Pub Date : 2021-12-01DOI: 10.4324/9781003140627-12
J. Berlinerblau
{"title":"Anti-secularisms of the left","authors":"J. Berlinerblau","doi":"10.4324/9781003140627-12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003140627-12","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42349,"journal":{"name":"Secularism & Nonreligion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73588511","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article provides scholars of nonreligion and secularism with an introduction to some of the major opportunities and challenges associated with the growing application of computational methods to the phenomena they study. It also illustrates these opportunities and challenges by describing several overlapping research projects and some of the models of (non)religion they have produced. Finally, the article addresses some of the significant philosophical issues surrounding the use of computer modeling and simulation, focusing on the ethical and epistemological concerns that these tools often raise. I invite scholars of nonreligion to consider adding these techniques to their methodological toolkits, and to join in on the fascinating and important conversations about simulating secularities that these models engender.
{"title":"Simulating Secularities: Challenges and Opportunities in the Computational Science of (Non)Religion","authors":"F. Shults","doi":"10.5334/snr.154","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/snr.154","url":null,"abstract":"This article provides scholars of nonreligion and secularism with an introduction to some of the major opportunities and challenges associated with the growing application of computational methods to the phenomena they study. It also illustrates these opportunities and challenges by describing several overlapping research projects and some of the models of (non)religion they have produced. Finally, the article addresses some of the significant philosophical issues surrounding the use of computer modeling and simulation, focusing on the ethical and epistemological concerns that these tools often raise. I invite scholars of nonreligion to consider adding these techniques to their methodological toolkits, and to join in on the fascinating and important conversations about simulating secularities that these models engender.","PeriodicalId":42349,"journal":{"name":"Secularism & Nonreligion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46379840","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the contemporary UK, holistic practices – concerned with healing an interconnected mind, body, and spirit of the person – appear to be establishing themselves across more popular, or ‘mainstream’ settings. Simultaneously, the UK has seen increasing numbers of individuals identifying as not religious, and within this a significant population identifying specifically as ‘Spiritual But Not Religious’ (hereafter SBNR). This work consists of a survey that explores British holistic practitioners’ understandings and experiences of spirituality in relation to their practices. It identifies and compares answers across three groups of practitioners: the SBNR, the other not religious, and the religious. Findings demonstrate little difference between SBNR and other participants’ understandings and experiences of spirituality through their practice. Regardless of their varying identities, British holistic practitioners largely favoured the incorporation of ‘spirituality’ into their practice yet wished to distance their practice from ‘religion’. For many practitioners, this meant a desire to keep holistic practice separate from notions of ‘dogma’ or ‘institution’ that may restrict themselves or others from engaging with holistic spirituality. Attention is also given to the implication that, for some, this rejection of ‘religion’ may more specifically reflect a rejection of association with Christianity. Findings suggest that SBNR holistic practitioners do not particularly present as a distinct group with unique beliefs. Rather, it would appear that an engagement with ‘spirituality-without-religion’ is embraced within the UK holistic practitioner community as a whole.
{"title":"The Relationship Between Holistic Practice and ‘Spiritual but not Religious’ Identity in the UK","authors":"Bethan Juliet Oake","doi":"10.5334/snr.150","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/snr.150","url":null,"abstract":"In the contemporary UK, holistic practices – concerned with healing an interconnected mind, body, and spirit of the person – appear to be establishing themselves across more popular, or ‘mainstream’ settings. Simultaneously, the UK has seen increasing numbers of individuals identifying as not religious, and within this a significant population identifying specifically as ‘Spiritual But Not Religious’ (hereafter SBNR). This work consists of a survey that explores British holistic practitioners’ understandings and experiences of spirituality in relation to their practices. It identifies and compares answers across three groups of practitioners: the SBNR, the other not religious, and the religious. Findings demonstrate little difference between SBNR and other participants’ understandings and experiences of spirituality through their practice. Regardless of their varying identities, British holistic practitioners largely favoured the incorporation of ‘spirituality’ into their practice yet wished to distance their practice from ‘religion’. For many practitioners, this meant a desire to keep holistic practice separate from notions of ‘dogma’ or ‘institution’ that may restrict themselves or others from engaging with holistic spirituality. Attention is also given to the implication that, for some, this rejection of ‘religion’ may more specifically reflect a rejection of association with Christianity. Findings suggest that SBNR holistic practitioners do not particularly present as a distinct group with unique beliefs. Rather, it would appear that an engagement with ‘spirituality-without-religion’ is embraced within the UK holistic practitioner community as a whole.","PeriodicalId":42349,"journal":{"name":"Secularism & Nonreligion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46970969","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The notion of enchantment has been largely imagined as relating to religion, broadly defined, including magic, sorcery, and the transcendental. The idea that the world has largely become disenchanted has been associated with science, modernity, and rationality, among other things. Along with others such as William E. Connolly, Jason Ā. Josephson-Storm, and Jane Bennett, I challenge the dominant configuration and narrative of (dis)enchantment. Building on their work, I argue that a reclaimed notion of enchantment is pivotal for the reconceptualization of human/non-human animal relations and sustainable life on earth.
