So I’m reading 538 this morning and there’s coverage of a new report out of the American Enterprise Institute about how younger folks - Millennials in popular parlance, I suppose - are abandoning religion.
The study posits that, against expectations, as they age folks 23-38 and not wandering back to religion as would be indicated by older generation’s behavior instead embracing either a generic religious stance or abandoning the concept altogether.
One of the reasons given by survey respondents is a negative reaction to the trend in evangelicals to make religion domineering or negative overall.
In addition, religion is being perceived more as a political identity rather than a moral identity and that associate is driving younger people away.
So is that the cause of this? A backlash against 40+ years of the religious right conflating politics and religion? Or is it something baser like the fact that younger folks are simply much less willing to join and are much more skeptical about joining civic and group organizations? And is this a good thing given that there’s decent evidence that being a part of such groups increases some group goods such as trust and civic engagement?
Aside: And, as a personal bugaboo: The entire lead article riffs on millennials and baby boomers. We Gen X types will again be over here in the corner, keeping ourselves busy, dammit.
As an older Millenial, I was never religious. I do associate (some) religion with anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-science stances. That’s certainly an addition turnoff, but I was never going to turn back to religion given that the basis for it is false.
As to whether it’s a good thing? Not sure. Younger, less religious people are better education, more concerned with human rights, care about climate change, etc. That could just be a correlation and not causal though.
Fellow Gen X’er here, and a self identified deist. I’ve thought about this topic, and the way I approach it is what needs does religion fulfill for the individual believers? What different areas can religion be broken dow into, since the concept as a whole seems to mean different things to different people? In general I think there are three broad areas, and a fourth that seems to apply to maybe a little less than half the population. Here they are, my thoughts on them, and my explanation for the phenomenon of decreased levels of being religious.
Metaphysical. The big questions. Where did people come from? Where did the world come from? Why are things the way thy are? This is the main area where religion has faltered. Sciences like biology, geology, and physics, with theories like evolution, plate tectonics, relativity, quantum theory, etc. have all moved into this realm. Many, maybe most(?) people, no longer need to look to a religious text to answer these types of questions, and this has helped lower the level of religiosity as those theories continue to gain more evidence and more people become aware of them. Of course this isn’t the beginning and end of the story, or we would only be left with young earth creationists. That’s where my other areas come in.
Social. The need to belong to a community. For some people they are religious because church is where they go to be part of a community. Sunday services where you go to see people you know. There are organizations which also serve this purpose within the church. I’m most familiar with Catholic groups like the Knights of Columbus and Guadalupanas, but I’m sure each group has social organizations like this. This area hasn’t taken as big a hit as the metaphysical area, but it has declined some. This is probably more true in urban areas where people have various other reasons to come together in addition to sharing the same religion.
Moral. How do I know what is right and what is wrong? Even religious people have various answers, but they would tend to point to their holy books for answers. The 10 commandments are the big one here for western religions. This is a complex area, and I think probably the area least responsible for a decrease in religiosity as a whole. Associated with area 4.
Authority. This one is admittedly a possible subset of the 2nd and 3rd, but I think it warrants it’s own category given that this seems to be where the fault line is in contemporary societies all over the world. Some people seem to be hard wired to be authoritarian thinkers. They feel the need to follow some strong leader who will tell them what is right or wrong. On the other hand, for people without this innate need, this is one less reason to continue to be religious. This is likely why evangelical religions have done relatively well compared to others.
I’m also Gen X. I was raised non-religious, though most of my peers were religious. I think this is due to the various religious scandals (most notably the Catholic pedophilia scandal) and increasing (and obviously hypocritical) ties between organized Christianity and the political right. By my reading, the religious right in the US is motivated by culture and race/ethnicity far more than actual scriptural teachings.
