Losing No Religion...

What do they believe? What do you think? Talk about religion as it exists today.

Moderator: JoeWallack

Post Reply
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Losing No Religion...

Post by Peter Kirby »

http://peterkirby.com/losing-no-religion.html

People who grow up with no religion have a low "retention rate." But, apparently, it's getting better.

In what can be described as a turn-about-is-fair-play move, given the general decline in religious belief in America, several have noted recent studies showing that those who report being brought up without a religion in America usually don't end up with no religion. There's a graphic from the Pew Forum showing that only 46% of those saying that they were brought up with no particular religious affiliation still claim no religious affiliation.

Image

It is, for reasons not really clear, even less predictive of atheism for one to say they were "raised atheist." The Pew Forum had 162 survey responses (weighted at 430 statistically) in the continental U.S. saying that they were "raised atheist." These survey responses have spawned several articles mentioning the statistics (albeit with little real discussion): most notably from Mark Gray in 2012, most recently from Jesus Creed and Exploring Our Matrix.

Here's the break-down: of the 162 responses that said they were raised as an atheist, 1 came from a pagan, 1 from "liberal faith," 2 from Unitarian Universalism, 1 from Shinto, 1 from a Hindu, 6 from Buddhists, 1 from a Shia Muslim, 4 from Jews, 2 from Jehovah's Witnesses, 2 from Orthodox Christians, 1 from a Mormon, 17 from Catholics, 56 from Protestants, 43 from atheists, 6 from agnostics, 13 from "none," and 5 from "Don't Know."

Or, looking at those who say they were "raised atheist" and their answer to whether they believe in God or a universal spirit, 55% say yes, 26% say no, 6% express another opinion, and 13% say that they don't know.

If you can spin a narrative from that, great. Most commonly suggested is that atheist parents are rather good at making Protestant children in America. Yet, all the normal caveats to interpreting statistics apply. I am reluctant to bring them up because I am an atheist myself. I prefer to accept valid empirical data. However, previous (apparently gleeful) reports don't mention any caveats to interpretation at all, so I guess someone has to do it.

(1) Small sample size (for this subgroup, as the survey itself is one of the largest of its kind)
(2) Possible lack of fit between what people answer and how we understand it
(3) Possible lack of correspondence between self-reporting and actual fact

(Yes, Americans sometimes have a problem with being entirely truthful to the survey takers on religion.)

Who really knows? Claiming to be raised atheist (as opposed to being raised in no particular religion, which accounted for 2020 responses in the survey, over 12 times as many responses as being raised atheist) is a little unusual in the United States in the first place. Perhaps this group in particular needs to be studied more closely.

Indeed someone has looked at this and related phenomena more closely: Stephen M. Merino in his article Irreligious Socialization? The Adult Religious Preferences of Individuals Raised with No Religion. His article is significant for attempting to break down the phenomenon by age cohort. His study looks at the entire group of people raised with no religion (including as atheist, agnostic, or "none").

Image

He explains this, in part, by the fact that it is increasingly common for someone with no religious affiliation to find a partner in adulthood who also has no religious affiliation.

However, as they say in finance, "past performance is not a guarantee of future results." If we want to know what young people today will grow up to believe, only time will tell.

PS - You can download some of the relevant Pew Forum data in an Excel spreadsheet here and the original data here.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Losing No Religion...

Post by Peter Kirby »

Other, more recent surveys from 2012 put the "retention rate" for those with no religious affiliation at 53% or 61%.

http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-conte ... or-Web.pdf

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-co ... 82847.html
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Mental flatliner
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 9:50 am

Re: Losing No Religion...

Post by Mental flatliner »

Peter Kirby wrote: Here's the break-down: of the 162 responses that said they were raised as an atheist, 1 came from a pagan, 1 from "liberal faith," 2 from Unitarian Universalism, 1 from Shinto, 1 from a Hindu, 6 from Buddhists, 1 from a Shia Muslim, 4 from Jews, 2 from Jehovah's Witnesses, 2 from Orthodox Christians, 1 from a Mormon, 17 from Catholics, 56 from Protestants, 43 from atheists, 6 from agnostics, 13 from "none," and 5 from "Don't Know."
Wait a minute...

1--How can they be "raised atheist" if they were raised in a religious family? Only 43 were raised atheist based on your breakdown, all others had strong parental influences in their household's religious views.

2--Why would 162 be weighted to 3 times their number? Doesn't this skew the results of the poll? According to the CIA World Factbook, atheists are statistically non-existent in America and should have been weighted down, not up:

Protestant 51.3%, Roman Catholic 23.9%, Mormon 1.7%, other Christian 1.6%,
Jewish 1.7%,
Buddhist 0.7%,
Muslim 0.6%,
other or unspecified 2.5%,
unaffiliated 12.1%,
none 4% (2007 est.)

The CIA World Factbook gives numbers for "no religion", "unaffiliated", and "atheist" separately for each nation, and in their results for the United States, "atheism" was one of the smaller numbers not significant enough to list. Out of 2020 responses, if the sample is weighted to represent the population, the atheist responses should have been weighted to 41 or less.

