Varieties of Secularity in the Pacific Northwest

8/7/2019 Varieties of Secularity in the Pacific Northwest

1/36

Varieties of Secularity in the Pacific Northwest

Frank L. PasqualeResearch Associate, ISSSC, Trinity College, Hartford, CT

[email protected]

Paper to be delivered at the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion

Tampa, FloridaNovember 4, 2007

Draft: please contact author before citing or quoting

Abstract. Distinctions among types of religiosity and religious identification are many and

detailed. Research that compares and contrasts individuals who consider themselves secular ornonreligious, or who hold affirmatively or substantially naturalistic worldviews, however, is

largely uncharted territory. These are customarily treated as a homogeneous group with which

to compare the religious. Based on a survey of 911 members of secularist, humanist, atheist,skeptic, and freethought groups in Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia, varieties of

secularity, from hard to soft, are explored with respect to metaphysical beliefs, attitudes

toward religion, self-descriptions, and use and meanings of spiritual/ity.

Despite considerable attention devoted to the question of secularization in the past half

century or more, the study of forms of secularism or secularity as a coherent focus of

inquiry has barely begun (Kosmin and Keysar, 2007). Social scientific study of peoples

existential and metaphysical worldviews, or meaning systems1 (Hood, Hill, and Williamson,

2005), has customarily been approached from the vantage of religion and religiosity. This has

resulted in a detailed picture of religious individuals and forms, but comparatively little detail

in our understanding of people at the other end of the metaphysical spectrum, such as those

who may be characterized as substantially or affirmatively nonreligious, irreligious, secular,

non-transcendental,2 or philosophically naturalistic (Pasquale, 2007a, b). They have generally

been treated, as J. Russell Hale once said of the unchurched, as if. . .they were one

homogeneous category (1980: 97). Glenn Vernons observation, nearly forty years ago that

the image of the atheist, agnostic, and nonbeliever. . .is blurry and indistinct (1968: 220)

remains true today.

There are signs of growing interest in secularism, atheism, and related subjects, asevidenced by Bainbridge 2005, Beit-Hallahmi 2007, Hunsberger and Altemeyer 2006, Kosmin

and Keysar 2007, and Zuckerman 2007. But the differences, as well as shared characteristics,

among self-described secularists, (religious) skeptics, and philosophical naturalists have

remained virtually unexplored.

1
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/36

Given the lack of coherent attention to the secular end the metaphysical spectrum,

we are faced with a swarm of terms and concepts with variable clarity or consistency of

meaning and use. There are many topics in the research literature that bear, directly or

indirectly, on the subject, such as the unchurched, nones, and religious disaffiliation

(apostates, defection, outswitchers, dropouts). Relevant descriptive terms are many:

skeptic, unbeliever, nonbeliever, irreligious, nonreligious, secularist, humanist, agnostic,

rationalist, freethinker, atheist, naturalist, nontheist, non-supernaturalist, non-transcendentalist,

monist, and materialist, among others. Order may come to this array of terms as the nuances of

their use and the characteristics they represent become clearer as research proceeds.

For the sake of clarity here, (philosophical) naturalism/naturalist(ic) and this-

worldly will be used to denote ways of thinking that substantially or affirmatively reject or

avoid other-worldly (i.e., supernatural or ontologically transcendental) ideas or phenomena.

Transcendent and transcendental (and their negation) will, unless otherwise noted, be used

in an ontological sense, and so, correspond to other-worldly (or this-worldly). Secular

refers more broadly to individuals and organizations that distance themselves from established

religious traditions or institutions, or that dismiss or de-emphasize references to theistic or

supernatural ideas (but may be naturalistic to varying degrees). Secularity will refer to the

degree to which such a tendency may be said to describe individuals meaning systems and

related behavior. Following Kosmin (2007) secularism will be reserved for reference to

political ideology concerning the relationshipand institutional separationbetween religion

and government.

Since this is largely terra incognita, the approach taken in this study was exploratory

and deliberately a-theoretical. The aim was to cast a net that was wide enough in scope, but

fine enough in weave, to identify both shared and distinctive characteristics in a sample of

individuals who are substantially or affirmatively secular (for lack of a better summary

term). Nonetheless, a distinction suggested by Steinfels (2006) and Kosmin (2007) is useful

between soft and hard secularity and secularism. As Kosmin writes (2007: 6-7):The soft secularist. . .is neither a convinced Atheist nor a principled materialist,and may not be hostile to religious beliefs and institutions. In fact, the majority

are liberal religionists.

Hard secularity, on the other hand,

refers to a worldview, a system of beliefs, or a modality of sense-making

that is determinedly non-religious. A disenchanted universe is a purely

2


3/36

physical and material one.

The question posed in the present research is: what do soft and hard forms look

like among affiliated, self-described secularists with respect to several indicators:

> views of metaphysical concepts or phenomena

> self-descriptions

> attitude toward or about religion

> attitude about religion-government or church-state relations (and separation)

> use or avoidance of the notion of spirituality and meanings assigned to this.

The first four of these are fairly straightforward. With regard to spiritual and

spirituality, based on in-depth interviews with 50 self-described nonreligious individuals

and a small-scale survey of one secular humanist group, Pasquale (2006, 2007a) found that

self-described secularistsboth affiliated and unaffiliatedmay use these terms. Their

meanings, however, were decidedly this-worldly in character.

Prior work has tended to focus on religious samples and on teasing out the distinction

between religiousness and spirituality, as well as spiritual but not religious, among them

(Zinnbauer, et al., 1999; Zinnbauer and Pargament, 2000). Summarizing findings reported by

Unruh, Versnel, and Kerr (2002), Bregman (2006) gave six categories culled from 92

distinguishable definitions of spirituality:

1. Relationship to God, spiritual being, higher power

2. Not of the self3. Transcendence or connectedness, unrelated to belief in a higher being

4. Existential5. Meaning and purpose in life

6. Life force of the person

At a certain level, much like broadly functional definitions of religionas in

ultimate concern (Emmons, 1999, or Tillich, 1957) or intensive concerns (Bailey, 1998)

definitions of spirituality (as meaning and purpose in life) may refer to intrinsically human

(and this-worldly) activities and sensibilities. As such, they may be indicators of secularity

rather than alternative or non-institutional religiousness.

An expanded survey of affiliates in a range of secularist groups offers the opportunity

to probe the range of meanings of these terms, prevalence of usage, and other aspects of such

individuals worldviews as a means of exploring distinguishable varieties of secularity.

3


4/36

Methods and sample

An effort was made to identify all explicitly secularist groups in Oregon,

Washington, and southern British Columbia. This included groups that described themselves

as secular, humanist (secular, Jewish, or Unitarian), atheist, freethought, rationalist,

and/or skeptic. Questionnaires were distributed by postal mail or by hand to 1,638

individuals on the mailing lists of 22 such groups from September of 2006 through January of

2007.3 These were distributed in manila envelopes containing a cover letter, the questionnaire,

and a self-addressed, post-paid return envelope addressed to OCHCP Survey [number for

each participating group] at a post-office box in Portland, Oregon. Cover letters asked for

group-members participation in a study of people in the Pacific Northwest whose ways of

thinking are substantially secular, nonreligious, skeptical, non-supernatural, or naturalistic.

Anonymity was assured and it was indicated that survey findings will not be reported for any

particular group or organization by name. The letter was signed by the investigator as a

Research Associate with the Institute for the Study of Secularism, Trinity College, Hartford,

Connecticut.

Forty-one questionnaires were returned by the postal service as undeliverable.

