Lois Lee

Research Note: Talking about a Revolution: Terminology for the New Field of Non-religion Studies

The recognition of non-religion as a significant social, cultural, and psychological phenomenon represents a sea change—or revolution—in social scientific thinking about religion and modernity. The speedy expansion of the field has, however, left its terminology lagging behind, with most scholars drawing on concepts familiar to the disciplinary or other cultural settings within which they work. The result is a terminology that is used inconsistently, imprecisely, and often illogically. This research note aims to draw attention to this situation and to suggest a working terminology. Focusing on core terms, I argue for: using ‘non-religion’ as the master concept for this new field of study, demoting ‘atheism’ from its illogically central role in the current discussion, untangling ‘secularism’ and ‘secularity’ from both these concepts. This will allow social scientists to be more precise in how they use the four concepts and better equip them for analysing the relationship between them.

Secular or nonreligious? Investigating and interpreting generic ‘not religious’ categories and populations

In research dealing with religious affiliation, generic nonreligious categories – ‘no religion’, ‘not religious’, ‘nonreligious’, ‘nones’ – are frequently used to measure secularity and secularisation processes. Analysis of these categories is, however, problematic because they have not received dedicated methodological attention. Using qualitative research conducted in the UK, this article investigates what nonreligious categories measure and, specifically, whether they indicate non-identification or disaffiliation as assumed or an alternative form of cultural affiliation. Findings suggest that generic nonreligious categories are sometimes used to express substantive positions and public identities, and that these are diverse. These findings flatten distinctions between religious and nonreligious categories as ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ respectively and indicate problems therefore in using nonreligious identification to measure secularity and secularisation. They suggest nonreligious identification is, however, a useful indicator of the advance of nonreligious cultures and the ‘nonreligionisation’ of societies.

Interdisciplinary Studies of Non-religion and Secularity: The State of the Union

It has become something of a cliché to begin social-scientific studies of non-religion, secularity, atheism, and related topics by bewailing the dearth of previous research (e.g. Bainbridge; Bogensberger; Bullivant; Cotter; Zuckerman). The general lament is perfectly understandable: these topics have indeed been neglected, as we shall show below. The frequency with which it is now encountered demonstrates, however, that is becoming—finally and increasingly—an inaccurate description of this field of research, certainly if one looks at its very recent history and contemporary activity. Since the start of the twenty-first century, and during the last five or six years in particular, a growing number of sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists, historians, and political scientists have switched their attention from secular phenomena—as residual and subsidiary categories of the study of religion(s)—to non-religious phenomena—understood as positive and concrete subjects in their own right. This development has already produced a sizable body of exciting theoretical and empirical research, of which much is interdisciplinary and/or multi-disciplinary in nature. Such research explores what is in fact a large (and growing) multifarious part of contemporary society. After all, according to data from the 2009 British Social Attitudes Survey, 49.8% of Britons claim no religious affiliation; ‘religious nones’ currently constitute 15% of the US adult population, an increase from 8.1% in 1990 (Kosmin et al.). A small number of organisations are supporting this new research. Most notable among them are the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture (ISSSC), a research and teaching centre founded in 2005 by Barry Kosmin and Ariela Keysar at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, and the Nonreligion and Secularity Research Network (NSRN), founded in late 2008 by four researchers, at the time based at the universities of Cambridge and Oxford (Lois Lee, Stacey Gutkowski, Nicholas Gibson, and Stephen Bullivant). Contributing to this set of resources, the present special issue of Journal of Contemporary Religion—the very first special issue in its 27-year history— showcases some of the new research emerging in this recently invigorated area. All of the articles included in this issue derive from papers delivered at the NSRN’s inaugural conference, ‘‘Nonreligion and Secularity: New Empirical Perspectives’’, held at Wolfson College, Oxford, in December 2009, although the research note emerged from discussions during that meeting. While this

Where do atheists come from

Calling yourself an atheist or agnostic is thought to be a hallmark of the well educated. Can it really be that simple?

Religion, Difference, and Indifference

In earlier studies of indifference to religion, I have been largely critical – of (i) conceptual imprecision, (ii) the exaggeration of indifference to religion as an empirical reality, especially in so-called secular societies, and (iii) the claims to power that self-identification as ‘indifferent’ can be bound up with – an critique that has some similarities to critical religion and critical secular approaches to the ‘secular’. This chapter shifts attention to the more constructive ways that social researchers might work with indifference to religion – as an undeniably significant feature in many contemporary societies, as a crucial component to theories about religion and modernity, as a methodological challenge, and even as an ethical imperative. This chapter proceeds on the understanding that each of these has a bearing on the other, whilst explorations of each and all contribute to the ongoing task of refining conceptual understandings of ‘indifference to religion’.

