Joseph Langston, Joseph Hammer,RyanCragun&MaryEllen Sikes Inside The Minds and Movement of America’sNonbelievers: Organizational Functions, (Non)Participation, and Attitudes Toward Religion
1Introduction
Both Campbell’s Toward aSociology of Irreligion (1971)and Budd’s Varieties of Unbelief (1977) described how some members of the secular/freethought move- ments in late 19th centuryBritaintook amilitant approach to religious doctrines, theology, the Bible, and the authority of the church. To these individuals, religion was, at best,nonsense,and, at worst,harmful. Other members preferred amore conciliatory approach characterized by politeness and civility.The latter’sgoal was obtaining respectability and social acceptance for secularists and atheists. It was their view that the formerhostileapproach barred thosewho possessed “advanced religious opinions” from the desired circle of increased social status and thus out of positions of political influence. Indeed, Budd described this di- vision in terms of “militant” and “respectable” wings(Budd 1977,46, 49,69), re- ferring to them also as “negative” and “positive” secularism, respectively (also see Rectenwald, this volume). There are similar divisions between conciliatory and militant views and ap- proaches to secular,humanist,atheist,and freethought (SHAF) movement acti- vism in America today(see Fazzino and Cragun, this volume; Kettell 2013). The noted similaritybetween this issue todayand as described by Campbell and Budd served as the impetusfor the study that follows. Has this tension persisted across time, space, and culture? If so, why? Obviouslythe context covered by Campbell and Budd was quite different from contemporary America,and yet, the term “accommodationist” has come to characterize the conciliatory position for modern American nonbelievers. This termisoften appliedpejoratively to nonbelievers who are accommodationists by nonbelievers who are not,¹ whereas
The term “accommodationist” was previouslyand still is used to refer to those whothink that scienceand religion can be accommodated with one another.Wepoint this out to avoid confu- sion with the term’sother,morecontemporary usage in referringtoaccommodation of nonbe- lievers with the existenceofreligion.
OpenAccess. ©2017 Joseph Langston, Joseph Hammer,Ryan Cragun &MaryEllen Sikes, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the CreativeCommons Attribution-NonCommercial-No- Derivatives 4.0 License. https:// doi.org/10.1515/9783110458657-011 192 Joseph Langston, Joseph Hammer,RyanCragun &MaryEllen Sikes those who wish for the elimination of religion have come to be known as “New Atheists”—whether or not such individuals self-consciouslysubscribe to this label. Campbell (1971,37–38, 43,54) referenced these attitudes with the terms “eliminationists” (or “abolitionists”²)and “substitutionists” (or the “replace- ment” view), although it should be clear thatCampbell’ssubstitutionists need not be today’saccommodationists, and vice versa. Modern discourse in Ameri- can SHAFcommunities does not identify substitutionismand accommodation- ism as necessarilycommensurate, although some contemporary examples of substitutionists in America would include Ethical Culture, some Unitarian Uni- versalist congregations or individuals,and the SundayAssembly(see chapters by Smith and Frost in this volume). We offer that modernNew Atheism in Amer- ica can still be understood in the same mannerdescribed by Campbell in ex- pounding on eliminationism/abolitionism; that is, for our purposes, these terms describe the same attitudinal approach to religion. Regarding the similarity across place and time, we wondered: what is the “big picture” when it comes to conflicts, schisms, or divisions that might charac- terize movement participation and SHAFgroups in modern America?Nonbeliev- ers in America have been described as aparticularlycontentious group, prone to fragmentation, and an inability to be organized (although see Smith 2013,84, who suggests that such problems are becomingathing of the past;also see Ci- mino and Smith 2011, 36). Yet, it is not clear how or whythis makes them any more disintegratedthanother social forms of organization, ecclesiastical or oth- erwise; in fact,wewould observethat instability,inter-and intra-organization contentions, and in-fighting are characteristic of most social movements. Point- edly, Cimino and Smith (2011,36) stated that “publics open to internal antago- nism are publics thatare active,not fractured.” But,inthe specific case of non- believers and their movement,certain unanswered questions remained. What do nonbelievers who are or are not members of these groups think about the actual or hypotheticalgoals of these groups?What werethese groups doing that might attract or repel greater support?What weregroups,leaders, or activists doing that turned people away or polarized either participation in or opinion about the movement?Why didn’tnonbelievers who werenot members, and never had been, join these groups?When we noticed that the dynamic of elimination- ism and accommodationismwas present then, in Britain, and now,inthe United States,these werethe kindsofadditional questions that sprang to mind. While
“Eliminationism is the belief that religion has proved to be erroneous and harmful and thus needs to be abolished” (345). “Substitutionists…are moreconcerned with buildingamovement which can effectively displacereligion in all its major functionsand thus they favour aless cen- tralised structurecapable of meetingthe needs of its members” (345). InsideThe Minds and Movement of America’sNonbelievers 193 some non-empirical literature spoketothese issues, empirical investigations of these questions were nowheretobefound in previous studies of atheismand nonbelief, so we set out in apioneering effort to address these questions.
1.1 Previous Research
Afew contemporarystudies address the eliminationist-accommodationistdy- namic. Kettell (2013,2014), LeDrew (2012,2014, 2015), and Cimino and Smith (2007, 2010,2011) all described contention among individual nonbelievers and their groups since the inception of New Atheism in the first decade of the 21st century.Their work points to differences between New Atheists and those non- believers who seek, at the most,cooperation and solidarity with religious groups and individuals on social and political issues of mutualconcern, or at the least, polite coexistence. While these twopositions are not necessarilymutuallyexclu- sive,they can be identified as separate strategies or approaches endorsed by dif- ferent individuals (Kettell 2013). Kettell (2014, 381), regarding “the atheist movement” in America as awhole, suggested thatithad four aims: reducingthe influenceofreligion in the public sphere; criticizing religious belief and promotingatheism; improvingcivil rights and the social statusofatheists; and community building and group cohesion. Echoing Kettell, but referringtoNew Atheism specifically, Schulzke (2013) descri- bed it as “alooselydefined movement that[…]isnot aclearlystated ideology and […]lacks clear leadership as asocial movement.Nevertheless,itispossible to identify pointsofagreement that manyormostNew Atheistsshare, as well as their disagreements with other variants of atheism” (780). New Atheists aggres- sively and unapologetically challengeboththe metaphysical claims made by dif- ferent religions and religious influenceonsocial life, science,and politics. This approach sets them apart from previous forms of nonbelief, in terms of their high-publicity critiquesofboth Christianity and Islam,and an unwillingness to compromise or coexistwith monotheistic religion (Csaszar 2010;Kettell 2013;McAnulla 2014). Notably, for Schulzke, the New Atheists are differentiated from both pre 20th century atheists and modern atheists inclined