Philosophy

713

DOI: 10.1037/14045-040 APA Handbook of Psychology, Religion, and Spirituality: Vol. 1. Context, Theory, and Research, K. I. Pargament (Editor-in-Chief) Copyright © 2013 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.

C h a P t e r 4 0

AthEIStS, AgnoStICS, And APoStAtES

Heinz Streib and Constantin Klein

In the scientific study of religion in general and the psychology of religion in particular, atheists and agnostics have received limited attention, whereas believers and converts have stood in the center of interest. More recently, however, more attention has been given to atheists and agnostics, and several researchers have recommended studying atheists and agnostics in their own right (Hood, Hill, & Spilka, 2009; Hunsberger & Altemeyer, 2006; Keysar, 2007; Kosmin & Keysar, 2007). This new interest may in part be due to indications of a con- siderable increase in the probability of religious nonaffiliation in the United States. According to one recent study, this probability has risen “from between .06 and .08 in the 1970s and 1980s to almost .16 in 2006” (Schwadel, 2010, p. 318). Although the question of who the “nones” are (cf. Pasquale, 2007) should be approached with care, these groups of unaffiliates and disaffiliates likely include a number of atheists and agnostics.

Most of the research in this area takes a static and synchronic approach, contrasting belief versus unbelief or religiosity versus atheism or agnosticism. We believe that a more dynamic approach is called for, one that views atheism and agnosticism as pro- cesses. From the perspective of a dynamic approach, it is also necessary to include apostasy in this discus- sion, because people who leave their faith are in the process of a developmental change, a migration in the religious field that eventually may lead to exiting the religious domain altogether. Therefore, the three terms atheist, agnostic, and apostasy are interrelated and need to be studied together.

For a deeper understanding of atheists, agnostics, and people who deconvert eventually to atheist and agnostic beliefs, it is imperative to know their moti- vations, the predictors of their stance toward reli- gion, and the effects of their religious approach on various outcomes. There are a number of particu- larly interesting questions about outcomes: Are the shifts to atheism, agnosticism, and apostasy associ- ated with an increase or a decrease in psychological well-being? How do these religious positions affect physical health? Do they lead to differences in pref- erences in the ways of coping with major life stress- ors? In this chapter, we address these questions, discuss the results from extant research, and suggest directions for future research.

DEFINITIONS AND MODELS FOR uNDERSTANDING ATHEISTS, AGNOSTICS, AND APOSTATES

We begin with a discussion of concepts and models. Some important questions have been raised or reopened on the theoretical level, questions that relate to the conceptualization of religion and spiri- tuality in general.

The Substantive Definition The most widely accepted definition of atheism is substantive in nature: Atheism is characterized by the denial of the existence of God, whereas agnosticism is characterized by skepticism about, or bracketing of, the existence of God, the construction of worldview and identity without any assumption that there is

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

Streib and Klein

714

a God (Baggini, 2003; Mackie, 1982). Here atheism and agnosticism are understood as interrelated but never- theless different constructs. Both signify a turn away from specific images of God, but atheism is more res- olute than agnosticism, less open to a religious or spiritual sentiment and quest. From this substantive perspective, atheism and agnosticism can be under- stood as beliefs (Hood et al., 2009; Martin, 2007), although many atheists and agnostics do not see their views as “faith based” (Saeed & Grant, 2004). Never- theless, atheism and agnosticism are based on (even though refusing or bracketing) a culturally dominant and specifically theistic image of God.

In atheism, however, there is more at work than simply substantive concepts of religion, such as the- oretical, philosophical questions of whether God exists; atheism also involves hostility toward orga- nized religion in the name of reason, freedom, and autonomy. Although “popular” atheism certainly draws on the opposition against, and falsification of, theistic beliefs, it is also accompanied by vigorous claims about the irrationality and vanity of all reli- gion and every belief in gods, spirits, or transcen- dental entities (e.g., Dawkins, 2006; Hitchens, 2007). As C. Taylor (2007) maintained, modern atheism emerged as a consequence of the Enlighten- ment and the ethical fight for freedom in matters of religion that gained most of its popularity in the 19th century.

Our understanding of atheism and agnosticism is more comprehensive and not confined to the sub- stantive paradigm. It draws on functional and struc- tural perspectives on religion and includes such dimensions as experience, meaning making, ritual, or participation. On the basis of this broader con- cept of religion, atheism and agnosticism can be understood as disbelief in, hostility toward, or igno- rance of a specific established religion. From this point of view, atheism represents the hard core of an antireligious sentiment, whereas agnosticism consti- tutes a rather mild position of religious abstinence (Hunsberger & Altemeyer, 2006).

The Varieties of Atheisms and Agnosticisms and the Dynamics of Change The association of atheism and agnosticism with unbelief is also problematic, for it is plausible only in

a monoreligious environment or a culture with one dominant and unchanging religion. If, however, understandings of God vary and change, then understandings of atheism will vary and change as well. This means that there will be as many varieties of atheism as there are varieties of belief in God (Hyman, 2007). It follows that in multireligious cul- tures, we must be even more specific and explicate which God is called into question, what kind of reli- gious experiences or rituals have become empty, and which religious establishment is opposed. And occa- sionally, atheist or agnostic developments in regard to one religion go hand in hand with an appreciation for another religion or spirituality.

What has been said about the conceptualization of atheism and agnosticism also applies generally to the conceptualization of apostasy. To respond to some terminological uncertainty (cf. the discussion about definitions in Hood et al., 2009, pp. 132–133), we suggest a broad understanding of apostasy as dis- identification and eventually disaffiliation from a religious tradition. Thus, the term apostate is similar to deconvert, as Streib and colleagues (Streib, Hood, Keller, Csöff, & Silver, 2009; Streib & Keller, 2004) have defined it with reference to Barbour (1994), and includes core criteria, such as the loss of reli- gious experiences, intellectual doubt and denial, moral criticism, and disaffiliation from a religious community. From our point of view, all three concepts—atheism, agnosticism, and apostasy— are interrelated. Each construct is dynamic and includes experiential, moral, ritual, and participa- tory dimensions.

The Beliefs of the Nones Atheism, agnosticism, and apostasy must not be lumped together with the unspecified group of the unaffiliated or “nones”—who might include nonat- tending believers and private practitioners who still feel attached to their (former) religious traditions (Albrecht, Cornwall, & Cunningham, 1988; Fuller, 2001; Hunsberger & Altemeyer, 2006). Pasquale (2007) asked unchurched persons from the U.S. Northwest about their worldviews. Although most described themselves as humanists, others viewed themselves as atheistic, secular, skeptical, or scien- tific. Smaller groups in Pasquale’s (2007) study

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

Atheists, Agnostics, and Apostates

715

called themselves naturalists, agnostics, or antireli- gious. All of them had very low scores in personal religiosity and spirituality, but all rated their spiritu- ality as slightly higher than their religiosity. Other studies in the past decade have identified individuals who define themselves “more spiritual than reli- gious” or “spiritual, but not religious,” including those who decline in their belief in a theistic God and those who oppose religion and disaffiliate from religious organizations (Hood, 2003; Marler & Hadaway, 2002; Streib, 2008; Zinnbauer et al., 1997). Apparently, the description of being more spiritual than religious can also be used by atheists, agnostics, or apostates, and it may reflect what has been identified as “post-Christian spirituality” (cf. Houtman & Aupers, 2007) or “holistic subjective- life spirituality” (cf. Heelas, Woodhead, Seel, Szerszynski, & Tusting, 2005).

