Paradox of the Religiously Unaffiliated

I think the issue is complex. I think that it is unarguable that historically religion was primarily a social network and one that was closely bound up with the state. (Going back to primitive times and the rise of cities and agriculture) What’s interesting is that as society has become secularized, even among the religious, this changes the relationship between the individual and the church. For some the state becomes their religion. This is obvious in various guises of Marxism, humanism and so forth. But even in the broad liberal tradition this is true. When I was in school in Canada I remember teachers showing me pictures of the founders of the US and comparing them to very religious paintings. (There are subtle halos that the painters even tended to put in)

The second thing is that first with the rise of fraternal organizations religion has competition. Admittedly many of the fraternal organizations were adjuncts to religious organizations (say some Catholic groups) or quasi-religious themselves (say Masonry). But what’s interesting is that with the rise of actuarial science these fraternal organizations and even many religious charities were undercut by the rise of insurance companies which could offer better deals for the same social services. Then you had other changes, especially with the rise of a generally cosmopolitan society and the effect of new media like television, movies, radio and (now) the internet.

All of these have both offered competition to traditional religious services and simultaneously raised expectations. Sometimes religion still competes. (Think LDS welfare) When it does this it’s usually offering an advantage over the state due to free rider issues. (A traditional problem in services)

What’s interesting is that what is left is the doctrinal and spiritual aspects of religion. But for many people those were never that important — they tended to be picked up more because they were embedded in that community. Now you find the same thing — but often more politically oriented “doctrines.”

It’s interesting to look at Europe and see how people react to religion there. Society in Europe is much more secularized than here obviously. You see a lot of avowed atheists who maintain a quasi-religious tradition in say Anglican communities. They like the historical trappings: the music, the buildings, and some of the community. To the degree people maintain a traditional religious perspective it is much vaguer and open. i.e. a belief in God but without the commitment or even interest that would have once characterized it. God also tends to become far less interventionist. Religion becomes more about general moral principles. (You can see this emphasized in an academic setting with things like Fowler’s categories of faith where the final “highest” category is just this secularized ethical principle view)

It’s interesting to look broadly at this move to this competitive social order in which it is not only different faiths and religions competing all sorts of social orders. Dance clubs compete with church congregations. Oddly though the increased competition often leads to a watering down of these very movements making them seem more similar. That is diversity de-diversifies the movements.

Good point Stephen. And this parallels Europe in some way. We’re trailing the social effect of Europe but it’s still taking place.