3--Out of 2020 responses, how did Pew find 162 "raised atheist" ? I would question their fundamental methodology. The sample is supposed to be designed to be representative, and if we already know the proportions of the population, and the sample contradicts them, the sample is unreliable.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Losing No Religion...

Post by Peter Kirby »

Mental flatliner wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote: Here's the break-down: of the 162 responses that said they were raised as an atheist, 1 came from a pagan, 1 from "liberal faith," 2 from Unitarian Universalism, 1 from Shinto, 1 from a Hindu, 6 from Buddhists, 1 from a Shia Muslim, 4 from Jews, 2 from Jehovah's Witnesses, 2 from Orthodox Christians, 1 from a Mormon, 17 from Catholics, 56 from Protestants, 43 from atheists, 6 from agnostics, 13 from "none," and 5 from "Don't Know."
Wait a minute...

1--How can they be "raised atheist" if they were raised in a religious family? Only 43 were raised atheist based on your breakdown, all others had strong parental influences in their household's religious views.

2--Why would 162 be weighted to 3 times their number? Doesn't this skew the results of the poll? According to the CIA World Factbook, atheists are statistically non-existent in America and should have been weighted down, not up:

Protestant 51.3%, Roman Catholic 23.9%, Mormon 1.7%, other Christian 1.6%,
Jewish 1.7%,
Buddhist 0.7%,
Muslim 0.6%,
other or unspecified 2.5%,
unaffiliated 12.1%,
none 4% (2007 est.)

The CIA World Factbook gives numbers for "no religion", "unaffiliated", and "atheist" separately for each nation, and in their results for the United States, "atheism" was one of the smaller numbers not significant enough to list. Out of 2020 responses, if the sample is weighted to represent the population, the atheist responses should have been weighted to 41 or less.

3--Out of 2020 responses, how did Pew find 162 "raised atheist" ? I would question their fundamental methodology. The sample is supposed to be designed to be representative, and if we already know the proportions of the population, and the sample contradicts them, the sample is unreliable.
All of your questions are based on misunderstandings or errors, which you can identify for yourself by following the links to the Pew Forum and looking at their data.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Mental flatliner
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 9:50 am

Re: Losing No Religion...

Post by Mental flatliner »

Peter Kirby wrote: All of your questions are based on misunderstandings or errors, which you can identify for yourself by following the links to the Pew Forum and looking at their data.
This is a non-response. I take it to mean you didn't read your own link or you're unable to explain it from any basis of understanding.

Sample-testing and analysis is a function of all audits. As an auditor, not only am I qualified to use it, I'm qualified to review the work of others using it. The use of a sample to extrapolate to a population is a simple procedure; you could explain it if you tried.

What I just did to your OP is conduct what is called a "test of reasonability". I tested the definitions and compared the results to the known population. If I were reviewing the Pew researcher who published this material, I would have told him not to publish because it appears to be intentionally misleading and therefore unethical.

(You obtained the same results when you admitted that they were confusing and pointed out why. You may or may not have recognized that the data is muddled.)
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Losing No Religion...

Post by Peter Kirby »

Mental flatliner wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote: All of your questions are based on misunderstandings or errors, which you can identify for yourself by following the links to the Pew Forum and looking at their data.
This is a non-response. I take it to mean you didn't read your own link or you're unable to explain it from any basis of understanding.
It actually means that I didn't want to take the time this morning to give you a longer reply. Does it mean that much to you? Let me know. I will break down the misunderstandings.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Mental flatliner
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 9:50 am

Re: Losing No Religion...

Post by Mental flatliner »

Peter Kirby wrote: I will break down the misunderstandings.
I doubt that.

My review of the samples taken by others in audits stands up to peer review every three years.

But knock yourself out.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Losing No Religion...

Post by Peter Kirby »

I am not questioning your competence as an auditor. I truly believe that everything could be cleared up if you just visited the Pew Forum data and related papers. That's a compliment to your ability to synthesize this information.

http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/repor ... y-full.pdf
http://www.pewforum.org/datasets/u-s-re ... pe-survey/
(requires IBM SPSS for the data but not for the description of survey method)
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bz6rDVl ... Vc3YmwtSjg (an Excel spreadsheet with some of the relevant survey data)

I also figured you'd be more ready to accept anything that you reasoned out for yourself. Call it a hunch, but you don't seem to be the type who wants anything shoved down your throat.
Mental flatliner wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote: Here's the break-down: of the 162 responses that said they were raised as an atheist, 1 came from a pagan, 1 from "liberal faith," 2 from Unitarian Universalism, 1 from Shinto, 1 from a Hindu, 6 from Buddhists, 1 from a Shia Muslim, 4 from Jews, 2 from Jehovah's Witnesses, 2 from Orthodox Christians, 1 from a Mormon, 17 from Catholics, 56 from Protestants, 43 from atheists, 6 from agnostics, 13 from "none," and 5 from "Don't Know."
Wait a minute...