To understand atheism and agnosticism, it is important to realize that the symbolization of expe- riences of transcendence can occur in terms of verti- cal or of horizontal transcendence (cf. Hood et al., 2009): Vertical transcendence involves the symbol- ization of a heaven above with person-like beings; in horizontal transcendence, experiences of transcen- dence are symbolized as experience of the holy or something of ultimate concern, but within this world, such as Mother Earth in green spirituality (Kalton, 2000). The concept of horizontal transcendence helps prevent the misunderstanding of “nones” who self-identify as nontheists but who nevertheless experience transcendence and ultimate concern in this world—which also may be interpreted as “implicit religion” (Bailey, 2001; Schnell, 2003). There is some parallel between horizontal transcen- dence and what C. Taylor (2007) called “immanent” transcendence. This latter construct refers to those who stand outside of organized religion but never- theless have a sense of spirituality and of relation to something transcendent or sacred (Fuller, 2001; Heelas et al., 2005; Hood, 2003; Marler & Hadaway, 2002; Streib, 2008; Zinnbauer et al., 1997; Zinn- bauer & Pargament, 2005). On the basis of this con- ceptualization, it is no surprise that among atheists and agnostics, we find versions of spirituality or religiosity that may be primarily associated with horizontal transcendence.

RESEARCH ON ATHEISTS, AGNOSTICS, AND APOSTATES

The sections that follow pay special attention to the psychological issues that are, and should be, dis- cussed in research on atheists, agnostics, and apos- tates. The discussion is based on summaries of the most important extant research.

Survey Results on Atheists, Agnostics, and Apostates A number of surveys have documented changes in religious preferences in the United States, including atheism and agnosticism. These include the studies of Fuller (2001), the Pew Religious Landscape Sur- vey (Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 2009), Roof (1999), and Sherkat (2001). A few studies have devoted special attention to atheists and agnostics, including Hunsberger and Altemeyer (2006) and the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS; Kosmin & Keysar, 2009). The documentation of the past and the probability of future religious nonaffili- ation and disaffiliation in the United States has been presented by Schwadel (2010) on the basis of Gen- eral Social Survey (GSS) data. Cross-cultural com- parison of religiosity data, including atheist tendencies, can be gleaned from the recent Religion Monitor survey (Bertelsmann Foundation, 2009; Meulemann, 2009). A cross-cultural and longitudi- nal perspective can be generated from the World Value Survey, which Houtman and Aupers (2007) have used to demonstrate a trend toward “post- Christian spirituality” in 14 Western countries. Special attention should also be given to the survey results of the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) as collected in the third round on religion in 2008. The ARIS and ISSP data are of particular interest for our theme.

Belief in God. The ARIS data allow for an assess- ment of atheistic and agnostic milieus in the United States (Keysar, 2007; Kosmin & Keysar, 2006, 2009). Results from 2008 identify atheists and agnostics on the basis of a set of items prob- ing beliefs about God: 2.3% agreed that “there is no such thing”; 4.3% said “there is no way to know”; 5.7% were “not sure,” and 12.1% believed that “there is a higher power but no personal God.”

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

Streib and Klein

716

Similar results in the United States emerged out of the ISSP 2008 survey: 2.8% said “I don’t believe in God”; 5.0% agreed to the statement, “I don’t know whether there is a God and I don’t believe that there is a way to find out”; and 10.3% agreed with “I don’t believe in a personal God, but I do believe in a Higher Power of some kind.”

Of special interest for our topic are the data that yield a perspective on biographical–diachronic change and cross-cultural comparison at the same time. In the ISSP data, a set of items asked about changes in beliefs in God. Results demonstrated huge cross-cultural dif- ferences. Specifically, eastern Germany appears to be the most secular region of the world with only 14.5% permanent believers in God and 65.3% who said that they did not believe in God and never had (cf. also Froese & Pfaff, 2005; Schmidt & Wohlrab-Sahr, 2003; Zuckerman, 2007). On the other end of the spectrum, in Turkey, 96.6% said that they had always believed in God. Similar to Turkey, in the United States, 83.1% indicated that they were permanent believers in God, and 4.2% said they never believed in God.

Survey findings also point to cross-cultural differ- ences in the loss of belief in God. Although only 5.4% in the United States reported a loss of belief in God, between 15% and 20% in Western Germany or other European countries indicated a similar loss of belief.

Disaffiliation and nonaffiliation. A similar picture of cross-cultural diversity emerges from surveys on disaffiliation and nonaffiliation. In the ISSP data (for calculations and some more details, see Streib, in press), disaffiliation can be separated from nonaffilia- tion by two variables, one asking for present religious affiliation and the other asking in which religion, if any, the respondent has been raised. Here again, East Germans reported the highest proportion of those nonaffiliated (52.1%); people from Great Britain reported the highest disaffiliation rates (31.2%). In the United States, fewer than 50% reported a stable religious affiliation. This, however, reflects a large number of religious switchers (33.1%) rather than a large number of nonaffiliates. Only 16% of people in the United States indicated no religious preference.

Atheist and agnostic worldviews. For a deeper understanding of apostates, we have to go into more detail and estimate the portions of atheists and

agnostics in the disaffiliate group. Atheist and agnostic worldviews can be estimated when we include one item from the ISSP questionnaire, which rates the statement: “I don’t believe in God” and another item that rates the statement: “I don’t know whether there is a God, I don’t believe there is a way to find out.” On this basis, we calculate rather small portions of atheists and agnostics in the groups of nonaffiliates and disaffiliates in the United States: Only 10% to 15% of nonaffiliates and disaffiliates reported disbelief in God’s existence, and only 20% of nonaffiliates and disaffiliates self-identified as agnostics. Interestingly, a fourth of the nonaffiliates and disaffiliates in the United States had no doubt about God’s existence. Thus, in contrast to most European countries, nonaffiliates and disaffiliates in the United States include smaller portions of athe- ists and agnostics than people who are convinced of God’s existence.

Taken together (and referring to ISSP results), survey data allow, for the United States, some esti- mation of the—globally rather low—quantity of nonaffiliates (4.6%) and disaffiliates (11.4%), of nonbelievers in God (4.2% permanent and 5.5% who lost believe in God), and of atheistic (2.9%) and agnostic (4.6%) preferences. These survey find- ings, however, are limited in some important respects. Most of the surveys relied on one-item measures that did not assess the broader variety of atheistic beliefs (e.g., in evolution, science, rational- ity, care for humanity) or distinctions between dif- ferent nonreligious orientations. Furthermore, those scales that have been developed to measure atheism and agnosticism focus on what people do not do or believe, the extent of their religious doubts (Alte- meyer, 1988; Hunsberger & Altemeyer, 2006), rejection of religious beliefs (Greer & Francis, 1992), or spiritual disengagement (Cole, Hopkins, Tisak, Steel, & Carr, 2008). Only a few attempts have been made to assess atheistic beliefs more com- prehensively, such as the Post-Critical Belief Scale (PCBS; Fontaine et al., 2003) and a scale by Gibson (2010). The major limitation of survey data, how- ever, involves the lack of information on psychologi- cal factors that are relevant to atheism, agnosticism, and apostasy. For that information, we turn to other research findings.

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

Atheists, Agnostics, and Apostates

717

Psychological Research on Predispositions of Atheist or Agnostic Orientation and Apostasy Religious socialization. Some research has focused on religious socialization and its relation to apostasy, atheism, and agnosticism. Developmentally, apos- tasy appears to be more common in adolescence and young adulthood than in other phases of life. This is reflected, for example, in the results of the Pew study (Forum on Religion & Public Life, 2009), which document that for the 44% respondents who do not belong to their childhood faith, most changes of religious affiliation occurred in or before early adulthood. The figures are even more striking for the “secular exiters,” those who disaffiliate with no reaffiliations: 79% of the former Catholics and 85% of the former Protestants reported disaffiliation under the age of 25.