Questionnaires were returned by 951 individuals, but due to membership in multiple groups

some individuals received more than one copy. To avoid data duplication (i.e., more than one

completed survey from anyone), recipients were asked to complete a cover sheet for each

duplicate questionnaire received, indicating the group for which they had already completed

and returned the survey, and the group(s) from which they received the duplicate(s). Twenty-

eight respondents did so, yielding 922 completed surveys for analysis, or an effective response

rate of 58.76 percent (of a non-duplicative distribution of 1,569). Ten questionnaires were

partially completed, but since they provided usable data in some sections they were not

excluded from the sample for analysis.

Anecdotal reports (including written notes on completed forms) indicated that some ofthose receiving more than one survey did not return duplicate surveys with completed cover

sheets, as requested. Another indication of multiple group membership (and so, likely receipt

of more than one questionnaire) was provided by a survey item on respondent membership in

local religious, philosophical, or nonreligious groups. Sixty-six respondents indicated

affiliation with two or more of the targeted groups. The resulting response rate is thus a

4


5/36

conservative estimate, since the actual (net) number of individuals in the distribution sample

was likely closer to 1,500 than 1,600. It is reasonable to conclude that a response rate of

roughly 60 percent was achieved.4

A commitment was made to all participating groups that data would not be reported for

any individual group by name, but rather, for distinguishable group or philosophical types

based on self-descriptions (in group names, in materials or websites, and by group members

and representatives). Assignment of groups to categories was straightforward in most cases,

based on self-descriptive distinctions made by the groups themselves. Groups were assigned to

the Unitarian humanist category on the basis of an indicated relationship with a Unitarian

church or fellowship, substantial numbers of Unitarian church/fellowship members among

respondents, and/or explicit self-description as Unitarian humanists.5 Seven respondents each

who were affiliated with Ethical Culture and Brights groups, who described themselves as

atheist(ic) and/or indicated dual membership in a regional atheist group, were included in the

Atheist group category. Comparatively low response variability for the Atheist group category

on many items reinforced confidence in the appropriateness of this allocation.

One small group (n=11) that labeled itself freethought was excluded from the

analyses presented here. Analysis of responses suggested that its members were markedly and

consistently different from all other groups in the distribution sample. Most indicated

profoundly religious, spiritual, supernatural, and/or mystical views. Aggregation with

affiliates of other freethought groups yielded results with high response variability that did not

fairly represent either of two apparently very different takes on freethought. This points

up an apparent distinction in popular use and meaning of freethought and freethinker.

One widely cited dictionary definition of freethought/freethinker refers to one who

forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority; especially one who doubts or

denies religious dogma. Two of three groups in the distribution sample use these terms in

what may be called the (majority or standard) rationalist sense (as in, for example,

Robertson, 1936, or more recently, Jacoby, 2004). Here, emphasis is on reason (or rigorousapplication of logic and empirical evidence to the evaluation of truth claims) and denial of

religious doctrine or supernatural ideas. The response patterns of the outlier group, however,

suggested a very different interpretation. Here, thinking may be set free from the perceived

constraints of traditional or institutional religious adherence, belief, or doctrine, but also

from those of rationalism, skepticism, naturalism, or non-transcendentalism. (This might best

5


6/36

be called an unfettered sense of freethought and freethinker.) Such variation in usage is

not restricted to the groups sampled here. A check of the Worldwide Web indicates that while

the rationalist usage seems most common, there are those (such as one freethought church,

not represented in the present sample) for whom these terms mean freedom from either

religious or rationalist/empiricist limitation (with consequent inclusion of pagan, gnostic,

mystical, magical, neopagan polytheistic, and bohemian references).

Following these adjustments, the final sample for analysis included 911 respondents in

six categories:

Group type ---Oregon/Washington--- ----British Columbia---- ToNumber of groups n Number of groups

Secular humanist 4 256 3

Jewish humanist 2 110 Unitarian humanist 3 129

Atheist 2 104

Skeptic, rationalist 3 153

Freethought _2 30 16 782 3

Respondents were overwhelmingly white and of European descent. Among 899

individuals supplying this information, 79.8 percent described themselves as Euro/

Caucasian, with another 16.3 percent Jewish or Jewish+Euro-Caucasian and 3.9

percent, other (including [East] Asian descent, Indian [South Asian], Middle Eastern [Persian,

Iraqi], African American, and Native American).

Average age of respondents was 62.68 and median age was 64, with a range of 15 to

92. Roughly 56 percent of respondents were male and 44 percent were female. (Ten

respondents did not provide this information.)

Gender distribution varied among group types as indicated in Table 1. The pattern

among survey respondents was a fair reflection of the actual gender distributions in the groups(based on mailing list counts or group reports; indicated in brackets).

6


7/36

Table 1. Gender distribution by group type

Gender

Totalmale female

Grouptype/affiliation

Humanist Secular Count 210 169 379

% in group type

[Est. actual]

55.4%

[58.5%]

44.6%

[41.5%]

100.0%

Humanist - Jewish Count 33 75 108

% in group type

[Est. actual]

30.6%

[40.5%]

69.4%

[59.5%]

100.0%

Humanist - Unitarian Count 63 66 129

% in group type

[Est. actual]

48.8%

[48.0%]

51.2%

[52.0%]

100.0%

Atheist Count 69 34 103

% in group type

[Est. actual]

67.0%

[69.3%]

33.0%

[30.7%]

100.0%

Skeptic, rationalist Count 113 39 152

% in group type

[Est. actual]

74.3%

[70.0%]

25.7%

[30.0%]

100.0%

Freethought Count 18 12 30

% in group type

[Est. actual]

60.0%

[N/A]

40.0%

[N/A]

100.0%

Total N 506 399 901

56.2% 43.8% 100.0%

This is a comparatively well-educated group, with more than three-quarters holding

college degrees and nearly half holding advanced degrees, far higher than among all U. S.

citizens 25 years of age or older (Table 3).

Table 3. Respondents educational attainment

Total sample U. S. sample* U. S. population**% %

High school only 4.4 3.4 Some college, 16.0 15.5

no degreeSpecialist/ 5.1 4.2

associate degreeBaccalaureate 28.8 30.3 Masters degrees 28.2 28.7 Doctoral/professional 17.4 17.7

(J.D., M. D., Ph. D.)

* Excluding British Columbia groups. ** Among individuals 25 years of age and older (= 191,884,000) U. S.Census, 2006: http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/education/cps2006/tab01-01.xls

7


8/36

Among the U. S.-based groups (n=782), 17.5 percent indicated Jewish backgrounds.

In all U. S. groups except the Jewish humanists, 7.1 percent of respondents indicated Jewish

backgrounds, an over-representation compared with an estimated 2 to 3 percent of individuals

reporting Jewish descent in the U. S. population at large.

The distribution of ethnic/cultural backgrounds for the entire sample is given in Table

2. Notably, not all Jewish humanist affiliates indicated Jewish cultural/ethnic background, a

reflection of the fact that some member households consist of a Jewish and non-Jewish spouse.

Table 2. Group affiliation by ethnic/cultural background

Group type/affiliation Total

Cultural/ethnicbackground

Humanist -Secular

Humanist -Jewish

Humanist -Unitarian Atheist

Skeptic,rationalist Freethought

Euro/Caucasian Count 329 18 116 89 136 29 717%

87.0% 16.5% 89.9% 88.1% 90.1% 96.7% 79.8%

Jewish orJewish+Euro

Count34 89 11 7 5 0 146

%9.0% 81.7% 8.5% 6.9% 3.3% .0% 16.3%

All other (AfricanAm, Asian,Middle Eastern)

Count15 2 2 5 10 1 35

%4.0% 1.8% 1.6% 5.0% 6.6% 3.3% 3.9%

Total N 378 109 129 101 151 30 898

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

8


9/36

Selected findings

Survey components afforded several ways of probing degrees and types of secularity

among respondents:

a) views of specific metaphysical questions or ideas

b) applicability of a range of self-descriptive terms

c) attitudes toward something-called-religiond) attitude about religion-government, or church-state, relations

e) use and specific meanings of spiritual or spirituality.

