Pew Reports about the Future of Religion

[rousseau]

The Changing Global Religious Landscape

Babies born to Muslims will begin to outnumber Christian births by 2035; people with no religion face a birth dearth

Growing shares of Christians and Muslims expected to live in Sub-Saharan Africa

The majority of the global unaffiliated populated lives in Asia and the Pacific

Europe's Growing Muslim Population

Muslims are projected to increase as a share of Europe’s population – even with no future migration

The Gender Gap in Religion Around the World

Women are generally more religious than men, particularly among Christians

Religious and Education Around the World

Large gaps in education levels persist, but all faiths are making gains – particularly among women

 

[rousseau]

I should add that the links to the reports themselves are detailed and very interesting, but I've highlighted the biggest points.

 

[Jobar]

I find this interesting. From Educational attainment among the religiously unaffiliated-

Sidebar: Does more education lead to less religion?

Some scholars have hypothesized that as education levels increase, many people will shed religious identity and turn to science or other nonreligious sources for answers to life’s most important questions.19 If this secularization theory is accurate, one might expect that countries with higher levels of education would have larger shares of people who do not identify with a religion, and that, on average, religiously unaffiliated people (sometimes called religious “nones”) would have higher levels of education than those who identify with a religion.

This study provides mixed evidence; there is some global data that seems to support secularization theory, but at the country level, the pattern is murky.

At the global level, religiously unaffiliated adults are more highly educated than affiliated adults (as measured by average years of schooling). On average, religiously unaffiliated adults have 1.3 more years of schooling than religiously affiliated adults (8.8 years vs. 7.5 years).

Why do religious “nones” have an educational advantage when viewed at the global level? One reason is that they are disproportionately concentrated in countries with relatively high overall levels of educational attainment. Large shares of the global unaffiliated population reside in highly educated countries such as Japan, South Korea, the United States and the nations of Western Europe. By contrast, relatively few religiously unaffiliated adults live in sub-Saharan Africa, which is the region with the lowest overall level of educational attainment. The global population of religiously affiliated adults shows a different pattern: It is more spread out across countries that have all levels of educational attainment.

Individual countries with high educational attainment also tend to have relatively large shares of religiously unaffiliated adults compared with countries with lower attainment. There are countries that break this pattern, however, and have relatively small shares of unaffiliated adults despite high educational attainment (for example, Georgia and Israel). And China is also a clear outlier: Although educational attainment is relatively modest (7.4 years of schooling, on average), more than half of Chinese adults do not identify with a religious group.

Indeed, when affiliated and unaffiliated adults are compared within countries, religious “nones” do not consistently have an educational advantage, especially among those in the youngest generation.20 There are 76 countries in this study with data on the youngest generation (born 1976 to 1985) of religiously unaffiliated adults. In 32 of those countries, religious “nones” in this generation have a similar number of years of schooling as their religiously affiliated peers (a difference of less than half a year of schooling). In 28 countries, the unaffiliated are less educated than the affiliated by at least half a year of schooling. And in 16 countries, the youngest “nones” are more highly educated than their religiously affiliated compatriots by at least half a year.

In countries where the religiously unaffiliated make up a large share of the population – that is, 20% or more – differences in educational attainment between the youngest cohorts of unaffiliated and affiliated people are often small. For instance, there is a difference of less than half a year of schooling between the two groups in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Australia, New Zealand, China, South Korea, Japan and the Czech Republic.

In some countries, there are important educational differences within unaffiliated populations. Although data on the educational attainment of self-described atheists, who make up one category of religious “nones” (along with agnostics and people who describe their religion as “nothing in particular”), was not available for most countries in this report, analysis of survey data collected by Pew Research Center finds that atheists in the United States and France are significantly more likely than adults who say their religion is “nothing in particular” to have post-secondary degrees. But in Germany, Spain, United Kingdom, Australia, Uruguay and China, differences in post-secondary attainment between atheists and adults with no particular religion are not statistically significant.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If these surveys had taken place hundreds of years ago they would have predicted the extinction of atheists by now, yet atheists and non religious are here in percentages greater than ever before. So what gives?

I think the answer is simply that when confronted with a practical contradiction between scientific discovery and religious dogma, scientific discovery has been the clear winner. And this only makes sense. Maybe our ancestors performed sacred rituals before they broke stone to make their tools and weapons, rituals which have been forgotten because with or without the rituals the stone tools worked the same.