Does apostasy indicate a lack of parental empha- sis on religion or is it a form of rebellion against reli- gion and a radical demand for autonomy? This is an unanswered question (for a review, see Hood et al., 2009). There is some support for the assumption that apostasy is the result of socialization processes in families where religion is of low importance (Hunsberger et al., 1993; Nelsen, 1981). On the other hand, Altemeyer and Hunsberger’s (1997; Hunsberger, 2000) comprehensive study of extreme groups of “amazing apostates” and “amazing believ- ers” who were identified through a major question- naire study suggests the opposite explanation. “Amazing apostates” came from highly religious backgrounds but rejected their family’s religious beliefs and scored very low on a measure of religious orthodoxy; “amazing believers” came from families with little emphasis on religion while growing up but turned to religion and faith as adolescents or adults. In the interviews, many “amazing apostates” confirmed that because of their dedication to truth, they had rejected the religious teachings of their family. Despite strong pressure from their families to hold on to their religious beliefs, “they gave up their faith because they could not make themselves believe what they had been taught” (Hunsberger & Altemeyer, 2006, p. 42).

In their study of atheists in the San Francisco Bay area, Hunsberger and Altemeyer (2006) found that

more than 70% of the atheists said they believed in God before they found the teachings of their religion “unbelievable” and became atheists. Similarly, in the Bielefeld-Based Cross-Cultural Study on Deconver- sion (Streib et al., 2009), a typology of four types of deconverts could be identified on the basis of the analysis of narrative interviews: “pursuit of auton- omy” (long-term gradual process of stepping away from the previous religious environment), “debarred from paradise” (deconversion from a religious tradi- tion, mostly high-tension organizations, which was once chosen because it was supposed to solve all problems), “finding a new frame of reference” (leav- ing one’s childhood religious tradition in search of a more structured religious environment), and “life- long quests—late revisions” (leaving a religious environment because it does not sufficiently meet religious needs and expectations). The “pursuit of autonomy” type is of special interest here because it reflects a process of deconversion from the individu- al’s established religious milieu. It is a search for individuation and the critical development of new perspectives that mostly leads to secular exits. Secu- lar exiters make up 30% of the deconverts, another 30% leave organized religion for privatized or hereti- cal forms of religiosity, and the rest remain within some kind of organized religion.

Moving beyond issues associated with religious upbringing, the relationship between children and their parents in general may be of relevance to atheism, agnosticism, and apostasy. In their psy- chohistorical studies of the impact of “defective fathering,” Koster (1989) and Vitz (2000) argued that many famous atheists (like Darwin, Nietzsche, or Freud) suffered in their childhoods under the demands of their dominant and bigoted fathers who failed to express feelings of love and esteem to their sons. The sons became apathetic, unhappy, and melancholic and tried to flee from their family situations. In later life, they rebelled against the demanding beliefs of their fathers, calling into question the complete worldview in which they were raised. The denial of their own roots, how- ever, caused psychopathological symptoms, includ- ing depression or self-hatred, so that their fight for autonomy resulted in what Lepp (1963) called a “neurotic denial of God.”

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

Streib and Klein

718

Hood et al. (2009) have criticized the theories of neurotic atheism because of their exclusive focus on males and their fathers and the lack of broader empirical support. More solid empirical data come from research on religion and attachment (Gran- qvist & Kirkpatrick, 2008; for an overview, see Chapter 7 in this volume), which shows that in reli- gious families, closer parent–child attachments in childhood correspond with closer attachment to God and more positive images of God in adulthood. Secure parent–child attachments can thus lead to more stable religiosity, whereas distant or avoidant relationships between parent and child increase the likelihood of sudden conversions and religious switching or of secular exits (Granqvist & Hagekull, 2003; Granqvist & Kirkpatrick, 2004; Kirkpatrick, 1997, 1998).

Motives and developmental factors. A body of research has focused on motives and biographical factors associated with the development of atheism, agnosticism, and apostasy. This research includes studies about religious doubts (Brinkerhoff & Mackie, 1993; Hunsberger & Altemeyer, 2006) and personal experiences of disappointment with reli- gious professionals, communities, or God or anger against God (Exline, 2002; Exline & Rose, 2005).

In a comprehensive content analysis of 1,226 statements that atheistic and agnostic Internet users had posted on a Catholic webpage (http://www. ohne-gott.de; “without God”), Murken (2008) identified five clusters of statements that articulated doubts, disappointments, and frustrations with respect to religious beliefs and institutions: (a) an opposition against Christianity because of faults of the Catholic Church (e.g., the crusades or witch- hunting, clergy sexual abuse) and its rigid sexual morals regarding contraception, premarital sex, and homosexuality; (b) experiences of religious hurt and disappointment, in particular the feeling of being abandoned by God in times of burden and loss; (c) negative and critical images of God (e.g., the feeling of incapacity to meet God’s demands and of being supervised and punished by God); (d) the question of theodicy (if God is just, loving, and all-powerful, why does he allow evil and suffering to exist?); and (e) the yearning for God and for faith to find

meaning and comfort. These factors may support the emergence of skepticism against religious beliefs, groups, and institutions and, as a consequence, raise serious questions about religion in general.

In particular, experiences of personal suffering can throw an individual’s fundamental system of reli- gious beliefs into question, producing religious and spiritual struggles marked by feelings of abandon- ment and punishment by God as well as questions about whether God really exists and is truly loving and almighty (Pargament et al., 1998; Pargament, Koenig & Perez, 2000; see Chapter 25 in this vol- ume). Research shows that such experiences as severe illness; the loss of a loved person; physical, emotional, and sexual abuse; and other traumata can provoke spiritual struggle that can transform former beliefs and lead to spiritual disengagement, apostasy, and atheism or agnosticism but potentially to spiri- tual growth, too (Pargament, 2007). Pargament (2007) and Pargament and Mahoney (2005) argued that the experience of a desecration, the perception that things that have been perceived as sacred (e.g., my body, my integrity, my beliefs, my relationships) have been violated, is particularly likely to shake the individual to the core. In a similar way, Novotni and Petersen (2001) described “emotional atheism” as the result of a process of repression and emotional distancing from God. They view the conflict between the need to blame God in difficult situations and the recognition that God must not be blamed as a trigger for the onset of emotional distancing. Thus, “emo- tional atheism” emerges from the stepwise loss of an unsatisfying faith. In short, experiences of spiritual struggles (Exline & Rose, 2005; McConnell, Parga- ment, Ellison, & Flannelly, 2006; Pargament, 2007) represent important developmental factors that may generate atheism or agnosticism.

Predictors of (dis)belief in God. Some scholars have tried to identify sociodemographic predic- tors of apostasy (Hadaway, 1989) and atheism or agnosticism (Sherkat, 2008). Sherkat (2008) used data from the 1988–2000 GSS to analyze the effects of sociodemographic variables on (dis)belief in God as measured by the single GSS item Belief in God. Sherkat found that (dis)belief was predicted by being younger, male, White, and more highly

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

Atheists, Agnostics, and Apostates

719

educated. These results are in line with findings that the elderly (cf. Hout & Fischer, 2002), women (cf. Francis, 1997), and Blacks (cf. Batson, Schoenrade, & Ventis, 1993) display higher levels of religios- ity. The effect of age has been explained in terms of a rebellion against established authorities and beliefs during younger phases of life or in terms of generational and cohort effects (Hood et al., 2009; Levenson, Aldwin, & D’Mello, 2005; see Chapter 29 in this volume). The gender difference has been explained by the structural location of men and women in society (working vs. staying at home and caring for the children, including religious instruction); by gender roles and personality fac- tors (Francis, 1997); and recently, as a consequence of lower risk aversion (calling religion into ques- tion) among men (Collett & Lizardo, 2009; Miller & Hoffmann, 1995). The effects of gender and race have been understood in terms of the comfort and self-esteem religion offers to members of socially disadvantaged groups (Maselko et al., 2007; R. J. Taylor, Chatters, & Levin, 2004; see Chapter 30 in this volume). In addition, familial factors play a role because those who have never been married and have no children are more likely to have an atheistic orientation (Sherkat, 2008). This result coincides with findings that atheists and agnos- tics report slightly higher levels of introversion (Bainbridge, 2005) and more feelings of loneliness (Lauder, Mummery, & Sharkey, 2006) in compari- son with religious persons. Living in rural areas and in the southern states (the Bible Belt) of the United States—where being nonreligious can even appear to be “deviant” (Heiner, 1992)—decreases the likelihood of being atheist. Finally, religious affili- ation has predictive power, even after controlling for the effects of other sociodemographic factors. Compared with mainline Protestants or Jews, belonging to a sect or to the Catholic Church decreases the probability of atheism. Furthermore, being unaffiliated is associated with a considerable higher tendency toward atheism (Sherkat, 2008).