Metaphysical concepts. Five items assessed respondents views on existential or

metaphysical issues, one of which focused on explanations for perceived order in nature:

Do you think that the degree of order or patterning we perceive in nature is most likely

attributable to:

1. Properties that are intrinsic to the nature of the physical universe or all that exists,

and nothing more2. A coherent organizing principle that we cannot, or do not yet, fully comprehend,

that is pervasive throughout the physical universe or all that exists

3. An organizing principle or force that in some way transcends the physical universe

or all that exists

4. An impersonal, but in some sense intelligent, creative force that has brought

all that exists into being

5. A personal, and in some sense intelligence creative force, or God, with which

human beings can make contact or have a communicative relationship

6. An omniscient, omnipotent, intelligent God that designed and created all that exists

On the basis of responses to this item alone (n=886), this is an overwhelmingly

naturalistic group, with 96.4 percent choosing response 1, 2, or both 1 and 2. Three percent

more chose responses 3 or 4 (which could be considered alternative expressions of deism).

Only one individual chose option 5 and none chose 6. Comparatively greater numbers of

Jewish (32 percent) affiliates chose option 2 rather than 1 (with other groups ranging from 8 to

22 percent). In related texts, fourteen individuals made reference to the human tendency to

perceive or impose pattern whether or not it is really there. (One stated definitively that

there is no order or patterning in nature!) Had there been a response option attributing

order to human perception (or human perceptual bias, alone) rather than to nature, more

individuals might well have indicated this view.

Response patterns grow increasingly complex as four additional metaphysical concepts

are considered. These focused on:

> A transcendent entity: a being, entity, or higher power beyond, apart from, or transcending nature> A personal essence, spirit, or soul apart from our physical bodies or continuing beyond our physical

lives (or through multiple lifetimes)

9


10/36

> An impersonal force or energy that courses through and connects all living things or all that exists> An ultimate purpose or direction in human life or all of existence

Modified Glock and Stark response sets were provided for each of these items.

Modifications were suggested by prior interviews, particularly the addition of a metaphorical

approach to metaphysical concepts or phenomena. These were:

> Meaningless/nonexistent: this makes no sense to me; I dont think there is any such thing> Unknowable: I dont know and dont think this is something human beings can know> Maybe/unsure: this may be; Im just not sure> Sometimes: sometimes I think this is so and sometimes I do not

> Metaphorical: even though I doubt or reject the reality of this, or view this as a human construction,I like to thinkas though there is

> Probably: there is probably something like this, but I have no idea about its actual nature> Definitely: this is something I definitely think exists or is the case

Strong majorities rejected notions of a transcendent entity and continuing personal

essence as meaningless/non-existent or unknowable (Table 4; responses compressed, as

indicated, for simplicity of presentation). Weaker majorities rejected the notions of ultimate

purpose or an impersonal force.

Table 4. Response patterns for primary worldview items

Transcendent entity

Non-existent/unknowable

Maybe orsometimes

Metaphorical(as though)

Probably ordefinitely

Totalrespondents

775 50 28 42 895

86.6% 5.6% 3.1% 4.7% 100.0%

Personal essence


Maybe orsometimes



749 61 35 47 892

84.0% 6.8% 3.9% 5.3% 100.0%

Ultimate purpose


Maybe orsometimes



632 58 107 76 873

72.4% 6.6% 12.3% 8.7% 100.0%

Impersonal force


Maybe orsometimes



566 127 57 136 886

63.9% 14.3% 6.4% 15.3% 100.0%

10


11/36

With respect to the concept of a transcendent entity, 89.7 percent considered this

meaningless/non-existent or unknowable (86.6 percent) or assented only metaphorically (3.1

percent). Only 1.6 percent felt that this definitely exists.

The substantial number of respondents who think of ultimate purpose metaphorically

is notable, as are those who indicated that they maybe/sometimes or probably/definitely accept

the existence of an impersonal force. A slightly greater percentage of males (13.3 percent)

than females (10.7) viewed ultimate purpose metaphorically. Females more often accepted the

reality of an impersonal force maybe/sometimes (17.5 percent of women; 11.8 percent of

men), or probably/definitely (22.2 percent of women; 11.4 percent of men).

Differences were clearly apparent in responses among group types. While this masks

details, treating responses to all four concepts on a scaled basis (1 = meaningless/

non-existent; 7 = definitely exists or is the case) fairly reflects differences among groups

(Figure 1). Overall, women tended to reject these concepts slightly less than men (except

among the 12 female Freethought affiliates, who rejected a personal essence/soul and

Gender

femalemale

Meanresponse(1-7sca

le)

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

Freethought

Skeptic, rationalist

Atheist

Humanist - Unitarian

Humanist - Judaic

Humanist - Secular

Group type/affiliation

Figure 1. Mean responses to four worldview concepts among group affiliates by gender

11


12/36

ultimate purpose substantially less than males). Jewish humanists tended to reject the four

concepts least, on average, followed by Unitarian humanists. Atheist and Skeptic affiliates

were most likely to reject them, followed by Secular humanists.

Of the four concepts, an impersonal force was the strongest discriminator among group

types, as indicated in Figure 2. Jewish humanists were least likely to reject the concept (as

nonexistent orunknowable).

Gender

femalemale

MeanImpersonalforceviews

4.5

4

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

4.5

4

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

Freethought

Skeptic, rationalist

Atheist

Humanist - Unitarian

Humanist - Judaic

Humanist - Secular

Group type/affiliation

Figure 2. Mean responses for an impersonal force among group affiliates by gender

The most frequent single pattern of responses to all four concepts was straight-ticket

rejection (as meaningless or nonexistent). One-third of the full sample responded this way

(Table 5). Atheist affiliates were followed by Skeptic, Secular humanist, and Freethought

affiliates, with Unitarian and Jewish affiliates least likely to reject the concept(s) categorically.

(This, in fact, closely parallels the group pattern concerning an impersonal force.) A separate

analysis indicated that males (42.9 percent) were more likely to be straight-ticket rejecters than

females (27.4 percent; n=2986). Excluding the Jewish and Unitarian humanists, this was true

among the remaining groups, as well (males, 39.4 percent; females, 25.3 percent; n=136).

12


13/36

We can also view those who considered all four worldview concepts either

meaningless/nonexistent orunknowable. One-half of the full sample responded this way, but

the pattern of responses among groups remained the same.

Table 5. Group affiliates rejecting a transcendental entity, personal essence, ultimate purpose,

and impersonal force as meaningless or non-existent

Self-descriptions. A majority of respondents described themselves as not religious

(if defined in supernatural or transcendental terms), with 86.5 percent circling not at all

religious or 1 and 96.4 percent responding below the scale mid-point. More Jewish and

Unitarian humanists were willing to describe themselves as religious in some degree than

others (Table 6 ; response scale compressed).

Table 6. currently consider yourself religious (in supernatural or transcendental terms)?


