There's a new paper I can share with you about how the belief in a Great Apostasy is the probable cause of that--- since the LDS Church is Christ's restored true church all others having been corrupted no other church can be true. So many leave religion completely. However I see a trend of conservatives leaving for Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and non denominational Christianity, or even mainline Christianity so I don't quite agree with the statement all ex-Mormona become secular liberal atheists. Most do but not all.
It also helps we're generally white, upper middle class
I suspect that the distinction between atheists and agnostics is not as strong as the figures suggest. There are several famous agnostics such as Tyler Cowen, Neil deGrasse Tyson — Einstein, even — who, when they speak of God, use all the same language as atheists but choose to not accept the label. To an extent, choosing to adopt the 'atheist' label is a political statement. Most people who believe that there is no God don't accept the label that goes with it.
Similarly, the nothing-in-particulars include a lot of people who haven't really thought about it. They may not all be atheists but I'll bet many of them are — they just don't choose to use the label.
I agree with you that the distinction between atheists and agnostics is less about the position they hold and more about the label they prefer to self-identify with.
Some agnostics hold the position that they are on they are on the fence between a God exists or no God exists. However, when you ask most Agnostics to explain the position they hold, they are more likely to say something along the lines of that they do not think it is possible to determine and/or know if a God exists.
Some atheists hold the position no God exists., but most Atheist describe thier position as they do not believe and /or are unconvinced a deity exists that interacts with the world in detectable ways.
Thus, the positions are not too far apart, but on a cultural level agnostic and atheist have very different conations which affect which label a person identifies with.
On the other hand, if you ask the Nones who don't identity as atheist or agnostic what they believe about God, you will likely hear a variety of response that are very distinct from the atheists and agnostics.
"The trend line is unmistakably positive—states with older populations tend to have more atheists. Surprising, isn't it? Take note of the three outliers in the top right—New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine. These states are both significantly older and have higher proportions of atheists than the norm. On the other end of the spectrum lies Utah, a notable outlier. Despite its relatively young median age of 31.5, its estimated atheist share is 5.4%, which significantly exceeds the expected trend of 4%."
As you noted last year, "Atheists Just Don't Have Many Kids". A quick lookup shows me Utah has nearly 28% of its population under 18, making it the only state to break 25% (runner-up is Texas, at nearly, but not quite 25%, 2023 figures). All these kids count toward a state's median age, but not toward typical opinion polling, right? Being a parent of minors, especially of several minors, can contribute much more to lowering the median age of your state than being a very young, but childless, adult does. A population composed of a mix of relatively childless (or retired, kids grown – Utah is also a destination for retirees) atheist adults and especially fertile religious ones could skew both atheist (among the adults, at least) and quite young. By contrast, New Hampshire apparently has the lowest number of kids per family (2019).
I have many friends and family members who are more none's than atheists, most likely because they were brought up in a religious/quasi-religious (traditional/cultural) household.
It seems that Ryan is using Nones as a substitute for Agnostics. I will accept this.
I have always found it amusing that self-described atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Bill Maher use their intellectual cudgel against those who have (in their thinking) a ridiculous belief in a Supreme Being, and call themselves Atheists.
Yet these "intellectuals" do not even know or accept that their self-description parallels those of us who do believe in a Supreme Being.
Atheist - "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."
While believers in a Supreme Being take as the "leap of faith" (Kierkegaard) to the existence, it seems obvious that Atheists are just as fervent in taking the leap in their belief there isn't a Supreme Being.
As much as they rail against believers, they are too just as religious in their own way.
What you’re describing is strong atheism, not atheism. I get the point you’re getting at, and I, too, find flaws in the strong atheist position. However, I don’t think most atheists are strong atheists, and I’m not quite sure if any surveys have gone down to that level of detail.
I consider myself an agnostic atheist - I don’t believe in any god or god that I have learned about, but I recognize that there is no way to know for sure that those gods do not exist. I haven’t taken a leap to say with absolute certainty that no god exists and am always willing to consider new evidence. My experience in interacting with atheists is that most fall into this category as well, but again I don’t know of any statistics on that.