Psychological Correlates of Atheism, Agnosticism, and Apostasy Education and intelligence. The link between higher education and atheism or agnosticism is a

classic finding within the psychology of religion (Beit-Hallahmi, 2007; Hood et al., 2009): In 1916 and 1934, Leuba (an agnostic himself) found that eminent scientists (mathematicians, physicists, biol- ogists) showed higher rates of unbelief in God and immortality (Leuba, 1916, 1934). Some 80 years after Leuba’s first study, Larson and Witham (1998) tried to replicate these findings. They surveyed members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and found that this generation of scientists had become even more strongly atheistic: Whereas 53% (1916) and 68% (1934) of the respondents in Leuba’s studies said that they did not believe in any God and 25% (1916) and 53% (1936) reported no personal belief in immortality, in the study by Larson and Witham (1998), 72% reported no personal belief in God and 77% no belief in immortality. The beliefs of U.S. scientists appear to differ strongly from those of the U.S. public.

Such findings have led some researchers to hypothesize that higher intelligence leads to an atheistic orientation. For instance, Nyborg and col- leagues (Nyborg, 2009; Lynn, Harvey, & Nyborg, 2009) argued that mean IQ scores show a declining line, with atheists having the highest IQ scores, dogmatic persons the lowest IQ scores, and agnos- tics and liberals in the middle, and a similar line from more atheistic nations to more religious coun- tries because intelligence leads toward a worldview that best fits cognitive complexity and brain effi- ciency. Kanazawa (2009, 2010) postulated an evo- lutionary principle that more intelligent individuals are more likely to acquire and espouse novel values, including atheism, liberalism, and—for men— sexual exclusivity and monogamy. Kanazawa claimed to have found a number of results support- ing this hypothesis; however, the theories of Nyborg and Kanazawa about intelligence and athe- ism neglect a number of factors. The most impor- tant is that a substantial number of well-educated, highly intelligent people are still religious. Also, it is not clear why an atheistic worldview is necessarily more cognitively complex than a theological sys- tem. Furthermore, Kanazawa’s evolutionary argu- ment that more intelligent persons tend toward atheism, liberalism, and sexual exclusivity is plausi- ble only if it is assumed that evolution leads

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

Streib and Klein

720

inevitably toward atheism. Finally, most of the find- ings to which Nyborg, Kanazawa, and their col- leagues referred are based on measures of school achievement and education rather than intelligence. Although education, school achievement, and intel- ligence are highly correlated, they are not identical. As an alternative to evolutionary explanations, the tendency of higher education and better school achievement to be associated with atheism could be understood in terms of a particular “social inheri- tance” within better educated families and institu- tions of higher education, which transmit a scientific worldview challenging religious beliefs. The findings could then be interpreted as an indica- tion that it is difficult and challenging to integrate a religious worldview and scientific education.

Personality factors and values. Some reviews and meta-analyses (Piedmont, 2005; Saroglou 2002, 2010; Saroglou, Delpierre, & Dernelle, 2004) are relevant to the personality and value characteristics of less religious and nondenomi- national people. These studies, however, have not focused on atheists or agnostics explicitly. It would be inappropriate to conclude that athe- ists and agnostics are less conscientious and less agreeable (Saroglou, 2010) because high scores on several religiosity measures are significantly cor- related with conscientiousness and agreeableness. What is needed are studies that compare the per- sonalities of atheists, agnostics, and apostates to those of religious people.

In the Bielefeld-Based Cross-Cultural Study of Deconversion (Streib et al., 2009), the NEO Five- Factor Inventory personality measure (Costa & McCrae, 1985), the Ryff Scale on Psychological Well-Being and Growth (Ryff & Singer, 1996), the Religious Fundamentalism Scale (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992), and the Right-Wing Authoritari- anism Scale (RWA; Altemeyer, 1981) were included for both members of religious communities and for deconverts in the United States and in Germany. Across both cultures, deconverts scored significantly higher on openness to experience and, interestingly, somewhat higher on neuroticism. Compared with members of religious communities, deconverts also manifested considerably lower scores on religious

fundamentalism and RWA. Finally, deconverts reported a significantly higher sense of personal growth and autonomy (Ryff Scale) than members of religious traditions.

In their comprehensive study of U.S. and Cana- dian atheists, Hunsberger and Altemeyer (2006) found similar results. Atheists indicated less preju- dice against ethnic minorities and homosexuals than did highly religious people. In general, compared with the highly religious group, atheists were found to be less dogmatic and zealous in their worldviews, with little need to proselytize, although they regarded religious fundamentalists as enemies. Huns- berger and Altemeyer attributed the lower dogma- tism and zealotry of atheists to their lower scores on RWA. Comparing atheists and agnostics, Huns- berger and Altemeyer found agnostics to be even less dogmatic and zealous than atheists, although they had slightly higher levels of prejudice and RWA. Maybe this result is due to the more cohesive and resolved worldview of the atheists.

Similarly, according to the findings of Baker and Smith (2009), atheists are more strongly opposed to religious teachings and the public presence of the church than are agnostics. Unchurched believers were found to be as opposed to religion in the public sphere as atheists, but they displayed higher levels of spirituality and personal religiosity than atheists or agnostics. Findings from both the United States and the United Kingdom illustrate that atheists, agnostics, and unchurched believers hold patterns of individualistic values and very liberal political stances concerning abortion, divorce, drug use, euthanasia, stem cell research, or gay marriage (Baker & Smith, 2009; Farias & Lalljee, 2008).

Research on values in Belgium using the PCBS gives further insight into the dynamics of atheism or agnosticism and value orientations. The scale distin- guishes between an exclusion and an inclusion of transcendence in combination with a distinction between a literal and a symbolic understanding of these different beliefs (Fontaine et al., 2003; see also Wulff, 1997). Hence, the PCBS assesses two alterna- tive atheistic orientations, the literal external critique (denial of transcendence because the stories told in sacred scriptures cannot be literally true) and the symbolic relativism (denial of transcendence while

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

Atheists, Agnostics, and Apostates

721

accepting an existential truth of sacred scriptures as an expression of human wisdom). Although nonreli- gious orientations in general were found to correlate with self-enhancing values, such as hedonism or stimulation, external critique was associated with conservative values, such as security and power, and relativism showed significant associations with uni- versalism and benevolence (Fontaine et al., 2005)— values that indicate an openness to change (Schwartz, 1992, 1994). Other findings with the PCBS elaborate on these results: External critique is positively corre- lated with more cultural conservatism (Duriez, 2003), more racism (even after controlling for RWA; Duriez, 2004), and lower agreement with moral attitudes (Duriez & Soenens, 2006). Interestingly then, it appears to be the case that the correlates of a literal understanding of atheism resemble those of literal religious beliefs. Research with the PCBS makes the crucial point that to understand value orientations, we must consider not only whether someone is reli- gious or atheist but also the way in which religious or atheistic contents are processed.

Although there seem to be at least some charac- teristic patterns of atheists’ and agnostics’ personal- ity and value orientations, we conclude that the existing data do not allow causal interpretations: Whether an agnostic or atheistic position is the result of more openness and more tolerant and self- enhancing values, or whether an agnostic or atheist worldview leads to such values, is answerable only through future longitudinal studies.

