DOCSLIB.ORG

Stereotypes About Agnostics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Stereotypes About Agnostics To Believe or Not to Believe: Stereotypes About agnostics by Veronica Nilendra Zivana Bergstrom A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Psychology University of Toronto © Copyright by Veronica Nilendra Zivana Bergstrom 2018 To Believe or Not to Believe: Stereotypes About agnostics Veronica Nilendra Zivana Bergstrom Master of Arts Department of Psychology University of Toronto 2018 Abstract The present study investigated which stereotypes agnostics share with atheists, and which stereotypes are unique to each group. In Study 1, participants reported stereotypes that they believed society held about agnostics, atheists, Christians, and Muslims. Common stereotypes for agnostics were indecisive and questioning, but for atheists were immoral and intolerant. In Study 2, participants rated how representative 10 key traits from Study 1 were of agnostics, atheists, and four religious groups. Results revealed that agnostics were stereotyped less negatively than atheists. In Study 3, participants had to judge whether a target’s actions, such as being immoral, morally indecisive, or indecisive in general were representative of an agnostic/atheist/Christian/Muslim. Inconsistent with Studies 1 and 2, no significant differences were found for perceptions of agnostics versus atheists. Findings from Studies 1-2 suggest that nonreligious individuals are sometimes viewed as a heterogeneous group, but future research must determine when stereotypes converge and diverge. ii Acknowledgments I would like to thanK my supervisor, Dr. Alison Chasteen, for her invaluable guidance and support. Secondly, I would liKe to thanK my subsidiary advisor, Dr. Jason PlaKs, for his feedbacK and expertise. Lastly, I would liKe to thanK my external examination committee member, Dr. Wil Cunningham, for his time and insight. iii Table of Contents Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................. iii Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... vii List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... viii List of Appendices .................................................................................................................. ix Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 The Present Studies .............................................................................................................. 3 1.2.1 Study 1 .................................................................................................................................................. 3 1.2.2 Study 2 .................................................................................................................................................. 4 1.2.3 Study 3 .................................................................................................................................................. 4 Chapter 2 Study 1 ................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Method ...................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1.1 Participants ................................................................................................................................................ 5 2.1.2 Procedure ................................................................................................................................................... 6 2.1.3 Materials .................................................................................................................................................... 6 2.4 Data Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 7 2.5 Results ........................................................................................................................................ 8 2.6 Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 10 Chapter 3 Study 2 ................................................................................................................. 12 3.1 Method .................................................................................................................................... 12 3.1.1 Participants .............................................................................................................................................. 12 3.1.2 Procedure ................................................................................................................................................. 13 3.1.3 Covariates ................................................................................................................................................. 14 3.1.4 Theistic Probability ................................................................................................................................... 16 3.1.5 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................................ 16 iv 3.2 Results ...................................................................................................................................... 17 3.2.1 Age ........................................................................................................................................................... 18 3.2.2 Bravery ..................................................................................................................................................... 19 3.2.3 Danger ...................................................................................................................................................... 19 3.2.4 Decisiveness ............................................................................................................................................. 20 3.2.5 Loyalty ...................................................................................................................................................... 21 3.2.6 Morality .................................................................................................................................................... 