I think one of the older studies delved into the demographics of individuals switching between faiths in detail.
Some of what you’re seeing instead is that the youngest cohort is the least protestant, while the oldest is the most. Project that out 5 years with new young people and a loss of older people, and just constant percentages in each cohort makes a dent, though I’d guess that there must be some switching as well, for such a large jump in the whole population.
Catholic membership across cohorts is relatively constant, so it doesn’t show that effect, but white catholics are disappearing, while hispanic catholics grow to keep the overall numbers constant. So white catholics are likely leaving too.
That is correct. Here is an article based on that earlier survey which includes a cool chart of faith switching. A plurality of “nones” were previously Catholic.
I’ve heard before that if you count denominations, catholics have the most and former catholics are more numerous than any other individual religious organization.
At least judging from my model of American Protestants (which is mainly based on stereotypes, and hence likely to be inaccurate), Catholics say more reasonable things than Protestants (e.g. few Catholics deny evolution anymore), so the amount of compartmentalisation needed to stay a Catholic while supporting the mainstays of modern science is smaller than that needed to stay a Protestant.
When I went to Catholic primary and middle school, I was taught evolution. It wasn’t until I went to a liberal secular university that I was taught evolution denialism.
My Sociology and English courses were barrages of political correctness where evolution was not tolerated. If you thought that sexual desire was a reproductive adaption, or that certain immoral behaviors might have been been advantageous in prehistoric times, or that sexual selection is instinctual and systematic, then you were oppressing the professor.
My Women’s Studies course was good though. And I met some pretty cool professors at the feminist events I went to. It was only the English and Sociology departments that turned social justice into a caricature.
Sure, but if you believe that “X is not an evolutionary adaptation” for too many X’s, you don’t believe in evolution. My Sociology and English professors in something they called “evolution”, but a scientist would not call the thing that they believed in “evolution.” And the thing that scientists call “evolution” my professors didn’t believe in.
Hmm … it seems likely to me that many non-biologists’ “belief in evolution” amounts to signaling membership in one social group and opposition to another. (But then, the same occurs to me regarding Eliezer’s recent remarks about “postmodernism” …)
If you don’t use evolutionary theory, then what does it profit you to have accurate beliefs about it? And further, many folks’ “belief in evolution” comes with a heaping spoonful of naturalistic fallacy — if my sexual behavior evolved that way, then I can’t be faulted for it. (I notice you touch on this in passing above in the remark about “certain immoral behaviors”.)
if you believe that “X is not an evolutionary adaptation” for too many X’s, you don’t believe in evolution
I don’t think that follows. First, the last few hundred thousand years are a tiny part of the evolutionary history of life, and second, you might believe that humans were selected for plasticity (e.g. by rapid climate changes) and so their behaviours nowadays are more due to nurture than to nature.
(But denying that “sexual desire was a reproductive adaption” does sound quite bad to me.)
Or Catholics are becoming atheists and Protestants are converting to Catholicism. (Other possible explanations involving birth rates and immigration have been mentioned in other subcomments.)
The percent of Catholics has been steady for the past 40 years, but the study says this is because they are replenished by hispanic immigrants. But the percent has been steady for the past 5 years as well, despite net zero hispanic (mexican?) immigration. I didn’t notice if the study directly answered your question. Also, 1⁄3 of US hispanics are protestant, so that’s one form of leaving Catholicism.
Also, much of the effect is people leaving the religion of their parents that they never identified as, so, as fortyeridania says, relative fertility is relevant. But I don’t think there’s much of that in the US these days.
However, the graph presented by no means entails that Protestants are becoming atheists more than Catholics are. In fact, it could be that Catholics are significantly more likely to turn atheist than Protestants are.
Suppose Catholics have many more children than Protestants. If those Catholic children are more likely to eventualy become atheists than Protestants are, it could produce a graph such as the one shown—a flat line for Catholicism (which experiences strong positive and negative changes, from the kids and deconversions), and a rising line for atheism.
As for Protestantism, even if the decrease is explained totally by flights to atheism, the magnitude of Catholic apostasy could just outstrip that of Protestant apostasy. As long as Catholic fertility matches Catholic apostasy, the graph will not change.
I’m faintly surprised that Protestantism seems to be where all the new unaffiliated people are coming from. Few or no Catholics are leaving?
I think one of the older studies delved into the demographics of individuals switching between faiths in detail.
Some of what you’re seeing instead is that the youngest cohort is the least protestant, while the oldest is the most. Project that out 5 years with new young people and a loss of older people, and just constant percentages in each cohort makes a dent, though I’d guess that there must be some switching as well, for such a large jump in the whole population.
