Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America’s Nonbelievers

 

Author:

Bruce E. Hunsberger, Bob Altemeyer

 

Publisher:

Prometheus Books

 

Date of Publication:

2006

 

ISBN:

978-1591024132

 

Rating:

9

 

Summary:

Scholars of religion in the U.S. know the percentage of Americans who have no religious affiliation is growing (7% in 1990; 16% in 2008), but we also know relatively little about those with no religious affiliation (though this is changing). This book is an attempt to address this lacunae by looking at one small portion of the unaffiliated – atheists. To get a better picture of American atheists, the authors sent questionnaires to members of several atheist groups (in the San Francisco area and in Idaho) and compared the results of those questionnaires to data they have on religious fundamentalists and average parents in Canada (who are so-so religious). While they recognize that members of atheist groups in the U.S. are not representative of atheists in the U.S. generally (they are substantially older for one), it is possible to generalize from this data about activist atheists in the U.S.

So, what do active atheists in the U.S. look like? Since the book is short, so is my summary:

• Most of the active atheists were raised religious and left because of the beliefs of the religion – they didn’t find them compelling. More than anything, reading the Bible led them to start questioning, which ultimately led them to leave religion and become atheists.

  • This is surprising because many religious people believe that the only people who leave religious activity leave because they have sinned or want to sin (e.g., lots of sex and booze). That’s simply not true.

• Men are more likely to be atheists than women.

• Active atheists have more education (almost 17 years) than the average person in the U.S. (between 12 and 13 years).

• Most active atheists were married (57 percent).

• Most active atheists are Democrats (about 60%); only 3% were Republicans (the rest were something else.

• Active atheists don’t believe in the traditional Judeo-Christian God (the fundamentalists in the comparison group the authors use definitely do). You’d think this is a “well, of course” question, but not all members of non-religious groups are actually atheists.

• The authors also looked at some specific characteristics, in particular dogmatism, zealousness, and authoritarianism. Just so we’re clear, dogmatism is an unwillingness to change one’s position, regardless of evidence. Zealousness is one’s determination to spread one’s ideas. And authoritarianism is one’s allegiance to authority.

  • Active atheists are more dogmatic than the average Canadian, but substantially less dogmatic than religious fundamentalists. (I like how the authors summarize this finding, “All of which implies that if the traditional God does exist, an awful lot of atheists are going to miss out on the fact no matter what happens.” p. 66)

  • Active atheists are moderately zealous, more so than the average Canadian. But they “all hold a farthing candle to the sun compared to the intense zeal of the fundamentalists” (p. 71). Religious fundamentalists try to convert everyone, everywhere, regardless of their current beliefs. Active atheists, on the other hand, might make a suggestion or two encouraging critical thinking or non-belief, but they don’t push atheism.

  • Active atheists are extremely anti-authoritarian. They don’t believe religion or atheism should be taught in schools. Religious fundamentalists, on the other hand, want their beliefs taught to everyone, even when they are religious minorities (though they insist that no other beliefs be taught). Again, the authors say this quite succinctly, “Our high fundamentalists, on the other hand, would certainly think it unfair and wrong to have atheism imposed on their children in such schools, but they would approve the forced teaching of their own views to everybody else’s children. That hardly seems in keeping with the Golden Rule.” p. 74.

• The authors also look at ethnocentrism and prejudice. It turns out active atheists are generally not very prejudiced – they have substantially less hostility toward homosexuals and racial/ethnic minorities. But they have higher ratings toward fellow atheists and they basically despise all religious fundamentalists (i.e., Christian, Jewish, or Muslim fundamentalists).

• Finally, active atheists don’t tell everyone they are an atheist, in large part because atheism is still stigmatized. Most of the active atheists in their sample felt like they had been avoided, excluded, or harassed for not believing in god.

Keep in mind the picture painted above of is of active atheists who are members of atheist groups. As I noted at the beginning, and the authors periodically remind the reader, active atheists are not representative of atheists generally. That said, they probably aren’t that far removed from non-active atheists.

The final chapter is actually quite interesting – it’s a collection of reflections by individuals who participated in the study on the findings of the authors. Most of the comments are effusive with praise, but a few take the authors to task for some of their methodology and questions (and some of the criticism are valid). It’s an intriguing way to wrap up the book, but generally the commentary is worth reading.

 

Review:

So, what do I think of the book? Frankly, I loved it. It’s short, to the point, and actually very humorously written. The authors seem to have thrown out academic propriety in writing this and really said what they were thinking. Take this quote for example, “Since we have nothing to lose (one of us is now deceased and the other is so near the end he has forgotten proper grammar)…” (p. 109). As a result, the book is full of subtle jokes and pithy statements. Here’s my favorite example from the book, and it’s definitely not something you would ever find in a book written by a scholar at the beginning of his/her career:

“Aren’t you colossally impressed at how well the authors of this book have predicted the results of this study? We were sure the American atheists would score low on dogmatism, but they came in rather high. Given their high marks in dogmatism, we figured they would be rather zealous, but we were proved wrong. Then we believed these atheists would score low in religious ethnocentrism, and instead the data blew us away. You might well wonder why you are reading this book, given what dunderheads its authors have turned out to be. But we are beholding here the great advantage of scientific investigation: it tells you when you are wrong. And Mother Nature has been particularly forthcoming in this regard in the last three chapters. So read on. We may not have a clue about what the heck’s going on, but we shall find out.” (p. 89)

The authors’ honesty also comes out at the beginning when they reveal where they stand religiously, “A solid majority of North Americans believe in God, according to the polls. A few folks, like the authors of this book, say they honestly do not know and are called agnostics” (p. 11). But this also leads to my only criticism of the book, the authors slightly mischaracterize what it means to be an atheist, “In conclusion, the atheist samples appear to be deep-down, hard-core, all the way to their socks, “I mean it when I say it” atheists. They deny the existence of any sort of divine being” (p. 37). I’m a little surprised by this statement given the authors’ keen understanding of so many other aspects of atheism. But I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that being an atheist simply means you lack belief in a deity, not that you deny the existence of any sort of divine being. Admittedly some of the respondents in this book said they denied the existence of deity, but most atheists (and we are all atheists toward one god or another) don’t deny the existence of a deity, they simply lack belief. It’s a subtle distinction, but an important one philosophically.

The book also includes a few other important and noteworthy insights. The authors point out early on that Canada actually used to be more religious than the U.S., but is now substantially less so (p. 14). And, in line with an earlier book by the same authors (Amazing Converts), they attribute the lack of religiosity and religious belief of the atheists to socialization, “Highly intelligent children, the sort likely to attend university later, are rewarded over and over again for getting “the right answer” as they grow up. And they may come to value getting the right answer so much that they will pay a significant price rather than settle for something that does not make sense to them” (p. 56). In other words, atheists leave religions seeking truth and understanding; being right is more important to them than feeling comfortable.

Overall, this is a great little study of activist atheists. Still missing is a comprehensive study of average atheists in the U.S. (and if you’re planning such a study, do let me know as I’d love to be involved). It’s a quick, easy, enjoyable read for anyone who wants to pick it up. I highly recommend it. And, as a bonus, here’s a final quote from one of the commentators that gave me a good laugh toward the end of the book, “I am reminded of an atheist friend of mine who told me once that she spends about 50% of her time trying to get other atheists to understand that not all Christians are “hateful fundamentalists” and the other 50% of her time dealing with “hateful fundamentalists” (p. 133)… So true!

This entry was posted on Thursday, March 13th, 2008 at 8:31 am and is filed under religion, reviews, sociology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.