DSC - SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION

INTERNAL ASSESSMENT

Vaishali Chaudhary
22/0338

Question:

How does sociology of religion look at atheism?

Answer:

The study of religion's place in society is known as sociology of religion. It investigates the ways
in which institutions, social structures, and norms both impact and are influenced by religion.
Sociologists of religion research issues like religious practices, institutions, and beliefs as well
as how they affect people individually and in groups. Before delving into the aspect of atheism
under sociology of religion, it is important to understand the trajectory of the evolution of the
discipline itself. I will start this answer by giving a brief introduction about the sociology of
religion taking reference from Grace Davie’s “The evolution of the sociology of religion” as well
as Schaffner and Cragun’s essay on “Non-religion and atheism”. The aim of this answer is to
understand the sociological perspective surrounding the concept of atheism.

From the early days of the development and beginning of the discipline of sociology, the idea of
religion was something primarily in focus of the founding fathers (Karl marx, Max weber and
Emile durkheim). But before the necessity of the sociological study of religion was recognized,
the importance of religion for human life was long taken for granted. Grace Davie in her essay
on the evolution of the discipline stated how there were different perceptions of the study of
religion in different parts of the world. The realization of the importance of religion was it integral
part of the society. The three founding fathers of sociology had their own understanding of
religion and its implications in the modern world. Karl Marx, Weber and Dukheim approached
religion through various perspectives under the discipline of sociology. Nonetheless, their
common goal was to come to an understanding of this realm of “religion” in human society and
figure out its functions. Emile Durkheim was the first person to have his own definition of
religion. He defined religion as “a unifying system of beliefs and practises, relative to sacred
things, that is to say, things which are set apart and forbidden - beliefs and practises, which unit
into one single moral community called Church, all those who adhere to them.” Davie through
her essay lays down the trajectory and evolutionary aspect of the sociology of religion. As time
passes by, new theories and ideas emerge under it, which tries to give a new perspective to the
relationship between the idea of religion and human society.
As stated by Durkheim in his definition, religion doesn’t only include the “sacred”, but also the
“profane”. What is of great sociological importance is the understanding of religion studies
encompassing not just the conventional practices, acts and religious functions performed in the
society, but also paying equal attention on the non-religious aspect too. This non religious
aspect of the discipline of sociology of religion is what is commonly referred to as “atheism”.

Atheism is a fundamental topic in the sociology of religion, offering insights into the evolving
religious landscape and the complexity of human belief systems. By examining the diverse
nature of atheistic worldviews, the impact of secularization, the formation of atheist
communities, and the challenges faced by non-believers, sociologists contribute to a richer
understanding of the role of atheism in modern society.

Someone who disputes or does not believe in God's existence is known as an atheist. It is
challenging to define atheism because of the wide variety of subtleties that the term seems to
include. Atheism is essentially understood as unbelief, regardless of whether it originates from
deliberate denial or from a real or perceived vacuum, and whether it is consequently "positive"
or "negative." However, this simply serves to further complicate the issue at hand: how can a
history or sociology of the "negative" be created? If atheism—situated as it is under the banner
of privacy—is merely the antithesis of belief, then only belief itself can be viewed positively.
Atheism is thus an integral part of a system organized around a central reference to a religion
which exhausts the concept of belief. Ultimately, any sociology of atheism is a sociology of
religion.

Caleb Schaffner and Ryan T. Cragun are sociologists who are well known for their work on
topics, such as religion, secularism and atheism. In order to better understand the concept of
atheism, I will take references from one of the essays written by Schaffner and Cragun on “Non
religion and atheism”. “Non-religion and atheism” is a topic that explores the concept of
non-religious worldviews, particularly atheism. Schaffner and Cragun’s essay likely delves into
the nature of non-religious identity, the reasons people choose to identify as atheists or as
having no religious affiliation, and the implications of non-religion in contemporary society. The
answer following would mainly discuss how these scholars understood the concept of atheism
and through interview and survey based research tried to establish the relationship between
atheist dogmatism, childhood religiosity and religious ethnocentrism.

Atheism, according to Schaffner and Cragun, does not have a concrete definition but rather is
different to different people. There is also no consensus about the epistemological belief to be a
genuine atheist. The general belief of atheism as ‘a lack of deity’ reflects the idea of ‘negative
atheism’ as opposed to the idea of ‘a god does not exist’ in positive atheism. Positive atheism is
an increasing phenomenon especially in the modern western world. In their essay, Schaffner
and Cragun aims to understand the following things-
 1. How certain atheists are in their new belief system? In other words, how dogmatic
atheists are.
2. Does the dogmatic religion of a person has a bearing on the individual being dogmatic
and adopting a new belief system in terms of religiosity?
3. Does higher levels of childhood religiosity result in lower levels of atheist dogmatism?

In order to obtain the answers of these questions, Schaffner and Cragun gained data from 201
surveys and 50 semi-structured interviews (roughly 20-70 minutes each) with the Chicagoland
atheists who had exited religion. The aim of the study was to understand and highlight the
complexities and variations when it comes to studying atheism and understanding its relations
with the broader studies of religion in sociology.