towardaccom- modationismbyagreater emphasis on political instead of theological opposition to religion (i.e., the New Atheists advance “aform of political liberalism thatco- heres to coreliberal doctrines” [2013,779]) and by their confidenceinscience, particularlythe natural sciences (Cragun2014). By contrast,then, New Atheism seeks to supersede traditional atheism by attacking religion’sincursion into the public sphere; by preventing religion from being an “alternate discourse” along- 194 Joseph Langston, Joseph Hammer,RyanCragun &MaryEllen Sikes side science; and by elevatingatheism as apolitical cause rather than merelya personal,and thus private, perspective (Schulzke 2013). Kettell (2013,66–67)described amore moderate approach to religion within the broader nonbeliever movement.Individuals endorsing this position tend to criticize the New Atheist approach for being an “anti-position” thatsubordinates “the affirmation of ethical values, humanisticvirtues, and democratic princi- ples” (Cimino and Smith 2011,35). Some members of the SHAF/nonbeliever movement who are not New Atheists could be said to desire aneutralpublic arena that is equallyshared by all (or at least one devoid of anyundue bias to- ward one specific religious tradition). Their approach is characterized more by tolerance, coexistence, and agreater focus on the positive as opposed to negative constitutive attributes of nontheism. Both New Atheists and the more moderate nonbelievers appear to equallyshare adesire for the separation of churchand state, but there is conflict over the style or character of approach that should be used in dealing with religious others, as well as conflict over whether it is more important to improvethe imageand reputation of nonbelievers (Cimino and Smith 2011;Kettell 2013) versus achieving progress toward areligion-free public sphere. In general, then, New Atheists, as eliminationists, are more likely to think overt hostility is both necessary and justified in the struggle against both the influence and existence of religion, whereas othernonbelievers, as accommo- dationists, think that amorerespectful or less hostile approach is likelier to ach- ievethe desired end of reducing undue religious influence, while leaving religion extant. Because no research to date has collected data on nonbeliever attitudes re- garding movement goals and how best to approach religion, we set out to exam- ine issues that might serveasthe arenas of conflict—the “fractures” thatexist among Americannonbelievers—as opposed to theiragreements. Our study was referred to as Atheism Looking In (Langston, Hammer, and Cragun 2014); we wereinterested in what secularists, humanists, atheists, freethinkers,and nonbelievers in general thought about the broader nonbeliever movement and its aims, and their relation to it.Inparticular, we were interested in examining attitudes indicative of hostility,orlack thereof, toward religious influenceand religious beliefs. As such, we looselysaw our studyasakind of organizational study, but our approach was to examine the movement and its groups through the perceptions of the members who made them up, whether affiliated or not, rather than groups themselvesasunits of analysis. InsideThe Minds and Movement of America’sNonbelievers 195
2Method: Survey and Sample
We sent arecruitment email to over 100 American SHAF organizations that were located on the Internet and in various directories on, or maintained by,these groups.The email requested participation in our studyand contained ahyper- link to our Qualtrics survey.The first pageofthe surveycontained an informed consent,which specified who was eligible to participate (i.e. those who had re- sided in the U.S. at least five years or who wereU.S. citizens; 18 years of ageor older). The survey was operational from January 11th, 2014,toFebruary 9th, 2014.Atotal of 2,527respondents started the survey,with 2,006 completingit. After codingand cleaning the data, atotal nonrandom sample of 1,939cases re- mained, all of which had completeresponses to all questions. All data reported in results here are based on these cases, except where noted. Respondents from every U.S. state were represented, from alow of three in Hawaii to ahighof149 from Texas. Thirty-two respondents said they did not live in the United States, but data for these were kept underthe assumption that these wereU.S.citizens living abroad. In order to analyticallyaddress organizational involvement and identity,we divided our final sample into four categories: members of manySHAF groups (“MGs” for “ManyGroups”; n=581, 29.9 %); members of just one group (“OGs” for “One Group”; n=356,18.3%); respondents who wereonce members of at least one group but werenot members of anygroups at the time of the sur- vey(“FMs” for “Former Members”; n=222,11.4%); and respondents who had never been members of such groups (“SNAs” for “Secular Nonaffiliates”; n= 780, 40.2%). This distinction served as aprimary means to analyze differences on other questions asked in the study. First,weasked nonbelievers about their preferred identity labels,and about their preferences for the goals, activities, and functions of nonbeliever groups (some of which reference within-group activities, with others referencing exter- nal activities oriented towardreligion or the public).Second, we asked MGs, OGs, and FMswhy they thought SNAs did not join nonbeliever groups,and we compared their answers side-by-sidewith the actual reasons givenby SNAs.Third,weexamined aseries of attitudinalquestions about approaches to religion, religious believers,and religious beliefs. Fourth, we asked about re- spondent willingness to include in their communities what maybeunpopular social or political opinions, and we also asked how manysecular nonaffiliates the respondent personally knew.Fifth, we ranposthoc analyses to examine a variety of gender and identity label differencesinopinions and attitudes. Finally, 196 Joseph Langston, Joseph Hammer, RyanCragun &MaryEllen Sikes we obtained external data from the AmericanSecular Census, which further il- luminated our focus and offered corroboration for some of our findings.
3Results 3.1 What werethe age, gender,and racial demographicsof oursample?
Table1. Age, Gender,and RacebyGroup Membership
Secular Former One Many All Demographics Nonaffiliates Members Group Groups (n=) (n=) (n=) (n=) (N = )
Age
Mean . . . . .
Median
Mode
Range – – – – –
Gender
Male .% .% .% .% .%
Female .% .% .% .% .%
Race
Nonwhite .% .% .% .% .%
White .% .% .% .% .%
Note:Nine respondents reported “Other” forgender and areexcluded from gender reporting in thistable.
Aone-wayANOVA determined thatthere wasasignificant agedifference be- tween groups (F [3,1939] =31.4, p <.001). However,because Levene’stest for ho- mogeneity of variances revealedthatgroup variances werenot equal (F[3, 1939] =14.6, p <.001), we employed aWelch Test,which does not assume equal var- iances (F [3,1939] =30.5, p <.001). Because this resultindicatedstatisticallysig- nificant differencesbetween group means on age, posthoc comparisons using the Games-Howell procedurewereconducted to determine which pairs of the group membership means differed significantly. MGs (M=43.62,SD=16.16) InsideThe Minds and Movement of America’sNonbelievers 197 werestatisticallysignificantlyolder than the otherthree groups (p <.001); OGs (M =38.98, SD =16.6) werestatisticallysignificantlyolder (p =.01) than SNAs (M =36.02, SD =13.64). AChi-Square test further revealedthat therewas astatisti- callysignificant relationship between ageand group membership (χ2 [3,1939] = 59.06, p<.001,V=.17). More MGs (n=355; 61.1 %) werepart of the older group than the younger group (when splitting agebythe median for the total sample). More SNAs (57.4 %) and more FMs(62.6 %) werepartofthe younger group than the older group.