{"title":"Reclaiming Enchantment: The Transformational Possibilities of Immanence","authors":"Lori G. Beaman","doi":"10.5334/snr.149","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/snr.149","url":null,"abstract":"The notion of enchantment has been largely imagined as relating to religion, broadly defined, including magic, sorcery, and the transcendental. The idea that the world has largely become disenchanted has been associated with science, modernity, and rationality, among other things. Along with others such as William E. Connolly, Jason Ā. Josephson-Storm, and Jane Bennett, I challenge the dominant configuration and narrative of (dis)enchantment. Building on their work, I argue that a reclaimed notion of enchantment is pivotal for the reconceptualization of human/non-human animal relations and sustainable life on earth.","PeriodicalId":42349,"journal":{"name":"Secularism & Nonreligion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47554515","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
To what extent do supernatural beliefs, group affiliation, and social interaction produce values and behaviors that benefit others, i.e., prosociality? Addressing this question involves multiple variables interacting within complex social networks that shape and constrain the beliefs and behaviors of individuals. We examine the relationships among some of these factors utilizing data from the World Values Survey to inform the construction of an Agent-Based Model. The latter was able to identify the conditions under which – and the mechanisms by which – the prosociality of simulated agents was increased or decreased within an “artificial society” designed to reflect real world parameters. The combined results indicated that prosociality was more related to agents’ group affiliation and social networks than to their worldview beliefs. It also showed that prosociality changed as a function of agents’ worldviews, group affiliation, and social network properties. Individuals with supernatural worldviews had higher levels of active prosociality, but this was primarily directed toward ingroup members. Naturalistic believers and the unaffiliated, on the other hand, tended to have higher levels of trust and tolerance. We describe the potential usefulness of such modeling techniques for addressing complex problems in the study of secularity and nonreligion.
{"title":"Modeling the Effects of Religious Belief and Affiliation on\u0000 Prosociality","authors":"L. Galen, Ross Gore, F. Shults","doi":"10.5334/snr.128","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/snr.128","url":null,"abstract":"To what extent do supernatural beliefs, group affiliation, and social interaction produce values and behaviors that benefit others, i.e., prosociality? Addressing this question involves multiple variables interacting within complex social networks that shape and constrain the beliefs and behaviors of individuals. We examine the relationships among some of these factors utilizing data from the World Values Survey to inform the construction of an Agent-Based Model. The latter was able to identify the conditions under which – and the mechanisms by which – the prosociality of simulated agents was increased or decreased within an “artificial society” designed to reflect real world parameters. The combined results indicated that prosociality was more related to agents’ group affiliation and social networks than to their worldview beliefs. It also showed that prosociality changed as a function of agents’ worldviews, group affiliation, and social network properties. Individuals with supernatural worldviews had higher levels of active prosociality, but this was primarily directed toward ingroup members. Naturalistic believers and the unaffiliated, on the other hand, tended to have higher levels of trust and tolerance. We describe the potential usefulness of such modeling techniques for addressing complex problems in the study of secularity and nonreligion.","PeriodicalId":42349,"journal":{"name":"Secularism & Nonreligion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44559190","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Atheists are among the most disliked groups in America, which has been explained in a variety of ways, one of which is that atheists are hostile towards religion and that anti-atheist prejudice is therefore reactive. We tested this hypothesis by using the 2018 American General Social Survey by investigating attitudes towards atheists, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, and Muslims. We initially used a general sample of Americans, but then identified and isolated individuals who were atheists, theists, nonreligious atheists, religious theists, and/or theistic Christians. Logically, if atheists were inordinately hostile towards religion, we would expect to see a greater degree of in-group favouritism in the atheist group and a greater degree of out-group dislike. Results indicated several notable findings: 1). Atheists were significantly more disliked than any other religious group. 2). Atheists rated Christians, Buddhists, Jews, and Hindus as favourably as they rated their own atheist in-group, but rated Muslims less positively (although this effect was small). 3). Christian theists showed pronounced in-group favouritism and a strong dislike towards atheists. No evidence could be found to support the contention that atheists are hostile towards religious groups in general, and towards Christians specifically, although this may have been a Type II error. If atheist groups do dislike religious groups, then this hypothetical dislike would be significantly smaller in magnitude than the dislike directed toward atheists by Christians.