Kepler has always been the poster child for this line of reasoning. Despite his devoutness, he was willing to accept the science, even though it contradicted his religious teachings and dogma.

For humanity to reenter another Religiously dominated Dark Age there would have to be some type cataclysm. But even then history indicates that we would most likely again be willing to shed that restrictive and cumbersome religious clothing for practical gain and advantage.

Religion is just another player in the game of Natural Selection.

 

[southernhybrid]

Considering the declining quality of basic education in the US, I think we may be in for a lot of disappointment regarding the decline of religious influence on our society. Most people have no understanding of the concept of evolution. Most people never question what they've been told to believe. And, at least in the US, there are countless numbers of physicians and nurses who are very religious, despite studying science in depth. One of the most educated, intelligent nurses I've ever worked with, went totally bonkers when I told her I was an atheist. It shocked me because I assumed that someone with an advanced degree in a science related subject, who was also very smart, would at least be a lot more tolerant, or would at least have adopted a less severe version of the Christian belief system.

Here in my town, most of the doctors are very religious. I wonder if the local culture has much to do with whether or not an individual decides to give serious thought to his/her religious beliefs. I've also read that in countries that have an adequate safety net, the percentage of religious people is far lower than in countries where the safety net is inadequate or doesn't exist at all. That would certainly explain why religion is on the decrease in some of the more progressive European countries.

 

[rousseau]

If these surveys had taken place hundreds of years ago they would have predicted the extinction of atheists by now, yet atheists and non religious are here in percentages greater than ever before. So what gives?

I think the answer is simply that when confronted with a practical contradiction between scientific discovery and religious dogma, scientific discovery has been the clear winner. And this only makes sense. Maybe our ancestors performed sacred rituals before they broke stone to make their tools and weapons, rituals which have been forgotten because with or without the rituals the stone tools worked the same.

Kepler has always been the poster child for this line of reasoning. Despite his devoutness, he was willing to accept the science, even though it contradicted his religious teachings and dogma.

For humanity to reenter another Religiously dominated Dark Age there would have to be some type cataclysm. But even then history indicates that we would most likely again be willing to shed that restrictive and cumbersome religious clothing for practical gain and advantage.

Religion is just another player in the game of Natural Selection.

To me, that's a part of it. Also the fact that scientific revelation (or any philosophy) among a population is a result of economic prosperity.

A good case study is pre-colonial natives in South America. Back then, the more robust the society the more complex the ontology became. Hunter-gatherers didn't practice much, while empires like the Inca had systems of poly-theism. So what is knowledge and philosophy, really? The result of learning. And learning is possible when people are free from fighting for the basic elements of survival. And so we should expect atheism to be more prominent in places with robust economies and education systems.

If you're a resident of a poor country in the third world it's hard to learn much about the world when your teachers aren't well educated either because there are no funds to pay them.

The distinction between the past and future now, though, is that scientific knowledge now exists and can be distributed even despite socio-economic barriers. So I would expect atheism to start growing at a faster rate than it has historically.

 

[bilby]

Religion appears to be a result of exposure to uncertainty, and the absence of religion to be the result of stability and comfort.

Farmers and sailors live at the whim of the weather; Religion gives them the comforting illusion of at least some degree of control over this uncontrollable and largely unpredictable influence on their success or failure. Unsurprisingly, farmers and sailors are more religious than city dwellers, particularly city dwellers in stable and wealthy nations, where the hazards facing those citizens are few and minor - and what few remain are to some extent amenable to genuine control (You can reduce your risk of being hit by a car by looking both ways before crossing the street; You can reduce your risk of being mugged by avoiding certain areas of town; You can reduce your risk of losing your life savings by diversifying your investments).

Education tends to be better for city dwellers, and in particular for the wealthy ones in wealthy nations; But I suspect that education itself isn't the main driver of areligiosity - safety, comfort and security simply render religion needless, while also providing the necessary conditions for widespread access to an effective education.