3.2 What did these nonbelieverscallthemselves?
Table2. Identity Labels by Group Membership
Secular Former One Many All Label Nonaffiliates Members Group Groups (n=) (n=) (n=) (n=) (N = )
Atheist .% .% .% % .%
Humanist .% .% .% .% .%
Secular .% .% .% .% .%
Skeptic .% .% .% .% .%
Nonbeliever .% .% .% .% .%
Freethinker .% .% .% .% .%
Rationalist .% .% .% .% .%
Agnostic .% .% .% .% .%
Non-Theist .% .% .% .% .%
Anti-Theist .% .% .% .% .%
Spiritual But .% .% .% .% .% Not Religious
Other .% .% .% .% .%
Table2reports identity labels by group membershiplevel. Selections of labels weremutuallyinclusive.Eventhough we used the term “nonbeliever” as an um- brella term, manyidentity labels can be found in use within SHAF communities. Because these labels,which we assembled from various online sources, werenot meant to be exhaustive,weprovided an “Other” category in case our respond- ents did not see their preferred identity labels among the list.Itisencouraging 198 Joseph Langston, Joseph Hammer,RyanCragun &MaryEllen Sikes that only6.2%ofrespondents selected “Other”;evenfewer selected none of the 11 labels but only “Other” (eight out of 1,939respondents, to be exact). Thus, the labels we offered seemed largely adequate to our respondents in order to de- scribe themselves.
3.3 Which goals, activities, or functionsoflocal,regional,or national groups would these nonbelieverssupport?
Table3. SHAF Group Goals, Activities, and Functions (GAFs) by Group Membership
Secular Former One Many All ChiSquare/ GAF Nonaffiliates Members Group Groups Cramer’sV (n=) (n=) (n=) (n=) (N=)
χ =., Charity .%a %a .%a .%b .% V=.
χ =., SJ Activism .%a %a .%a .%b .% V=.
χ =., Socialize .%a %b .%b .%c .% V=.
χ =, Politick .%ab .%b %a %c .% V=.
χ =., Discussion .%a %b .%b .%c .% V=.
χ =., Litigate .%ab .%b .%a %c .% V=.
χ =., Officiate .%a .%a .%a .%b .% V=.
Moral χ =., .%a .%a* .%a .%b* .% Education V=.
χ =, Proselytize .%a .%a .%a .%b .% V=.
Other .% .% .% .% .%N/A
Note:Percentages reflect respondents who support eachitemasagoal, activity,orfunction of groups at any organizational level.Response options weremutually inclusive. Percentages with- in rowsthatdonot share superscriptsare significantly differentatp<.01 or lower,withthe ex- ception of “Moral Education” (p =.02) between MGs and FMs, denoted by (*). Because each GAF wascollected as its own variable (i.e. selected or not selected), Bonferroni adjustments in pair- Inside The Minds and Movement of America’sNonbelievers 199
wise comparisons werenot employed in subsequent pairwise comparisons for2(selected or not selected) by 2(group membership xory)analyses. Allomnibus ChiSquareand Cramer’sVre- portsfor each row arestatistically significant, p<.001. Forall, df =3,N=1939. According to Gravetter and Wallnau (2008), with 3degrees of freedom, aCramer’sVof .06 or aboverepre- sents asmall effect size; .17 or above represents amediumeffect size; and .29 or above repre- sents alarge effect size, meaning thatCramer’sVforDiscussion (.28) and Socialize(.25), as the largest effect sizes forGAFs, approached the threshold of large effect sizes. Discussion = “I thinksuch groupsshould hold regular meetings fordiscussing topics related to critical thinking, rationalism, religion, science, philosophy,and other intellectual topics”;Moral Education = “I thinksuch groupsshould develop and teach programsofmoral education and positivevalues and ethics,orIthinksuch groups should serve as aplatform to improvepeople morally”;Pol- itick = “Ithinksuch groupsshould lobby Congress and lawmakers forsecular causes, and, in general, be involved in promoting political views, withthe goal of advancing secular viewsand causes via political processes; such groupsshould be involved in politics”;Litigate=“Ithink such groups should litigateand be legal advocates on behalf of secular individuals and causes; such groups should be involved in legal cases”;Socialize = “Ithinksuch groups should offer regular socialevents, recreationaloutings,and opportunities to socializeand build asense of communityamong their members”;Officiate=“Ithinksuch groups should provideofficials who canconduct life cycle ceremonies such as weddings, funerals, and births”;Proselytize=“I thinksuch groupsshould use their influencetodeliberately convince otherstoadopt secular or nontheistic views”;Social JusticeActivism=“Ithinksuch groups should be explicitly involved in socialjusticeefforts to combatracism, sexism, economic inequality,hatecrimes, and to sup- port civil rights, equal opportunity,and social equality”;Charity = “Ithinksuch groups should be involved in humanitarian activities and charitable contributions”.
Compared to the other three groups,MGs over-selected on every goal selection. SNAs onlydiffered from FMsand OGs in SNAs’ lower preference for Discussion and Socialize,whereas FMsand OGs onlydiffered on FMs’ higher preference for Politick and Litigate. Notably, OGs under-selected compared to SNAs on Social Justice Activism, Politick, Litigate,and Moral Education. 200 Joseph Langston, Joseph Hammer, Ryan Cragun &MaryEllen Sikes
3.4 Why didn’tsecular nonaffiliates join groups?Whatdid affiliated and formerly affiliated nonbelieversthinkwere the reasonsthatSNAs did not join?
Table4. SNA Reasonsfor Not Joining Groups, Compared to Perceptions of MGs, OGs, and FMs
Secular Affiliates/ Secular Reasons Given Former Members Nonaffiliates (n=) (n=)
Low Priority .% .%
Not Local .% .%
Nonbelief Not Big Part Of Self-Identity .% .%
TooMuch Like Atheist Church .% %
TooFocused On Attacking Religion .% .%
Intellectual Independence .% .%
Other .% .%
Silly,Pointless, Contradictory .% .%
TooIdeological, Dogmatic, Close-Minded .% .%
Stigma % .%
Misguided Or Wrong Goals .% .%
No InterestInDiscussion Types .% .%
Note:Multiple selections wereallowed. Similar questions wereasked of both groups;response options listed here werethe samefor both groups,withthe exception of the proper pronoun replacement (e.g. “I” forSecular Nonaffiliates insteadof“they” forSecular Affiliates and Former Members). Nonbelief Not Big Part Of Self Identity = “They don’tsee nonbelief as aprimarypart of their self-identity;being anonbeliever is just not abig deal to them”.Silly,Pointless,Contra- dictory = “They thinkorganized forms of nonbelief aresilly,pointless, or self-contradicting”. Misguided Or Wrong Goals = “They thinksuch groups havemisguided or wronggoals”.Too Fo- cused On Attacking Religion = “They thinknonbelieving groups are too focused on religion, i.e. attackingand criticizing it”.Intellectual Independence = “They value their intellectual independ- encesomuch thatthey arenot willing to be told by others whattobelieveornot believe”.Too Ideological, Dogmatic, Close-Minded = “They thinksuch groups aretoo ideological, dogmatic, or closed-minded about their views”.Too Much Like Atheist Church = “They thinkorganized nonbelief mimicsorganized religion toomuch, i.e. ‘atheist church’”.Stigma=“They don’t want to riskthe socialstigmathatmight come with being apublic nonbeliever”.Low Priority = “They would join but they simply havebetter or moreimportant things to do withtheir time, i.e. it is low priority”.Not Local = “They would join but such groupsare not locally or im- Inside The Minds and Movement of America’sNonbelievers 201
mediately availabletothem”.NoInterest in Discussion Types = “They havenointerestinhaving philosophical, metaphysical, or intellectual conversations about science, religion, etc.”