{"title":"Love thy Neighbour… or not: Christians, but not Atheists, Show High In-Group Favoritism","authors":"David Speed, M. Brewster","doi":"10.5334/snr.136","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/snr.136","url":null,"abstract":"Atheists are among the most disliked groups in America, which has been explained in a variety of ways, one of which is that atheists are hostile towards religion and that anti-atheist prejudice is therefore reactive. We tested this hypothesis by using the 2018 American General Social Survey by investigating attitudes towards atheists, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, and Muslims. We initially used a general sample of Americans, but then identified and isolated individuals who were atheists, theists, nonreligious atheists, religious theists, and/or theistic Christians. Logically, if atheists were inordinately hostile towards religion, we would expect to see a greater degree of in-group favouritism in the atheist group and a greater degree of out-group dislike. Results indicated several notable findings: 1). Atheists were significantly more disliked than any other religious group. 2). Atheists rated Christians, Buddhists, Jews, and Hindus as favourably as they rated their own atheist in-group, but rated Muslims less positively (although this effect was small). 3). Christian theists showed pronounced in-group favouritism and a strong dislike towards atheists. No evidence could be found to support the contention that atheists are hostile towards religious groups in general, and towards Christians specifically, although this may have been a Type II error. If atheist groups do dislike religious groups, then this hypothetical dislike would be significantly smaller in magnitude than the dislike directed toward atheists by Christians.","PeriodicalId":42349,"journal":{"name":"Secularism & Nonreligion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44985760","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We used the three latest rounds of the religion module of International Social Survey Programme to study secularization in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, focusing on belief in God. We restricted our sample to the affiliated with the majority Protestant churches and the unaffiliated and analyzed the trends toward disaffiliation and disbelief in God. Then, we studied the association between confidence in churches, religious/secular upbringing, and demographic controls with belief in God using multinomial logistic regression models. Our treatment of belief in God as a nominal variable allowed the inclusion of both the element of doubt and different images of God in the analyses. The trends toward disbelief in God and disaffiliation suggest that secularization in Scandinavia accelerated in 2008–2018 relative to 1998–2008. In Norway, these trends were already significant in 1998–2008. Disaffiliation and disbelief in God are strongly associated, as both ‘believing’ and ‘belonging’ decayed in the three countries and seem to be strongly intertwined. We found that confidence in churches, and the frequency of attendance at church services (even if only about yearly) during the formative years are powerful predictors of belief in God. The strength of the association between confidence and attitude toward the church’s power in society suggests that these two variables are fundamental to the conceptualization of belonging in the Scandinavian countries and very likely in a more general context.
{"title":"Belief in God, Confidence in the Church and Secularization in Scandinavia","authors":"Carlos M. Lemos, Ivan Puga‐Gonzalez","doi":"10.5334/SNR.143","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/SNR.143","url":null,"abstract":"We used the three latest rounds of the religion module of International Social Survey Programme to study secularization in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, focusing on belief in God. We restricted our sample to the affiliated with the majority Protestant churches and the unaffiliated and analyzed the trends toward disaffiliation and disbelief in God. Then, we studied the association between confidence in churches, religious/secular upbringing, and demographic controls with belief in God using multinomial logistic regression models. Our treatment of belief in God as a nominal variable allowed the inclusion of both the element of doubt and different images of God in the analyses. The trends toward disbelief in God and disaffiliation suggest that secularization in Scandinavia accelerated in 2008–2018 relative to 1998–2008. In Norway, these trends were already significant in 1998–2008. Disaffiliation and disbelief in God are strongly associated, as both ‘believing’ and ‘belonging’ decayed in the three countries and seem to be strongly intertwined. We found that confidence in churches, and the frequency of attendance at church services (even if only about yearly) during the formative years are powerful predictors of belief in God. The strength of the association between confidence and attitude toward the church’s power in society suggests that these two variables are fundamental to the conceptualization of belonging in the Scandinavian countries and very likely in a more general context.","PeriodicalId":42349,"journal":{"name":"Secularism & Nonreligion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44736369","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Ryan T. Cragun, Kevin McCaffree, Ivan Puga‐Gonzalez, W. Wildman, F. Shults
Statistical models attempting to predict who will disaffiliate from religions have typically accounted for less than 15% of the variation in religious affiliations, suggesting that we have only a partial understanding of this vital social process. Using agent-based simulations in three “artificial societies” (one predominantly religious; one predominantly secular; and one in between), we demonstrate that worldview pluralism within one’s neighborhood and family social networks can be a significant predictor of religious (dis)affiliation but in pluralistic societies worldview diversity is less important and, instead, people move toward worldview neutrality. Our results suggest that there may be two phases in religious disaffiliation: (1) the early adopters initially disaffiliate regardless of social support, and subsequently (2) disaffiliation spreads as support for it within local social networks widens and it appears more acceptable. An important next step is for sociologists to confirm or correct the theoretical findings of this model using real-world social-network data, which will require overcoming the measurement difficulties involved in estimating each individual’s degree of local network pluralism.