Religious?Humanist -

SecularHumanist -

JewishHumanist -Unitarian Atheist


Not at all (1) Count 352 69 92 97 139 27 776

% 92.4% 64.5% 73.6% 94.2% 92.1% 90.0% 86.5%

A litt le (2-3) Count 26 29 23 6 7 2 93

% 6.8% 27.1% 18.4% 5.8% 4.6% 6.7% 10.4%

Mid-scale (4) Count 0 5 2 0 3 0 10

% .0% 4.7% 1.6% .0% 2.0% .0% 1.1%

Religious (5-7) Count 3 4 8 0 2 1 18% .8% 3.7% 6.4% .0% 1.3% 3.3% 2.0%

Total Count 381 107 125 103 151 30 897

% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Individuals were asked to indicate any local philosophical or religious organizations

with which they were affiliated (as active members, occasional participants, or monetary

Group type/affiliation Tota

Humanist -

SecularHumanist -

JudaicHumanist -Unitarian Atheist

Skeptic,rationalist

Freethought

All four worldview itemsmeaningless/nonexistent

Count 136 12 24 51 69 7 2

%35.4% 11.1% 18.6% 49.5% 45.4% 23.3% 33.0

N 384 108 129 103 152 30 9

All four worldview itemsmeaningless/nonexistentOR not knowable

Count 207 27 48 61 96 16 4

%54.0% 25.0% 37.2% 59.2% 62.7% 53.3% 50.2

N 383 108 129 103 153 30 9

13


14/36

contributors). Apart from affiliation with Unitarian churches or fellowships, reported

affiliation with religious organizations was negligible (Table 7). Most of the Unitarians were

found in the Unitarian humanist groups (60 percent), with 10.5 percent or less in each of the

other groups.

Table 7. Reported involvement in local religious institutions

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Valid None indicated 739 81.1 82.7

Unitarian Universalism 139 15.3 15.5

Church, synagogue,religious congregation 11 1.2 1.2

Pagan 1 .1 .1

Buddhist, meditation 4 .4 .4

Total 894 98.1 100.0

Missing No response/missing data 17 1.9

Total 911 100.0

A weaker majority described themselves as not spiritual, again if defined in

supernatural or transcendental terms (Table 8), with 73.4 percent choosing Not at all

spiritual and 87.8 percent responding below the scale mid-point. Judaic humanists were

noticeably more likely to apply spiritual to themselves in some degree than other affiliates,

followed by Unitarian humanist and freethought group affiliates. The numbers for Judaic

humanists were not attributable to the comparatively greater number of female affiliates, since

both males and females were more likely to apply spiritual than in other groups.

Table 8. currently consider yourself spiritual (in supernatural or transcendental terms)?

Spiritual?Humanist -

SecularHumanist -



Not at all (1) Count 299 40 71 89 120 20 639

%80.4% 38.8% 60.2% 89.0% 81.1% 66.7% 73.4%

A little (1-3) Count 41 26 25 10 17 6 125

% 11.0% 25.2% 21.2% 10.0% 11.5% 20.0% 14.4%

Mid-scale (4) Count 9 11 10 1 3 0 34

% 2.4% 10.7% 8.5% 1.0% 2.0% .0% 3.9%

Spiritual (5-7) Count 23 26 12 0 8 4 73

% 6.2% 25.2% 10.2% .0% 5.4% 13.3% 8.4%

Total N 372 103 118 100 148 30 871

% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

14


15/36

Respondents were also asked to indicate whether or not they would. . .or do use any of

[several] terms to describe [their] way of thinking (Table 9). Predictably (given the large

number of humanist affiliates in the sample), humanist(ic) was the most frequently chosen

descriptor. While chosen by large majorities of the humanist group types, substantial numbers

in all other groups applied it to themselves, as well, including 60 percent of Atheist affiliates.

Table 9. Self-descriptive terms applied by respondents to themselves


Self-description

Humanist -Secular

Humanist Jewish

Humanist -Unitarian Atheist


(% of allrespondents)

agnostic Count 130 40 61 25 59 12 327

% withinGrouptype

34.2% 36.4% 48.0% 24.5% 38.8% 41.4% 36.3%

atheist(ic) Count243 45 55 94 103 22 562% within

Grouptype63.9% 40.9% 43.3% 92.2% 67.8% 75.9% 62.4%

anti-religious Count 115 19 29 37 55 11 266

% withinGrouptype

30.3% 17.3% 22.8% 36.3% 36.2% 37.9% 29.6%

humanist(ic) Count 315 90 96 61 81 13 656

% withinGrouptype

82.9% 81.8% 75.6% 59.8% 53.3% 44.8% 72.9%

naturalistic Count 130 23 44 33 53 12 295

% withinGrouptype

34.2% 20.9% 34.6% 32.4% 34.9% 41.4% 32.8%

scientific Count 217 41 72 61 115 18 524

% within

Grouptype 57.1% 37.3% 56.7% 59.8% 75.7% 62.1% 58.2%secular(ist) Count 232 64 59 61 73 14 503

% withinGrouptype

61.1% 58.2% 46.5% 59.8% 48.0% 48.3% 55.9%

nontheist Count 159 37 40 36 47 12 331

% withinGrouptype

41.8% 33.6% 31.5% 35.3% 30.9% 41.4% 36.8%

skeptical Count 186 23 59 54 118 16 456

% withinGrouptype

48.9% 20.9% 46.5% 52.9% 77.6% 55.2% 50.7%

non/unbeliever Count 163 15 41 59 59 19 356

% withinGrouptype

42.9% 13.6% 32.3% 57.8% 38.8% 65.5% 39.6%

Total Count 380 110 127 102 152 29 900

Atheist(ic) was chosen by majorities of Atheist, Secular humanist, Skeptic, and

Freethought affiliates. Noticeably fewer Jewish and Unitarian humanists applied the term to

themselves.

15


16/36

Agnostic was chosen by little more than a third of all respondents. Nearly half of

Unitarian humanists, but only a quarter of Atheists, applied it to themselves.

Anti-religious and naturalist(ic) were the least frequently chosen self-descriptions

overall, with less than a third of respondents choosing each. Jewish humanists were least likely

to choose anti-religious, followed by Unitarian humanists. (In fact, fewer Jewish humanists

chose anti-religious, atheist(ic), naturalist(ic), scientific, skeptical, or

non/unbeliever than other affiliates.) The limited number of affiliates of any kind who

applied anti-religious to themselves is notable in view of fairly critical attitudes about

something-called-religion indicated by many.

Views of religion. Attitudes about religion were assessed several ways. When

asked to what extent they would say they are angry about the role, dominance, and/or effects

of religion in the world, nearly 80 percent indicated anger affirmatively (scaled responses

from 5 to 7; 1 = not at all angry; 7 = very angry). Comments provided by 79 individuals

suggested that responses might have been more affirmative regarding words other than anger,

such as concerned, distressed, disappointed, distraught, frustrated, puzzled, sad,

troubled, upset, worried, or aghast, among others. While some writers made it clear

that anger was apt and warranted, others said that there are more reasonable or productive

sentiments.

Table 10. Reported anger about the role and effects of religion in the world

Humanist -

SecularHumanist -



Not angry(1-3)

Count42 11 17 6 31 3 110

% 11.3% 10.2% 13.7% 6.0% 20.9% 10.3% 12.5%

Scalemidpoint (4.0)

Count32 14 9 8 11 2 76

% 8.6% 13.0% 7.3% 8.0% 7.4% 6.9% 8.6%

Angry(5-7)

Count298 83 98 86 106 24 695

% 80.1% 76.9% 79.0% 86.0% 71.6% 82.8% 78.9%

Total N 372 108 124 100 148 29 881

% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Respondents were also asked to what extent they considered religion a harmful or

positive force in human affairs (1=harmful; 7=positive). Roughly three-quarters of

respondents considered religion more harmful than positive, but again there were considerable

16


17/36

differences among groups (Table 11). Jewish humanists were least likely to consider religion a

harmful force followed by Unitarian humanists; Freethought and Atheist affiliates were most

likely to be of this opinion.