The guessesofSecular Affiliates and FMsplaced the most emphasis on stigma, and on nonbelief not being an important part of SNAself-identity. However, SNAs reported thatthey mostlydid not join because they have more important thingstodowith their time.Roughlyathird of SNAs indicatedthatthey would join if groups were local to them, whereas nearlyathird of SNAs said that being anonbeliever simplywasn’tthat important to them. Among the “Other” responses, which triggered open-endedshort responses in the survey ap- paratus, 21 respondents indicated “Not enough time”;14said that theywere “in- troverted, shy, not social”;another 13 said that they were unaware of available groups nearby,and another 11 indicated that they were “non-joiners”.Lastly, 10 respondents indicated that atheists and/or theirgroups “promoted negative views”.
3.5 How willing werenonbelieverstoendorse nonbeliever groups openly attacking or not attacking religion?
Table5. WillingnesstoAttack or Not Attack Religion by Group Membership
Secular Former One Many All Response Nonaffiliates Members Group Groups (n = ) (n = ) (n = ) (n = ) (N = )
Attack .% .% .% .% .%
Depends .%b .%b .%b .%a .%
Refrain .% .% .% .% .%
Focus Within .%b .%b %b .%a .%
None Of Above .% .% % .% .%
Note:Omnibus χ2 (12, 1939) =41.3, p<.001, V=.08. Subsequent z-score comparisons foreach row,employing Bonferroni corrections (p =.001), revealed thatMGs werestatistically signifi- cantly different from the other three groupsonselections for “Depends” and “FocusWithin”. Attack = “Nonbelieving groups should always or usually openly criticizeand attack religion”. Refrain = “Nonbelieving groups should alwaysorusually refrain from openly attackingreligion”. Depends = “What nonbelieving groups should do dependsoncontextand various other factors; sometimesthey should openly attack religion, and sometimes they should refrain from openly attackingreligion; it dependsonvarious considerations”.Focus Within=“Nonbelieving groups 202 Joseph Langston, Joseph Hammer, Ryan Cragun &MaryEllen Sikes
should not even worryabout openly attacking religion, but should insteadfocus their attentions and efforts within their own groups”.
Amajority of nonbelievers said that groups should neither refrain from nor al- ways choose to attack or criticize religion and religious beliefs. While small mi- norities said that groups should always engage in one of these options (5.2%At- tack vs. 5.8% Refrain), threetimes as manysaid that groups should not worry about attacking religion, but should instead focus their groups’ efforts within the group itself.
3.6 How willing werenonbelieverstoseek the eradication of religion, if possible, or to seek common ground with believersand not trytoeradicatereligion?
Table6. WillingnesstoEradicateorAccommodatetoReligion by Group Membership
Secular Former One Many All Response Nonaffiliates Members Group Groups (n=) (n=) (n=) (n=) (N = )
Eradicate .%a .%a .%a .%b .%
Accommodate .%a .%a .%a .%b .%
Ignore .% .% .% .% .%
Unsure .% .% .% .% .%
Note:While omnibus ChiSquaretesting wasmarginally statistically significant different (χ2 [9, 1939] =16.5, p =.057,V=.05), subsequent z-scorecomparisons foreachrow,employing Bon- ferroni corrections (p =.002) revealed that MGs werestatistically significantly different from the other threegroups on selections for “Eradicate” and “Accommodate”,indicated by superscripts acrossrows. Eradicate = “If possible, religion should be eradicated entirely”.Accommodate= “Secularists, nontheists, and atheists should seek accommodation with religious people to ach- ieve common goals; beyond that, they should leavereligious people alone and not seek to erad- icate religion”.Ignore=“Secularists, nontheists, and atheists should neither work withreli- gious people on common causes nor should they seek to eradicate religion in its various forms”.
Amajorityofnonbelievers said that nonbelievers should not onlywork with re- ligious people to accomplish common goals, such as the separation of church and state, but that no attempt should be made to eradicate religion. Aquarter of respondents opted for the elimination option, whereas very few said that non- believers should pursue neither course of action. While we cannot sayanything definitive about the relatively high number of “Unsure” responses on this ques- InsideThe Minds and Movement of America’sNonbelievers 203 tion, this could be indicative of ambivalenceabout how to approach religious people and religious beliefs.Itcould also be indicative of an attitude which sug- gests that nonbelievers should work with believers to achieve common goals while simultaneouslyseeking to eradicate religion, an opinion offered by at least one respondent in post-studyfeedback.
3.7 How willing werenonbelieverstomock or ridicule religious beliefs, or to refrain from doing so?
Table7. WillingnesstoUse or Not UseMockery/Ridicule of Religion by Group Membership
Secular Former One Many All Response Nonaffiliates Members Group Groups (n=) (n=) (n=) (n=) (N = )
Avoid .%a .%a .%a %b .%
Depends .%a .%a .%a %b .%
Don’tAvoid % .% .% .% .%
Unsure .% .% .% .% .%
Note:Omnibus χ2 (9, 1939) =44.1, p <.001, V=.08. Subsequent z-scorecomparisons foreach row,employing Bonferroni corrections (p =.002) revealed thatMGs werestatistically signifi- cantly different from the other three groups on “Avoid” and “Depends”,indicatedbysuper- scripts acrossrows.Avoid=“Mockeryand ridicule of religious people and religious beliefs should be avoided; they arecounterproductive or makenonbelievers look bad”.Don’tAvoid = “Mockeryand ridicule of religious people and religious beliefs should be encouragedor used; it is the treatment thatreligious beliefs deserve, and to avoid using them is to give reli- gious people and religious beliefs afreepassthatthey don’tdeserve”.Depends = “Some de- greeofmockeryand ridicule areacceptable and/or recommendable, but it just depends on var- ious different things”.
Amajority said that whether mockery and ridicule should be applied to religious people and religious beliefs simplydepends on various considerations.Arela- tivelylarge minorityofrespondents said thatmockery and ridicule should be avoided because they are counter-productive or make nonbelievers look bad, al- though fewer MGs thanany of the other groups selected this option. 204 Joseph Langston, Joseph Hammer, Ryan Cragun &MaryEllen Sikes
3.8 How willing or unwilling werenonbelieverstoinclude or exclude unpopular social or political opinionsfromtheir communities or the movement in general?
Table8. WillingnesstoAccept or Not Accept Unpopular Social and PoliticalOpinions in Secular/AtheistCommunities by Group Membership
Secular Former One Many All Response Nonaffiliates Members Group Groups (n=) (n=) (n=) (n=) (N = )
Incompatible .%a .%a .%a .%b .%
Compatible .% .% .% .% .%
Not Sure .% .% .% .% .%
Note:Omnibus χ2 (6, 1939) =17.7, p =.007,V=.06. Incompatible and Compatible options refer to whether the respondentthoughtthat unpopular socialorpolitical opinions wereincompat- ible or compatible with asecular view of the world, and thus acceptable or unacceptable views to be held in SHAF communities. Subsequent z-score comparisons foreach row,employing Bon- ferroni corrections (p =.002) revealed thatMGs arestatistically significantly different (p <.05) from the other threegroups on “Incompatible”,indicated by superscriptsacrossrows.