As a Christian Millennial myself, here are my 2 cents (or…80 cents, because this is a topic I could talk on and on about - I realize the OP meant religion in general, but I can only address Christianity firsthand, not Islam or Buddhism, etc.):
A lot of Christianity just flies counter to natural urges and desires. Take the ban on premarital sex, for instance. When you have natural teenage/20s hormones clashing with some religious restriction on sex, the hormones will usually win. With an average American marrying age of 27-32 these days, you can’t realistically expect that most people - Christian or not - will say, “OK, I agree not to have sex until I’m thirty.” So when forced to choose between Christianity and hormonal desires, many reject Christianity. That’s not even getting into some extreme examples such as believers who don’t find the right person/mate until age forty, fifty or even sixty - are they seriously supposed to abstain from sex until age 40, 50 or 60? (That’s what I’ve heard from fellow Christians, in absolute stone-cold seriousness - that if you don’t get married until age 50, you’re not allowed to ever have sex until then. Even though it’s the religious truth, it is an absolutely draconian rule to follow - it’s essentially saying, for instance, that if you’re a Christian woman, you’re sentenced to a lifetime without biological children, since you’d be infertile by then.)
Some Christian parents and elders try to clamp down hard and force their kids to accept Christianity, due to their desperate desire for their kids to be believers - which often backfires and pushes them away from the church. Forcing your kids to go to church, read the Bible, pray, with threat of punishment, often backfires.
Peer pressure is an intensely strong influence for teens and young adults. If 90% of your same-age peers aren’t Christian, or think poorly of Christianity, why would you want to continue being one yourself? And then there is Hollywood and other cultural influences as well.
Societies generally become more and more politically liberal over time, and a lot of liberalism clashes with Christianity. And, as mentioned above, some conservative Christians try to meld Republicanism and the cross together.
Many Christian elders and parents are hypocrites, or say one thing but do another. They may teach a certain Christianity with their words but live by another standard entirely. Needless to say, this does nothing to encourage future generations to follow in the faith.
Many Christian elders and parents fail to give earnest, in-depth, meaningful answers to tough questions like “Why does God allow evil to happen” or all the other tough questions of Christianity. They will either scold the kid for asking such a question, or give a cliche, empty trite answer that aggravates, or try to dodge or bury the matter. That’s sowing the seeds for atheism.
Other than your third point, I think this has a lot to do with how people are wired. In other words, people who naturally question things will be affected by those things in such a way as to lead them away from religion. On the other hand, someone who is wired in such a way that they believe submitting to the correct authority is the proper thing are likely to have their beliefs reinforced and to remain religious.
As a side note, and if this is too much of a hijack please let me know and I will drop this. The authoritirian mindset again explains the cause as well as the effects of some of your points. Here are some of your points, going in reverse order.
Take point 6. If those parents are giving empty, trite, or cliche answers, it’s likely because they haven’t thought about those issues. Why haven’t they given deep thought to those issues? Because they also are just following what they were told rather than questioning those things back in the day when they were young.
WRT your point 5 it’s the same thing. Those leaders aren’t interested in investigating fundamental truths, learning more about whether or not Jesus was real, if there is an afterlife, or things like that. All those leaders care about is if their followers do what they are told.
Your point 4 also reinforces that point. The reason people are conflating the cross and Republicanism is because their version of both is fundamentally about doing what your told or the converse of having others do what you say as opposed to seeking knowledge or deeper insights into life or improving the lot of humanity as whole.
Your point 2 is also another aspect of the issue of authoritarianism. For those parents it’s all about their kids obeying, not about the details of what Jesus actually taught.
I read an article a couple of months ago about how people used to believe that your religion was fixed and your political party was fluid. The article went on to say that this has flipped and people are adapting their religion to fit their politics. An example would be someone who is pro life moving to a new town and finding a church that was pro life even if it was a different sub set of Christianity or if not were available stopping their church going.
From the people in my peer group the catholics seem to have held to their religion the best because I think it is mostly the same anywhere you go. While the pastors have more of an effect in the protestant side of the fence so moving to a new town can make it difficult to find which church you belong with. My friends who felt the need to go every weekend have all drifted much more conservative while the ones who felt it wasn’t worth the effort drifted liberal. The ones who stayed home and never had to find a new church are basically the same.
Another GenX-er here. I agree with a lot of what has been said. Especially the strong association between the religious and non-tolerant elements of society, as well as religion’s push in government, being a turn-off for young people.