Table 11. Religion as a harmful or positive force in human affairs

Respondents were offered the opportunity to indicate that religion is too complex a

phenomenon to generalize about in this way in addition to, or instead of, a scaled response.

In Table 11, those who chose this option insteadofa scaled response are reported. In Table 12,

those who chose this option whether or notthey provided a scaled response are reported.

In both cases, Jewish humanists were most likely to feel that religion is too complex to

generalize about in such a manner, followed by Unitarian humanists; Freethought and Atheist

affiliates were least likely to do so.

Table12 . Religion too complex to evaluate generally as a harmful or positive force in the world

Overall, more than a third of respondents felt that religion was too complex to

Humanist -

SecularHumanist -



A harmful force (1-3) Count 302 61 81 90 110 29 673

%78.6% 56.0% 63.8% 87.4% 72.4% 96.7% 74.4%

Scale midpoint (4.0) Count 19 10 21 5 15 0 70

%4.9% 9.2% 16.5% 4.9% 9.9% .0% 7.7%

A positive force (4-7) Count 6 7 5 3 13 1 35

% 1.6% 6.4% 3.9% 2.9% 8.6% 3.3% 3.9%

Too complex aphenomenon (noscaled response)

Count 50 29 19 5 14 0 117

% 13.0% 26.6% 15.0% 4.9% 9.2% .0% 12.9%

Harmful + positive(multiple checked)

Count7 2 1 0 0 0 10

% 1.8% 1.8% .8% .0% .0% .0% 1.1%

Total N 384 109 127 103 152 30 905

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


Humanist -

SecularHumanist -



Religiontoo complex

Count126 53 55 30 48 7 319

% of group N 32.8% 48.6% 43.3% 29.1% 31.6% 23.3% 35.2%

Total N 384 109 127 103 152 30 905

17


18/36

Additional items provided further insight into respondents attitudes about religion

and related issues.7 In general, Jewish humanists were less critical of religion and more

critical of skeptical and nonreligious people than others, followed by Unitarian humanists.

Close inspection ofthe data indicated that this was true of both males and females in

comparison with other affiliates. Atheist and Freethought affiliates tended to be most critical

of religion. Skeptic and Secular humanist affiliates generally held the middle ground, with

Skeptics leaning toward leniency and Secular humanists, toward criticism.

Taking another look at (mean responses for) anger about religion (Appendix I, Table

A), Skeptic affiliates registered the least, on average; Freethought and Atheist affiliates, the

most. Only the Skeptics and Unitarian humanists were significantly less angry than Atheist

affiliates (F 5, 875 = 4.34, p


19/36

The Jewish humanists were also most likely, on average, to feel that it is important in

general to cultivate acceptance of other ways of thinking and behaving (significantly more than

Skeptic and Secular humanist affiliates, F 5, 788 = 3.27, p


20/36

sense. Only 3.5 percent indicated transcendental usage. While Jewish humanists were least

likely to avoid the terms entirely, the majority of respondents indicated non-transcendent

meanings.

Table 13. Use and meaning of spiritual/ity among group affiliates


Humanist -

SecularHumanist -



(Tend to) avoid; don't applyto me or my experience

Count238 33 60 76 99 15 521

% 62.5% 30.8% 47.6% 75.2% 65.6% 50.0% 58.1%

(May) use in psychological/experiential sense

Count127 64 60 24 45 15 335

% 33.3% 59.8% 47.6% 23.8% 29.8% 50.0% 37.4%

(Tend to) avoid + (may)use in psychological sense

Count4 0 1 0 4 0 9

% 1.0% .0% .8% .0% 2.6% .0% 1.0%

Use to refer totranscendent force(s)

Count9 9 4 0 3 0 25

% 2.4% 8.4% 3.2% .0% 2.0% .0% 2.8%

Psychological sense +transcendent contact

Count3 1 1 1 0 0 6

% .8% .9% .8% 1.0% .0% .0% .7%

Total N 381 107 126 101 151 30 896

Among the respondents who specified psychological usage (Table 14), most indicated a

feeling or experience of connection with others or with nature. Fewest indicated a process or

experience of higher awareness or consciousness. Fittingly, being at peace, harmony, or

equilibrium was in between.

Table 14. Use of spiritual/ity in specifically psychological/experiential senses

Frequency Valid Percent

Valid 1. as being at peace, harmony,equilibrium 46 14.5

2. as process/experience of higherawareness, consciousness 18 5.7

3. as feeling/experience ofconnection with others/nature

146 46.1

1+3 35 11.0

2+3 14 4.4

1+2+3 58 18.3

Total 317 100.0

Non-transcendental usage was not reported among the softer secularists alone.

20


21/36


22/36

Discussion

The groups identified for participation in this research characterize themselves as

secular, non-theist, non-supernatural, and/or (religiously) skeptical in their public

utterances and self-descriptions. This does not, of course, ensure that everyone who appears on

their mailing (or email) lists is equally committed to such self-descriptions. Nonetheless, but

for those indicating affiliation with Unitarian Universalism (particularly among the Unitarian

humanist affiliates) these individuals indicated virtually no affiliation or identification with

(mainstream) churches, temples, or other religious institutions. They are substantially non-

theistic with respect to a customary conception of a transcendental entity (God). With 90

percent of respondents considering this meaningless/non-existent, unknowable, or

metaphorical, this is a mirror image of many national survey samples in the United States

(Bishop, 1999). Harris Interactive (2006), for example, found that 11 percent of respondents

believe [somewhat or absolutely certain] there is no God. Green (2005) identifies 11 percent

of U. S. Americans as secular (no religious identity or affiliation, minimal or no religious

beliefs, or self-described atheist or agnostic).

While these individuals may be substantially non-theist (in a narrow, customary sense)

and nonreligious (with regard to identification or affiliation with mainstream religious

traditions in North American culture), they are not equally irreligious (in Campbells sense of

hostile rejection of dominant religious beliefs, traditions, or institutions). Nor are they equally

naturalistic or non-transcendental (with respect, for example, to acceptance or rejection of an

impersonal connecting force or energy in the world).

Jewish humanists. Perhaps the most notable and distinctive story to emerge from the

data is that of the Jewish humanist affiliates. U. S. American Jews have been characterized as

an exceptional or distinctive subculture, and so it is herebut in a very different way.

Whereas the great majority of American Jews are said to be exceptionally secular in

comparison with the mainstream population (Kosmin, 2002; Smith, 2005), in the company of

affiliated secularists their secularityat least in the small sample assessed hereis

distinctively soft. On most measures this applies to both males and females in comparison

with other groups, so these findings are not attributable simply to the greater number of

females in the Jewish humanist groups.

22


23/36

The softness of the Jewish humanists secularity, as a group, is attitudinal as well as

metaphysical, and again, this is generally true of both males and females in comparison with

other affiliates. They are most likely to feel that everyone benefits from a mix of both religious

and nonreligious people in the world, and that there are pieces of wisdom in religious texts or

traditions (due, no doubt in part, to the fact that they themselves drawsans supernatural

referencesfrom the well of Judaic thought and ritual). They are least likely to feel that

religion is a harmful force in the world or, indeed, that religion can be evaluated in such

general terms. They are least likely to think that religious and supernatural beliefs foster

excessive group devotion or that supernatural and superstitious ideas deserve to be ridiculed.

In general, they are comparatively less judgmental and most likely to feel that it is important to

cultivate acceptance of ways of thinking and behavior other than our own. They are most

likely to feel that skeptical or nonreligious people can be as closed-minded as the religious, and

least likely to think that skeptical or nonreligious people are more consistently ethical,

responsible, or reasonable than the religious.