The nonbeliever movement has sustainedproblems with diversity issues (Has- sall and Bushfield 2014; Kettell 2013,67; Miller 2013;Schnabel et al. 2016), in- cludingracism,sexism, and social justice issues. On this question, we were not able to specify which sorts of social or political opinionsweintended, with- out leading respondents.Ifwehad been very specific, these answers mayvery well have changed, but,the question as we asked it was meant to be taken by the respondent as meaning whatever they imagined regarding “social” and “po- litical” opinions. This mayaccount for the relatively high amount of “Not Sure” responses. At anyrate, the majority attitude of nonbelievers here was character- ized by inclusion rather thanexclusion. InsideThe Minds and Movement of America’sNonbelievers 205
3.9 What did nonbelieversthinkabout the compatibility,or lack thereof,between scienceand religion?
Table9. Compatibility of Science and Religion by Group Membership
Secular Former One Many All Response Nonaffiliates Members Group Groups (n = ) (n = ) (n = ) (n = ) (N = )
Incompatible .%a .%a .%a,b .%b .%
Pretend Compatible .% .% .% .% .%
Compatible .%a .%a, b .%,b, c .%c .%
Note:Omnibus χ2 (6, 1939) =34.8, p <.001, V=.09. Subsequent z-scorecomparisons foreach row,employing Bonferroni corrections (p =.002), revealed thatMGs differed from FMs and SNAs but not OGs on “Incompatible”.MGs differed from FMs and SNAs but not OGs on “Com- patible”,whereasOGs differed only from SNAs on thisoption. Incompatible = “Science and re- ligion areobviously incompatible; faith is irrational, and endorsing the unity of science and re- ligion only enables delusion”.PretendCompatible = “Science and religion arenot truly compatible but we should pretend that thisisthe case so as not to lose public support forsci- ence; it is valuable fornonbelieverstowork alongside religious believers to pursue shared goals, and an individual’sreligious belief is irrelevantunless it leadsthem to distortormisrep- resent science”.Compatible = “Science and religion may answer different questions but they arecompatible in certain ways; failing to see thisiseither unimaginativeorintolerant”.
Extendingthe accommodationist versus eliminationist argument to discussions of science and religion, we tried to formulate questions that would reflect these varyingapproaches. Attitudesabout science and religion among members of the SHAF movement have ranged from compatible (Gould 1999)toincompatible (Stenger2009). The Pretend Compatible responsewas our attempt to provide an option for those who, while not seeing science and religion as compatible, would not choose to make an issue out of this disjunction as long as it did not threaten the integrity of the scientific process. Giventhese selections along- side Incompatible responses,which came from amajority of each group mem- bershipcategory,most nonbelievers do not think science and religion are com- patible,though the gapbetween MGs and SNAs on Compatible is particularly salient. 206 Joseph Langston, Joseph Hammer,RyanCragun &MaryEllen Sikes
4Additional Analyses: Gender
The statisticallysignificant demographic differences thatemergedacross our questions primarilycentered upon genderrather than ageorrace, thus we pres- ent the gender differences of interestonly.
4.1 What werethe gender differences, if any,for GAF selections?
Table10. Gender Differences on Goals, Activities,and Functions (GAF) Selections
Male Female ChiSquare/ GAF (n = ) (n = ) Cramer’sV
Proselytize .% .% Χ =,V=.
Litigate .% % Χ =.,V=.
Politick .% .% Χ =.,V=.
Officiate .% .% Χ =.,V=.
Note:For all, df =1,p<.001, exceptOfficiate, p =.006. GAFs wereonlyincluded here if they reached statistical significance withgender.
Females had alower preference for Proselytize, whereas more minor genderdif- ferences emergedinthe lower femaleselections of Litigate,Politick, and Offici- ate. Inside The Minds and Movement of America’sNonbelievers 207
4.2 What werethe gender differences, if any,onopinion and attitudinal questions?
Table11. Gender Differences on Questions 3.5, 3.6, 3.8, and 3.10
Male Female ChiSquare/ Attack or Not Attack (n = ) (n = ) Cramer’sV
Attacka .% .% a Depends .% .% χ (, )=., p <. Refraina .% .% V=. Focus Withina % .% None of the Abovea .% .%
Male Female ChiSquare/ EradicateorAccommodate (n = ) (n = ) Cramer’sV
Eradicatea .% % Accommodatea % .% χ (, )=., p <. Ignore .% .% V=. Unsure/Undecided .% .%
Male Female ChiSquare/ UseofMockeryand Ridicule (n = ) (n = ) Cramer’sV
Avoida .% .% Dependsa .% .% χ (, )=., p <. Don’tAvoida .% .% V=. Unsure .% .%
Male Female ChiSquare/ Science and Religion (n = ) (n = ) Cramer’sV
Incompatiblea .% .% (, )=., p <. Pretend Compatible % .% χ V=. Compatiblea .% %
Note: a Indicates statistically significant differences between columnpercentages, at least p < .05.
Although majorities chose to circumstantiallycriticize or ridicule/mock religion, wherever respondents had the opportunity to decidebetween eliminationist and accommodationist attitudes, females exhibited the latter more so than males. The fact that the nonbeliever movement is majoritymale mayespeciallycontrib- ute to public perceptions (or the actuality) that it is ahostile or militant move- ment (cf. also Silveretal., 2014,ondescriptions of anti-theism and views of “types” of nonbelievers of one another). 208 Joseph Langston, Joseph Hammer, Ryan Cragun &MaryEllen Sikes
5Identity Labels: Evidence That They Matter
We endeavored to provide additional analysis for “atheist”, “secular”,and “hu- manist” identity labels because some literaturesuggests potential “approach” differences between secular humanistsand atheists (e.g. Kettell, 2013,2014; Ci- mino and Smith, 2007,2011;Smith and Cimino, 2012). Only75respondents (3%) selected, at least,both “secular” and “humanist” but not “atheist”.Onthe other hand, 387respondents (19.9 %) selected, at least, “atheist” but neither “secular” nor “humanist”.Amajority of 822respondents (42.3%)selectedall threeofthese labels,whereas 142respondents (9.9 %) selected, at the least,none of these three labels.This left 513 ALI respondents (26.4%)who did not fall into anyofthese four reconstituted categories. Whatwerethe differences, if any, between these four categories?
5.1 Howdid theseidentitylabelscompare on GAFselections?
Table12. Identity Label Differences on Goals, Activities, and Functions (GAF) Selections
SH Not Atheists All None of All ChiSquare/ GAF Atheists Not SH Three the Three Cramer’sV (n=) (n=) (n=) (n=) (N = )
Politick %a %a %b .%c .% Χ = ,V=.
Discussion .%a .%b .%a %b .% Χ = .,V=.
Litigate .%a .%a .%b .%c .% Χ = .,V=.
Charity .%a .%b .%a .%b .% Χ = .,V=.
SJ Activism .%a .%b .%a .%b .% Χ = .,V=.
Socialize .%a .%a .%b .%a .% Χ = ,V=.
Officiate .%a .%b .%a .%b .% Χ = .,V=.
Moral .%ac .%b .%a .%bc .% Χ = .,V=. Education
Proselytize .%a .%a .%b .%a % Χ = .,V=.
