1 in 5 Americans are "Nones"

Well there's a new survey out by the Pew Center stating that nearly 1 in 5 Americans, 19%, are without any religious affiliation up from 15% back in 2008. You can read more details about the survey here. What caught my attention about the survey is the correlation between those born as a None vs. "Switchers", those switching between religious affiliations. The article mentioned a 2009 survey stating that 10% of Nones are switchers, and also mentioned was an interesting factor which may keep their (our) numbers low: Nones may not be having enough babies. The issue then becomes whether a young None couple will actively raise their children as Nones or allow them to decide for themselves. This ties in with my previous post on passing down religious identities, I'm raising my children to decide for themselves rather than actively raise them as Nones. And I believe most Nones (including SBNRs) would be more inclined to allow their children to explore than those within an established faith. (At the time this was written my 5 year old ran back downstairs after I put him to bed and reminded me I forgot to pray with them.) I would like to see a survey done exploring at what age most people begin to question their faith and switch.

I also believe the numbers stated in the survey may be a bit low since many Nones may not want to come out as an unbeliever, mainly to avoid the risk of losing social and family ties. I know I'm the only None I know in the Chattanooga area since the majority of the population has a religious affiliation. They (We) are still slowly growing even without a wave of babies or active recruiters, but I highly doubt that the non-religious will be a major category as a religious identity in America. Well at least not during my lifetime, but who knows we did see the first African American president elected into office and possibly the first Mormon president in the coming months.

Retaining Your Identity

Dr. James McGrath over at Exploring Our Matrix recently asked "if you are a 'none' or even if you are connected with a religion, do you care if your children shift identities?" The short answer is no, not at all. The main reason why is because I shifted through several different identities myself within the last 5 years. I hope they remain open-minded and I don't care which faith they eventually settle with as long as the faith resonates with them. Although, I would rather they don't become fundamentalists of any faith.

[My Alien II by Bloommer. Follow the link to check out some of Bloomer's other works.]

I admit I would like to see my children follow my beliefs but I realize the beliefs I (currently) accept are the result of years of questioning, exploring, and evolving. I believe two people may follow the same faith tradition but their personal religious and/or spiritual experiences are unique. My wife is Baptist and since I (currently) consider myself a None we are raising them in the Baptist tradition. Religion is a touchy subject in our family so as the odd man out I try not to stir the pot and I'm fine with attending whatever church we call home (we begin church shopping next week). What I DO want to pass on to my children is to be loving towards your neighbor and to follow the wisdom of Ecclesiastes: eat, drink, have a few good friends, a career they love, and be merry. As a None I personally believe that as the globe becomes more interconnected people will begin to question their previous tribal and religious boundaries. I don't care if my children shift identities, what I do care is how they relate to their neighbor.

How Good Do We Have to Be? Part 5- Is there Enough Love for Everyone?

  [I started this blog series well over a year ago on Harold Kushner's How Good Do We Have to Be? and life got in the way and I never got a change to finish reviewing, let alone reading, the book. I recently recommended this book to other people which caused me to dig up this long unfinished post.]

"The Original sin that affects virtually every one of us and leads to other, worse sins is the belief that there is not enough love to go around, and therefore where someone else is loved, he or she is stealing that love from us." Harold Kushner

In chapter 6 Kushner moves on to a topic most people with siblings struggle with: sibling rivalry. I admit I fought daily with my sister (she's 2 years younger than me) over simple things like who got the last pudding cup, but I don't remember fighting over anything major like my parents' affection. My sister, however, saw it differently, she's mentioned many times how our parents loved me more than her and supported me and my endeavors. We're both in our mid to late 20's now so that resentment and rivalry has completely vanished and my sister and I are closer than we ever were. Kushner points out that the book of Genesis is a series of sibling rivalries as siblings with opposite qualities and personalities fight over their parents' affections. He also states that the Original Sin is not disobedience or lust but of hatred and resentment born out of our fear that we will not be loved enough. Kushner goes on to say that this is a fear so primal it follows us into adulthood and our pain and suffering resurfaces throughout our adult years.

As a parent of three I admit I am also guilty of subconsciously attributing certain roles to my children (e.g. good vs. problem child,  responsible vs. care free child). I believe I am more blind to these subconscious acts as the eldest who was given everything, the greatest amount of love (I don't personally believe I was given the most love I'm just illustrating how younger siblings might view the eldest). These roles given out by the parents causes all sorts of guilt and pain as the child come into adulthood. The eldest, as the responsible child, feels guilty if they ever let down their parents and resentment towards the younger for not also being able to lead a carefree life. The younger, as the carefree child, is allowed to make more mistakes but feels is not given enough love and attention as the eldest and is often negatively compared to the eldest ("why can't you be more like your big brother?" or "your big brother/sister has finished school and has a career, what have you done with your life?").

