD (Organization of Economic Co-Operation and Development) member states on the scientific literacy of 15 year olds, that U.S. 15 year olds’ score was below average? Countries like Canada, Germany, and Australia have higher scientific literacy scores than the U.S. So does Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Estonia. Does the stating of these facts equal bashing America?

There is a correlation of .61 between the scientific literacy scores of 56 countries (both OECD and nonOECD) and average life expectancy. In other words, as the scientific literacy scores increase so does average life expectancy. This doesn’t prove that scientific literacy causes a longer average life expectancy, but economic and social development, which does have something to do with life expectancy, is related to scientific literacy.

There are 30 countries in the OECD. Fifteen of them scored higher than our 15 year olds did on scientific literacy. Ten of those 15 countries have a higher life expectancy than we do. Is our lack of scientific literacy shortening our average life expectancy? It is a good thing that we welcome other countries’ scientists and science students with open arms. Too few native born Americans pursue scientific careers to supply the demand for them.

According to the 2000 Census, there were 582,000 physical and life scientists in the United States. In a labor force of just under 130 million workers, scientists make up less than one-half of 1 percent. If we add engineers to that total, then 1.6 percent of the workforce is made up of scientists and engineers. There are significant shortages of scientists and engineers in this country. There are about as many entertainers in the U.S. as there are scientists. There are about as many people who “sell” things as there are scientists and engineers.

No one should be surprised to learn that there are more lawyers than scientists in the United States. I can’t find the data to make the following claim, but I’ll bet there are more foreign born citizens among our scientists and engineers than among our lawyers and vast marketing and selling industry.

At ISU far more students major in criminal justice (in order to work in law enforcement or corrections) than major in science or mathematics. Of course, not everyone who majors in science ends up working as a scientist, but their scientific literacy is likely greater than the criminal justice majors. And more “literate” people help everyone in society, not just themselves.

In the most scientifically and technologically advanced society in history, where the unquestioned assumptions of science are common sensical, is it unreasonable to expect that our citizens should know what science is? Shouldn’t Americans be able to differentiate science from political/public opinion as easily as we differentiate an iPod from just any mp3 player? Shouldn’t we be able to differentiate between religion and science?

As a sociologist and citizen, I point out that we don’t do a very good job at it. Does that mean I dislike America? If it does, then my next question is, who or what groups in our society benefit from such ignorance?

I lack self-discipline. According to studies I should go to church

Happy New Year. How many resolutions have you already broken, just short of 10 hours into the new year? I don't make such resolutions, so I am good.

While procrastinating on this lit review I need to write (made a bit of progress yesterday...sort of), I found this article regarding a psychologist's comprehensive review of literature. I've learned that the science press oftens distorts findings to make a "better" read. The article's title, I think, is probably misleading. Religion May Have Evolved Because Of Its Ability To Help People Exercise Self-control

Buried in the article is the author's point, and the really important one, is that religion is a "social force." An excerpt:

McCullough's review of the research on religion and self-control contributes to
a better understanding of "how the same social force that motivates acts of
charity and generosity can also motivate people to strap bomb belts around their
waists and then blow themselves up in crowded city buses," he explained. "By
thinking of religion as a social force that provides people with resources for
controlling their impulses (including the impulse for self-preservation, in some
cases) in the service of higher goals, religion can motivate people to do just
about anything."

While the psychologist reviewed studies of religion from several disciplines, I'd argue that examining any organization with a strong, definite ideology, too, will show very similar results. How about political revolutionaries? Of course those who wish to claim a "magical" element to regligion could argue that the revolutionaries are also "religious." Yup, like Lenin or Mao and their followers?

"Self" has to do with "identity" and identity has to do with one's social status in groups.

One group that I think would be interesting to compare would be academics, especially "scientists" who tend to be less religious than other disciplines and see how they compare to regular religious folk in terms of self control, goal achieving, health, etc. You see, the academy is a lot like a medieval church.

UPDATE: lacking in self-discipline (or not having procrastinated enough) I missed the NYT article on this same study. Proving why the NYT is a leading newspaper, that article is much better than the one cited above. The NYT article hits on the same themes I suggested above as a counter view to the first article. Here is the article.