They are also, however, most likelyshoulder to shoulder with Atheist affiliates

to indicate that they would be unhappy if close friends or family members were to become

religious fundamentalists. And they are not lowest in reported anger about the roles and effects

of religion in the world. This findings, coupled with moderate attitudes about religion,

may suggest wariness of perceived extremism of any kind.

Unitarian humanists. The Unitarian humanists display a pattern of beliefs and attitudes

similar to, but somewhat less soft, overall, than the Jewish humanists. This may be

attributable, at least in part, to the historical meaning and role of Humanism within

Unitarianismas an affirmatively this-worldly, non-theistic, non-supernatural, and (to some)

non-spiritualistic meaning system and manner. It may also reflect an important development

(Lee, 1995) within Unitarian Universalism in recent yearsa deliberate shift from a

Humanist emphasis toward what is called, in Unitarian circles, God-talk (increased

reference to spirits and spirituality, transcendence, or God and accommodation ofpagan, pantheistic, or New Age worldviews). While some Humanists have remained

within UU ranks, despite criticism of this shift and of perceived marginalization within the UU

fold, some have shifted affiliation to (secular) humanist groups. It is quite likely that the

Unitarian humanist affiliates sampled here fit this descriptionsome still in the fold (as

indicated by the 60 percent who indicated UU membership), some on the line, and some on

23


24/36

the outs, but many having been affected by the shift from a harder Humanism in Unitarian

Universalism. In-depth interviews with two current, and two ex-Unitarian humanists (now

Secular humanist affiliates), support this view.

Skeptics/rationalists. Unlike members of The Skeptic Society reported by Shermer

(2000), among whom one fifth to one third (in two surveys) indicated some degree of belief in

a purposeful higher intelligence that created the universe, only 4 percent of the current

sample of Skeptic affiliates probably or definitely accept the existence of a transcendent entity,

with 5 percent more who are unsure or waver between belief and disbelief. These tend to be

thoroughgoing rather than selective skeptics regarding metaphysical, as well as

paranormal or pseudo-scientific claims, and as such, they are similar to the Secular

humanist, Atheist, and Freethought affiliates. Attitudinally, however, there are signs of more

muted criticism regarding something-called-religion in comparison with those groups. In

addition to registering the least amount of anger about religion, on average, they are more

likely than Atheist affiliates to think that there is some wisdom to be found in religious texts or

traditions. And they are least likely to say they would be unhappy if a close friend or family

member were to become a religious fundamentalist.

Secular humanist, atheist, and freethought affiliates. Secular humanists frequently

acknowledge kinship with Atheists concerning rejection of theistic or supernatural thinking,

criticism of established or institutional religion, and support of church-state separation. But

they also tend to distinguish themselves from self-described Atheists with respect to

comparatively greater focus on positive social values and less on religious criticism. Whatever

may transpire in their respective group meetings and public communications, the data here

suggest more substantial kinship than distinctiveness between Secular humanist and Atheist

affiliates with respect to attitudes about metaphysical ideas as well as something-called-

religion. Certainly, the Atheists tend to be more consistently resolute in their rejection of

metaphysical ideas and criticism of religion, but this is by degrees.

Atheist and Secular humanist affiliates are both, on average, equally and comparativelymore likely than others to consider religion a harmful force in human affairs and to feel least

that we all benefit from a mix of religious and nonreligious people in the world. On other

measures, while differences did not prove statistically significant, the pattern of responses

suggests that Atheist affiliates are somewhat more severe in their views of religion and

supernatural ideas than the Secular humanists. Moreover, the data suggest that the Secular

24


25/36

humanists are somewhat more likely to be (self-)critical (about skeptical or nonreligious

people). The Atheist affiliates are least likely, on average, to feel that skeptical or

nonreligious people can be as close-minded or dogmatic as religious people, for example.

Little can be said with confidence, based on these data, about Freethought group

affiliates due to small samples and widely divergent meanings of freethought and

freethinker. While the small sample of (rationalist) Freethought affiliates analyzed here

generally exhibit views resembling Skeptics, Secular humanists, and Atheists, very wide

differences of opinion between male and female affiliates on several measures complicate the

picture further. Public self-descriptions among groups that choose the (rationalist)

freethought label suggest that they tend to be generalistswelcoming a wide range of

secularists (including non-theists, atheists, secular humanists, unbelievers, skeptics, agnostics,

rationalists, and freethinkers). The primary focus in some groups, particularly those indicating

affiliation with the Freedom from Religion Foundation, is on separation of church and state.

As such, they may tend to attract strong supporters of that cause whose personal worldviews

vary more than in, for example, Atheist groups. But again, more representative data are

required before anything can be said with confidence.

It becomes clear that soft-hard characterizations of forms of secularity must be

qualified. With respect to political secularism, or insistence on separation between religion and

government, or church and state, there is broad unanimity:

Soft -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hard

Jewish humanists

Unitarian humanists

Secular humanists

FreethinkersAtheists

Skeptics

With regard to attitudes about something-called-religion, a soft-hard continuumamong the groups would look like this:

Soft (Less critical) -------------------------------------------------------- Hard(More critical)

Jewish humanists Atheists

Unitarian humanists (Rationalist) Freethinke

Skeptics Secular humanists

25


26/36

It would be of value in future research to ascertain the conceptions of religion

associated with use of the term by various secularists. Long observation among affiliated

secularists, and text responses in the present research on attitudes about religion, suggest that

while religion is typically used without qualification, when probed it most often refers to

monotheistic religion(s), generally Christianity (and now Islam), and particularly the forms

of these phenomena said to be fundamentalist or extremist. The conception of religion

in the minds of many Jewish or Unitarian humanists may well be something different (e.g.,

more functional) compared with what many Atheist or Secular humanist affiliates have in

mind.

With regard to naturalistic thinking, or views of metaphysical or other-worldly

concepts, the continuum shifts somewhat:

Soft (Less rejection) -------------------------------------------------- Hard(Stronger rejection)

Jewish humanists SkepUnitarian humanists At

Freethinkers

Secular humanists

Consistent with this pattern, more Jewish (followed by Unitarian) humanists indicate a

propensity to make reference to spiritual/ity, but what does this mean?

The majority of all respondents indicate that they prefer to avoid these terms since they

do not apply to their experience. Most of those who are willing to use spiritual/ity do so in

psychological or experiential terms rather than contact with transcendental entities or forces.

This most often means a sense of connection with others or with nature, or experiences of

peace, beauty, art, awe, or appreciation for sentient existence. With regard to the six categories

of spiritual/ity suggested by Unruh, Versnel, and Kerr (2002), virtually none of these

individuals use these terms mean a relationship with God, a spiritual being, or higher power.

If used, these terms are most often associated with transcendence or connectedness, unrelatedto belief in a higher being or meaning and purpose in life.

A greater percentage of Jewish (followed by Unitarian) humanists tend to accept (not

metaphorically) the reality of an impersonal force or energy that connects all living (or

existing) things. With regard to the basis for perceived order in nature, there is a hint of (shall

we call it small-t) transcendental (but not theistic) thinking among the 17 percent of

26


27/36

respondents who view this as a coherent organizing force pervasive in the universe (but do not

see this as an organizing principle that transcends the universe). For this minority,

something that knits everything together in some coherent fashion, but which we do not fully

comprehend, is brought within nature rather than residing outside it. Comparatively more

Jewish humanists (both male and female) apparently see things this way.

