Neglecting the ‘nots’ in the Northwest: Irreligion as a facet of the study of religion

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion
Rochester, New York, November, 2005

© Frank L. Pasquale, Ph.D. (flpasquale@comcast.net)

Abstract: A recent volume on Religion & Public Life in the Pacific Northwest: The None Zone is
approached as a case study in research on religion (and irreligion). The editors and contributors,
scholars in religion, history, and sociology, set out to depict the religious terrain of the Northwest. This
is characterized as the most unchurched and religiously unaffiliated region in the United States. The
volume’s focus on religion, however, is defined in such a way that a substantially irreligious component
in the regional culture is excluded from consideration. “Nones” and “seculars” are characterized as
innovative seekers of the “sacred” and “spiritual.” This view is, however, incomplete. Evidence of
“nones” and secular philosophical organizations in the region that substantially eschew the “religious,”
“sacred,” or “spiritual” does not appear. The degree to which this approach is representative of religion
research and the social sciences in general is considered. Implications for the language and concepts
used to frame the study of “religion” are suggested.

There have been many conceptual, theoretical, historical, apologetic, critical, polemic,
and philosophical treatments of “unbelief,” “irreligion,” and related topics. Direct empirical
studies, however, are comparatively few—a fact that has been noted repeatedly (e.g., Vernon,
1968; Campbell, 1972; Caporale, 1971; Schumaker, 1993; Hunsberger, Pratt, and Pancer, 1996;
Bainbridge, 2005). There are numerous reviews of empirical research on religion, the religious,
and religiosity, but it is notable that there is no comprehensive summary of what available data
do and do not reveal about the nature, antecedents, and correlates of affirmatively
“nonreligious” or “irreligious” worldviews.
Irreligion will be defined here as substantial or affirmative absence or rejection of
religious ideas, institutions, and associated behavior (where religion is defined substantively
with reference to matters theistic or theological, transcendental, or supernatural).1 Related
domains have included religious doubt, skepticism, disbelief, unbelief, non-belief, skepticism,
freethought, atheism, agnosticism, rationalism, philosophical naturalism, and (secular)
humanism, among others. Those who are substantially or affirmatively irreligious, in such
senses, will be referred to summarily as the nots.
In the middle decades of last century, widespread expectation of inexorable
secularization, or the retreat of religion and religiosity in “modernizing” societies, prompted a
flurry of exploratory treatments of irreligion, unbelief, and related topics in psychology,
sociology, and the study of religion (e.g., Marty, 1961 and 1964; Demerath and Thiessen, 1966;

1
Demerath, 1969 a and b; Caporale and Grumelli, 1971; Campbell, 1972 and 1977; Vrcan,
1972). Most of this work was conceptual and theoretical rather than empirical. Moreover, this
never developed into a sustained or coherent line of inquiry.
Amid religious resurgence in recent decades, particularly in the U. S., attention to a
sociology of irreligion or psychology of unbelief has further waned from an already negligible
level. Studies continue to appear intermittently (Jagodzinski and Greeley, 2001; Bainbridge,
2005). Data of varying relevance are embedded in survey research (e.g., Gallup, Pew, Barna,
ARIS, GSS) and studies of religiosity or secularization (e.g., Norris and Inglehart, 2004; Smith
and Denton, 2005). And directional or suggestive data can be culled from research on “nones,”
the “unchurched,” and “apostates.” However, empirical research bearing directly on irreligion
or the irreligious (as phenomena in their own right rather than as negative measures of the
prevalence of religiosity) is quite limited in the behavioral and social sciences and in the
scientific study of religion, particularly in the United States. Caporale’s observation in 1971 of
an “appalling lack of empirical data on unbelief and. . .ignorance of what really obtains in the
world of the proverbial man in the street” is echoed in 2005 by Bainbridge, who noted that

[w]e know surprisingly little about Atheism from a social-scientific perspective.

One would think that it would have been studied extensively in comparison with
religiosity, but this is not the case. Historical studies exist (Campbell 1972;
Turner 1985), chiefly written within the history of ideas, and there is a fairly
large and disputatious literature in which Atheists and their opponents argue
matters of belief. But systematic attempts to understand Atheism as a social or
psychological phenomenon, employing rigorous theory and quantitative
research methods, have been rare. (2005: 1)

Here, a recent edited volume, Religion & Public Life in the Pacific Northwest: The
None Zone (Killen and Silk, 2004), is approached as a case study in the comparative neglect of
irreligion. The ways in which irreligion is treated in one of the most highly unchurched regions
of the U. S. offers insights into reasons for empirical neglect elsewhere in the behavioral and
social sciences and the scientific study of religion, and what may be required to rectify this.
Religion and Public Life in the Northwest: The None Zone2 is one of eight volumes in
a “Religion by Region Series.” The stated purpose of the volume is to describe “how religion
shapes, and is being shaped by, regional culture” in the Northwest (2004: 5).

