In God We Distrust: Christian Nationalism and Anti-Atheist Attitude

Prior research found that Christian nationalism, a belief that integrates Christian identity with American national identity, was associated with more negative views toward marginalized groups, such as religious minorities. Relatively less known is the relationship between Christian nationalism and attitudes toward atheists. Specifically, even less is known about whether or not Christian nationalism that is above individuals at the macro, geographic level may influence individual views of atheists. Using nationally representative multilevel data, this study found that higher individual Christian nationalism was associated with more negative views toward atheists. No robust state-level Christian nationalism influence was found for anti-atheist attitude. However, Blacks, relative to Whites, were less likely to view atheists negatively in states where Christian nationalism was higher. Meanwhile, in states where Christian nationalism was higher, Black Protestants were less prejudiced against atheists compared to Evangelical Protestants.     

Bringing Up Nones: Intergenerational Influences and Cohort Trends

Recent polls show that an increasing number of young adults profess no religious affiliation. Prior research has suggested several explanations for this, among them older ages at marriage, higher education rates, reaction against the priest/pedophile scandal, and political backlash against the religious right, as well as the traditional explanation of youthful rebellion against religious parents. In this article, we propose another theory: intergenerational transmission, an increase in the number of parents and grandparents who have been explicitly socializing their children to a nonreligious worldview. We use a mixed methods approach with data from the 34‐year Longitudinal Study of Generations to examine parents’ and grandparents’ influence on youth over several decades. The rate of nonreligious young persons in our sample tripled between 1971 and 2005. Though this undoubtedly reflects broader cohort trends, we can trace a significant portion of this growth to family intergenerational continuity brought about by explicitly nonreligious socialization by parents as well as grandparents. Qualitative data provide insight into processes of nonreligious influence over generations, seen in three types: multigenerational socialization of humanism, of atheism, and of the unintended socialization of “religious rebels” from highly religious parents.     

Trust and Trustworthiness of Christians,Muslims, and Atheists/Agnostics in the United States

Trust, a cornerstone of economic development, is promoted within religions. In a randomized controlled trial, we examine how trust and trustworthiness vary across religions (Christianity and Islam), religiosity, and atheists/agnostics in the United States. Three novel findings emerge. First, Christians are trusted more than Muslims and nonbelievers, which is due to a Christian ingroup bias––Christians trust Christians more than they trust Muslims and nonbelievers, while Muslims and nonbelievers trust all groups the same. Second, religiosity matters to trust. Religious people trust those of higher religiosity more, but only if they are of the same religion. In contrast, nonbelievers trust people of higher religiosity less. Third, trustworthiness among nonbelievers is somewhat lower than that of the religious, especially toward Christians. We speculate that the lower reciprocity originates in the prejudice toward nonbelievers. Our results may help explain discrimination against Muslims and nonbelievers, given that discrimination often originates in distrust.     

FAITH,BELIEF, AND THE COMPATIBILITY OF RELIGION AND SCIENCE

Recent attacks on the compatibility of science and religion by the “militant modern atheists” (Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens) have posed serious challenges for anyone who supports the human importance of religious faith (particularly their identification of “faith” with “believing without evidence”). This article offers a critical analysis of their claims compared with those who do not equate faith with belief. I conclude that (i) the militant modern atheist interpretation of faith undervalues transformative religious experiences, (ii) that more people of faith hold it for this reason than their opponents acknowledge, and (iii) that meaningful dialogue between religion and science is both possible and desirable.     

Measuring Spiritual Fitness: Atheist Military Personnel,Veterans, and Civilians

This study investigated the impact of transcendent item phrasing (i.e., phrasing which assumes the respondent believes in certain sacred or supernatural concepts) on the validity of the U.S. Army’s Comprehensive Soldier Fitness (CSF) program’s spiritual fitness scale when administered to atheist military personnel, veterans, and civilians. Results indicated that the inclusion of transcendent phrasing led to reduced concurrent validity for the spiritual fitness scale when administered to atheist military personnel and veterans, reduced concurrent and predictive validity when administered to atheists’ but not Christians’ spiritual fitness. Notably, the removal of transcendent phrasing actually led to increased concurrent validity for Christian respondents. Taken together, these findings suggest the Revised scale, which is composed of items that do not rely on transcendent phrasing, produces better psychometric outcomes for both atheist and Christian respondents. Implications for the CSF program and the measurement of spiritual fitness are addressed.     

DEFENDING NIEBUHR FROM HAUERWAS

In his 2001 book, With the Grain of the Universe, Stanley Hauerwas has made an extended case for Karl Barth as the model for how to do Christian ethics, and for Reinhold Niebuhr as the model for how not to do it. Though Barth's closer and deeper theological connection to the Christian tradition appeals to a Jewish traditionalist by analogy, nevertheless, Niebuhr's approach to social ethics, based as it is on a version of natural law, is of greater appeal. That is because it is more philosophically arguable in a secular society and culture, and because it is more politically effective there. It is what made Niebuhr a more effective opponent of Nazism than was Barth. Also, Niebuhr's version of natural law is not a christianized version of Stoic natural law teaching but, rather, a profound use of the biblical prohibition of idolatry, having heretofore unnoticed affinities with rabbinic developments of that prohibition.