True and Useful Generalizations About Agnosticism in 700 Words or Less

Earlier I discussed a reporter who asked for abut a sound-bite about “religion” in the south—and how this led to “True and Useful Generalizations About US Religion in 1000 Words or Less.” Today I had a query about “agnosticism in the south”: what this is, how prevalent it is, whom it might “turn away from religion." Here's my response.

Dear [reporter],

It is almost impossible to give precise short answers to your questions about trends in agnosticism because the definitions of the words are so tricky. Everybody is agnostic about something!  Also, the lines between “religious,” “secular,” and “spiritual but not religious” (SBNR) are immensely slippery—no one agrees on how to draw them.

If you mean agnostic in a sense of being unwilling to embrace doctrinal and/or political claims of the loudest conservative religious voices in the south (mainly Protestant, partly Catholic)—then, yes, we can find a generational trend of increases in this direction. The relevant chapters in Robert Putnam's book American Grace summarize the issues nicely.

But it is hard to measure how much this reflects an absolute rise in agnosticism, as opposed to how it has become fashionable in many circles to speak openly about longstanding passive doubts. Likely there is some of both.

We can measure part of the trend as a rise of people who tell pollsters they are SBNR or say “none” when asked about religious affiliations. However, most “nones” are not agnostic about gods/spirituality/etc. It's more that they don’t identify with conservative churches. I wrote here and here about how the common wisdom about spirituality among scholars and pundits is badly muddled.

Meanwhile religion is about far more than saying yes or no to doctrines. It is about social alliances, learned assumptions not least about sexuality, and more. One might believe firmly in God but be agnostic about “god hates gays” teachings—this is a strong trend in middle-of-the-road Christianity—or be agnostic about God while falling in line with conservative church teachings hostile to LGBTQ’s. Which is more important? Both are about religion.

Scholars agree that much of the trend of people breaking with conservative churches—more pronounced in each recent generation—is due to disenchantment or downright disgust with their leaders’ alliances with Republican elites from Nixon and Reagan through to Trump. For example, the understandable LGBTQ hostility to “Christians” (here I suggest “dominant conservative Christians”) is related to this alliance. Similar trends of alienation are relevant for other groups and issues. In fact, churches overall have probably been less bad on LGBTQ issues (where one can easily find liberal Christian allies in most places) than on issues like climate change or militarism where religious liberals are notoriously wishy-washy.

Of course conservative churches are a numerical majority in the south, and they have leveraged this into a supermajority in journalistic common sense about “who speaks for the Christians.” However, at least a third of all Christians, although maybe somewhat fewer in the south, are fairly liberal. Some are on the radical left. This includes emphatically non-marginal voices such as Barack Obama—it's not a small shrinking group.

(Think for a minute about popular music. I hate far more than two-thirds of all hip-hip—let’s say I’m “agnostic” about its value—yet I love the best hip-hop. A quarter of all hip-hop artists or Christian congregations is a lot if you think about it that way.)

One reason that “agnostic” is slippery is that people from the left-liberal third of Christianity (and, of course, many more who practice non-Christian religions) make a virtue of being incredulous (beyond "agnostic!") about conservative Christian doctrine. In turn conservative Christians often label all liberals apostates. But many such liberals would simply call themselves thoughtful Christians—in some cases “secular Christians” or even “Christian atheists.” One of my favorite books of Christian theology, Dorothee Soelle’s Theology for Skeptics, is overtly agnostic about doctrinal claims for the existence of a God “out there," as conceived by more conservative parts of the tradition. She harshly criticizes fundamentalists as “Christofascists" who betray the strengths of the tradition.

The sort of atheist critiques propounded by Sam Harris are almost entirely irrelevant to Soelle’s left-activist version of religion.

Many people who practice left-liberal religions are LGBTQ themselves or reasonably good allies, although this varies from place to place. It is crucial not to paint this issue monolithically—whether we're discussing “rappers” who of course may be homophobic or “Christians” who fall along a wide spectrum. A good stance to take in this regard is being "agnostic" in the sense being open-minded while inquiring into cases—although not in the sense of probable hostility to monolithic "religion."

I hope this helps. You might also like to look at this short essay I wrote about trends in southern religion. This discusses where the "spiritual" fit within a bigger picture, and there is a sense in which I wrote there about Christian denominations in a frame related to what I've just written here about agnosticism. In both cases, many of the best questions cut across the categories.

All best wishes,

Mark