Even with all this sibling rivalry Genesis also demonstrates how we can overcome this original sin: by coming to terms with our feelings towards our siblings (and also friends, coworkers, etc.) and by understanding that love for one child doesn't negate or reduce the amount of love given to the others. Like Isaac and Ishmael coming together at their father's, Abraham's, grave and Joseph reunited with his brothers who sold him into slavery, we can outgrow the roles given to us in childhood and move past the primal fear of being unloved. That is the great thing about love there is plenty to go around, the only restrictions on love are the ones we impose on ourselves. This doesn't mean that suffering will disappear, it just means we don't have to go through it alone. We don't have to wander through life restlessly like Cain who murdered the only other person who understood what it was to fight for a parent's (i.e. God's) affection. We don't have to be alone, and in the end that's all we really want, to love and be loved.


Part 1: A Story of Emergence
Part 2: Guilt and Shame
Part 3: The Cycle of Guilt
Part 4: The Wholeness We Seek
Part 5: Is There Enough Love for Everyone
Part 6: Final Thoughts

The Meaning of Life

I've been out for over a month due to one main reason. The Mrs. and I welcomed our new little girl into the world last week, and while my wife recovers from her c-section I've been taking care of all 3 of our kids including house duties. Although I've been silent and absent from the blogging world I've been keeping up as much as I can via Google Reader from my smartphone. I intend to start blogging again once everything settles and we get back to our daily routine. Without getting too cliché I'd like to say that even though I don't believe in a Divine Being with a master plan or some inherent meaning to life doesn't mean there isn't anything meaningful in this world. To watch my little ones grow, learn, and explore the world we live in is more than enough meaning for me. There will be suffering which I hope I'll be able to suffer with them when they need me. But there will also be love and happiness, which I also hope I'll be there to enjoy with them. Life isn't about worshiping a divine creator, and even if a creator existed I highly doubt we were created for his/her personal gratification. My wife and I decided to have kids because of Love. They were born out of Love and they will be loved no matter what they do or who they become, and I will teach them to share in this Love. How can anyone, including the Divine, bring something into such a chaotic world and say "I will only Love you if..."? I can't imagine not loving my family, and by extending who we consider family I can't imagine not loving my fellow man. John was right, all we need is Love.

Toddler Morality: Bred in the Bone

Science is at it again trying to prove something many of us already know: we are born with an inherent sense of morality. Of course this doesn't jive with many people who believe we are evil from birth (Gen 8:21) but the article on baby morality I came across (via good ole' RNS) is still quite intriguing (albeit a bit dated). Evidence is now showing that we are born with a rudimentary sense of right and wrong although Paul Bloom, one of the researchers of the study, states that socialization is still important because "the sense of right and wrong that they naturally possess diverges in important ways from what we adults would want it to be." The difficulty of researching the morality of babies is due to their inability to communicate clearly and their limited behavior. Researchers have found that if they were to measure their 'looking time', how long they stare at an object of interest, they can discover a window into the mind of a baby. I found it mind blowing that infants have a naïve understanding of physics, mathematics, and even psychology. So what about a naïve understanding of morality?

"Scientists know that certain compassionate feelings and impulses emerge early and apparently universally in human development. These are not moral concepts, exactly, but they seem closely related. One example is feeling pain at the pain of others."

Many parents may have noticed babies crying at the sound of other babies crying or attempt to comfort the distressed baby by gently touching or handing over a toy. As a referee for my own two rascals I admit I might have, as well as most other parents, taken credit in the past for teaching my kids how to "play nice" with other toddlers but now that I think about it they have displayed moral actions, regarding social interactions, which seemed almost instinctual. But morality is more complex than a basic form of compassion.

"Babies and toddlers might not know or exhibit any of these moral subtleties. Their sympathetic reactions and motivations — including their desire to alleviate the pain of others — may not be much different in kind from purely nonmoral reactions and motivations like growing hungry or wanting to void a full bladder. Even if that is true, though, it is hard to conceive of a moral system that didn’t have, as a starting point, these empathetic capacities. As David Hume argued, mere rationality can’t be the foundation of morality, since our most basic desires are neither rational nor irrational."

Take a look at some of the experiments (using puppets!) which led to Bloom's findings.



Do infants come into the world with an innate sense of right and wrong, and if they do what is the Source? Is it just a product of biological evolution and if so how does that affect how we identify ourselves within a religious context? A baby's morality is primitive but it is the foundation in which we build our society, our culture. We just have to ask ourselves if we're helping or hindering the morality bred into all of us. Is it too far fetched to imagine that our neighbor whom we share the same bones, the same breath, the same dust is not also attempting to instill a refined sense of morality into their children based on their culture? Do we not share the same goals, the same hopes, and the same aspirations for the next generation?

The article concludes with the arguments as to whether this simple morality was designed by God or just a product of evolution. Regardless where we might stand on the issue the evidence still states that babies don't begin life as amoral creatures. Is it not going against nature, or God for the believers, to teach or children to be unjust to our neighbors? Is it not "unnatural" for us to teach our children tribal loyalty and divisive views which creates out-groups and inequality? Have we forgotten our origin, our simple notions of right and wrong or are we just ignoring them?