An interesting breakdown of Colorado data pulled from the recent Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) survey of religiosity in the United States. Some 33% of folk in the state and in Denver report no religious affiliation, Denver being the 4th highest rate there after Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco (the national average is 24%).
On a national basis, 58% of unaffiliated identify as “secular” (not religious) and 27% identify as atheist or agnostic; and 16% define themselves as “religious” but not affiliated with any given church.
39 percent of respondents in Colorado identified as white and Christian, down from to 50 percent in a decade ago. Nationally the number has also dropped to 43%, with 30% identifying as white and Protestant; in 1976 the numbers were 81% and 55%.
On the one hand, these are massive changes, and part and parcel of both declining attendance at traditional churches and the increasingly shrill tones from frightened evangelicals seeing these same sorts of shifts affecting even their own congregations (white evangelical Protestants dropped from 23% of the population in 2006 to only 17% this year).
Some of this is due to demographic changes: immigration, population growth among non-white and mixed race populations, and an increasing willingness to identify as something other than white.
But part is due to basic changes in American religion and spirituality, and it become less (I believe) of a social requirement to be part of a given church in order to meet and mingle and fit in.
There are good and bad aspects to any change. There are plenty of folk (self included) who won’t be sad to see more radical Christianist thought losing support in the American population. But losing some of those social common bonds in idiom and morality lessons carries costs unless we are thoughtful about what we replace them with. People carefully considering their beliefs and choosing a non-religious course and ethos is one thing. People who simply fall away from church-going and organized religion because it’s not a thing anyone does any more is quite another thing.
While the stereotype (and not unfounded one) of preachers swaying masses to drive them toward some goal or another has problematic aspects, if those social / moral bonds of organized religion fade away, what will take their place? What already is taking their place?
Report: In religion as in politics, more Coloradans are unaffiliated – Denverite
Maybe we’re not religious, but spiritual. This is our Number of the Week: 33 percent. That’s the portion of Colorado and Denver residents who reported no religious affiliation in a new study from the Public Religion Research Institute. This makes Colorado one of 20 states in which no single religious group made up a larger share … Continue reading “Report: In religion as in politics, more Coloradans are unaffiliated”
I can't figure out what the distinction is between 'secular' and the terms 'agnostic' and 'atheist'.
I can only see three possibilities: theist, atheist, agnostic.
I was wondering about that myself, +Travis Bird. The article made it sound like secular was a separate group from atheist and/or agnostic. The author's contact information is below the article. Maybe you should ask her to clarify.
You can get into a lot of stupid arguments with people about those definitions.
That atheist means anti-theist. That it means believing in the impossibility of any sort of divinity. Etc. When in fact few people use the terms precisely, and those who do don’t agree with each other a lot of the time.
Living languages, what a pain.
@Randy – The (well, a) down side to identity politics is arguing over what an identity represents.
+Travis Bird +Jason ON It seems to be more a question of how folk identify. There is an initial question that includes "atheist," "agnostic," and "nothing in particular". It appears that the latter group was then asked if they were "religious," "secular, not religious," "spiritual, not religious."
So "atheist" and "agnostic" seem to be labels that particular people take up as conscious descriptions of themselves. Others who are simply "no particular religion/denomination" include folk for whom the question of not believing in God, or being unsure about the existence of God, are not even question or beliefs on the table.
https://www.prri.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/PRRI-AVA-Religion-Topline-2016.pdf
+Dave Hill
Thanks for digging that out. I think I'd just call these 'secular' people 'ignorist'. Although, how anyone with a functioning brain could/would really not put themselves consciously into one of the three boxes just escapes me.
+Travis Bird Closest I can think of is:
Are you a Star Trek fan?
"Yes, I'm a great fan."
"No, I think it's an awful franchise."
"Well, it arguably has some good points and bad points."
vs.
"Never watched it, not particularly interested."
+Dave Hill I see your meaning, but Star Trek is an optional object of reflection.
How do they ignore the existence of everything, themselves included, and never question its cause? Not even enough to answer, "I don't know"?
+Travis Bird It's hard for me to answer, because I'm not that way. But clearly some do.