21 3.2.7 Patriotism ................................................................................................................................................. 21 3.2.8 Predictability ............................................................................................................................................ 22 3.2.9 Tolerance .................................................................................................................................................. 23 3.2.10 Trustworthiness ...................................................................................................................................... 23 3.2.11 Familiarity ............................................................................................................................................... 24 3.3 Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 25 3.3.1 Age ........................................................................................................................................................... 25 3.3.2 Bravery ..................................................................................................................................................... 25 3.3.3 Danger ...................................................................................................................................................... 25 3.3.4 Decisiveness ............................................................................................................................................. 26 3.3.5 Loyalty ...................................................................................................................................................... 26 3.3.6 Morality .................................................................................................................................................... 26 3.3.7 Patriotism ................................................................................................................................................. 26 3.3.8 Predictability ............................................................................................................................................ 27 2.3.9 Tolerance .................................................................................................................................................. 27 3.3.10 Trustworthiness .....................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Asharism and Atheism- a Glimpse Into Two Parallel Ideologies
    Btibsjtn!bne!Buifjtn;! B!Hmjnqtf!Jnup!Uxp! Qbsbmmfm!Jefpmphjft Autor: Ali Boriqee Source: Multaqa Ahlul-Hadeet Compiled by: al-Mustaqeem Publicatons This page left intentionally blank +)#0 ; رب ا+"2<!، و(.- >; و:.9 و28رك /.- 5'234 1)#0 و/.- آ+& و()'& أ$#"! 0"8 >+9E4./ FGH ورAB8* ;< C#Dت I initiate this discussion to enrich the understanding of the Muslims and to solidify what some of them can somewhat already perceive, but only in a general fashion. It may be funny, but it has a great element of tragedy in that those who follow the Ash’ari school of thought, who claim to be the followers of rationalism, simply do not see the rationale and conclusive ramifications of what their school of thought leads to. Whenever the theological topics concerning “limit” and or “place” for Allah comes up, the two heated sides are usually the salafis who are labeled as the anthropomorphists versus the Ash’aris (and we can add the Maturidis) and who are labelled the “Jahmis”. However, what many from Ahlu-Sunnah among the salafis/ahlul-hadeeth have been slightly unaware of, is that the polemic is much graver than simply the kalaam arguments for “limit”, “jism”, and “place” respectively. Little will they realize that discussion on each one of these topics are actually connected to the topic of ilhaad (atheism) and that the formulated doctrines of the later day Ash’aris is nothing less than an institutionalized form of atheism. We will, in this endeavor, highlight Athari Imaams who have either explicitly stated this fact or who have implied this fact.
    [Show full text]
  • Bananas, Beliefs and the Being
    Bananas, Beliefs and The Being: A Pragmatic Refutation of Determined Agnostheism and its Harmful Effects Submitted by Margaret Jean Schneider Philosophy To The Honors College Oakland University In partial fulfillment of the requirement to graduate from The Honors College Mentor: Fritz J. McDonald, Associate Professor of Philosophy Philosophy Department Oakland University December 11, 2018 Schneider 1 Introduction Is the claim that “God’s existence is unknowable” a valid premise for a religious belief? This paper seeks to argue that “determined agnostheism”, a specific version of agnosticism that claims the existence of God unknowable, is an inadequate assertion. “Determined agnostheism” is a logically conceivable proposition that many individuals assert as a religious belief, yet, due to its claim that knowledge on God’s existence is ultimately unfathomable, its originating premise eliminates it from religious discussions. Previous philosophers of religion such as Richard Dawkins have expressed dissatisfaction with the “wishy-washy” tendencies of agnosticism, but none have gone as far as to prove its argument as incoherent. In order to accomplish this goal of proving this specific version of agnosticism as a false religious belief, an analytic approach that focuses on an explicit use of definitions, premises, and conclusion is implemented. The paper defines basic terms such as belief, doubt, and religion, followed by a contextual explanation of the most commonly held religious positions in relation to each other, namely atheism and theism. Next, agnosticism is explicitly defined, introducing the new term “determined agnostheism”. This version of agnosticism is evaluated under its logical existence as a proposition, and its actual existence as a religious belief using a process of logical deduction, implementing modus tollens.
