Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America's Nonbelievers

This work focuses not so much on what atheism is or why one should (or shouldn't) be one, which is the concern of practically all other literature on the subject, but on how atheists, as a demographic, think and feel compared to agnostics, religious fundamentalists, inactive believers, and the general public. In many ways, Altemeyer and Hunsberger found, atheists (and agnostics too) really are "different", and almost at a cognitive level--my choice of words, not theirs. I find that most of the book's results reinforce the feeling I've had for a long time that atheism is more a consequence, rather than a cause, of how one's mind apprehends the world. Particularly noteworthy are the authors' accounts of former devout believers who became atheists. It turns out there is a way to raise your children in a heavily God-and-Jesus-saturated household that will increase their risk of apostasy--and that way isn't what a deeply cynical person might suspect. In other words, parents don't drive their offspring from the faith through abuse or harassment; sadly, such treatment likely keeps them within the flock. The authors candidly admit that they were surprised by their own results multiple times. A lifelong atheist, I was at times as well. Are atheists more or less dogmatic than believers? More or less zealous? More or less ethnocentric? I reckon most folks, atheists and believers alike, feel confident they could make qualitative guesses about all of these. Hunsberger and Altemeyer show us data. Someone's bound to be disappointed, and others pleasantly surprised--and it's not always the same team that is vindicated in its prejudices. Atheists is pretty short--only about 150 pages, is engagingly, informally written and makes for a brisk read. For statistics and social science buffs, copious chapter endnotes open the authors' kimono regarding statistical significance, correlation, and alpha factors, so anyone who wants to attack their methodology had better have their skills sharp. Moreover, the authors spend the first third of Chapter 8 critiquing their own approach and pointing the way for future studies. One of my own concerns, about the hypotheticals they constructed to measure dogmatism in atheists and believers, was amply and eloquently addressed in the final chapter, in which atheist and humanist activists are given space to speak for themselves. Above all, I hear an imperfectly stifled cry for more, and better-funded, research on this subject. They're professors--can we expect any less? Hunsberger and Altemeyer disclose their religious orientations (or lack thereof), but first and foremost, I got an impression of earnest, honest scientists tackling what they feel to be an under-studied subject. And yet with all that, they find time to squeeze in a humorous aside or two. If you want a stuffy, pretentious, or doctrinaire treatment of atheists, you'll have to look elsewhere. I award the book four out of five stars because, like the authors, I wish the

The opinions of the other reviews here will give you a good idea of what this book is about. I'll just add a few remarks/clarifications: The authors readily acknowledge that their samples are not necessarily representative of all American atheists, and their methods are limited (all involve written surveys). They see this as preliminary work. Fortunately, they provide detailed descriptions of their sample populations, and they reproduce all of the survey questions, so you can see for yourself and draw your own conclusions. The authors' "finding" that in some cases atheists can be more dogmatic than theists provides a good example of why this is important. In my opinion, their operant definition of "atheist dogmatism" and their method of testing for it is questionable, but you can examine the whole thing and decide for yourself. I was particularly intrigued by a concept discussed late in the book -- an idea not brought up in any of the reviews here. The concept is authoritarianism, discussed here as mode of thinking, an element of social psychology, rather than as an aspect of political systems or of a particular government. In other words, authoritarianism in this sense is not necessarily a particular government's overextension of authority and power at the expense of individual rights, but the degree to which individuals are inclined to accept certain assertions simply because they emanate from some source of authority, whether it be an elected official, an expert or respected leader, the police, the Bible, or whatever. One of the authors has done considerable research on authoritarianism and considers general attitudes about authority to be a more useful explanation for some of their research results than whether the respondents were theist or atheist. And I think the concept might often provide more useful insight into the behavior of our electorate than the more common characterizations of liberal vs. conservative.

This survey research is not based on a scientific sample. Atheists are few, so that it is not possible to draw a random sample to interview. The authors have to rely on the membership of atheist clubs in San Francisco, in Idaho, and in Alabama. So we only learn about active atheists, who are members of atheist organizations. The authors also sort their psychology students into "raised in religion" and "raised secular." From interviews with the parents they can draw some insights about the differences between believers and unbelievers. We learn a lot about real atheists. Most of all that many did not grow up secular but were raised in the Church. The majority left the Christian religion because the church, the bible and the teachings made no rational sense. The world simply is not as religion describes it, nor does god appear to exist. Most unbelievers (96%) have no doubt about atheism, in contrast 33 percent of Christian admit to some doubt about their god. This book is a realistic assessment of atheists. You have to work through the survey, the questions, the measuring scales, and the results. The authors descriptions and conclusions are clear, brief and to the point.

I highly recommend, "Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America's Nonbelievers." Though the authors readily admit that the study provides a much less than adequate statistical sample of atheists, still it is a start in trying to understand the attitudes, histories, and concerns of atheists in America. The book does not attempt to either endorse or remonstrate against atheism as a personal perspective which is handled by many others recent authors. If you are interested in people and how they think and see themselves against what they perceive as a hostel environment full of irrational religious people, this is a good addition to your library.

Hunsberger is one of the few researchers to look deeply into the soul (or should I say mind?) of an atheist, and what his studies show will be both pleasing and disturbing to nonbelievers and believers alike. First, let's make one thing perfectly clear. Surveys show that atheists are the most disliked people who log into the American debates on religion, so much so that it will be hard for any researcher to accurately guage the attidutes of the ordinary American disbeliever. But Hunsberger, who is highly respected for his research on right-wing authoritarianism, comes to some fairly high and complimentary conclusions, and he does this by studying 253 "active" atheists who are affiliated with atheist clubs in the San Francisco area. He compares these politically motivated protectors of our separation-of-church-from-state laws with a small group of 28 atheists belonging to clubs in Alabama and Idaho and to an equally small group of "ordinary" atheists and fundamentalists in Canada. Of the active atheists, he found with great surprise that they can be as dogmatic and close-minded as the staunchest bible-thumping Protestant. Of course, it isn't surprising that members at opposite ends of any religious, philosophical, scientific, or political belief system would tend to dismiss those who strongly disagree with them (in Andrew Newberg's new book, WHY WE BELIEVE WHAT WE BELIEVE, he does the first brain scan study on an atheist, showing biological evidence that the contemplation upon opposing beliefs causes neurological dissonance in the frontal lobes, where logic and conscious reasoning occur). However, they are far less authoritarian than fundamentalists, and far more likely to encourage a wider variety of religious beliefs throughout the world. They have less racial and ethnic prejudice when compared to agnostics, non-church-going believers, and fundamentalists. More than 70% of the fundamentalists expressed hostility toward homosexuals but I was dismayed that nearly a third of the atheist group did the same (they were only slightly less hostile than agnostics). Atheists, however were far less interested in converting other people to their way of thinking than fundamentalists, who believed that Christian beliefs should be taught in American schools, but didn't believe that Muslim beliefs should be taught in Middle-Eastern schools. Hmm, a little hypocritical, yes? This short and humorous book (Hunsberger does a wonderful job of not burdening the reader with statistical academia) explores how and why some people gravitate towards atheism, and surmises that ordinary atheists resist abuses of governmental power, believe in less harsh punishments for wrong-doers, show more integrity in their thinking than the average individual, and are relatively unprejudiced. Not bad for the most despised (non)religious group in America!