ATHEISM, AGNOSTICISM, AND APOSTASY, AND THEIR RELATION TO HEALTH AND WELL-BEING

A large body of research has demonstrated relation- ships between religion, coping, health, and well- being. On the psychological level, many findings illustrate associations between higher religiosity and less depression (see Smith, McCullough, & Poll, 2003; see also Volume 2, Chapter 12, this hand- book), less addiction (Geppert, Bogenschutz, & Miller, 2007; see also Volume 2, Chapter 15, this handbook), higher life satisfaction and well-being (Hackney & Sanders, 2003), and differential effects of religious coping (Ano & Vasconcelles, 2005;

Pargament, 1997; see also Chapter 19 in this vol- ume). Higher religiosity has been related to better physical health, perhaps as a result of lifestyle factors and psychoneuroimmunological processes (Chida, Steptoe, & Powell, 2009; Koenig, McCullough, & Larson, 2001; see also Chapter 11, this volume and Volume 2, Chapter 14, this handbook). It could be tempting to reason that the converse would be true—that is, atheism and agnosticism would be associated with poorer health.

Low scores on religious measures should not be equated with atheism, agnosticism, or apostasy. Indexes of organizational and individual religiosity (e.g., church attendance, prayer, intrinsic and extrinsic orientation, religious affiliation) are poor indictors of atheism or agnosticism. According to Hall, Koenig, and Meador (2008), these measures of religiousness can be understood as reverse-scored indexes of “secularism.” Doubts persist, however, whether the concept of secularism fully captures the characteristics of atheism, agnosticism, and apostasy as described in this chapter. Thus, although there is strong evidence for an overall positive correlation between religiosity and mental and physical health, this does not automatically imply that lower religi- osity or secularism is identical with high atheism or apostasy. Neither does it indicate that atheism, agnosticism, and apostasy are associated with poorer health, coping and well-being. It therefore would be helpful and challenging to study mental health and well-being of atheists and agnostics in their own right with comprehensive measures of these dynamic processes (Hwang, Hammer, & Cragun, 2009; Whitley, 2010).

Comparative research on atheists, agnostics, apostates, and religious people might help clarify those studies that do not support the assumption that religiosity is generally associated with better health and well-being. In this vein, Baker and Cruickshank (2009) compared the depressive symp- toms of atheists, agnostics, and religious groups and found that their health scores did not differ. Simi- larly, O’Connell and Skevington (2009) found no differences between atheists, agnostics, and religious persons with respect to their quality of life except between their scores on spiritual well-being. Also, although apostasy is often accompanied by

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

Streib and Klein

722

emotional suffering, the process of becoming an apostate does not necessarily end in a “neurotic denial of God.” Recall too that deconverts in the United States reported higher scores on the auton- omy and personal growth subscales than the mem- bers in religious organizations (Streib et al., 2009). Taken together, firm conclusions about the relation- ships between health and atheism, agnosticism, or apostasy cannot yet be drawn (Stefanek, McDonald, & Hess, 2005).

Some studies in which atheists and agnostics have been explicitly identified have detected a U-shaped relationship in which the most and least religious groups report fewer symptoms of mental illness or better well-being scores than the moder- ately religious group (Donahue, 1985; Riley, Best, & Charlton, 2005; Shaver, Lenauer, & Sadd, 1980). These findings are in line with the classical assump- tion of William James (1902/1985) that the certitude of an individual’s beliefs might be of more impor- tance for his or her well-being than specific belief contents. It seems that these curvilinear effects are easier to find in more secular contexts than the United States, such as the United Kingdom (Baker & Cruickshank, 2009; Riley, Best, & Charlton, 2005) or Germany (Klein, 2010; Zwingmann et al., 2006) where religious and existential beliefs have become increasingly personalized, detached, and heteroge- neous (Jagodzinski & Dobbelaere, 1995). Con- versely, clear associations between religion and mental health seem to be more difficult to detect in these more secularized contexts. Additionally, research in more secular European contexts shows that scales for the study of religious coping from the United States demonstrate effects primarily within specific, highly religious subsamples (Pieper, 2004); however, other forms of existential or spiritual cop- ing are more common and perhaps more predictive of health-related outcomes in European populations, including the Netherlands (van Uden, Pieper, & Alma, 2004) and Sweden (Ahmadi, 2006).

To make sense of this complex pattern of find- ings, it may be helpful to recognize that each study of the religion–health nexus offers insights only into one particular sociocultural context. The results of each study might therefore best be understood as one part of a U-curve describing the complete

relation between (non)religious orientation and mental health. Given the differences in religiosity levels between the United States and the more secu- lar parts of Europe—for instance, although 62% of the U.S. population can be rated as highly religious, only 19% of the U.K. population or 18% of the Ger- man population can be labeled as highly religious (Bertelsmann Foundation, 2009; Huber & Klein, 2007)—U.S. samples are likely to include more reli- gious persons and less likely to include those who are agnostics or atheists. Such samples, however, capture the middle to the right part of the U-curve, and findings from these studies would typically reveal a positive linear relationship between religion and health or well-being (see Figure 40.1).

Samples from more secular contexts, however, are more likely to cover the middle and the left part of the U-curve, including not only some religious persons, but also a substantial number of doubting, agnostic, and atheistic persons. Hence, such samples might yield contradictory findings, including nega- tive relationships between religion and health and well-being. The curvilinear character of relation- ships between religion and health may emerge only if the full range of beliefs and nonbeliefs is repre- sented in the research. Of course, this explanation is only hypothetical, but it highlights the need for cross-cultural studies of the religion–health nexus in ways that might reveal the interactions among the sample, the larger cultural context, and the local salience of diverse beliefs.

Although the relations between atheistic and agnostic orientations and well-being have not been studied in detail yet, a growing number of reports from physicians, therapists, and nurses both from the United States (Josephson & Peteet, 2007; Moadel et al., 1999; Peteet, 2001) and Europe (O’Connell & Skevington, 2005) indicate that non- religious patients in hospitals and psychotherapy express as much need as religious people to talk about existential issues, such as the meaning of life. We would caution against interpreting this interest in existential issues per se as a “spiritual” interest (as some authors do): Such an inflationary usage might be terminologically misleading because it camouflages existing differences between exclu- sively immanent existential issues and “spiritual”

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

Atheists, Agnostics, and Apostates

723

interests—for example, there are patients with com- pletely secular, neither religious nor spiritual inter- ests, too (Koenig, 2008; Pargament, 1999). It nevertheless should be clear that atheists, agnostics, and apostates deserve attention as substantial groups in their own right and should be treated with respect and appreciation for their distinctive beliefs (D’Andrea & Sprenger, 2007; Saeed & Grant, 2004).

OuTLOOK ON FuTuRE RESEARCH

We conclude with four suggestions for future research. First, with some exceptions, only a few studies have compared atheists, agnostics, and apos- tates with religious people in terms of classical psy- chological constructs such as personality factors, coping, well-being, and health. Thus, we need not only studies that focus specifically on atheists and agnostics but also studies of classical psychological constructs among actively committed atheists using measures that delve more deeply and comprehen- sively into atheists’ and agnostics’ worldviews. Sec- ond, longitudinal studies of atheism, agnosticism, and apostasy are also needed to shed light on the dynamic, evolving character of these processes. Third, cross-cultural comparisons of religious, athe- istic, and agnostic milieus in the United States and

other cultures around the globe are needed to clarify the religion–health nexus. Tests of the hypothesis of a cross-culturally U-shaped relation between (non)religiousness and health might be particularly illuminating. Finally, it is important to pay special attention to the “spiritual” self-identification of some atheists, agnostics, and apostates: Echoing Hood et al.’s (2009) recommendation, we encourage closer investigations of the reasons why a consider- able portion of atheists and agnostics self-identify as “spiritual, but not religious.” Perhaps this group understands “spirituality” as a process of searching for and finding meaning—and perhaps a sense of the sacred—in domains that are not traditionally “religious,” such as the ecological movement and the concern for the preservation of Mother Earth.