Note:For all, df =3,p<.001. Percentages in rowsthatdonot share the same superscript are statistically significantly different, at least p <.05. “Secular Humanists” wasconstructed by combining those who chose, at least, both “Secular” and “Humanist” from identity labels, de- InsideThe Minds and Movement of America’sNonbelievers 209
spite the fact that not everyone who selected one selected the other; see Table2.From ALI, at least 1,132 respondents chose, at least, “Secular” and 1,175 chose, at least, “Humanist”.
Those who selected “AllThree” identity labels weredifferent on every goal selec- tion from both “Atheists Not Secular Humanists” and “None of the Three”. “Sec- ular Humanists Not Atheists”,when compared to “Atheists Not Secular Human- ists”,showed higher selections on each goal for which they werestatistically significantlydifferent.Inthis regard, “Atheists Not Secular Humanists” were more similar to “None of the Three” than were “Secular Humanists Not Atheists”, whereas this latter group was more similar to “All Three”.Those selecting “All Three” labels out-selected the otherthree groups on all goals, except for Social Justice Activism, which was most selected by “Secular Humanists Not Atheists”. Thus, secular humanistswho did not alsocall themselvesatheists weremore similar to those who identified with all three labels,whereas those who only called themselvesatheists, and not secular humanists, weremore similar to those who chose none of these labels,though the differences between all four groups are also apparent (cf. Cotter,2015).
6AdditionalData: TheAmerican Secular Census
In the course of carrying out our study, we became aware of another data source which shed additional light on our topic: the American Secular Census (ASC). Launched on November7,2011, the ASC describes itself as an independent na- tional registry of demographic and viewpoint data recorded on secular Ameri- cans. Census registrants are U.S. citizens or permanent residents over 18 years of agewho are skeptical of supernatural claims, includingthose generallyasso- ciated with religion. Each registrant maintains an ASC website account used to complete13Census forms which collect personal and household information, a secular profile, areligious profile, political activism and voting patterns,philan- thropy habits,parenting information, military service, experiences with discrim- ination, publicpolicy and social views, and opinions about secular advocacy. Forthe purpose of making comparisons to our owndata, we acquired data from Personaland Secular Profiles in the ASC online database on November14th, 2015.Atthattime, the sample size for registrants who had completed both forms was 1,340 respondents. Table 13 showsacomparison of age, gender, and race between ALI and ASC samples. Notably, the ASC respondents wereolder than ALI respondents. Outside of this, although we cannot make statistical compari- sons, both sets of data seem surprisingly similar,though both are composed of nonrandom, self-selectedsamples. 210 Joseph Langston, Joseph Hammer,RyanCragun &MaryEllen Sikes
6.1 What werethe demographic similarities or differences between ALI and ASC?
Table13. Age, Gender,and RaceComparison between ALI and ASC
Atheism Looking In American Secular Census (N = ) (N = )
Age
Mean . Mean .
Median Median
Mode Mode
Range – Range –
Gender
Male (.%) Male (.%)
Female (.%) Female (.%)
Other (.%) Other (.%)
Race
Nonwhite (%) Nonwhite (.%)
White (%) White (.%) InsideThe Minds and Movement of America’sNonbelievers 211
6.2 How active in the nonbeliever movement wereASC respondents?
Table14. ASC Respondent Level of Involvement in the Nonbeliever Movement
Level of Involvement Frequency (N = )
I’maware of organizations and eventsbut havenot participated .%
I’mslightly activeinthe movement .%
I’mpretty activeinthe movement .%
None; I’mvaguely aware it exists but haven’texplored further .%
I’maninsider (e.g. leader,employee, major donor) .%
None; thisisthe first I’ve heardofit .%
I’maformer participant who is currently inactive %
Somethingnot listed here .%
SNAs comprised 40.2%ofthe ALI sample. In the ASC sample, those who are comparable make up 52%, if adding the first,fourth, and sixth categories from Table 14.Ifrespondents indicated thatthey were not active in the athe- ist/secular movement (in this case, however,using onlyOptions 1and 7from Table14), this triggered aconditional question in the ASC questionnaire which asked about their reasons for not being involved. 212 Joseph Langston, Joseph Hammer,RyanCragun &MaryEllen Sikes
6.3 What reasonsdid inactive ASC respondentsgivefor lack of participation?
Table15. ASC InactiveRespondent Reasons forLack of Nonbeliever Movement Participation
ReasonFrequency (n = )
Insufficient time .%
Eventsinconvenient .%
Insufficient money .%
Not ajoiner %
Some other reason .%
Eventsuninteresting to me .%
Not really sure .%
General disinterest .%
Fear of damaging my relationships .%
Lack of childcare %
Bad experiencewithgroup, person, or event .%
Don’tsee relevance to my life %
Not open about my secularism .%
Health issues .%
Publications uninteresting to me .%
Even though ALI provided an “Other” category so thatrespondents could list rea- sons that werenot part of the formal listing,36% of inactiveASC respondents said that “Insufficient Money” was areason for lack of participation; this did not emerge at all in our study. Because selections for “Events Inconvenient” and “InsufficientMoney” werevery close,wefurther determined that112 re- spondents(18.2%) selected both options, meaningthat for amajority, these weredistinct selections. The topreason for inactivity, “Insufficient Time”, would support our own finding that respondents did not prioritize participation. This raises the question of whether these respondents would join or participate more often if they did have the time.Also, though lack of time is comparable to participation being alow priority,neither of these compares to nonbelief not being asalient component of self-identity(see Stryker 2000). Nonbelief could InsideThe Minds and Movement of America’sNonbelievers 213 be aprimary part of self-identityeveninthe event of insufficient time or if one has higher-priority life obligations (e.g. family, work, practical projects,hobbies, friends, etc.). Roughly athird of respondents from ALI said that they would join groups if they werelocal; this compares to 37 %ofnon-active nonbelievers from ASC saying that events are “inconvenient”,though inconvenience could also refer to schedule conflict,not physical proximity or lack of local groups.This point also dovetails with lack of time as atop reason. Lastly, 31%ofASC non- affiliatessaid they werenot joiners, which comports with the qualitative respons- es we receivedfrom 14 ALI respondents (seeTable 4), indicating that they were introverted, shy, not social,ornot interested in socializing.
6.4 What did ASC respondentsfind beneficialabout their involvement in nonbeliever groups?
Table16. Benefits of Participation Experienced by ASC Respondents
BenefitsFrequency (n = )
Friendshipsand community .%
Personaldevelopment .%
Social or culturalacceptance .%
Educationalresources .%
Serviceopportunities .%
Moral guidance .%
Politicalinfluence .%
Support with family issues .%
No benefits at all .%
Support with other problems .%
Somethingnot listed here .%
Career opportunities .%
Youth programs .%
Support with substance abuse .%
An alternate strategytoour ownwould have been to ask secular affiliatesabout the advantagesofparticipation in the movement and membership in its groups. 214 Joseph Langston, Joseph Hammer,RyanCragun&MaryEllen Sikes
As Table 16 shows, the most frequentlyderivedbenefitswerefriendships and community;personal development (e.g. leadership, confidence); and social or culturalacceptance, afactor that we would suggest probablyrelates to stigma against nonbelievers in America (seeTable 4).
