In one month this fall, two different analyzes of American religious disaffiliation were published – the first, a book by secular humanist sociologists, Ryan Cragun and Jesse M. Smith, on “the causes and consequences of secularization”, and the second, a detailed report by Wheatley on “leave, stay and return to faith» by Latter-day Saint scholars Stephen Cranney, Justin Dyer, Sam Hardy, Paul Lambert, and Loren Marks.

Although they explore essentially the same phenomenon, the conclusions of these analyzes could not be more different. While a minimizes the family influence on religious exit, the other underlines them as being consistent. While one paints an attractive picture of life after faith based on interviews with people far from the faith, the second emphasizes the range of data illustrating the long-term consequences of dissolution of faith.

The first report gives the impression that most young people don’t care about faith, that religion is mainly driven by politics, which also makes people less tolerant. The authors also portray religion as destined to become a thing of the past and something that makes people happier to leave it behind. The second report paints a completely different picture, refuting each of these same points.

At a time when many Americans seem to have adopted a mirrored view of religion, full of seriously misleading perceptionsit seems useful to identify at least some of the competing interpretations about faith in circulation. Below, I summarize three issues on which the Wheatley Report departs significantly from a more secular view of religious disaffiliation:

1. Is moving away from faith a one-way street, individually or socially?

It’s common to hear comments online such as “I left this religion and I’m never going back.” The same message is being spread by some about a final decline of religion as a whole: “modern society is leaving this behind and will not return to it.”

“The decline of religion is a recurring theme in public discourse,” notes the Wheatley report. Although “predictions about the death of religion are centuries old, the data reveals that the world as a whole is actually becoming more religious.” (The authors go on to explain that very religious people continue to have more children, while the birth rate in secular areas continues to decline).

Although the United States has slightly fewer believers (7 in 10) than the rest of the world (8 in 10, or 84%), Wheatley’s authors do not sugarcoat the challenges, acknowledging “clear indicators that people are believers.” in the United States and elsewhere, they are abandoning religion” (the number “unaffiliated” with any religion has increased from 5% thirty years ago to around 30% today).

“Some data suggests that secularization has already begun to stabilize,” the report adds, prompting lead author Stephen Cranney to say that this “was sort of predicted theoretically, but now we’re starting to see it somewhat empirically.” .

“Now, will it stay stable?” It’s still uncertain, he said. What seems clear, adds Justin Dyer, is that these changes in religious attitudes are “not a one-way street where there are just more and more people becoming more secular.” There’s a lot more going on, I think, than people generally realize. »

“The main message for me,” Paul Lambert tells the Deseret News of the report and Wheatley’s work as a whole, is that “religion is important for the flourishing of humanity. And it’s this misconception that I hope we challenge. He denounces “simple narratives that ‘religion is obsolete, or it’s no longer relevant, or it’s becoming irrelevant, or at best, it’s an interesting social factor.’

“I just don’t think that’s true. The data does not suggest that, either globally or nationally,” says Lambert, director of Wheatley’s Religion Initiative. “Religion is important and we cannot deny its impact. »

2. To what extent do politics cause religious disaffiliation?

The intersection of religion and politics was at the center of recent national elections, with political hostilities sometimes intrusive in religious communities, like any other group. Yet, a revolutionary More in common study recently pushed back against the common presumption that politics is what most motivates believers.

This broad national survey found that political expression was one of the least common reasons for religious involvement, with only 6% of Americans saying they turn to their religious community to express their political views and less than 9% saying they turn to their faith “to make things happen”. social or political causes. Instead, other reasons, such as seeking guidance in life (37%), seeking comfort in difficult times (46%), and deepening their relationship with God (54%) motivate more believers.

The Wheatley report’s authors come to the same conclusion after reviewing the broader literature – writing that “people’s religious backgrounds, beliefs, and identities shape their political leanings.” Lambert elaborates to push back against the idea that patterns of disaffiliation are simply “a social trend or a liberal trend or a conservative trend.” Instead, he argues that “religion existed long before our current ways of seeing the world, and it will exist long after those ways of seeing the world are gone.”

“Religion transcends all these ideological frameworks,” Lambert says. “Religion is not defined by our political ideologies or our political goals. There is something deeper going on.

3. To what extent does walking away from faith lead to negative results?

Promotional efforts for the aforementioned secular analysis included an infographic purporting to answer “what impact does religion have on society?” In several colored blocks, the authors state things such as “For most people who leave their religion, leaving religion is NOT A CRISIS and usually does not disrupt their health, charitable giving, or volunteering.” “. Furthermore, “the fears of some that a mass exit from religion would lead to a decline in family values ​​or less civic engagement are UNFOUNDED.” (the capital letters for emphasis are theirs).

“Non-religious people don’t have a ‘religious hole’ in their lives,” columnist Jana Riess wrote in his summary of the book – highlighting the authors’ criticism of the idea that non-religious people “somehow lack the presence of God or religion in their lives” and citing their summary of respondents who insist: “Not only is it not bad to be without religion, but I have lost nothing.

Wheatley’s authors are sensitive to the unique challenges facing believers today, but are vocal about clear trends observed across decades of data. “We recognize that each individual’s experience is unique,” ​​Lambert says. “But if you want to increase the chances that your own life will have purpose and meaning, the data suggests that being actively engaged in religion will increase those chances.”

If something is generally beneficial, moving away from it will generally be harmful, the Wheatley authors explain. “Because of the positive effects of religion on individuals and societies,” their report summarizes, “the growing trend toward religious disaffiliation has significant negative implications for the health and well-being of individuals, family relationships, community cohesion and demographic stability. »

“We want to be sensitive to each person’s individual experience,” Lambert further emphasizes. “But if we look at the aggregate data, it’s clear that religion plays a powerful role in human flourishing – both by increasing the things that will bring purpose and meaning and by increasing the chances that you will be protected against risky behaviors or mental health challenges.

This kind of statement of probability is “much less exciting” than more dramatic, black-and-white statements about religion, Lambert concedes. “There’s a lot less neon, but that’s what we’re trying to say. We’re not trying to say that people who leave religion are all weirdos, and people who are in religion all thrive at level 11. It’s just more complicated.

But it is still difficult to deny the general trend. “The bulk of social science research,” summarizes Sam Hardy, “seems to suggest quite repeatedly and reliably that for most people, most of the time, religion has positive outcomes for individual well-being – lower risk behaviors, more prosocial behaviors, psychological well-being, better relationship quality.

“So because of that,” Hardy continues, as more and more people abandon religion, “we should expect negative consequences for them.” Although some data shows that nonreligious teens are sometimes comparable to religious youth, he explains that when differences emerge, nonreligious youth are generally worse off.

Comparing religious and non-religious people, Cranney adds that premarital sex, alcohol use, drugs, things like that – risky behaviors – are actually higher among less religious people. He says: “I guess non-religious people party more – however you want to phrase it – and they engage in riskier behavior. So there is some truth in that.

The Wheatley report concludes by painting a “complex picture that neither portrays religion as a relic of a bygone era nor downplays the significant headwinds religion faces in the 21st century.” What seems clear, the authors say, is that “society will continue to be shaped by religion, religion, in turn, will be influenced by society, and faith will continue to be a powerful force in world in the future.