References Ahmadi, F. (2006). Culture, religion and spirituality in

coping: The example of cancer patients in Sweden. Uppsala, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.

Albrecht, S. L., Cornwall, M., & Cunningham, P. H. (1988). Religious leave-taking. In D. G. Bromley (Ed.), Falling from the faith (pp. 62–80). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: University of Manitoba Press.

FIGuRE 40.1. Hypothetical u-shaped relation between religiosity, mental health, and well-being, and sampling effects resulting from cultural context.

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

Streib and Klein

724

Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest and prejudice. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2, 113–133. doi:10.1207/s15327582ijpr0202_5

Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1997). Amazing conver- sions. Why some turn to faith and others abandon religion. New York, NY: Prometheus Books.

Ano, G. G., & Vasconcelles, E. B. (2005). Religious cop- ing and psychological adjustment to stress: A meta- analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 461–480. doi:10.1002/jclp.20049

Baggini, J. (2003). Atheism: A very short introduction. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Bailey, E. (2001). Implicit religion in contemporary society. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters.

Bainbridge, W. S. (2005). Atheism. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion, 1, 1–26.

Baker, J. O., & Smith, B. (2009). None too simple: Examining issues of religious nonbelief and nonbe- longing in the United States. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 48, 719–733. doi:10.1111/j.1468- 5906.2009.01475.x

Baker, P., & Cruickshank, J. (2009). I am happy in my faith: The influence of religious affiliation, saliency, and practice on depressive symptoms and treatment preference. Mental Health, Religion, and Culture, 12, 339–357. doi:10.1080/13674670902725108

Barbour, J. D. (1994). Versions of deconversion. Autobiography and the loss of faith. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.

Batson, C. D., Schoenrade, P., & Ventis, W. L. (1993). Religion and the individual: A social-psychological per- spective. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Beit-Hallahmi, B. (2007). Atheists: A psychological pro- file. In M. Martin (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to atheism (pp. 300–318). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CCOL0521842700.019

Bertelsmann Foundation. (Ed.). (2009). What the world believes: Analysis and commentary on the Religion Monitor 2008. Gütersloh, Germany: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung.

Brinkerhoff, M. B., & Mackie, M. M. (1993). Casting off the bounds of organized religion: A religious-careers approach to the study of apostasy. Review of Religious Research, 34, 235–258. doi:10.2307/3700597

Chida, Y., Steptoe, A., & Powell, L. H. (2009). Religiosity/ spirituality and mortality. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 78, 81–90. doi:10.1159/000190791

Cole, B. S., Hopkins, C. M., Tisak, J., Steel, J. L., & Carr, B. I. (2008). Assessing spiritual growth and spiritual

decline following a diagnosis of cancer: Reliability and validity of the Spiritual Transformation Scale. Psycho-Oncology, 17, 112–121. doi:10.1002/pon.1207

Collett, J. L., & Lizardo, O. (2009). A power-control the- ory of gender and religiosity. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 48, 213–231. doi:10.1111/j.1468- 5906.2009.01441.x

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI–R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO–FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, Ukraine: Psychological Assessment Resources.

D’Andrea, L., & Sprenger, J. (2007). Atheism and nonspirituality as diversity issues in counseling. Counseling and Values, 51, 149–158. doi:10.1002/ j.2161-007X.2007.tb00072.x

Dawkins, R. (2006). The God delusion. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Donahue, M. J. (1985). Intrinsic and extrinsic religious- ness: Review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 400–419. doi:10.1037/ 0022-3514.48.2.400

Duriez, B. (2003). Religiosity and conservatism revis- ited: Relating a new religiosity measure to the two main conservative political ideologies. Psychological Reports, 92, 533–539. doi:10.2466/pr0.2003.92.2.533

Duriez, B. (2004). A research note on the relation between religiosity and racism: The importance of the way in which religious contents are being processed. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 14, 177–191. doi:10.1207/s15327582ijpr1403_3

Duriez, B., & Soenens, B. (2006). Religiosity, moral atti- tudes and moral competence: A critical investigation of the religiosity–morality relation. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30, 76–83. doi:10.1177/0165025406062127

Exline, J. J. (2002). Stumbling blocks on the religious road: Fractured relationships, nagging vices, and the inner struggle to believe. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 182–189. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1303_03

Exline, J. J., & Rose, E. (2005). Religious and spiritual struggles. In R. F. Paloutzian & C. L. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 315–330). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Farias, M., & Lalljee, M. (2008). Holistic individualism in the age of Aquarius: Measuring individualism/col- lectivism in New Age, Catholic, and atheist/agnostic groups. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 47, 277–289. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2008.00407.x

Fontaine, J. R. J., Duriez, B., Luyten, P., Corveleyn, J., & Hutsebaut, D. (2005). Consequences of a multi- dimensional approach to religion for the relation- ship between religiosity and value priorities. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 15, 123–143. doi:10.1207/s15327582ijpr1502_2

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

Atheists, Agnostics, and Apostates

725

Fontaine, J. R. J., Duriez, B., Luyten, P., & Hutsebaut, D. (2003). The internal structure of the Post-Critical Belief Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 501–518. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00213-1

Francis, L. J. (1997). The psychology of gender differ- ences in religion: A review of empirical research. Religion, 27, 81–96. doi:10.1006/reli.1996.0066

Froese, P., & Pfaff, S. (2005). Explaining a religious anomaly: A historical analysis of secularization in Eastern Germany. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 44, 397–422. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906. 2005.00294.x

Fuller, R. C. (2001). Spiritual, but not religious: Understanding unchurched America. Oxford, England; New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ 0195146808.001.0001

Geppert, C., Bogenschutz, M. P., & Miller, W. R. (2007). Development of a bibliography on religion, spiritu- ality and addictions. Drug and Alcohol Review, 26, 389–395. doi:10.1080/09595230701373826

Gibson, N. J. S. (2010, October). Dimensions and types of non-religiosity: Scale development in progress. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion and the Religious Research Association, Baltimore, MD.

Granqvist, P., & Hagekull, B. (2003). Longitudinal predic- tions of religious change in adolescence: Contributions from the interaction of attachment and relationship status. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 793–817. doi:10.1177/0265407503206005

Granqvist, P., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2004). Religious conversion and perceived childhood attachment: A meta-analysis. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 14, 223–250. doi:10.1207/ s15327582ijpr1404_1

Granqvist, P., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2008). Attachment and religious representations and behavior. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attach- ment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 906–933). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Greer, J. E., & Francis, L. J. (1992). Measuring rejection of Christianity among 14–16-year-old adolescents in Catholic and Protestant schools in Northern-Ireland. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 1345–1348. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(92)90178-R

Hackney, C. H., & Sanders, G. S. (2003). Religiosity and mental health: A meta-analysis of recent studies. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42, 43–55. doi:10.1111/1468-5906.t01-1-00160

Hadaway, C. K. (1989). Identifying American apostates: A cluster analysis. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28, 201–215. doi:10.2307/1387059

Hall, D. E., Koenig, H. G., & Meador, K. G. (2008). Hitting the target: Why existing measures of

“religiousness” are really reverse-scored measures of “secularism.” Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing, 4, 368–373. doi:10.1016/j.explore.2008. 08.002

Heelas, P., Woodhead, L., Seel, B., Szerszynski, B., & Tusting, K. (2005). The spiritual revolution: Why religion is giving way to spirituality. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Heiner, R. (1992). Evangelical heathens: The deviant status of freethinkers in Southland. Deviant Behavior, 13, 1–20. doi:10.1080/01639625.1992.9967895

Hitchens, C. (2007). God is not great: How religion poisons everything. New York, NY: Twelve.