    [Show full text]
  • Atheism, Agnosticism, and Nonbelief
    ATHEISM, AGNOSTICISM, AND NONBELIEF: A QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF TYPE AND NARRATIVE By Christopher Frank Silver Ralph W Hood Jr Jim Tucker Professor Professor (Co-Chair) (Co-Chair) Valerie C. Rutledge David Rausch Professor Assistant Professor (Committee Member) (Committee Member) Anthony J. Lease A. Jerald Ainsworth Dean of the College of Health, Education Dean of the Graduate School and Professional Studies ATHEISM, AGNOSTICISM, AND NONBELIEF: A QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF TYPE AND NARRATIVE By Christopher Frank Silver A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga Chattanooga, Tennessee August 2013 ii Copyright © 2013 By Christopher Frank Silver All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Extensive research has been conducted in exploration of the American religious landscape, however recently has social science research started to explore Nonbelief in any detail. Research on Nonbelief has been limited as most research focuses on the popularity of the religious “nones” or the complexities of alternative faith expressions such as spirituality. Research has been limited in exploring the complexity of Nonbelief or how non-believers would identify themselves. Most research assumes nonbelievers are a monolithic group with no variation such as Atheism or Agnosticism. Through two studies, one qualitative and one quantitative, this study explored identity of Nonbelief. Study one (the qualitative study) discovered that individuals have shared definitional agreement but use different words to describe the different types of Nonbelief. Moreover, social tension and life narrative play a role in shaping one’s ontological worldview.
    [Show full text]
  • Atheism, Agnosticism, and Nonbelief
    ATHEISM, AGNOSTICISM, AND NONBELIEF: A QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF TYPE AND NARRATIVE By Christopher Frank Silver Ralph W Hood Jr Jim Tucker Professor Professor (Co-Chair) (Co-Chair) Valerie C. Rutledge David Rausch Professor Assistant Professor (Committee Member) (Committee Member) Anthony J. Lease A. Jerald Ainsworth Dean of the College of Health, Education Dean of the Graduate School and Professional Studies ATHEISM, AGNOSTICISM, AND NONBELIEF: A QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE STUDY OF TYPE AND NARRATIVE By Christopher Frank Silver A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga Chattanooga, Tennessee August 2013 ii Copyright © 2013 By Christopher Frank Silver All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Extensive research has been conducted in exploration of the American religious landscape, however recently has social science research started to explore Nonbelief in any detail. Research on Nonbelief has been limited as most research focuses on the popularity of the religious “nones” or the complexities of alternative faith expressions such as spirituality. Research has been limited in exploring the complexity of Nonbelief or how non-believers would identify themselves. Most research assumes nonbelievers are a monolithic group with no variation such as Atheism or Agnosticism. Through two studies, one qualitative and one quantitative, this study explored identity of Nonbelief. Study one (the qualitative study) discovered that individuals have shared definitional agreement but use different words to describe the different types of Nonbelief. Moreover, social tension and life narrative play a role in shaping one’s ontological worldview.
    [Show full text]
  • Handbook-2Nd-Semeste
    SKE Society’s RANI PARVATI DEVI COLLEGE OF ARTS & COMMERCE Tilakwadi, Belagavi. DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY HANDBOOK Course Title: Orthodox and Medieval Indian philosophy Staff Member: Pierre Carvalho Class: BA IInd Semester Year: December 2017 – April 2018 Handbook – BA 6 th Semester – Philosophy 2 Table of Content 1. Syllabus & Time Budget ........................................... 3 2. Bibliography ............................................................. 5 3. Model Questions ...................................................... 6 4. Glossary .................................................................... 10 Handbook – BA 6 th Semester – Philosophy 3 SYLLABUS & TIME BUDGET: B.A Second Semester Paper: Orthodox and Medieval Indian philosophy Course Objectives: 1. To develop the Indian method of logical thinking 2. To know the significance of yoga in life 3. To know the social philosophy I. NYAYA and VAISHESHIKA: 1. Pramanas of Nyaya. 2. Categories of Vaisheshika. 3. Nature and proofs for God's existence according to Nyaya. II. SANKHYA-YOGA: 1. Satkaryavada, purusha, prakriti and evolution of the world. 