Christopher, I always like to ask those who suggest it takes a leap of faith to not believe in a god, how much faith does it require of them to not believe in a leprechaun? :)
Hmm, the one thing most polling doesn't seem to grapple with is that both "atheist" and "agnostic" do have actual definitions, and are in principle totally independent categories, not merely identities. Atheism is a denial of belief, whereas agnosticism is a denial of knowledge. The challenge is that most people aren't familiar with these definitions, and tend to just use agnosticism to imply some sort of soft atheism. Likewise, most nones could could probably be slotted into these categories upon deeper examination, even if they personally reject them as identities.
Ryan, I am trying, and failing, to understand the role that age is playing here. From previous posts and my general understanding of nonreligious people, I would assume the lower the median age of a state, the higher atheist population. Looking at this post: https://open.substack.com/pub/ryanburge/p/race-generations-and-american-religion?r=2d2z4a&utm_medium=ios, it appears younger generations do in fact identify as atheist at higher rates. How is it, then, that states with higher median ages tend to have higher atheist percentages?
Yeah, this is one of those statistically weird things where A can lead to more of B at one level of analysis (individual), but not be true at another level of analysis (state level).
I am going to think about it some more. Trying to figure out how to parse it in a way that makes sense.
Ryan, do you think the way Atheists are measured makes any sense? (Also, for Agnostic, another 5% not discussed in the post)...Typically these surveys like Pew and others treat Atheist/Agnostic as denominations like Catholics, Evangelical, Jews etc....But many nonbelievers are still by family or culture Jewish, Catholic, Buddhist, etc. and can separate belief from social or religious groups.
Other surveys show higher level of atheists when not discussing denominations, just asking about belief...which is never binary (yes/no) -- but exists on a spectrum including level of doubt. Some of these surveys have nonbelief higher, maybe 20% or more and belief with no doubts only about 50 %
I agree. I really wish that the question was not worded along the lines of "what religion are you?", and more like "do you believe that there is a God that interacts with the world in detectable ways?"
The NS vs CES surveys show a pretty good pattern. CES overestimates in Yankee and blue states, and agrees with NS in Dixie and red states. I wonder if there's a difference in the questions that leads CES to treat "progressives" and Democrats as atheists even if they're really NIPs or just unenthusiastic Christians..
I am somewhat atheistic. What I find most galling about religion is the contention that religion is conducive to moral behavior. In this essay, I suggest that the salient concepts of Christianity are actually conducive to immoral behavior:
Christpher "..Ryan is using Nones as a substitute for Agnostics"
In all these surveys, I've never seen a clear differentiation between an agnostic and a None. A former head of American Atheists said, "Atheists, Agnostics and Nones, we claim them all." As a practical matter, I think he is right. People in all three categories probably don't give money to churches, don't like Christianity pushed into government, don't go to church and are tolerant of gays, trans and abortion rights. There can be endless hairsplitting about those of us who do not believe, just as there is about who is and who is not a "true Christian." Ultimately, what matters is can gays marry, can women get abortions, must children sit through prayers in school, etc etc.
I strongly recommend you read my book: The Nones. There's an entire chapter that goes into a lot of detail about the differences between atheists, agnostics, and nothing in particular.
> ...don't give money to churches, don't like Christianity pushed into government, don't go to church and are tolerant of gays, trans and abortion rights.
There are self-identified Christians who fall into all of those categories.
"North Dakota's outlier status likely reflects the impact of sample size."
Agreed. NoDak's long term population (i.e. before recent in-migration) has origins very similar to Minnesota (Scandinavian, though more Norwegian than Swedish; also Protestant German). If you go back and look at your old data on Evangelicals, you'll see NoDak having a low percentage, similar to other northern tier states with the interesting exception of SoDak.
The Utah data make complete sense. People who leave the LDS church don’t become Presbyterians, they stop believing at all.