Religion doesn't go away because people who are smart and well informed think themselves out of it (religion isn't about thought, it's about belief); It persists because people who are fearful, and subject to forces beyond their control, lean on it as a hoped-for means to improve their fate; and it disappears when fear is replaced by hope, and risk by stability. What education does, perhaps, is to stop people who have stopped needing religion from saying 'I am Church of England' (through force of habit and tradition) and to instead make them notice that as they only go to church for weddings, funerals and births, and never give a thought to religion at all the rest of the time (maybe at Easter and Christmas, but only to please Gran), that they are in fact 'nothing in particular' or 'none'.

Very few people bother to go deeply enough into self awareness to say 'I am an Atheist'. After all, what's the point? People are generally apathetic about the "big questions", as long as they expect to live a stable and comfortable life.

A correlation of atheism and education amongst the nones is to be expected; But I would expect the strongest predictor of 'no religion' (ie atheists, nones, and nothing in particulars) amongst people as a whole, to be safety and stability. And this is what we see - The USA is an outlier when we look for a link between education and areligiosity, with similar educational levels to Europe, Canada and Australasia, but FAR more religion. This anomaly goes away when you realize that a comfortably middle class European, Canadian or Australasian has to suffer many and repeated misfortunes before he is destitute; While a USAian need only suffer a minor medical issue not covered by his insurance, or incur the disfavour of his employer for some trivial reason, and their entire world could collapse almost overnight.

A middle class USAian has wealth and comfort at the same level as, or even higher than, his counterpart in Europe; But the USAian is on a tightrope, while the European is on a wide bridge, with high railings and a safety net slung beneath. It's no wonder that the USAians feel the need for prayer.

 

[rousseau]

Religion appears to be a result of exposure to uncertainty, and the absence of religion to be the result of stability and comfort.

Farmers and sailors live at the whim of the weather; Religion gives them the comforting illusion of at least some degree of control over this uncontrollable and largely unpredictable influence on their success or failure. Unsurprisingly, farmers and sailors are more religious than city dwellers, particularly city dwellers in stable and wealthy nations, where the hazards facing those citizens are few and minor - and what few remain are to some extent amenable to genuine control (You can reduce your risk of being hit by a car by looking both ways before crossing the street; You can reduce your risk of being mugged by avoiding certain areas of town; You can reduce your risk of losing your life savings by diversifying your investments).

Education tends to be better for city dwellers, and in particular for the wealthy ones in wealthy nations; But I suspect that education itself isn't the main driver of areligiosity - safety, comfort and security simply render religion needless, while also providing the necessary conditions for widespread access to an effective education.

Religion doesn't go away because people who are smart and well informed think themselves out of it (religion isn't about thought, it's about belief); It persists because people who are fearful, and subject to forces beyond their control, lean on it as a hoped-for means to improve their fate; and it disappears when fear is replaced by hope, and risk by stability. What education does, perhaps, is to stop people who have stopped needing religion from saying 'I am Church of England' (through force of habit and tradition) and to instead make them notice that as they only go to church for weddings, funerals and births, and never give a thought to religion at all the rest of the time (maybe at Easter and Christmas, but only to please Gran), that they are in fact 'nothing in particular' or 'none'.

Very few people bother to go deeply enough into self awareness to say 'I am an Atheist'. After all, what's the point? People are generally apathetic about the "big questions", as long as they expect to live a stable and comfortable life.

A correlation of atheism and education amongst the nones is to be expected; But I would expect the strongest predictor of 'no religion' (ie atheists, nones, and nothing in particulars) amongst people as a whole, to be safety and stability. And this is what we see - The USA is an outlier when we look for a link between education and areligiosity, with similar educational levels to Europe, Canada and Australasia, but FAR more religion. This anomaly goes away when you realize that a comfortably middle class European, Canadian or Australasian has to suffer many and repeated misfortunes before he is destitute; While a USAian need only suffer a minor medical issue not covered by his insurance, or incur the disfavour of his employer for some trivial reason, and their entire world could collapse almost overnight.

A middle class USAian has wealth and comfort at the same level as, or even higher than, his counterpart in Europe; But the USAian is on a tightrope, while the European is on a wide bridge, with high railings and a safety net slung beneath. It's no wonder that the USAians feel the need for prayer.

I agree with this in part, but wouldn't think that education is completely correlative, and not at all causative. And I wouldn't even say it's 'education' per se, but rather an alternative to religion actually existing within a society.