6.5 What did ASC respondentsfind disadvantageous about their involvement in nonbeliever groups?
Table17. Disadvantages of Participation Experienced by ASC Respondents
Disadvantages Frequency (n = )
No disadvantages at all .%
Problems with family members .%
Problems with friends %
Problems within the organization itself .%
Problems in the workplace .%
Problems in my community .%
Conflict with mission or values %
Somethingnot listed here .%
Yetanother approach alternate to ours would have been to ask about disadvan- tages thatcame with movement and group participation. In Table 17,amajority reported no disadvantagesdue to their participation, whereas, consistent with Cragun et al. (2012), the most likelydisadvantages occurred for social relation- ships with familymembers or friends. With regardtointernal conflict,12% said they had problems within theirown groups,while another 7% said they had conflict with the nonbeliever movement mission or values.
7Conclusion
Some nonbelievers don’thavetime to join groups but would if they in fact did have time, and if these groups and related events werereadilyavailable and con- venient.For these nonbelievers, nonbelief is apartoftheir identity;for others, nonbelief is not apart of their identity,and they would not join such groups InsideThe Minds and Movement of America’sNonbelievers 215 even if they had the time or if such groups wereavailable. Though using asmall sample, Cimino and Smith (2011) found that an appreciable number of their re- spondentsengaged in activism and participation exclusivelyonline. Aseparate but relevant issue concerns historical anti-authoritarianism and the tendencyto- ward adecentralized organization of humanist,atheist,and freethoughtgroups (Budd 1977). The Internet provides the opportunity,for those for whom nonbelief is important,toengageinmovement participation and activism; this maycom- port well with apreference for individual, or non-institutional activism carried out on the individual’sown terms. On this basis, manySNAslikelyeschewfor- mal organizational participation in favorofprivate, individual participation. This is similar to Cimino and Smith’s(2011, 32) “cultural secularists”,who “[try] to dis- credit religious belief and advocate for changeonmorepersonal and individual terms,outside the channels created for this purpose by the dominant secular or- ganizations.” Our genderdifferences in particular proved interesting.The lesserhostility of women betokens consequences for amovement thatismale-dominatedinboth its membership and its leadership; it standstoreason that afemale-led move- ment might resultinnoticeable differencesinstrategies,and thus also outcomes. It is possible that such amovement might more readilyachieve social acceptance in the Americanpublic at large,oratleast diminished stigma—although this in turn depends on what one thinks about the efficacy of an accommodationist strategyoveraneliminationist strategy(see Cragun and Fazzino, this volume, concerning the organizational leadership of Madalyn Murray O’Hair). Certainly, females in our data demonstrate awillingness to engage in mockery/ridicule and criticism of religion and religious beliefs, regardless of whether they selected “elimination” or “accommodation”.Tothe extent thatfemaleleadership increas- es, this mayresult in amore gender-balanced membership. Although this seems obvious, such changeinleadership mayalso have the effect of increasing the number of women in the movement by virtue of the fact that “hostile” attitudes turn them away.Noticeably, 33 %ofour SNAfemalerespondents said that one reason they didn’tjoin groups was because of how focused such groups were on attackingorcriticizing religion (comparedto19% of male respondents). We cannot suggest thatgenderdifferences in attitudes towardhostility, mockery,and criticism of religion are a strong ground of contention thatexists in and between groups that make up the nonbeliever or secular movement (pointedly, most of our males also fall into the more accommodating half of this attitudinaldivide). Somedata indicate that the gender ratio among nonbe- lievers has shifted in favorofagrowingnumber of women (cf. Hassall and Bush- field 2014; cf. alsoBarnaGroup, 2015). Nevertheless,itispossiblethatpartof this increasingdiversity in membership is aresult of strategy differences 216 Joseph Langston, Joseph Hammer, RyanCragun &MaryEllen Sikes wherewomen have come to gain greater and more positions of leadership. If not actual, the effect is at least feasible. The questions we asked and the data we analyzedwerepart of our effort to ultimatelyunderstand differences between nonbeliever ideas, preferences,and attitudes across avariety of affiliative statuses. Despite anonrandom sample, the greatest value provided by our studycomes from descriptive insights that can be examined when and if aviable random sample becomes available. Forex- ample,perhaps nonbelieving men and women in the largerpopulation do not trulydiffer regardingeliminationist and otherwise hostileattitudes toward reli- gion, but,aswefound the opposite here, futureresearch can investigate aran- dom sample to see if this relationship would hold. The samenotion applies to anydescriptive insights generated from this study. Future studies should take note of the fact that some nonbelievers could be described as the opposite of “MG/All Three” individuals. In other words, we can identifythis category of non- believer as someone for whom nonbelief is highlyinconsequential, afacet of their livesthat likelydoes not shape or influencebehaviors and activities (these would be “apatheists” per Shook’schapter in this volume). It seems likely that this group could onlybereached through anationallyrepresentativeran- dom survey (e.g. GSS, ARIS, etc.), although at present such nationallyrepresen- tative datasets do not contain data concerning secular and atheist organizations. It would be interesting to see if and/or how this category differed from our four groups.Future studies might further benefit from determining whyitisthatfor- mer members of groups are, in fact, former members, that is, the circumstances or reasons for their disaffiliation. We speculate that such reasons would largely resonatewith the more pragmatic, as opposed to ideological, concerns that were expressed here. One assumption we employed was that dividing respondents into the four group categories would produce meaningful analyses.While this is obvious, there are finergroup membership conceptualizationsthatmight have been used to greater analytical effect,such as thosefound in the ASC(see Table 14). In the sociologyofreligion, categories such as belief, belonging,identifica- tion, behavior, and salience are employed in the quantitative analysis of religion; we would suggest that similar categories, if considered dynamically(and dimen- sionally?)rather than statically, might proveuseful in analyzingnonbelievers and distinctions among them (see Cotter 2015;Silveretal. 2014). Because we soughttogauge “approach” attitudes toward religion, abetter method for meas- urement in the future might be to develop asurveyinstrument with standardized responses, measured at least ordinallysothatother,more sophisticated assess- ments could be made.Lastly, Mastiaux’schapter in this volume is afine example of how organization members and their “participation motives” maybecharac- InsideThe Minds and Movement of America’sNonbelievers 217 terized; as aqualitative study, it is awelcome complement to our own quantita- tive approach. It is worth bearing in mind thatthe nonbeliever movementdid, in fact,exist prior to the year 2000,yet it has more vitality and visibility todaythan before. What ultimatelybecomes of it will depend, in part,onthe vitality and condition of American religion. Despite the fact that ChristianityinAmerica has been fore- casted to decline (Hackett et al. 2015;Stinespringand Cragun 2015), it seems un- likelythat aminority of Americannonbelievers would wish to backoff from a chance to either effectively rid their country of religion, or at least secure avic- tory for neutralityinthepublic and political spheres.IfAmericanChristianity does decline as predicted (as other organizational participation has; Putnam, 2001), then this might attenuatetypes and magnitudes of divisionsbetween var- ious nonbelievers, especiallytothe extent that such decline might bring about reducedreligious influenceinthe political sphere, or greater social acceptability of nonbelievers. It could alsohavethe effect of shifting SHAFstrategies and ap- proaches to eliminationist or accommodationist sides, such that one approach becomes more dominant than the other.Until then, as Kettell (2013,2014) and Cimino and Smith (2011) have noted, botheliminationist and accommodationist approachesfulfill niches that match the desires of respectivemovement mem- bers. Kettell (2014, 388) offers that this maybetothe advantage of such amove- ment:
The absenceofaconsistent or uniform approachfurnishes the movement with ahighde- greeofflexibility and dynamism, enabling the formation of loose and adaptive alliances in response to specific issues of concernthat mayarise, providingmultiple sites of access and points of entry to atheist groups and ideas and numerous ways of gettingits messages across to avariety of audiences.