IMHO another factor is technology: Millennials seem to prefer having their noses in their smart phones as opposed to interacting in person with a community. Going to church means you need to go somewhere, interact with people, behave, pay attention to a living person, and obey rules and roles, a lot like going to school. That’s just too much to ask when any of the big questions or problems one may have can be addressed on the internet, and one’s social circle is virtual, worldwide, and diverse.
On the issue of ‘authoritarian mindsets’ I understand the concept but I think it begs a question.
To say that the decline of religion among millennials and younger folks is due to a decline is authoritarianism is to somehow posit that human nature has changed? Is there, somehow, a smaller percentage of Americans who are authoritarian that 50 years ago? And would that also be somehow indicative for how Europe has become much less religious over the last century?
To clarify my position, I’m not positing that authoritarianism has declined. My hypothesis is that those people who are not authoritarian are the bulk of the people who have stopped being religious. Previously there were other reasons besides being authoritarian (whether leader or follower) to be religious. Those included things like an interest in the answers to the Big Questions, a need for socializing, tradition, etc. As people are now able to meet those other needs from things other than organized religion, what religion is left with are the authoritarians.
Another Gen-Xer here- I don’t think it was the political aspects or the scandals; those mostly happened well after we were adults. None of us, except the bible thumping sorts, were going to church all that often in the 90s or early 2000s either. In other words, I don’t see this being something to pin on Millenials, but rather on Gen X.
What I think did it for a lot of my peers is that churches were seen as less of a community of believers, and more as institutions that enforced conformity, passed judgment on you, and wanted you to donate a lot of money to them for the privilege. It was never sufficient to just show up every now and then on Sundays; every church I’ve ever been to has had something of an insular, controlling vibe to the extent that they want you to get as integrated in their organization as you can, and expect you to behave/act a certain way.
I know that’s turned a lot of us off to church- not necessarily religion or believing in a higher power, but in the idea of being a member of a church and being expected to have that church play a significant role in your life. I mean, we go to church on Sundays, but I’m currently balking at the idea of formal membership, expected donations, and having to get overly involved in volunteering/running the church itself. I have enough to do with being a cub scout leader and everything else that’s going on, and don’t really want another thing pulling for my time.
An excellent example of the point I’m trying to make. If, however, instead of who you are you happened to be the type of person who was into and enjoys insular, controlling vibes, passing judgement, and donating money to the cause, then church would be the perfect place for you. My hypothesis is that people who are into those things form the bulk of people who are still big into church and religion.
Hrm. As an older Gen X - born 1967 - I’d take a bit of issue with your timeline. Religious scandals and such were certainly around when I was in high school Jimmy Swaggart (infidelity), Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker (Jim was accused of sexual assault) and Oral Roberts (I need more money or God will take me home) all happened while I was in high school or college. Call it 1983-1988 or so.
Even before that it seemed to me that the most prominent religious leaders - Jerry Falwell and Pat Roberts - were turning religion into a political movement and using it to scold people with the PTL network and the Moral Majority. Focus on the Family was founded in 1977, for that matter. So the movement of religion into active lobbying and high profile talking heads was well before the 1990s.
Speaking for myself, I was always skeptical of those guys and found them, even as a young man, distasteful and someone with which I would not want to associate myself.
I do think your point about it not being millennials but Gen X leading the areligious charge has some substance, though. If millennials - many of which are our children - are rejecting religion in higher numbers there’s a strong likelihood that’s happening because we just didn’t take them to church or value what religion brings to the table like our parents and grandparents do and did.
I suspect the study in the OP, and particularly just the visceral reaction many may get when presented with the claims of religion, has a fair amount to do with the shift away rom religion (even if that doesn’t necessary mean a shift to atheism, as I know many of these people still hold to certain beliefs, like a belief in god, maybe even Jesus, but see organized religion as something they can’t be a part of anymore).
With that said, since we’re all apparently talking about how we personally think…
Please allow me to add:
(Though possibly related to 6). People see no good reason to hold to the supposed truths that religions offer them. Now, you could try and blame the elders and the parents for giving bad answers to tough questions, but then for my part I have yet to hear good answer to any of the questions that might tend to lead toward religion (as in, “If you could just answer this question for me adequately, it might tend to make me more religious, but if you can’t I’m just going to fail to reject the null hypothesis.”)