Catholic membership across cohorts is relatively constant, so it doesn’t show that effect, but white catholics are disappearing, while hispanic catholics grow to keep the overall numbers constant. So white catholics are likely leaving too.
That is correct. Here is an article based on that earlier survey which includes a cool chart of faith switching. A plurality of “nones” were previously Catholic.
I’ve heard before that if you count denominations, catholics have the most and former catholics are more numerous than any other individual religious organization.
Nice.
That article contains more good links from Pew.
The 2007 Religious Survey, with interactive analysis. http://religions.pewforum.org/
Faith in Flux: Changes in Religious Affiliation in the U.S. http://www.pewforum.org/newassets/images/reports/flux/fullreport.pdf
I like it. I had just tracked down the previous Millenial analysis the other day, and now I’ve got all the links for the recent info in one place.
At least judging from my model of American Protestants (which is mainly based on stereotypes, and hence likely to be inaccurate), Catholics say more reasonable things than Protestants (e.g. few Catholics deny evolution anymore), so the amount of compartmentalisation needed to stay a Catholic while supporting the mainstays of modern science is smaller than that needed to stay a Protestant.
When I went to Catholic primary and middle school, I was taught evolution. It wasn’t until I went to a liberal secular university that I was taught evolution denialism.
Taught evolution denialism? (Rather than taught about evolution denialism?) o.O
My Sociology and English courses were barrages of political correctness where evolution was not tolerated. If you thought that sexual desire was a reproductive adaption, or that certain immoral behaviors might have been been advantageous in prehistoric times, or that sexual selection is instinctual and systematic, then you were oppressing the professor.
My Women’s Studies course was good though. And I met some pretty cool professors at the feminist events I went to. It was only the English and Sociology departments that turned social justice into a caricature.
Can you distinguish between the claims “X is not an evolutionary adaptation” and “Evolution does not happen”?
Sure, but if you believe that “X is not an evolutionary adaptation” for too many X’s, you don’t believe in evolution. My Sociology and English professors in something they called “evolution”, but a scientist would not call the thing that they believed in “evolution.” And the thing that scientists call “evolution” my professors didn’t believe in.
Hmm … it seems likely to me that many non-biologists’ “belief in evolution” amounts to signaling membership in one social group and opposition to another. (But then, the same occurs to me regarding Eliezer’s recent remarks about “postmodernism” …)
If you don’t use evolutionary theory, then what does it profit you to have accurate beliefs about it? And further, many folks’ “belief in evolution” comes with a heaping spoonful of naturalistic fallacy — if my sexual behavior evolved that way, then I can’t be faulted for it. (I notice you touch on this in passing above in the remark about “certain immoral behaviors”.)
I don’t think that follows. First, the last few hundred thousand years are a tiny part of the evolutionary history of life, and second, you might believe that humans were selected for plasticity (e.g. by rapid climate changes) and so their behaviours nowadays are more due to nurture than to nature.
(But denying that “sexual desire was a reproductive adaption” does sound quite bad to me.)
Oh, definitely. You can make a scientifically respectable case for social justice -isms. But my professors in English and Sociology chose not to.
A recent post on Yvain’s blog seems relevant.
Or Catholics are becoming atheists and Protestants are converting to Catholicism. (Other possible explanations involving birth rates and immigration have been mentioned in other subcomments.)
The percent of Catholics has been steady for the past 40 years, but the study says this is because they are replenished by hispanic immigrants. But the percent has been steady for the past 5 years as well, despite net zero hispanic (mexican?) immigration. I didn’t notice if the study directly answered your question. Also, 1⁄3 of US hispanics are protestant, so that’s one form of leaving Catholicism.
Also, much of the effect is people leaving the religion of their parents that they never identified as, so, as fortyeridania says, relative fertility is relevant. But I don’t think there’s much of that in the US these days.
I haven’t looked at the study.
However, the graph presented by no means entails that Protestants are becoming atheists more than Catholics are. In fact, it could be that Catholics are significantly more likely to turn atheist than Protestants are.
Suppose Catholics have many more children than Protestants. If those Catholic children are more likely to eventualy become atheists than Protestants are, it could produce a graph such as the one shown—a flat line for Catholicism (which experiences strong positive and negative changes, from the kids and deconversions), and a rising line for atheism.
As for Protestantism, even if the decrease is explained totally by flights to atheism, the magnitude of Catholic apostasy could just outstrip that of Protestant apostasy. As long as Catholic fertility matches Catholic apostasy, the graph will not change.
Catholic and Protestant birth rates have converged in the US.
Fair enough.