2. Patanjali yoga, its psychology, chitt vrutti, pancha klesh, , chittabhumi, samadhi . 3. Astanga-yoga. III. PURVAMIMAMSA: 1. Theory of knowledge including Arthapathi and Anupalabdi 2. Theory of error: akhyati and viparitakyati. 3. Religion and Ethics; Karma, and apurva. IV. VEDANTA: 1. Advait of Shankara: Nirguna Brahman, Maya and Vivarthavada. 2. Vishistadvaita of Ramanuja: Saguna Brahman, refutation of Maya, Parinamavada. 3. Dvaita of Maddhva; Saguna Brahman, refutation of Maya, panchabheda. V. LINGAYATISM/VIRASHAIVISM: 1. Astavarana 2. Panchachara 3. Shatashala 4. Kayaka and dashoha gender and economic equality Handbook – BA 6 th Semester – Philosophy 4 Bibliography I. In English: 1. Outlines of India Philosophy. By M. Hiriyanna 2. A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy. By C. D. Sharma 3. Essentials of Indian Philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • Glossary the Absurd—A Sense That the World Is Devoid
    Glossary The Absurd—a sense that the world is devoid of the purpose or meaning that human beings usually demand; also a key cultural aspect of existentialism in The Theatre of the Absurd (one example of which is Eugene Ionescu’s 1959 play “Rhinoceros”). Absurdity—a function of the contradiction between two elements of a situation. For Camus the foremost absurdity is the clash between humanity’s desire for understanding and meaning and a world that is foreign to any such desire. Agnostic Atheism--the philosophical view that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Due to definitional variance, an agnostic atheist does not believe in God or gods and by extension holds true: 'the existence and nonexistence of deities is currently unknown and may be absolutely unknowable', or 'knowledge of the existence and nonexistence of deities is irrelevant or unimportant', or 'abstention from claims of knowledge of the existence and nonexistence of deities is optimal'. Agnosticism--the philosophical view that the truth values of certain claims — particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities — are unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent, and therefore, (some agnostics may go as far to say) irrelevant to life. Agnosticism, in both its strong (explicit) and weak (implicit) forms, is necessarily a non- atheist and non-theist position, though an agnostic person may also be either an atheist, a theist, or one who endorses neither position. Agnostic Theism--the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist is one who views that the truth value of claims regarding the existence of god(s) is unknown or inherently unknowable but chooses to believe in god(s) in spite of this.
    [Show full text]
  • A Study on Religion
    A Study on Religion Religious studies is the academic field of multi-disciplinary, secular study of religious beliefs, behaviors, and institutions. It describes, compares, interprets, and explains religion, emphasizing systematic, historically based, and cross-cultural perspectives. While theology attempts to understand the nature of transcendent or supernatural forces (such as deities), religious studies tries to study religious behavior and belief from outside any particular religious viewpoint. Religious studies draws upon multiple disciplines and their methodologies including anthropology, sociology, psychology, philosophy, and history of religion. Religious studies originated in the nineteenth century, when scholarly and historical analysis of the Bible had flourished, and Hindu and Buddhist texts were first being translated into European languages. Early influential scholars included Friedrich Max Müller, in England, and Cornelius P. Tiele, in the Netherlands. Today religious studies is practiced by scholars worldwide. In its early years, it was known as Comparative Religion or the Science of Religion and, in the USA, there are those who today also know the field as the History of religion (associated with methodological traditions traced to the University of Chicago in general, and in particular Mircea Eliade, from the late 1950s through to the late 1980s). The field is known as Religionswissenschaft in Germany and Sciences de la religion in the French-speaking world. The term "religion" originated from the Latin noun "religio", that was nominalized from one of three verbs: "relegere" (to turn to constantly/observe conscientiously); "religare" (to bind oneself [back]); and "reeligare" (to choose again).[1] Because of these three different meanings, an etymological analysis alone does not resolve the ambiguity of defining religion, since each verb points to a different understanding of what religion is.[2] During the Medieval Period, the term "religious" was used as a noun to describe someone who had joined a monastic order (a "religious").