Our results not onlyecho this sentiment,but suggest ablending of these two views on the part of manyindividual nonbelievers, despite the fact that most re- sponses concerning hostility in our studyranged from moderate to minor.Even majorities of thoseinour studywho took an accommodationist stance did not opt out of circumstantiallyattacking,mocking,orridiculing religion and reli- gious beliefs. In the end, amoreapt metaphor to accuratelycapturethe situation maybeone that does not describe “camps” but rather aslidingscale tempered by circumstance. 218 Joseph Langston, Joseph Hammer,RyanCragun &MaryEllen Sikes
Bibliography
Barna Group.Mar 2015. State of Atheism in America. Accessible at https://www.barna.org/ barna-update/culture/713-2015-state-of-atheism-in-america#.Vw7wVzArKhc Budd, Susan. 1977. Varieties of Unbelief:Atheistsand Agnostics in English Society, 1850–1960. London: Heinemann. Campbell, Colin. 1971. TowardaSociologyofIrreligion. London: Macmillan. Cimino, Richard, and Christopher Smith. 2007. “Secular Humanismand Atheism Beyond Progressive Secularism.” SociologyofReligion 68: 407–424. Cimino, Richard, and Christopher Smith. 2010. “The New Atheism and the Empowerment of American Freethinkers.” In Religion and the New Atheism:ACritical Appraisal,edited by Amarnath Amarasingam, 139–156. Leiden: Brill. Cimino, Richard, and Christopher Smith. 2011. “The New Atheism and the Formation of the Imagined Secularist Community.” Journal of Media and Religion 10: 24–38. Cotter,Christopher R. 2015. “Without God yetWithout Nuance: AQualitative Study of Atheism and Non-religion Among Scottish Students.” In Atheist Identities-Spacesand Social Contexts,edited by Lori Beamanand Steven Tomlins, 171–194. London: Springer International Publishing. Cragun,Ryan. 2014. “Who arethe New Atheists?” In Atheist Identities: Spaces and Social Contexts,edited by Lori Beamanand Steven Tomlins, 195–211. Springer International Publishing. Cragun,RyanT., BarryKosmin, Ariela Keysar,Joseph H. Hammer,and Michael Nielsen. 2012. “On the Receiving End: Discrimination Toward the Non-Religious in the United States.” Journal of ContemporaryReligion 27: 105–127. Cragun,Ryan, and Lori L. Fazzino. 2014. “Splitters:Lessons from Monty Python for Nontheist/Freethought Organizations in the US.” Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Societyfor the Scientific Study of Religion in Indianapolis, IN. Csaszar, David. 2010. “Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: The Voice of the ‘New’ Atheists.” Over Dinner: The Laurier M.A. Journal of Religion and Culture,1. Gravetter,Frederick, and LarryWallnau. 2008. Essentials of Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (6th ed.). Belmont: Thomas Wadsworth. Gould, Stephen Jay.1999. Rocks of Ages: Scienceand Religion in the Fullness of Life. New York: Harmony Books. Hackett, Conrad, Marcin Stonawski,Michaela Potančoková, Brian J. Grim, and Vegard Skirbekk. 2015. “The Future SizeofReligiously Affiliated and Unaffiliated Populations.” Demographic Research 32: 829–842. Hassall,Christopher,and Ian Bushfield.2014. “Increasing DiversityinEmerging Non-Religious Communities.” Secularismand Nonreligion 3: 1–9. Kettell, Steven. 2013. “Faithless: The Politics of New Atheism.” Secularismand Nonreligion 2: 61–72. Kettell, Steven. 2014. “Divided We Stand: The Politics of the Atheist Movement in the United States.” Journal of ContemporaryReligion 29: 377–391. Langston, Joseph, Joseph Hammer,and RyanT.Cragun. 2015. “Atheism Looking In: On the Goals and Strategies of Organized Nonbelief.” Science, Religion and Culture 2: 70–85. LeDrew,Stephen. 2012. “The Evolution of Atheism: Scientific and Humanistic Approaches.” History of the Human Sciences 25: 70–87. Inside The Minds and Movement of America’sNonbelievers 219
LeDrew,Stephen. 2014. “Atheists areBelievers,” NSRN Blog, March 21, 2014, http:// blog. nsrn.net/2014/03/21/atheists-are-believers/. Accessed on 31 May 2014. LeDrew,Stephen. 2015. “Atheism Versus Humanism: Ideological Tensions and Identity Dynamics.” In Atheist Identities-Spacesand Social Contexts,edited by Lori Beamanand Steven Tomlins, 53–68. London: Springer International Publishing. McAnulla, Stuart.2014. “Secular Fundamentalists: Characterising the New Atheist Approach to Secularism, Religion and Politics.” BritishPolitics 9: 124–145. Miller, Ashley F. 2013. “The Non-Religious Patriarchy: Why Losing Religion HAS NOTMeant LosingWhite Male Dominance.” Cross Currents 63: 211–226. Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon and Schuster. Schnabel, Landon, MatthewFacciani, Ariel Sincoff-Yedid, and Lori L. Fazzino. Forthcoming. “Gender and Atheism: Paradoxes, Contradictions, and an Agenda forFutureResearch.” Annual Reviewofthe SociologyofReligion. Schulzke,Marcus. 2013. “The Politics of New Atheism.” Politics and Religion 6: 778–799. Silver,Christopher F.,Thomas J. ColemanIII, Ralph W. Hood Jr,and Jenny M. Holcombe.2014. “The Six Types of Nonbelief: AQualitativeand Quantitative Study of Type and Narrative.” Mental Health, Religion &Culture 17: 990–1001. Smith, Christopher,and RichardCimino. 2012. “Atheisms Unbound: The Roleofthe New Media in the Formation of aSecularist Identity.” Secularismand Nonreligion 1: 17–31. Smith, Jesse M. 2013. “Creating aGodless Community: The CollectiveIdentity Work of ContemporaryAmerican Atheists.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 52: 80–99. Stenger,Victor J. 2009. The New Atheism:Taking aStand for Science and Reason. New York: Prometheus Books. Stinespring,John, and RyanCragun. 2015. “Simple Markov Model forEstimating the Growth of Nonreligion in the United States.”. Science, Religion and Culture 2: 96–103. Stryker,Sheldon. 2000. “Identity Competition: KeytoDifferential SocialMovement Participation?” In Self,Identity,and Social Movements,edited Sheldon Stryker,Timothy Joseph Owen, RobertW.White, 21–40.Minneapolis: UniversityofMinnesotaPress.