1--How can they be "raised atheist" if they were raised in a religious family? Only 43 were raised atheist based on your breakdown, all others had strong parental influences in their household's religious views.
These 162 responses came from the people who answered this question with "atheist" (Q50):
Pew Forum wrote:Thinking about when you were a child, in what religion were you raised, if any? Were you Protestant, Roman Catholic, Mormon, Orthodox such as Greek or Russian Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, agnostic, something else, or nothing in particular?
[INTERVIEWER: IF R VOLUNTEERS “nothing in particular, none, no religion, etc.” BEFORE REACHING END OF LIST, PROMPT WITH: and would you say that was atheist, agnostic, or just nothing in particular?]
THOSE ANSWERING “SOMETHING ELSE” WERE ASKED TO SPECIFY AFFILIATION; VERBATIM RESPONSES WERE RECORDED BY INTERVIEWER AND BACKCODED BY FORUM ANALYSTS
The break-down came from this question (Q16):
Pew Forum wrote:What is your present religion, if any? Are you Protestant, Roman Catholic, Mormon, Orthodox such as Greek or Russian Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, agnostic, something else, or nothing in particular?
INTERVIEWER: IF R VOLUNTEERS “nothing in particular, none, no religion, etc.” BEFORE REACHING END OF LIST, PROMPT WITH: and would you say that’s atheist, agnostic, or just nothing in particular?]
THOSE ANSWERING “SOMETHING ELSE” WERE ASKED TO SPECIFY AFFILIATION; VERBATIM RESPONSES WERE RECORDED BY INTERVIEWER AND BACKCODED BY FORUM ANALYSTS
So there are two different things here: how people say they were raised and what people say their present religion is. Apparently my wording of this confused you.
Mental flatliner wrote:2--Why would 162 be weighted to 3 times their number? Doesn't this skew the results of the poll?
http://www.spsstools.net/Tutorials/WEIGHTING.pdf

The weighting function is a statistical technique for removing the "skew" that is inherent to the polling technique. (I.e., certain types of people are more likely to answer the phone and complete the survey, such as retirees or the unemployed, which leads to higher representation for certain groups, such as the elderly and women, than actually exists in the population that is under study.)

As practiced by the Pew Forum, each individual response is given a weight equal to or greater than 1. It's not based on the answers to the religion questions. As to whether this practice is perfect, you'd have to decide for yourself, after you understand it first.
Mental flatliner wrote:3--Out of 2020 responses, how did Pew find 162 "raised atheist" ? I would question their fundamental methodology. The sample is supposed to be designed to be representative, and if we already know the proportions of the population, and the sample contradicts them, the sample is unreliable.
There were over 35,000 responses to the survey in total. Of that, 2020 claimed to be raised with no particular religion (which is not to say without being taught to believe in God - or to say anything about that either way), 162 claimed to be raised atheist, and 76 claimed to be raised agnostic. Thus, 2258 fall into one of these three categories. The "raised atheist" and "raised agnostic" responses together account for less than 0.7% of all responses to the survey.

I would once again recommend that you read the Pew Forum reports and data yourself to clear up any remaining obscurities.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Losing No Religion...

Post by DCHindley »

MF,

I've asked you this before, and you have chosen not to respond, but what kind of "auditor" are you, exactly?

In the real world, "auditor" usually means an accountant testing an accounting system to see if it conforms to Generally Accepted Accounting Principals (GAAP) or International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), or someone who reviews business financial data to take measurements of insurance risk exposure.

You seem to use it to mean those who sample populations, such as quality control inspectors. We real folks call these people "quality control" inspectors, not auditors.

Oh, oh, I get it. How long have you been working in the mail room of the US Congressional Public Company Accounting Oversight Board?

http://pcaobus.org/About/Pages/default.aspx
http://pcaobus.org/Rules/PCAOBRules/Pag ... x#rule4003
http://pcaobus.org/Standards/Auditing/Pages/AU350.aspx

DCH
Mental flatliner wrote:Sample-testing and analysis is a function of all audits. As an auditor, not only am I qualified to use it, I'm qualified to review the work of others using it. The use of a sample to extrapolate to a population is a simple procedure; you could explain it if you tried.

What I just did to your OP is conduct what is called a "test of reasonability". I tested the definitions and compared the results to the known population. If I were reviewing the Pew researcher who published this material, I would have told him not to publish because it appears to be intentionally misleading and therefore unethical.
Mental flatliner wrote:My review of the samples taken by others in audits stands up to peer review every three years.

But knock yourself out.
Mental flatliner
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 9:50 am

Re: Losing No Religion...

Post by Mental flatliner »

DCHindley wrote: You seem to use it to mean those who sample populations, such as quality control inspectors. We real folks call these people "quality control" inspectors, not auditors.
Sample testing is a standard method for testing transactions and internal controls.

For you to pretend to know auditing and not know the sampling component says something about you.

For example, when you engage a company to arrive at "assurance" that financial statements are free of material misstatement, how would you approach the completeness and accuracy assertions of management for the expenses on a statement of income? How would you test the controls in place over disbursements?

How would you respond to the Department of Labor's requirement that the audit of a pension plan include testing of the earnings on a participant account where the plan is participant directed, and the information you need is locked behind their personal password?
Post Reply