If you're born in a country with no access to the outside world, and the only social information you have access to are the 10 families around you in your village. If none of those families have any scientific understanding, than neither do you. In this instance atheism isn't really possible in an epistemological sense. If we look at a continent like Africa, I'm assuming there are a great number of pockets of people who do not have access to scientific information.

OTOH, if you live in somewhere like Canada you learn about science by default for the first 10 years of school. In a lot of cases people are going to come to accept scientific understanding as a normal part of reality, even if they don't state it as such and don't have much intrinsic understanding. They might even have an intuitive sense that religion isn't real, but not really care to take the conversation any further than that.

So I'd think that many people do rely on religion when times are tough and uncertainty is high, this is just a human tendency. But at the same time, whether or not you've actually been given the ability to understand science/evolution should be a real factor. And so in your example in the U.S., there is probably some truth to it, but at the same time the States also has some of the worst education systems in the Western world, and so lack of scientific understanding should be a factor as well.

We're seeing this type of thing play out in the Middle East right now as Western philosophies are slowly seeping in, and atheist/secular movements are growing.

 

[Jobar]

If you're born in a country with no access to the outside world, and the only social information you have access to are the 10 families around you in your village. If none of those families have any scientific understanding, than neither do you. In this instance atheism isn't really possible in an epistemological sense. If we look at a continent like Africa, I'm assuming there are a great number of pockets of people who do not have access to scientific information.

True- but the Internet is global, and even the tiniest villages are becoming more likely to have a solar- or wind-powered computer, linked to a satellite or cellular system. Scientific information is spreading, and that information makes for better, safer and healthier lives for the people who have access to it.

Also true that the are groups like Boko Haram which resist that spread with atrocious violence; but given the medical, agricultural, and technical advantages that even simple science can provide to those living in primitive conditions, I think such reactionaries are trying to stop an incoming tide by bailing with buckets.

 

[rousseau]

If you're born in a country with no access to the outside world, and the only social information you have access to are the 10 families around you in your village. If none of those families have any scientific understanding, than neither do you. In this instance atheism isn't really possible in an epistemological sense. If we look at a continent like Africa, I'm assuming there are a great number of pockets of people who do not have access to scientific information.

True- but the Internet is global, and even the tiniest villages are becoming more likely to have a solar- or wind-powered computer, linked to a satellite or cellular system. Scientific information is spreading, and that information makes for better, safer and healthier lives for the people who have access to it.

Also true that the are groups like Boko Haram which resist that spread with atrocious violence; but given the medical, agricultural, and technical advantages that even simple science can provide to those living in primitive conditions, I think such reactionaries are trying to stop an incoming tide by bailing with buckets.

Yep, it was more just an example to illustrate the point.

Which was that individual ontology throughout history has a lot to do with what can be known by the subject. So to understand science, that information needs to be transmitted by the immediate environment. And just a couple hundred years ago most scientific knowledge didn't exist at all.

I always find it funny when people are alarmed at backwards thinking 'in 2018'.. when the entire globe was shrouded in pseudo-science as recently as 100 years ago.

 

[lpetrich]

The Number of Americans with No Religious Affiliation Is Rising - Scientific American by Michael Shermer.

He notes what many others have noted, but he notes a way of getting around social disapproval when counting atheists.

In a paper in the January 2018 issue of the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science entitled “How Many Atheists Are There?”, Will M. Gervais and Maxine B. Najle, both psychologists at the University of Kentucky, contend that there may be far more atheists than pollsters report because “social pressures favoring religiosity, coupled with stigma against religious disbelief..., might cause people who privately disbelieve in God to nonetheless self-present as believers, even in anonymous questionnaires.”

To work around this problem of self-reported data, the psychologists employed what is called an unmatched count technique, which has been previously validated for estimating the size of other underreported cohorts, such as the LGBTQ community. They contracted with YouGov to conduct two surveys of 2,000 American adults each, for a total of 4,000 subjects, asking participants to indicate how many innocuous versus sensitive statements on a list were true for them. The researchers then applied a Bayesian probability estimation to compare their results with similar Gallup and Pew polls of 2,000 American adults each. From this analysis, they estimated, with 93 percent certainty, that somewhere between 17 and 35 percent of Americans are atheists, with a “most credible indirect estimate” of 26 percent.