{"title":"Religious Exiting and Social Networks: Computer Simulations of Religious/Secular Pluralism","authors":"Ryan T. Cragun, Kevin McCaffree, Ivan Puga‐Gonzalez, W. Wildman, F. Shults","doi":"10.5334/SNR.129","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/SNR.129","url":null,"abstract":"Statistical models attempting to predict who will disaffiliate from religions have typically accounted for less than 15% of the variation in religious affiliations, suggesting that we have only a partial understanding of this vital social process. Using agent-based simulations in three “artificial societies” (one predominantly religious; one predominantly secular; and one in between), we demonstrate that worldview pluralism within one’s neighborhood and family social networks can be a significant predictor of religious (dis)affiliation but in pluralistic societies worldview diversity is less important and, instead, people move toward worldview neutrality. Our results suggest that there may be two phases in religious disaffiliation: (1) the early adopters initially disaffiliate regardless of social support, and subsequently (2) disaffiliation spreads as support for it within local social networks widens and it appears more acceptable. An important next step is for sociologists to confirm or correct the theoretical findings of this model using real-world social-network data, which will require overcoming the measurement difficulties involved in estimating each individual’s degree of local network pluralism.","PeriodicalId":42349,"journal":{"name":"Secularism & Nonreligion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47274273","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Dena M. Abbott, Andrew S. Franks, C. Cook, Caitlin M. Mercier
Religious/spiritual (R/S) coping following natural disasters is associated with positive outcomes, leading to perceptions that the absence of R/S coping leads to negative outcomes among nonreligious individuals. However, little research explicitly explores the coping strategies of nonreligious individuals in response to natural disasters and traumatic events. The present study collected data from a sample of survivors of a natural disaster event (i.e., a tornado) to test the relationship between (non)religiosity/(non)spirituality, coping, psychological distress, and posttraumatic growth. Statistical models suggested that problem-focused coping facilitated posttraumatic growth and lower levels of psychological distress among people with lower levels of institutional religiousness and/or individual spirituality (consistent with predictions), but not among people at high levels of religiousness/spirituality (contrary to predictions). Participants with moderate levels of institutional religiousness reported more dysfunctional coping and higher levels of psychological distress, as predicted. Emotion-focused coping was associated with fewer depressive symptoms following trauma among participants with low levels of institutional religiousness. These data suggest a complex relationship between trauma, posttraumatic growth, distress, and coping among varying levels of (non)religiousness/(non)spirituality. This study is among the first to suggest that problem-focused coping in particular may promote positive psychological outcomes among nonreligious/nonspiritual people following a natural disaster or traumatic event. Implications of these data (i.e., for treatment of trauma) are discussed.
{"title":"(Non)Religious Coping with a Natural Disaster in a Rural U.S. Community","authors":"Dena M. Abbott, Andrew S. Franks, C. Cook, Caitlin M. Mercier","doi":"10.5334/SNR.139","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/SNR.139","url":null,"abstract":"Religious/spiritual (R/S) coping following natural disasters is associated with positive outcomes, leading to perceptions that the absence of R/S coping leads to negative outcomes among nonreligious individuals. However, little research explicitly explores the coping strategies of nonreligious individuals in response to natural disasters and traumatic events. The present study collected data from a sample of survivors of a natural disaster event (i.e., a tornado) to test the relationship between (non)religiosity/(non)spirituality, coping, psychological distress, and posttraumatic growth. Statistical models suggested that problem-focused coping facilitated posttraumatic growth and lower levels of psychological distress among people with lower levels of institutional religiousness and/or individual spirituality (consistent with predictions), but not among people at high levels of religiousness/spirituality (contrary to predictions). Participants with moderate levels of institutional religiousness reported more dysfunctional coping and higher levels of psychological distress, as predicted. Emotion-focused coping was associated with fewer depressive symptoms following trauma among participants with low levels of institutional religiousness. These data suggest a complex relationship between trauma, posttraumatic growth, distress, and coping among varying levels of (non)religiousness/(non)spirituality. This study is among the first to suggest that problem-focused coping in particular may promote positive psychological outcomes among nonreligious/nonspiritual people following a natural disaster or traumatic event. Implications of these data (i.e., for treatment of trauma) are discussed.","PeriodicalId":42349,"journal":{"name":"Secularism & Nonreligion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42498113","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：