On that note (my 7, your 6), inasmuch as I hate to blame the internet for anything, I do think the internet makes it so much easier to get “the best possible answers” or at least “the best possible attempts at an answer” for those who are inquiring. It used to be you were left with, as you say, the word of Church elder’s, ministers, parents, and peers, but now you can get online and see PhDs engage in hours long debates about whether or not there is sufficient evidence to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, whether or not the apparent “fine tuning” of the universe points to god, and so on. You can also find all sorts of videos on the supposed “moral” conundrums or the “Ya’all just wanna sin” argument (your first point, Veloctiy).
I personally was raised Catholic, but for as long as I can remember (going back yo when I was four or five for religious matters) I’ve been at best agnostic and, thanks in part to all that internet stuff I mentioned in 8 above, I’ve come to realize I’ve been an atheist since my teens, even if I didn’t start applying the label to myself until my mid-twenties. I see no good reason to believe (7 above) and even the best experts for the “there is a god” side false seem to fall short when they try to come up with answers to questions about the basis of their faith and what ought to convince others to believe too.
The point that hit me from the article (as a Gen-X’er who was raised religious but did not return) is the discussion regarding children. The peers I know who also shed some or all of their religious belief but then returned to a church largely did so to help with moral/ethical training for their children. Why they felt that was important I’ve never gotten a really good answer, but the vague outline I’ve been given is that it provides an environment and framework in which to discuss moral and metaphysical questions (the “big questions”, I guess) that doesn’t really exist in secular schools.
But from the article, it seems that millennial just don’t see religion as necessary for that part of a child’s education (rightly, in my opinion). So you have folks that no longer identify with the religion they were raised in (if they even were), marrying someone else that isn’t attached to a religion, and seeing no reason to join a church to help insruct/raise their children. Add in the fact that for a liberal couple (or even a non-right wing conservative one) the idea of joining a community that is largely associated with a political movement and it’s no wonder Millennials aren’t joining churches.
Nitpick (but I think worth it given the topic): Very few, if any, millennials are still children, and only according to the loosest definition I could find that arbitrarily puts the end of the generation at 2004 (I say arbitrary because all generational groupings appear arbitrary to me). But more to the point, the OP seems to put the lower age limit for millennials at 23 (born 1996).
I’m not sure if I’m considered a Millennial or Gen Z. (Born in '96).
I personally do not make the “leap of faith”, which is sort of required to be serious about religion. I don’t think I ever did. My parents belonged to two different major monotheistic religions so perhaps that precluded any chance in me seeing the one true faith. They also weren’t terribly devout themselves. There are very cool and fun traditions, and I recognize religion can provide a sense of community. I was raised with my mother’s religion, and our religious community did not include other people my age.
But I remember going to Sunday school every week. We had a class of two and the other kid was like three years younger than me. Also all of the holy texts are in a different language with a different alphabet. And only the consonants are written. Nobody I knew was fluent in this language. Reading perhaps, but not comprehension or composition. I got the impression that all of these old people thought themselves wizards reciting magick spells, the meanings of which they literally could not comprehend. But when it comes to the sermon we were told that the words themselves are less important than the meaning we derive from them. A cognitive dissonance, for sure.
In the view of this born-again Christian, that’s great news!
And I’m not being facetious in the least. Being the dominant religion here has deeply corrupted American Christianity. The sooner we get to a point where nobody expects you to be a Christian unless you’re actually in church, the better. Then Christianity can be a faith, and not a political bloc.
IOW, the effect of evangelicalism has been to anti-evangelize, to chase people away from Christianity.
In one sense, that’s good: they’ve chased people away from their abominable conception of Christianity.
But in another sense, at least coming from where I am, it’s problematic. If you believe you’ve got something amazing to share, but it goes by the same name as this horrible crap that evangelicals are pushing, why would anyone listen to you?
Hell, it drives me away, despite our supposedly sharing the same faith.
I’m betting on mostly the former.
White American evangelicalism is a malign force. Any civic goods it may incidentally generate are overwhelmed by its negative contributions.
Hey, be glad you’re not in the middle of that intergenerational pissing match.
