Skip to main content
×
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 31
  • Cited by
    This (lowercase (translateProductType product.productType)) has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Madge, Nicola and Hemming, Peter J. 2017. Young British religious ‘nones’: findings from the Youth On Religion study. Journal of Youth Studies, Vol. 20, Issue. 7, p. 872.


    Lanman, Jonathan A. and Buhrmester, Michael D. 2017. Religious actions speak louder than words: exposure to credibility-enhancing displays predicts theism. Religion, Brain & Behavior, Vol. 7, Issue. 1, p. 3.


    Clements, Ben 2017. Research Note Examining non-religious groups in Britain: theistic belief and social correlates. Journal of Contemporary Religion, Vol. 32, Issue. 2, p. 315.


    Shariff, Azim F. 2017. Are wrathful gods the killer app of religion? Two nits to pick with Johnson’s God is Watching You. Religion, Brain & Behavior, p. 1.


    Foster, Aasha B. Brewster, Melanie E. Velez, Brandon L. Eklund, Austin and Keum, Brian T. 2017. Footprints in the Sand: Personal, Psychological, and Relational Profiles of Religious, Spiritual, and Atheist LGB Individuals. Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 64, Issue. 4, p. 466.


    Cragun, Ryan T. 2016. Handbook of Religion and Society. p. 301.

    Sinnreich, Aram 2016. Sharing in spirit: Kopimism and the digital Eucharist. Information, Communication & Society, Vol. 19, Issue. 4, p. 504.


    Kuška, Martin Trnka, Radek Tavel, Peter Constantino, Michael J. Angus, Lynne and Moertl, Kathrin 2015. The role of cultural beliefs and expectations in the treatment process: clients’ reflections following individual psychotherapy. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, p. 1.


    Schnell, Tatjana 2015. Dimensions of Secularity (DoS): An Open Inventory to Measure Facets of Secular Identities. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, Vol. 25, Issue. 4, p. 272.


    Meier, Brian P. Fetterman, Adam K. Robinson, Michael D. and Lappas, Courtney M. 2015. The Myth of the Angry Atheist. The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 149, Issue. 3, p. 219.


    Kettell, Steven 2014. Divided We Stand: The Politics of the Atheist Movement in the United States. Journal of Contemporary Religion, Vol. 29, Issue. 3, p. 377.


    Brewster, Melanie E. Robinson, Matthew A. Sandil, Riddhi Esposito, Jessica and Geiger, Elizabeth 2014. Arrantly Absent. The Counseling Psychologist, Vol. 42, Issue. 5, p. 628.


    Zuckerman, Miron Silberman, Jordan and Hall, Judith A. 2013. The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 17, Issue. 4, p. 325.


    Fincher, Corey L. and Thornhill, Randy 2012. Parasite-stress promotes in-group assortative sociality: The cases of strong family ties and heightened religiosity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 35, Issue. 02, p. 61.


    Bullivant, Stephen and Lee, Lois 2012. Interdisciplinary Studies of Non-religion and Secularity: The State of the Union. Journal of Contemporary Religion, Vol. 27, Issue. 1, p. 19.


    Lanman, Jonathan 2012. On the non-evolution of atheism and the importance of definitions and data. Religion, Brain & Behavior, Vol. 2, Issue. 1, p. 76.


    Caldwell-Harris, Catherine L. 2012. Understanding atheism/non-belief as an expected individual-differences variable. Religion, Brain & Behavior, Vol. 2, Issue. 1, p. 4.


    Coyne, Jerry A. 2012. SCIENCE, RELIGION, AND SOCIETY: THE PROBLEM OF EVOLUTION IN AMERICA. Evolution, Vol. 66, Issue. 8, p. 2654.


    Lanman, Jonathan A. 2012. The Importance of Religious Displays for Belief Acquisition and Secularization. Journal of Contemporary Religion, Vol. 27, Issue. 1, p. 49.


    Johnson, Dominic 2012. What are atheists for? Hypotheses on the functions of non-belief in the evolution of religion. Religion, Brain & Behavior, Vol. 2, Issue. 1, p. 48.


    ×
  • Print publication year: 2006
  • Online publication date: January 2007

3 - Atheism: Contemporary Numbers and Patterns

from Part I - Background
Summary

Determining what percentage of a given society believes in God - or doesn't - is fraught with methodological hurdles. First: low response rates; most people do not respond to surveys, and response rates of lower than 50 percent cannot be generalized to the wider society. Second: nonrandom samples. If the sample is not randomly selected - that is, every member of the given population has an equal chance of being chosen - it is nongeneralizable. Third: adverse political/cultural climates. In totalitarian countries where atheism is governmentally promulgated and risks are present for citizens viewed as disloyal, individuals will be reluctant to admit that they do believe in God. Conversely, in societies where religion is enforced by the government and risks are present for citizens viewed as nonbelievers, individuals will be reluctant to admit that they don't believe in Allah, regardless of whether anonymity is “guaranteed. ” Even in democratic societies without governmental coercion, individuals often feel that it is necessary to say that are religious, simply because such a response is socially desirable or culturally appropriate. For example, the designation “atheist ” is stigmatized in many societies; even when people directly claim to not believe in God, they still eschew the self-designation of “atheist. ”

Recommend this book

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.

The Cambridge Companion to Atheism
  • Online ISBN: 9781139001182
  • Book DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL0521842700
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to *
×