    [Show full text]
  • New Atheism As a Case of Competitive Postsecular Worldviews
    New Atheism as a Case of Competitive Postsecular Worldviews Alan G. Nixon 98061264 A dissertation submitted to the School of Social Sciences and Psychology The University of Western Sydney In part fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Social Sciences 2014 Acknowledgements I would firstly like to thank my interview participants for their time, as I would not have been able to have a well-rounded thesis without their views. Secondly, my family and friends for their support throughout this long process. I would especially like to thank my mother Kim for her tireless editing. I would also like to thank my primary supervisor Adam Possamai for his efforts in helping this project to come to completion. Last, but certainly not least, my partner Megan, who supported me through all the ups and downs that such a large project entails. I could not have done it without all of you. Statement of Authorship The work presented in this thesis is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, original except as acknowledged in the text. I hereby declare that I have not submitted this material, either in full or in part for a degree at this or any other institution. Alan Nixon Date: …………………………………………. Signature: ………………………………….. Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................ V LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................................VI
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Scoping Exercise Report PARTICIPANTS
    1 Nonreligion in a Complex Future (NCF) Canadian Scoping Exercise Report PARTICIPANTS: Peter Beyer, Ted Malcolmson, Sana Patel, Cory Steele, and Lauren Strumos (University of Ottawa); Solange Lefebvre (Université de Montréal) INTRODUCTION This report outlines the findings of a scoping exercise on nonreligion in Canada across the five key areas of the NCF project: health (Ted Malcolmson), migration (Sana Patel), law (Cory Steele), the environment (Lauren Strumos), and education (Solange Lefebvre). The main purpose of the exercise was to identify research gaps in literature related to nonreligion in Canada by exploring what research has already been done on nonreligion. In addition to peer reviewed articles and books, this exercise incorporated non- academic sources to help identify manifestations of nonreligion currently unexplored in scholarship. These sources include news articles, government surveys and reports, various forms of media, and the websites of nonreligious organizations. Internet sources authored by nonreligious individuals also offered insight into nonreligious ways of thinking that are absent from qualitative research. The following general keywords were used to conduct the scoping exercise: agnostic, atheism, atheist, de-churched, freethinkers, humanists, humanism, infidel, irreligion, irreligious, nonbelief, nonbelievers, nones, secularism, secularists, secular spirituality, spiritual but not religious, spirituality, unaffiliated, unbelief, and unchurched The first section of this report offers a brief overview of nonreligious demographics in Canada. The second section summarizes the findings of the scoping exercise and is divided by the NCF project’s focal areas. Emphasis is placed on existing academic literature though suggestions are also made for future possible directions of NCF research. A list of surveys that may prove helpful for future research is then provided.
    [Show full text]
  • The Lived Experience of Atheist and Irreligious Youth Living Within
    THE LIVED EXPERIENCE OF ATHEIST AND IRRELIGIOUS YOUTH LIVING WITHIN RELIGIOUS HOUSEHOLDS by ANTHONY WAYNE HANSEN (Under the Direction of Anneliese A. Singh) ABSTRACT In the U.S., the population of people who identify as atheist or irreligious is growing (Brewster et al., 2014; Zuckerman, 2010, 2011; Kosmin & Keysar, 2008; Zuckerman, 2007). Recent studies show that atheism and irreligious people are viewed in a negative light with many persons in the US; as antipathy toward atheists is greater when compared to other religious groups, racial and ethnic groups, or (LGBTQ) people (Cragun et al., 2012). Hunsberger and Altemeyer (2006) found that conflict within family structures over a family member’s lack of belief caused feelings of ostracism and discrimination from other religious family members. Moreover, adolescents report poorer parental relationships when parents are more religious than the youth (Kim-Spoon, Longo, & McCullogough, 2012). Research on atheism remains poor within social science scholarship, psychology, and within counseling psychology specifically. Yet it is apparent that non-belief is quickly becoming a valid issue of diversity within psychology and counseling psychology as a profession (Brewster et al., 2014; D’Andrea & Sprenger, 2007). Counseling psychology has traditionally been at the forefront of social justice issues and cultural competencies within APA, yet the lack of attention to atheism as a diversity issue is problematic (Brewster et al., 2014). The current study sought to explore and understand the experiences of self-identified atheist/irreligious youth who live with their religious parents or are dependent on parents for financial support. A qualitative methodology known as psychological phenomenology, centered in social constructivist theory (Gergen, 1985; Creswell, 2012) and guided by the minority stress model (Meyer, 2003), served as the theoretical foundation into the exploration of the lived experiences of atheist and irreligious youth living within religious households.