Hood, R. W. (2003). Spirituality and religion. In A. L. Greil & D. G. Bromley (Eds.), Religion: Critical approaches to drawing boundaries between sacred and secular (pp. 241–264). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/S1061-5210(03)10014-X

Hood, R. W., Hill, P. C., & Spilka, B. (2009). The psychol- ogy of religion: An empirical approach (4th ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Hout, M., & Fischer, C. S. (2002). Why more Americans have no religious preference: Politics and genera- tions. American Sociological Review, 67, 165–190. doi:10.2307/3088891

Houtman, D., & Aupers, S. (2007). The spiritual turn and the decline of tradition: The spread of post-Christian spirituality in 14 Western countries, 1981–2000. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 46, 305– 320. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2007.00360.x

Huber, S., & Klein, C. (2007). Kurzbericht zu einzelnen Ergebnissen der internationalen Durchführung des Religionsmonitors der Bertelsmann-Stiftung [Brief report on selected findings of the international Religion Monitor survey of the Bertelsmann Foundation]. Retrieved from http://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de

Hunsberger, B. (2000). Swimming against the current: Exceptional cases of apostates and converts. In L. J. Francis & Y. J. Katz (Eds.), Joining and leav- ing religion: Research perspectives (pp. 233–248). Leominster, England: Gracewing.

Hunsberger, B., & Altemeyer, B. (2006). Atheists: A groundbreaking study of America’s nonbelievers. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Hunsberger, B., McKenzie, B., Pancer, S. M., & Pratt, M. W. (1993). Religious doubt: A social psychologi- cal analysis. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 5, 27–51.

Hwang, K., Hammer, J. H., & Cragun, R. T. (2009). Extending religion-health research to secular minori- ties: Issues and concerns. Journal of Religion and Health. Online first: DOI 10.1007/s10943-009–9296-0

Hyman, G. (2007). Atheism in modern history. In M. Martin (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to atheism

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

Streib and Klein

726

(pp. 27–46). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CCOL0521842700.003

Jagodzinski, W., & Dobbelaere, K. (1995). Secularization and church religiosity. In J. W. van Deth & E. Scarbrough (Eds.), The impact of values (pp. 76–119). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

James, W. (1985). The varieties of religious experience: A study in human nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1902)

Josephson, A. M., & Peteet, J. R. (2007). Talking with patients about spirituality and worldview: Practical interviewing techniques and strategies. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 30, 181–197. doi:10.1016/j. psc.2007.01.005

Kalton, M. C. (2000). Green spirituality: Horizontal tran- scendence. In P. Young-Eisendrath & M. E. Miller (Eds.), The psychology of mature spirituality: Integrity, wisdom, transcendence (pp. 187–200). London, England: Routledge.

Kanazawa, S. (2009). IQ and the values of nations. Journal of Biosocial Science, 41, 537–556. doi:10.1017/ S0021932009003368

Kanazawa, S. (2010). Why liberals and atheists are more intelligent. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73, 33–57.

Keysar, A. (2007). Who are America’s atheists and agnos- tics? In B. A. Kosmin & A. Keysar (Eds.), Secularism and secularity. Contemporary international perspec- tives (pp. 33–39). Hartford, CT: Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture, Trinity College.

Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1997). A longitudinal study of changes in religious belief and behavior as a function of indi- vidual differences in adult attachment style. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36, 207–217. doi:10.2307/1387553

Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1998). God as a substitute attachment figure: A longitudinal study of adult attachment style and religious change in college students. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 961–973. doi:10.1177/0146167298249004

Klein, C. (2010, October). Beyond the religion-spirituality antagonism: Measuring interest in existential questions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion and the Religious Research Association, Baltimore, MD.

Koenig, H. G. (2008). Concerns about measuring “spiritual- ity” in research. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 196, 349–355. doi:10.1097/NMD.0b013e31816ff796

Koenig, H. G., McCullough, M. E., & Larson, D. B. (2001). Handbook of religion and health. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof: oso/9780195118667.001.0001

Kosmin, B. A., & Keysar, A. (2006). Religion in a free mar- ket: Religious and non-religious Americans. Ithaca, NY: Paramount.

Kosmin, B. A., & Keysar, A. (Eds.). (2007). Secularism and secularity: Contemporary international per- spectives. Hartford, CT: Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture.

Kosmin, B. A., & Keysar, A. (2009). American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS 2008). Summary report. Retrieved from http://www.trincoll.edu

Koster, J. P. (1989). The atheist syndrome. Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt.

Larson, E. J., & Witham, L. (1998). Correspondence: Leading scientists still reject God. Nature, 394, 313. doi:10.1038/28478

Lauder, W., Mummery, K., & Sharkey, S. (2006). Social capital, age and religiosity in people who are lonely. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 15, 334–339. doi:10.1111/ j.1365-2702.2006.01192.x

Lepp, I. (1963). Atheism in our time. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Leuba, J. H. (1916). Belief in God and immortality: An anthropological and statistical study. Boston, MA: Sherman & French.

Leuba, J. H. (1934). Religious beliefs of American scien- tists. Harper’s Magazine, 169, 291–300.

Levenson, M. R., Aldwin, C. M., & D’Mello, M. (2005). Religious development from adolescence to middle adulthood. In R. F. Paloutzian & C. L. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 144–161). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Lynn, R., Harvey, J., & Nyborg, H. (2009). Average intelligence predicts atheism rates across 137 nations. Intelligence, 37, 11–15. doi:10.1016/j. intell.2008.03.004

Mackie, J. L. (1982). The miracle of theism: Arguments for and against the existence of God. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Marler, P. L., & Hadaway, C. K. (2002). “Being religious” or “being spiritual” in America: A zero-sum proposi- tion? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41, 289–300. doi:10.1111/1468-5906.00117

Martin, M. (2007). Atheism and religion. In M. Martin (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to atheism (pp. 217– 232). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CCOL0521842700.014

Maselko, J., Kubzansky, L., Kawachi, I., Seeman, T., & Berkman, L. (2007). Religious service attendance and allostatic load among high-functioning elderly. Psychosomatic Medicine, 69, 464–472. doi:10.1097/ PSY.0b013e31806c7c57

McConnell, K. M., Pargament, K. I., Ellison, C. G., & Flannelly, K. J. (2006). Examining the links between spiritual struggles and symptoms of psychopathology in a national sample. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62, 1469–1484. doi:10.1002/jclp.20325

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

Atheists, Agnostics, and Apostates

727

Meulemann, H. (2009). Secularization or religious renewal? Worldviews in 22 societies: Findings and indications of a cross-sectional survey. In Bertelsmann Foundation (Ed.), What the world believes: Analysis and commentary on the Religion Monitor 2008 (pp. 691–723). Gütersloh, Germany: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung.

Miller, A. S., & Hoffmann, J. P. (1995). Risk and religion: An explanation of gender differences in religiosity. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 34, 63–75. doi:10.2307/1386523

Moadel, A., Morgan, C., Fatone, A., Grennan, J., Carter, J., Laruffa, G., . . . Dutcher, J. (1999). Seeking mean- ing and hope: Self-reported spiritual needs among an ethnically-diverse cancer patient population. Psycho-Oncology, 8, 378–385. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099- 1611(199909/10)8:5<378::AID-PON406>3.0.CO;2-A

Murken, S. (Ed.). (2008). Ohne Gott leben. Religionspsychologische Aspekte des “Unglaubens.” [Living without God: Aspects of “unbelief” from a psychology of religion perspective]. Marburg, Germany: Diagonal.

Nelsen, H. M. (1981). Religious conformity in an age of disbelief—contextual effects of time, denomina- tion, and family processes upon church decline and apostasy. American Sociological Review, 46, 632–640. doi:10.2307/2094944

Novotni, M., & Petersen, R. (2001). Angry with God. Colorado Springs, CO: Pinon Press.