Thematic emphasis on secular spirituality can be found in material on secular and

humanistic Judaism. Yakov Malkin (2004) devotes a chapter to The spirituality of secular

Jews in Secular Judaism: Faith, Values, and Spirituality(with an approving introduction by

Sherwin Wine, founder of the Society for Humanistic Judaism). He writes that [o]ne of the

grave dangers facing secularism in general, and Jewish secularism in particular, is the apparent

loss of spirituality or even the perception of its need, as if spirituality somehow needed to be

religious (p. 37). He proceeds to describe secular spirituality in exclusively this-worldly

termswith reference to social and communal connection, awe and appreciation for existence,

uplifting aesthetic experience, a larger sense of purpose, focus on values and experience

beyond the mundane or everyday, and dedication to matters beyond self and self-interest.

Many of the Jewish humanists, and most other affiliates, use of spiritual/ity would

seem to conform to such a this-worldly meaning, but not all. Depending on the worldviews

and intended meanings of those who use them, they may reflect (hard) naturalistic secularity.

It certainly cannot be assumed, as often seems to be the case, that use of these terms signals

alternate forms of (transcendental) religiosity. To quote one affirmatively naturalistic

individual, the experience of the paradoxes of existence or of the mystery of the human

condition are not unknown to these people. Use of spiritual/ity to describe such experience

by substantially naturalistic individuals would seem to reflect a limitation of language when it

comes to capturing a multi-dimensional, but affirmatively this-worldly, sensation that human

beings experience.

This said, as others have found (e.g., Bishop, 1999; The Baylor Institute for Studies of

Religion, 2006), when more nuanced questions are put to people about their metaphysicalthinking, customary categories erode. It becomes increasingly difficult to decide where lines

may be drawn between naturalistic, transcendental, supernatural, or theistic when we

probe beyond conventional notions of a personal transcendent entity (God) or personal

essence (soul) to those of an impersonal connecting force or energy or an ultimate purpose or

27


28/36

directionality in existenceand metaphorical conceptions, as well as acceptance or rejection,

of such concepts.

We have barely begun to map the meanings and varieties of secularity or of meaning

systems that may be reasonably characterized as substantially or affirmatively naturalistic.

The closer we look, the more we may find that customary categories will dissolve into continua

or complex mosaics of human thought, attitude, and experience that defy simple categorization.

28


29/36

APPENDIX I: Table A. Attitudes about religion and supernatural beliefs

Jewish Unitarian Skeptic/ Secular Atheist AverageHumanist Humanist Rationalist humanist response

(JH) ( UH) (SR) (SH) (A) Favorable views

> Religion is generally a 2.56 2.36 2.37 1.82 1.78harmful (1)positive (7) > SR, SH, A* > SH*,A** > SH*, A*force in human affairs > FR***

> We all benefit from 4.75 4.07 3.52 3.34

and nonreligious people > all* > SH**but UH***

> There are valuable 5.76 5.49 4.89 4.53 4.07 pieces of wisdom in > all* > SH*,A* > A***religious texts/traditions but UH > SR**

> FR***Critical views

> Angry about the role, 5.38 5.33 5.09 5.62 5.94 dominance, or effects of < A*** < A** < A*religion in the world. < SH***

> The human species will be 5.50 6.24 6.16 6.46

better off when it outgrows < all*superstition, supernaturalism, but SR***and the will to believewithout evidence

> Religions & supernatural 5.36 6.10 5.86 6.18 beliefsfoster excessive > all*devotion to particular groups, but SR**ideologies, or lifestyles

> Superstitious and 2.53 3.39 3.92 3.79 supernatural beliefs < all* < A***deserve to be ridiculed

* p


30/36

APPENDIX I: Table B. Measures of acceptance and self-criticism

Jewish Unitarian Skeptic/ Secular Atheist AverageHumanist Humanist Rationalist humanist response

(JH) (UH) (SR) (SH) (A)

> It is important to cultivate 5.88 5.38 5.15 5.30 5.18 acceptance of ways of > SR,SH*thinking and behaving > UH***different from ones own.

> Whether you are religious 6.58 6.32 6.07 6.07 5.8or nonreligiousis of little > SH,SR,A*concern. What is importantis [being] ethical, considerate,responsible, and reasonable

> Skeptical or nonreligious 5.92 5.73 5.57 5.40 5.13 people can be as close- > SH,A**minded or dogmatic asreligious people

> Skeptical or nonreligious 3.62 4.63 4.52 4.62 5.22 are likely to be ethical, > all*considerate, responsible andreasonable more consistentlythan religious people.

> I would be very unhappy 5.90 5.44 5.14 5.67 5.88 if a close friend or family < JH*member became a < SH**religious fundamentalist < A***

> People with my way of 4.54 4.88 4.76 5.12 5.89 thinking are generally < A,FR*discriminated against < SH**in society

* p


31/36

Appendix II. Written texts on use/meaning of spiritual/ity

> Experience of/in nature:

> Appreciate the wonders of the natural world

> If you remove religious connotations from it, I consider myself spiritual

and in need of relaxation via calm music or walks. . .on nature trails.> . . .[A] sense of serenity in wilderness areas

> Love of the out of doors> Awe, wonder, gratitude, or appreciation (about existence, nature, the universe):

> It is possible to be in awe of the universe as it is shown to us by science,

but I do not believe that there is any supernatural energy or personification

in the workings of the universe> Ethical, aesthetic, empathy, open to wonder & the unexpected, positive & optimistic

> I look with wonder upon the universe without bringing in a deity

> I'm often in awe and full of gratitude which feels "spiritual" to me

> Awed by the amazing creative power of the universe

> I feel "inspired" by beauty, truth, and nature

> Emotional sense of wonder, awe, beauty, inspiration> Similar to Carl Sagan

> A sense of social connection or generalized connectedness:> Love of family and work, care for others, seems spiritual to me

> A sense of connection to and responsibility for the earth and humanity

> . . . [A] sense of oneness with the world when I am hiking, walking

> . . . [A] sense of shared responsibility

> "Interconnected" to all elements in universe.

> Identify with the interconnected web of all life.> Emotion(al) experience:

> Can be emotional - attributed to biochemicals, beauty in nature

> I believe most people interpret human emotions as spirituality

> Emotional reaction to grand/beautiful aspects of nature> I trust my intuition; I follow my feelings.

> Reaction to art, literature, music, aesthetic beauty:> Music can be a "spiritual" experience where I feel connected to something

very powerful and timeless

> I do appreciate some non-material phenomena (e.g., sunsets, music)

> I do like music and resonate to natural beauty - but as a rationalist

> I can rise above mundane cares by viewing great art, reading great writers, etc.

> This is a very controversial term; most people associate it with religion, but it

isnt necessarily. My human spirit is very affected by, say, a newborn baby,

a solo walk in the woods, a Beethoven sonata, fine (in my opinion) piece of

poetry, etc.

> Psychological process:> I avoid these words, dislike them a lot, but recognize as valid to me the three

"psychological or experiential" descriptions [given in the survey]> Not the belief in a higher power, but happy to be conscious and thinking

> Power of subconscious to work out solutions (this is physical or spiritual)

> Sense of something greater than oneself (but not ontologically transcendental):> Feel people can evolve to a higher sense and to work towards that

> Spiritual feeling of something greater than myself - part of non-

denominational group of like-minded people

31


32/36

Forty individuals supplied texts that suggest openness to or affirmation of transcendental ideas or

phenomena. Some described themselves as seekers or open to transcendental possibilities:

> The path from my parents' Atheism to mine included exploration of

Christianity, Depak Chopra's Quantum Physics, and New Age through andtranscendental meditation. I'm neither a strictly rational, logical, critical

thinker, nor a spiritual person. I don't see the world in black & whites or rights

and wrongs (regarding religious beliefs). I do have ethics and values, but am

completely non-theistic, though I'm open-minded.

> WE DON'T KNOW! The transcendental may be possible - so I'm open to it.

> There are some mysteries we cannot yet explain

> There could be something on the other side. WE DON'T KNOW!