There's a new paper I can share with you about how the belief in a Great Apostasy is the probable cause of that--- since the LDS Church is Christ's restored true church all others having been corrupted no other church can be true. So many leave religion completely. However I see a trend of conservatives leaving for Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and non denominational Christianity, or even mainline Christianity so I don't quite agree with the statement all ex-Mormona become secular liberal atheists. Most do but not all.
It also helps we're generally white, upper middle class
I suspect that the distinction between atheists and agnostics is not as strong as the figures suggest. There are several famous agnostics such as Tyler Cowen, Neil deGrasse Tyson — Einstein, even — who, when they speak of God, use all the same language as atheists but choose to not accept the label. To an extent, choosing to adopt the 'atheist' label is a political statement. Most people who believe that there is no God don't accept the label that goes with it.
Similarly, the nothing-in-particulars include a lot of people who haven't really thought about it. They may not all be atheists but I'll bet many of them are — they just don't choose to use the label.
I agree with you that the distinction between atheists and agnostics is less about the position they hold and more about the label they prefer to self-identify with.
Some agnostics hold the position that they are on they are on the fence between a God exists or no God exists. However, when you ask most Agnostics to explain the position they hold, they are more likely to say something along the lines of that they do not think it is possible to determine and/or know if a God exists.
Some atheists hold the position no God exists., but most Atheist describe thier position as they do not believe and /or are unconvinced a deity exists that interacts with the world in detectable ways.
Thus, the positions are not too far apart, but on a cultural level agnostic and atheist have very different conations which affect which label a person identifies with.
On the other hand, if you ask the Nones who don't identity as atheist or agnostic what they believe about God, you will likely hear a variety of response that are very distinct from the atheists and agnostics.
I think most people are Haven't-Really-Thought-About-It-Ists
"The trend line is unmistakably positive—states with older populations tend to have more atheists. Surprising, isn't it? Take note of the three outliers in the top right—New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine. These states are both significantly older and have higher proportions of atheists than the norm. On the other end of the spectrum lies Utah, a notable outlier. Despite its relatively young median age of 31.5, its estimated atheist share is 5.4%, which significantly exceeds the expected trend of 4%."
As you noted last year, "Atheists Just Don't Have Many Kids". A quick lookup shows me Utah has nearly 28% of its population under 18, making it the only state to break 25% (runner-up is Texas, at nearly, but not quite 25%, 2023 figures). All these kids count toward a state's median age, but not toward typical opinion polling, right? Being a parent of minors, especially of several minors, can contribute much more to lowering the median age of your state than being a very young, but childless, adult does. A population composed of a mix of relatively childless (or retired, kids grown – Utah is also a destination for retirees) atheist adults and especially fertile religious ones could skew both atheist (among the adults, at least) and quite young. By contrast, New Hampshire apparently has the lowest number of kids per family (2019).
Good catch!
RE: Atheists vs. Agnostics
I have many friends and family members who are more none's than atheists, most likely because they were brought up in a religious/quasi-religious (traditional/cultural) household.
It seems that Ryan is using Nones as a substitute for Agnostics. I will accept this.
I have always found it amusing that self-described atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Bill Maher use their intellectual cudgel against those who have (in their thinking) a ridiculous belief in a Supreme Being, and call themselves Atheists.
Yet these "intellectuals" do not even know or accept that their self-description parallels those of us who do believe in a Supreme Being.
Atheist - "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."
While believers in a Supreme Being take as the "leap of faith" (Kierkegaard) to the existence, it seems obvious that Atheists are just as fervent in taking the leap in their belief there isn't a Supreme Being.
As much as they rail against believers, they are too just as religious in their own way.
What you’re describing is strong atheism, not atheism. I get the point you’re getting at, and I, too, find flaws in the strong atheist position. However, I don’t think most atheists are strong atheists, and I’m not quite sure if any surveys have gone down to that level of detail.
I consider myself an agnostic atheist - I don’t believe in any god or god that I have learned about, but I recognize that there is no way to know for sure that those gods do not exist. I haven’t taken a leap to say with absolute certainty that no god exists and am always willing to consider new evidence. My experience in interacting with atheists is that most fall into this category as well, but again I don’t know of any statistics on that.