    [Show full text]
  • Atheism Profile
    Atheism By Robert M. Bowman, Jr. Organizations: American Atheists; American Humanist Association; Atheists United; Council for Secular Humanism; Freedom from Religion Foundation Books: Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian; George Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God; Sam Harris, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation; Daniel Dennett, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon; Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion; Christopher Hitchens, god Is Not Great; Michael Martin (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Atheism Periodicals: Free Inquiry; The Humanist; Reason; Skeptical Inquirer Definition and Related Views: Atheism is the belief that rejects belief in the existence of God, however conceived. Agnosticism is the belief that God’s existence is unknown or unknowable. (An agnostic can be an atheist.) Skepticism is the belief that only what one can irrefutably prove is knowable; modern skepticism questions the validity of supernatural and paranormal experiences and events. Naturalism is the belief that only nature exists. Nihilism is the belief that human life has no meaning or purpose (since there is no God who created us). Humanism is the belief that human life does have meaning and purpose, but that human beings themselves are the source and standard of positive human values. (This definition does not apply to the movement called Renaissance humanism.) Secularism is the belief that public, social, and governmental values should be devoid of religious influence. Religious humanism affirms that humanism is compatible with religious or spiritual beliefs (though not with belief in the supernatural); secular humanism denies such compatibility. HISTORY Atheism has existed in various forms for well over two thousand years, but became a culturally powerful movement only in the past two centuries.
    [Show full text]
  • How Non-Religious Persons Are Labeled As Deviant in a Religious Society
    San Jose State University SJSU ScholarWorks Master's Theses Master's Theses and Graduate Research Fall 2012 Godless Americans: How Non-Religious Persons are Labeled as Deviant in a Religious Society Damian M. Bramlett San Jose State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses Recommended Citation Bramlett, Damian M., "Godless Americans: How Non-Religious Persons are Labeled as Deviant in a Religious Society" (2012). Master's Theses. 4224. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31979/etd.73ed-qsxu https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_theses/4224 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses and Graduate Research at SJSU ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of SJSU ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. GODLESS AMERICANS: HOW NON-RELIGIOUS PERSONS ARE LABELED AS DEVIANT IN A RELIGIOUS SOCIETY A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Justice Studies San José State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science by Damian Bramlett December 2012 © 2012 Damian Bramlett ALL RIGHTS RESERVED The Designated Thesis Committee Approves the Thesis Titled GODLESS AMERICANS: HOW NON-RELIGIOUS PERSONS ARE LABELED AS DEVIANT IN A RELIGIOUS SOCIETY by Damian Bramlett APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE STUDIES SAN JOSÉ STATE UNIVERSITY December 2012 Dr. William T. Armaline Department of Justice Studies Dr. James Lee Department of Sociology Dr. Mark Correia Department of Justice Studies ABSTRACT GODLESS AMERICANS: HOW NON-RELIGIOUS PERSONS ARE LABELED AS DEVIANT IN A RELIGIOUS SOCIETY by Damian Bramlett This research examined Atheism, Agnosticism, and secularism as forms of deviance within American society.
    [Show full text]