I read this latest posting and wonder if young people having children will encourage some of the nones to seek some sort of religious affiliation for the sake of their kids. I am curious about if nones get married, if they get married in a church and if they baptize their kids for perhaps the sake of their own parents and how this compares to various faith traditions.
I once had a friend from the WW2 generation who grew up in a family where his father was Jewish and his mother Lutheran. His mom told his father that perhaps we should give the kids some sort of religious exposure and it didnt matter to her if if was Jewish or Christian. His father responded that boxing lessons would serve him better. But of course that was quite a long time ago.
Sorry to say, but I think Ryan's graphs here may have already shown it's a no. The youngest possible millennial (born 1996) is now 29, with the vast majority well into their 30s and 40s, and much of Gen Z is now in their mid and late 20s. If there was going to be a mass return to religion later in life as people reached marriage and childrearing age, then I imagine we'd see it in the data by now, and...well, you can see the generational graphs in this post.
It would be really good to have the default presentation in terms of 5-year cohorts rather than spurious "generations". That's particularly true given the absence of any obvious distinctions between "Millennials" and "Gen Z", other than the fact that, by definition, Millennials are older
This distinction helps. Just had convo w/former colleague in InterVarsity leadership. He and others reproduce the "public reach standpoint" as though generations were empirical, and subsequently, possess specific cultural properties... (smh)... Anyway: while I endorse their theological ambitions, they can't wrap their minds around generational replacement. They're sure that Third Great Awakening is just around the corner. Trusting the math isn't a betrayal of their faith, but try telling them that...
Pre-2000 or so it would have been fascinating to see a geographic analysis of this. If the number of Nones in an area goes up over time and therefore people are more likely to interact with them does that mean that the number of Nones in that area goes up? Obviously though that's changed a lot since the internet became widespread. As Ryan has said before I think now it depends much more on which cultural groups a person aligns themselves with and their attitudes to religion. Party politics obviously plays into this a lot but I also wonder about other group effects. If Taylor Swift came out as a vocal None tomorrow I wonder what impact it would have.
Heh - shows what I know! My point still stands though - people are as, if not more, likely to be influenced in their life choices by authority figures in online groups than by people they interact with in real life.
I interpret the dramatic shifts between 2018-2024 as likely driven by politics, especially because None doesn’t always (rather rarely) mean Non-Believer. I see a return to identifying with a name brand tradition: Catholic, Evangelical. Due only to widespread press coverage of the rise of the Nones, perhaps middling believers reclassified as Other to avoid confusion about non-belief. Cultural awareness of groups/classifications, and rising political strength of Evangelicals and Catholics seems a plausible explanation for the reversal of Nones.
I read this latest posting and wonder if young people having children will encourage some of the nones to seek some sort of religious affiliation for the sake of their kids. I am curious about if nones get married, if they get married in a church and if they baptize their kids for perhaps the sake of their own parents and how this compares to various faith traditions.
I once had a friend from the WW2 generation who grew up in a family where his father was Jewish and his mother Lutheran. His mom told his father that perhaps we should give the kids some sort of religious exposure and it didnt matter to her if if was Jewish or Christian. His father responded that boxing lessons would serve him better. But of course that was quite a long time ago.
Sorry to say, but I think Ryan's graphs here may have already shown it's a no. The youngest possible millennial (born 1996) is now 29, with the vast majority well into their 30s and 40s, and much of Gen Z is now in their mid and late 20s. If there was going to be a mass return to religion later in life as people reached marriage and childrearing age, then I imagine we'd see it in the data by now, and...well, you can see the generational graphs in this post.
The answer to your question is basically yes, no and no.
It would be really good to have the default presentation in terms of 5-year cohorts rather than spurious "generations". That's particularly true given the absence of any obvious distinctions between "Millennials" and "Gen Z", other than the fact that, by definition, Millennials are older
Here's what I know.
Empirically speaking - birth cohorts are far, far superior.
From a public reach standpoint - generations are far, far superior.
This distinction helps. Just had convo w/former colleague in InterVarsity leadership. He and others reproduce the "public reach standpoint" as though generations were empirical, and subsequently, possess specific cultural properties... (smh)... Anyway: while I endorse their theological ambitions, they can't wrap their minds around generational replacement. They're sure that Third Great Awakening is just around the corner. Trusting the math isn't a betrayal of their faith, but try telling them that...
I'll keep pushing on this one. Pew finally accepted the need to line up with empirical reality
Ryan, what is the baseline population data you're using for comparisons:
* Population of the USA
*Adult population
*Persons identifying as Christian
*Actual church members
*Something else?
The GSS is designed to be a representative of the adult population of the United States.
Thank you.
Pre-2000 or so it would have been fascinating to see a geographic analysis of this. If the number of Nones in an area goes up over time and therefore people are more likely to interact with them does that mean that the number of Nones in that area goes up? Obviously though that's changed a lot since the internet became widespread. As Ryan has said before I think now it depends much more on which cultural groups a person aligns themselves with and their attitudes to religion. Party politics obviously plays into this a lot but I also wonder about other group effects. If Taylor Swift came out as a vocal None tomorrow I wonder what impact it would have.
Eh? Swift is already a none. She's made it quite clear in her life and her lyrics
Heh - shows what I know! My point still stands though - people are as, if not more, likely to be influenced in their life choices by authority figures in online groups than by people they interact with in real life.
I interpret the dramatic shifts between 2018-2024 as likely driven by politics, especially because None doesn’t always (rather rarely) mean Non-Believer. I see a return to identifying with a name brand tradition: Catholic, Evangelical. Due only to widespread press coverage of the rise of the Nones, perhaps middling believers reclassified as Other to avoid confusion about non-belief. Cultural awareness of groups/classifications, and rising political strength of Evangelicals and Catholics seems a plausible explanation for the reversal of Nones.