Christopher, I always like to ask those who suggest it takes a leap of faith to not believe in a god, how much faith does it require of them to not believe in a leprechaun? :)
Hmm, the one thing most polling doesn't seem to grapple with is that both "atheist" and "agnostic" do have actual definitions, and are in principle totally independent categories, not merely identities. Atheism is a denial of belief, whereas agnosticism is a denial of knowledge. The challenge is that most people aren't familiar with these definitions, and tend to just use agnosticism to imply some sort of soft atheism. Likewise, most nones could could probably be slotted into these categories upon deeper examination, even if they personally reject them as identities.
Ryan, I am trying, and failing, to understand the role that age is playing here. From previous posts and my general understanding of nonreligious people, I would assume the lower the median age of a state, the higher atheist population. Looking at this post: https://open.substack.com/pub/ryanburge/p/race-generations-and-american-religion?r=2d2z4a&utm_medium=ios, it appears younger generations do in fact identify as atheist at higher rates. How is it, then, that states with higher median ages tend to have higher atheist percentages?
Yeah, this is one of those statistically weird things where A can lead to more of B at one level of analysis (individual), but not be true at another level of analysis (state level).
I am going to think about it some more. Trying to figure out how to parse it in a way that makes sense.
Ryan, do you think the way Atheists are measured makes any sense? (Also, for Agnostic, another 5% not discussed in the post)...Typically these surveys like Pew and others treat Atheist/Agnostic as denominations like Catholics, Evangelical, Jews etc....But many nonbelievers are still by family or culture Jewish, Catholic, Buddhist, etc. and can separate belief from social or religious groups.
Other surveys show higher level of atheists when not discussing denominations, just asking about belief...which is never binary (yes/no) -- but exists on a spectrum including level of doubt. Some of these surveys have nonbelief higher, maybe 20% or more and belief with no doubts only about 50 %
I agree. I really wish that the question was not worded along the lines of "what religion are you?", and more like "do you believe that there is a God that interacts with the world in detectable ways?"
The NS vs CES surveys show a pretty good pattern. CES overestimates in Yankee and blue states, and agrees with NS in Dixie and red states. I wonder if there's a difference in the questions that leads CES to treat "progressives" and Democrats as atheists even if they're really NIPs or just unenthusiastic Christians..
Alaska is atheist is because it's more libertarian than conservative.
I am somewhat atheistic. What I find most galling about religion is the contention that religion is conducive to moral behavior. In this essay, I suggest that the salient concepts of Christianity are actually conducive to immoral behavior:
https://davidgottfried.substack.com/p/how-this-jew-celebrated-easter
Christpher "..Ryan is using Nones as a substitute for Agnostics"
In all these surveys, I've never seen a clear differentiation between an agnostic and a None. A former head of American Atheists said, "Atheists, Agnostics and Nones, we claim them all." As a practical matter, I think he is right. People in all three categories probably don't give money to churches, don't like Christianity pushed into government, don't go to church and are tolerant of gays, trans and abortion rights. There can be endless hairsplitting about those of us who do not believe, just as there is about who is and who is not a "true Christian." Ultimately, what matters is can gays marry, can women get abortions, must children sit through prayers in school, etc etc.
I strongly recommend you read my book: The Nones. There's an entire chapter that goes into a lot of detail about the differences between atheists, agnostics, and nothing in particular.
> ...don't give money to churches, don't like Christianity pushed into government, don't go to church and are tolerant of gays, trans and abortion rights.
There are self-identified Christians who fall into all of those categories.
"North Dakota's outlier status likely reflects the impact of sample size."
Agreed. NoDak's long term population (i.e. before recent in-migration) has origins very similar to Minnesota (Scandinavian, though more Norwegian than Swedish; also Protestant German). If you go back and look at your old data on Evangelicals, you'll see NoDak having a low percentage, similar to other northern tier states with the interesting exception of SoDak.