Vehicles of New Atheism: The Atheist Bus Campaign, Non-religious Representations and Material Culture

What unites New Atheist contributions in a single culture is their shared radical secularist critique of religion, made on philosophical or moral grounds. Discussion of New Atheism typically focuses on these intellectual aspects, attending to their coherence and impact. This chapter shifts attention from the ideal to the physical, demonstrating how New Atheism and related atheist cultural movements have impacted upon and worked through material environments. I argue that detailed analysis of the media via which New Atheist ideas are communicated reveals impacts and legacies that might otherwise be ignored. The Atheist Bus Campaign is used as a case study. This campaign has attracted much attention, focusing again on its intellectual and activist elements: the intentions behind it, the ideas expressed in it. In addition to this, however, the materiality of the campaign has shaped its impact and set its course in sometimes unexpected directions. The case of the bus campaign illustrates a broader argument that an investigation of the impact and legacy of New Atheism must look not only to its intellectual content but also to the social and cultural vehicles of that content and to their movement through time and space.

Introduction: Pluralism and Plurality

-- Aurelia Bardon, Maria Birnbaum, Lois Lee, Kristina Stoeckl – Introduction -- I – What is religious pluralism? 1. Elise Roumeas – What is Religious Pluralism? 2. John Wolfe Ackerman – Political-Theological Pluralism 3. Alberta Giorgi & Luca Ozzano – Italy and Controversies around Religion-Related Issues: Overemphasizing Differences 4. Milda Alisauskien? – What and Where is Religious Pluralism in Lithuania? 5. Agnieszka Pasieka – Religious Pluralism and Lived Religion: an Anthropological Perspective 6. Sebastian Rudas Neyra – Two Uses of “Laicidad” 7. Garvan Walshe & Stephen de Wijze – Civility within Conflict: Managing Religious Pluralism -- II – Pluralism and the Freedom of religion 8. Stijn Smet – Conscientious Objection to Same-Sex Marriages and Partnerships: The Limits of Toleration in Pluralistic Liberal Democracies 9. Eileen Barker – Freedom for Me and, Perhaps, You – but Surely Not Them? Attitudes to New Religions in Contemporary Democracies 10. Anna Blijdenstein – Egalitarian Theories of Religious Freedom and the Black Box of Religion 11. Dara Salam – Religious Exemptions and Freedom of Conscience 12. Volker Kaul – Is Religious Pluralism Simply a Matter of Justice? -- III – Disagreements, Differences and Public Justification 13. Anja Hennig – Habermas’s Translation Proviso and Conservative Religious Actors in the Public Sphere 14. Marthe Kerkwijk – Lost in Translation: A Critique on Habermas’s “Translation Proviso” 15. Bouke de Vries – Liberal Justificatory Neutrality and Mandatory Vaccination Schemes 16. Nemanja Todorovic – Respect for Persons and the Restricted Use of Religious Reasons in Public Justification 17. Ulrike Spohn – Challenging the Topos of “Religion and Violence” in Liberal Political Theory

Religious pluralism : a resource book

-- Aurelia Bardon, Maria Birnbaum, Lois Lee, Kristina Stoeckl – Introduction -- I – What is religious pluralism? 1. Elise Roumeas – What is Religious Pluralism? 2. John Wolfe Ackerman – Political-Theological Pluralism 3. Alberta Giorgi & Luca Ozzano – Italy and Controversies around Religion-Related Issues: Overemphasizing Differences 4. Milda Alisauskien? – What and Where is Religious Pluralism in Lithuania? 5. Agnieszka Pasieka – Religious Pluralism and Lived Religion: an Anthropological Perspective 6. Sebastian Rudas Neyra – Two Uses of “Laicidad” 7. Garvan Walshe & Stephen de Wijze – Civility within Conflict: Managing Religious Pluralism -- II – Pluralism and the Freedom of religion 8. Stijn Smet – Conscientious Objection to Same-Sex Marriages and Partnerships: The Limits of Toleration in Pluralistic Liberal Democracies 9. Eileen Barker – Freedom for Me and, Perhaps, You – but Surely Not Them? Attitudes to New Religions in Contemporary Democracies 10. Anna Blijdenstein – Egalitarian Theories of Religious Freedom and the Black Box of Religion 11. Dara Salam – Religious Exemptions and Freedom of Conscience 12. Volker Kaul – Is Religious Pluralism Simply a Matter of Justice? -- III – Disagreements, Differences and Public Justification 13. Anja Hennig – Habermas’s Translation Proviso and Conservative Religious Actors in the Public Sphere 14. Marthe Kerkwijk – Lost in Translation: A Critique on Habermas’s “Translation Proviso” 15. Bouke de Vries – Liberal Justificatory Neutrality and Mandatory Vaccination Schemes 16. Nemanja Todorovic – Respect for Persons and the Restricted Use of Religious Reasons in Public Justification 17. Ulrike Spohn – Challenging the Topos of “Religion and Violence” in Liberal Political Theory