As mentioned already, not all atheists understand atheism to mean the same thing. Schaffner
and Cragun highlights the controversy in defining atheism, which was also reflected in the
interview answers. The major aspect of the confusion was between understanding of atheism
and agnosticism. Atheism and agnosticism are related but hold distinct positions on the belief in
the existence of deities or gods. Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of deities. Atheists
typically assert that there is insufficient evidence to support the belief in gods and, as a result,
they do not hold such beliefs. Agnosticism, on the other hand, is a position that concerns
knowledge rather than belief. Agnostics claim that the existence of gods or deities is
unknowable or that there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other. They neither
affirm nor deny the existence of gods, emphasizing the limits of human knowledge.

The survey participants identified themselves as having one of the 4 epistemological stances on
the existence of a deity. The 4 positions are-
1. Positive atheists
2. Hard agnostics
3. Soft agnostics
4. Apathetic atheists

What these 4 groups differ on was their reasoning and justification when it comes to the idea of
‘leaving religion’. The 4 stances reflect the conflicting and opposing views to the common theme
of concern about god or religious dogma. One participant viewed ‘atheism as a religion’ in itself.
To be a part of a religion, one needs to have ‘faith’ in the existence of god. Thus, faith in the lack
of god means that atheism is considered to be a religious category, distinct from agnostics.
However, opposing views were also reflected in some of the interviews. A different type of
reasoning emerged, contemplating that since it is not possible to prove the existence of a
negative, all atheists are essentially agnostics. Schaffener and Cragun also came across such
atheists who are totally unconcerned about the whole idea of whether or not a deity exists. Such
group of people are epistemologically apathetic and consider themselves as what the scholars
term ‘functional atheists’.

What this essentially reflects is the whole point that atheism isn't a single, fixed and uniform
idea. It is rather based on being variable and lacking uniformity even within the community that
identifies itself as ‘atheists’. Their conviction of the new belief system is different in each case,
ranging from faint ideas to hard denials regarding the existence of god, religious ideas and
beliefs.

Moving forward to the findings regarding dogmatism , there were instances of phases where the
participants, after leaving religion, went into the phase of exploration and research regarding
joining another religion or multiple religions. Eventually, all respondents reached a level of
certainty that no religion is satisfactory and no argument could persuade them of the existence
of any deity. In understanding the ‘atheist dogmatism’, individuals must be confident enough in
their disbelief to discount any possibility of amending some of the most central convictions in
oder to return to theism. For some atheists, there is a possibility of reverting back to religion,
pointing out that their identity isn’t permanent but rather capable of changing.

Schaffner and Cragun also wanted to focus on understanding the potential correlation between
childhood religiosity and atheistic dogmatism, taking reference from Alemeyer’s suggestions.
The emphasis was placed on measuring: religiosity in one’s childhood and how ethnocentric or
exclusive one’s childhood religion was. Out of both (childhood religiosity and religious
ethnocentrism) only religious ethnocentrism behaved according to altemeyer’s predictions,
exhibiting a positive correlation. This meant that childhood religiosity had no such valuable
impact on atheist dogmatism and the relation between religious ethnocentrism and childhood
religiosity is nuanced. What both scholars found in the interviews was that those raised with
more negative view of other religions maintained a stricter ethnocentrism and exclusion, leaving
them less scope to amending their future. What their interview data suggests is that ones raised
with these strong distinctions carries over these beliefs even as they switch religious groups.

Therefore, according to Schaffner and Cragun, the answers of the three questions as stated in
the beginning is as follows:

1. How certain atheists are in their new belief system? In other words, how dogmatic
atheists are.
- atheism isn't a single, fixed and uniform idea. It is rather based on being variable and
lacking uniformity even within the community that identifies itself as ‘atheists’. Their
conviction of the new belief system is different in each case, ranging from faint ideas to
hard denials regarding the existence of god, religious ideas and beliefs.

2. Does the dogmatic religion of a person have a bearing on the individual being dogmatic
and adopting a new belief system in terms of religiosity?
- while the dogmatic nature of an individual’s current religious beliefs can influence their
openness to adopting a new belief system, it is not the sole determining factor. Personal,
cultural, and social factors, as well as the individual’s personality and experiences of
childhood and religious ethnocentrism , all play roles in shaping a person’s religiosity and
their willingness to consider new perspectives.
 3. Does higher levels of childhood religiosity result in lower levels of atheist dogmatism?
- Schaffner and Cragun concludes that the degree of confidence that atheists exhibit in
their new worldview varies and appears to have some connection with childhood
religiosity, even if the relationship is not very strong.

Thus, in this answer, I present to you the discourse of the Sociology of religion and the pathway
of the concept of ‘atheism’ under it. With the introduction and foundations laid by the founding
fathers of sociology, it has made the modern day scholars like Schaffner and Cragun delve
deeper into the question of atheism and its correlations with dogmatism, religiosity and religious
ethnocentrism. As rightly said, scholars are just beginning to explore the process of leaving
religion in general and in order to have a better understanding, they need better ways of
measuring and incorporating other means of understanding and evaluating the effects of
atheism in relations to human society.