Nyborg, H. (2009). The intelligence–religiosity nexus: A representative study of white adolescent Americans. Intelligence, 37, 81–93. doi:10.1016/j. intell.2008.08.003

O’Connell, K. A., & Skevington, S. M. (2005). The rel- evance of spirituality, religion and personal beliefs to health-related quality of life: Themes from focus groups in Britain. British Journal of Health Psychology, 10, 379–398. doi:10.1348/135910705X25471

O’Connell, K. A., & Skevington, S. M. (2009). Spiritual, religious, and personal beliefs are impor- tant and distinctive to assessing quality of life in health: A comparison of theoretical models. British Journal of Health Psychology. Online first DOI:10.1348/135910709X479799

Pargament, K. I. (1997). The psychology of religion and coping: Theory, research, practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Pargament, K. I. (1999). The psychology of religion and spirituality? Yes and no. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 9, 3–16. doi:10.1207/ s15327582ijpr0901_2

Pargament, K. I. (2007). Spiritually integrated psychother- apy. Understanding and addressing the sacred. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Pargament, K. I., Koenig, H. G., & Perez, L. M. (2000). The many methods of religious coping: Development and initial validation of the RCOPE. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56, 519–543. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097- 4679(200004)56:4<519::AID-JCLP6>3.0.CO;2-1

Pargament, K. I., & Mahoney, A. (2005). Sacred mat- ters: Sanctification as a vital topic for the psychol- ogy of religion. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 15, 179–198. doi:10.1207/ s15327582ijpr1503_1

Pargament, K. I., Smith, B. W., Koenig, H. G., & Perez, L. M. (1998). Patterns of positive and negative religious coping with major life stressors. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37, 710–724. doi:10.2307/1388152

Pasquale, F. L. (2007). The “nonreligious” in the American northwest. In B. A. Kosmin & A. Keysar (Eds.), Secularism and secularity: Contemporary international perspectives (pp. 41–58). Hartford, CT: Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture.

Peteet, J. R. (2001). Putting suffering into perspective: Implications of the patient’s world view. Journal of Psychotherapy Practice and Research, 10, 187–192.

Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. (2009). Faith in flux: Changes in religious affiliation in the U.S. Retrieved from http://pewforum.org/newassets/ images/reports/flux/fullreport.pdf

Piedmont, R. L. (2005). The role of personality in under- standing religious and spiritual constructs. In R. F. Paloutzian & C. L. Park (Eds.), The handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 253–273). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Pieper, J. Z. T. (2004). Religious resources of psychiat- ric inpatients: Religious coping in highly religious inpatients. Mental Health, Religion, and Culture, 7, 349–363. doi:10.1080/13674670410001719805

Riley, J., Best, S., & Charlton, B. G. (2005). Religious believers and strong atheists may both be less depressed than existentially-uncertain people. QJM: Monthly Journal of the Association of Physicians, 98, 840. doi:10.1093/qjmed/hci132

Roof, W. C. (1999). Spiritual marketplace. Baby boomers and the remaking of American religion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (1996). Psychological well- being: Meaning, measurement, and implications for psychotherapy research. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 65, 14–23. doi:10.1159/000289026

Saeed, S. A., & Grant, R. L. (2004). Atheists and agnos- tics. In A. M. Josephson & J. R. Peteet (Eds.), Handbook of spirituality and worldview in clinical practice (pp. 139–153). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .

Streib and Klein

728

Saroglou, V. (2002). Religion and the five factors of per- sonality: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 15–25. doi:10.1016/S0191- 8869(00)00233-6

Saroglou, V. (2010). Religiousness as a cultural adapta- tion of basic traits: A five-factor model perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 108– 125. doi:10.1177/1088868309352322

Saroglou, V., Delpierre, V., & Dernelle, R. (2004). Values and religiosity: A meta-analysis of studies using Schwartz’s model. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 721–734. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2003.10.005

Schmidt, T., & Wohlrab-Sahr, M. (2003). Still the most areligious part of the world: Developments in the religious field in Eastern Germany since 1990. International Journal of Practical Theology, 7, 86–100.

Schnell, T. (2003). A framework for the study of implicit religion: The psychological theory of implicit religi- osity. Implicit Religion, 6, 86–104.

Schwadel, P. (2010). Period and cohort effects on religious nonaffiliation and religious disaffiliation: A research note. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 49, 311–319. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2010.01511.x

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the content and structure of values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19–45. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb01196.x

Shaver, P., Lenauer, M., & Sadd, S. (1980). Religiousness, conversion and subjective well-being: The “healthy- minded” religion of modern American women. American Journal of Psychiatry, 137, 1563–1568.

Sherkat, D. E. (2001). Tracking the restructuring of American religion: Religious affiliation and patterns of religious mobility, 1973–1998. Social Forces, 79, 1459–1493. doi:10.1353/sof.2001.0052

Sherkat, D. E. (2008). Beyond belief: Atheism, agnosti- cism, and theistic certainty in the United States. Sociological Spectrum, 28, 438–459. doi:10.1080/ 02732170802205932

Smith, T. B., McCullough, M. E., & Poll, J. (2003). Religiousness and depression: Evidence for a main effect and the moderating influence of stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 614–636. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.614

Stefanek, M., McDonald, P. G., & Hess, S. A. (2005). Religion, spirituality, and cancer: Current status and methodological challenges. Psycho-Oncology, 14, 450–463. doi:10.1002/pon.861

Streib, H. (2008). More spiritual than religious: Changes in the religious field require new approaches. In H. Streib,

A. Dinter, & K. Söderblom (Eds.), Lived religion— conceptual, empirical and practical-theological approaches (pp. 53–67). Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill. doi:10.1163/ej.9789004163775.i-404.30

Streib, H. (in press). Deconversion. In L. R. Rambo & C. E. Farhadian (Eds.), Oxford handbook of religious conver- sion. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Streib, H., Hood, R. W., Jr., Keller, B., Csöff, R.-M., & Silver, C. (2009). Deconversion: Qualitative and quantitative results from cross-cultural research in Germany and the United States of America. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 20, 303–305. doi:10.1080/10508619.2010.507701

Streib, H., & Keller, B. (2004). The variety of deconver- sion experiences: Contours of a concept in respect to empirical research. Archive for the Psychology of Religion. Archiv für Religionspsychologie, 26, 181–200. doi:10.1163/0084672053598030

Taylor, C. (2007). A secular age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Taylor, R. J., Chatters, L. M., & Levin, J. (2004). Religion in the lives of African Americans: Social, psychological, and health perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

van Uden, M. H. F., Pieper, J. Z. T., & Alma, H. A. (2004). “Bridge over troubled water”: Further results regarding the Receptive Coping Scale. Journal of Empirical Theology, 17, 101–114. doi:10.1163/ 1570925041208916

Vitz, P. C. (2000). Faith of the fatherless: The psychology of atheism. Dallas, TX: Spence.

Whitley, R. (2010). Atheism and mental health. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 18, 190–194. doi:10.3109/ 10673221003747674

Wulff, D. M. (1997). Psychology of religion: Classic and contemporary. New York, NY: Wiley.

Zinnbauer, B. J., & Pargament, K. I. (2005). Religiousness and spirituality. In R. F. Paloutzian & C. L. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spir- ituality (pp. 21–42). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Zinnbauer, B. J., Pargament, K. I., Cole, B., Rye, M. S., Butter, E. M., Belavich, T. G., . . . Kadar, J. L. (1997). Religion and spirituality: Unfuzzying the fuzzy. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36, 549– 564. doi:10.2307/1387689

Zuckerman, P. (2007). Atheism: Contemporary numbers and patterns. In M. Martin (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to atheism (pp. 47–66). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/ CCOL0521842700.004

Zwingmann, C., Wirtz, M., Müller, C., Körber, J., & Murken, S. (2006). Positive and negative religious coping in German breast cancer patients. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 29, 533–547. doi:10.1007/s10865-006-9074-3

Co py

ri gh

t Am

er ic

an P sy

ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia ti on . No t fo r fu

rt he

r di

st ri

bu ti

on .