We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
As recently as only 15 years ago, sociologists of religion were declaring that secularization theory – the perspective that had dominated a previous era of scholarship in predicting the inevitable demise of religious belief in the face of growing pluralism and individualism – was outdated and empirically unable to explain the continued religious vitality witnessed among diverse religious communities throughout the world, particularly in the United States (Warner 1993). Some went so far as to proclaim, “After nearly three centuries of utterly failed prophesies and misrepresentations of both present and past, it seems time to carry the secularization doctrine to the graveyard of failed theories, and there to whisper ‘requiescat in pace’” (Stark 1999: 270). The rise of a new tide of religious “nones,” however, began to attract empirical notice by the end of the 1990s (Hout and Fischer 2002), although scholars disagree about the significance of this shift (for a useful review, see Lim, MacGregor, and Putnam 2010). Ultimately dismissing secularization as an explanation, Hout and Fischer (2002) conclude that the growth of religious nonaffiliation, particularly among younger cohorts of Americans, represents a movement away from the organized religious bodies that Americans associated with conservative politics throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Moreover, the new religious nonaffiliation is particularly noteworthy for its almost exclusively institutional dimensions. For example, Hout and Fischer (2002) find that most individuals who have no religious preference still have relatively stable levels of belief in God and are only slightly less likely to say that they pray than those who are religiously affiliated. The main difference between these nonaffiliated Americans and their religiously attached counterparts, therefore, is that the latter are actually members of a particular religious institution, claiming a relationship with an identifiable religious tradition.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.