> Am exploring my spirituality by trying. . .to realize what is spiritual for me.

> Still searching for answers

> Seeking

Others gave more specific transcendental, religious, spiritual, or supernatural references:

> I believe in a nonpersonal creative intelligence

> Believe there is collective intelligence

> Believe in unity of all nature and all life - evolution to higher states of

consciousness

> Belief in scientific studies of "near-death" experiences; also belief in "past

lives" as removed from Bible by Catholic (Vatican) and others

> Universal energy - I do energy and "light" work

> I believe in a superior spiritual process

> I consider myself spiritual, close to nature, believe in afterlife

> I do believe that all we have around us came from something more thaninanimate matter, but I have no idea what.

> Only in the sense that there could be something on the other side.> Decided to believe in God, e.g., as Deist

> More associated to a Deistic philosophy or Emersonian view

> 12-Step recovery programs - Higher Power - . . .six years clean!

> The power that exists within the infinite universe, and is exemplified in the

natural laws that govern it, is way beyond our puny human intellect to

fathom. I pray (for enlightenment) to "the powers that be" in the

universe. Still think ghosts MAY be real.

> Spiritual in a kind of non-religious Buddhist, yoga kind of way

> Somewhat "spiritual" - very interested in Native American spiritual life

> Native American community building rituals for stewardship of land

> I feel that the concept of Kharma applies. Expecting and living for good

attracts it.> Sense of wonder, amazement at the beauty of the universe. A bit pantheistic,

maybe.

> Quasi-Taoist tree-hugging dirt-worshipper

> I like Zen or Tao philosophy

> Buddhist atheist

> Taoist> Pagan

32


33/36

References

Bainbridge, William Sims. (2005) Atheism.Interdisciplinary Journal of Research onReligion, 1 (Article 2). http://www.religjournal.com

Baylor Institute for Studies in Religion, The (2006) American piety in the 21stcentury: Newinsights to the depth and complexity of religion in the U.S. Waco, TX: BaylorUniversity. (www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/33304.pdf)

Beit-Hallahmi, Benny (2007). Atheists: A psychological profile. In M. Martin (Ed.),The

Cambridge Companion to Atheism, 300-313. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bishop, George. (1999) The pollstrends: Americans belief in God,Public Opinion

Quarterly, 63: 421-434-------. (2005)The illusion of public opinion: Fact and artifact in American public opinion

polls. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Green, John C. (2005) The American religious landscape and political attitudes: A baseline

for 2004. Washington, D. C.: The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

(http://pewforum.org/publications/surveys/green-full.pdf)

Hale, J. Russell. (1977)Who are the unchurched? An exploratory study. Washington, D. C.:

Glenmary Research Center.

Honderich, Ted (Ed.) (2005) The Oxford companion to philosophy: Second edition. Oxford,

UK: Oxford University Press.

Hood, Ralph W., Jr., Peter C. Hill, and W. Paul Williamson. (2005)The psychology ofreligious fundamentalism. New York: Guilford Press.

Hunsberger, Bruce and Bob Altemeyer (2006) Atheists: A groundbreaking study of Americas

nonbelievers. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Press.

Jacoby, Susan (2004) Freethinkers: A history of American secularism.New York:Metropolitan Books.

Kosmin, Barry A. (2002) As secular as they come.Moment Magazine.(http://www.momentmag.com/archive/june02/feat1.html).

Kosmin, Barry A. and Ariela Keysar (2007) Secularism & secularity: Contemporary

International Perspectives. Hartford, CT: Institute for the Study of Secularism in

Society and Culture, Trinity College.

Lee, Richard Wayne. (1995) Strained bedfellows: Pagans, New Agers, and starchy

Humanists in Unitarian Universalism, Sociology of Religion, 56 (4): 379-396.

33


34/36

Malkin, Yakov (2004) Secular Judaism: Faith, values, and spirituality.London:Vallentine Mitchell.

Pasquale, Frank L. (2006) Neglecting the nots in the Northwest: Irreligion as a facet of thestudy of religion. Paper presented at annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific

Study of Religion, Portland, OR, October 21.-------. (2007a) The nonreligious in the American Northwest. In Barry A.

Kosmin and Ariela Keysar, (Eds.), Secularism & secularity: Contemporary

International Perspectives. Hartford, CT: Institute for the Study of Secularism in

Society and Culture, Trinity College. Pages 41 to 58.

-------. (2007b) Unbelief and irreligion, empirical study and neglect of. Entry inThe New

Encyclopedia of Unbelief(in press). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Press.

Robertson, J. M. (1936) A history of freethought: Ancient and modern to the period of the

French Revolution. London: Watts & Co.

Shermer, Michael. (2000)How we believe: The search for God in an age of science.New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Smith, Tom W. (2005) Jewishdistinctiveness in America: A statistical portrait.New York,NY: The American Jewish Committee.

Wong, P. T. P. (1998) Spirituality, meaning, and successful aging. In P. T. P. Wong and

P. S. Fry (Eds.), The human quest for meaning: A handbook of psychological research

and clinical applications (pages 11-32). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Zinnbauer, Brian J., Kenneth I. Pargament, Brenda Cole, Mark S. Rye, Eric M. Butter,

Timothy Belavich, Kathleen M Hipp, Allie B. Scott, and Jill L. Kadar. (1997)Religion and spirituality: Unfuzzying the fuzzy,Journal for the Scientific Study ofReligion, 36 (4): 549-564.

Zinnbauer, Brian J., and Kenneth I. Pargament. (2000) Capturing the meanings of

religiousness and spirituality: One way down from a definitional Tower of Babel.Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 12: 23-54.

Zuckerman, Philip. (2005) Atheism: Contemporary numbers and patterns. In Michael

Martin (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to atheism, 47-65. New York City:Cambridge University Press.

34


35/36

Notes

35


36/36

1 A meaning system can be thought of as a group of beliefs or theories about reality that includes both a world theory. . .

and a self theory (Hood, Hill, and Williamson, 2005: 14) or, borrowing from Wong (1998: 368), an individually

constructed cognitive system that endows life with personal significance. Here, worldview and meaning system willbe used synonymously.

2 Unless specified otherwise, transcendent and transcendental are used here in an ontologicalsense, that is, existence

beyond; independent existence (Honderich, 2005: 922) or existing apart from, not subject to the limitations of, the

material universe (The Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus: American edition, 1996: 1623).

3 The investigator is grateful for a Shand Award from the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion which helped defray

distribution costs.

4It should be noted, too, that the nature and quality of mailing lists varied noticeably among the groups. This reflects, in

part, differences in the purposes, activities, and nature of affiliation in these groups. Some exhibit formal organizationalstructure with governing boards, committees, regular meetings, and clearly defined levels of membership. Others are less

structured networks of interested individuals and supporters who meet irregularly, distribute newsletters or other bulletins,maintain continuing contact largely via email, and have less well-defined affiliation levels or requirements, As a result,

some were clearly regularly updated lists of active or dues-paying members, while others were less frequently updated

and/or more inclusive lists covering both active participants (in meetings, email correspondence, or other activities) as well

as people who had inquired about the group or asked to receive electronic or printed newsletters.

5Nearly 60 percent of Unitarian humanist affiliates indicated affiliation with a Unitarian church or fellowship, while inother groups 10.5 percent or less did so.

6 Does not total 299 since one respondent did not indicate gender.

7 These were among the appended questions distributed to all but the first two groups, resulting in samples of 353 for the

Secular humanist, and 59 for Atheist, affiliates.

8 Unless otherwise noted, Tamhane post-hoc analyses were performed due to unequal variances between groups.

Documents

Varieties of Secularity in the Pacific Northwest