2
 The volume begins with the observation that

[t]he defining feature of religion in the Pacific Northwest is that most of the
population is ‘unchurched.’ Fewer people in Oregon, Washington, and
Alaska affiliate with a religious institution than in any other region of the
United States. More people here claim ‘none’ when asked their religious
identification than in any other region of the United States. And, unlike
any other region, the single largest segment of the Pacific Northwest’s
population is composed of those who identify with a religious tradition but
have no affiliation with a religious community.
What’s more, this is not a late-breaking trend. The Pacific Northwest has
pretty much always been this way, to the longstanding frustration and
bewilderment of its religious leaders. (Killen, 2004: 9)

Data are drawn from the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS, 2001) and
the Polis Center at Indiana University (based on the North American Religious Atlas and the
Glenmary Research Center’s Religious Congregations and Membership Survey, 2000). These
indicate that in Alaska, Oregon, and Washington, 30.6 percent of the population are “No
Religion/Humanist” and 62.8 percent are religiously “Unaffiliated/Uncounted” (2004: 22-23).
These are substantially higher than national figures (at 19.6 and 40.6 percent, respectively).
The Northwest is characterized as an “open religious environment” with “four clusters
of religious communities” (Killen, 2004: 10, 14). These are:
1) “mainline Protestants, Catholics, and Reform and Conservative Jews”
2) “sectarian entrepreneurs” including “some older evangelical denominations and
newer post-denominational groups”
3) “people of the Pacific Rim” including Native Americans and immigrants from
Oceania and Asia, and
4) “the ‘secular but spiritual,’” constituting “most of the region’s population” and
including two groups:
a) “individuals who identify with a religious tradition but do not belong to one of
its congregations,” and
b) “the ‘Nones’ proper, those who in response to the question ‘What is your
religious tradition, if any?’ answer ‘None’” (Killen, 2004: 14-17).

3
 With respect to the two subgroups in category 4, it is stated that

[n]either group is without religion. Even among the ‘Nones,’ only a small
minority identify as atheist or agnostic. In fact, the vast majority of ‘Nones’
claim beliefs and attitudes more like than unlike those of persons inside
churches,
synagogues, temples, and mosques. (Killen, 2004: 17)

Chapters in The None Zone detail “mainline,” marginal, Pacific Rim, and “sectarian
entrepreneurial” religious forms down to individual groups, congregations, and “entrepreneurs.”
But with respect to those who profess no religious identity or affiliation, we learn only that
“most ‘Nones’ in the Northwest and elsewhere are spiritually inclined, despite lacking
meaningful ties to an established religious tradition” (Killen and Shibley, 2004: 41).
In a chapter titled “Secular but Spiritual in the Pacific Northwest,” sociologist Mark
Shibley questions whether it can “be assumed that people in the Pacific Northwest are less
religious than other Americans?” His answer is: “Maybe not. Perhaps religious matters are
simply experienced and expressed differently in this region” (Shibley, 2004: 139).

While many Northwesterners are institutionally unencumbered, there is no

reason
to believe they are a-spiritual. Most people in the region who claim no religious
preference (one-quarter of the region’s residents) and who do not appear on
church rolls (a majority of the population) are, it can be argued, secular but
spiritual. They encounter the sacred and cultivate spiritual lives outside
mainstream religious institutions. (Shibley, 2004: 141)

Shibley goes on to document signs of alternative religious and spiritual pathways,

interests, and definitions of the “sacred” in the region. He cites, for example, signs of
popularity in the region of books on “new spirituality,” “New Age,” metaphysical practices,
and astrology, the presence of spiritualistic organizations and networks (e.g., Wiccan, neo-
pagan, and other “earth-based religions”), and related public events. He also considers the
religious attributes of “apocalyptic, anti-government millennialist” groups, such as “the Aryan

4
Nations, Christian Patriots, the Militia” and other survivalist groups that seem to thrive, in small
but determined numbers, in the region. The strong cultural and political focus on ecology and
environmentalism in the region is characterized in “spiritual” terms, as “nature religion” or
“religious environmentalism.” Shibley devotes more than a third of the chapter to the topic,
stating that

[m]uch contemporary environmentalism in the Northwest is a religious system,

not simply because it is sometimes dogmatic and moralistic but rather because
its rituals and core beliefs distinguish between things sacred (wilderness) and
things profane (all else, including people). (2004: 157)

The resulting picture is that of a region characterized by a significant presence of people

with no religious preference or affiliation, yet virtual absence of substantially or affirmatively
non- or irreligious individuals. Rather, those who indicate no religious preference (the nones)
are characterized as variously “spiritual” and in pursuit of “the sacred” in highly personal,
idiosyncratic, or “entrepreneurial” ways. The irreligious in the Northwest are consigned to
passing references to the fact that nones are not generally “atheists or agnostics.”
There is little question that many or most individuals who indicate “no religious
preference” in surveys are religious3 to one degree, or in one sense, or another, even when
religion is defined substantively rather than functionally. This has long been known and
repeatedly documented (e.g., Vernon, 1968; Kosmin and Lachman, 1993; Keysar, Mayer, and
Kosmin, 2003; Hout and Fischer, 2003). There is also little question that much can be learned
by viewing substantially secular movements and themes in Northwest regional culture (such as
environmentalism) in terms of substantive or institutional religion.
What is notable by its complete absence in The None Zone, however, is any
consideration of resident nots on (or in) their own terms—those in the Pacific Northwest who
are substantially or affirmatively “secular,” “nonreligious,” or “irreligious,” and who shy from
the “holy,” “divine,” “sacred,” “spiritual,” or “transcendental.” This might be attributed to the
fact that
The None Zone is specifically concerned with “religion and public life” in the region,
and is part of a “religion by region” series. If religion is defined narrowly, inattention to
irreligion is understandable. But religion is not defined so narrowly here. Environmentalism,
survivalism, anti-governmentalism, white supremacists, and virtually any degree or form of

5
spirituality, secular or supernatural, falls within its compass. Moreover, the volume’s subtitle,
“The None Zone,” would tend to lead readers to expect a full understanding of what “None”
means in the region. Not so, however. This oversight is particularly notable in a consideration
of the region with the lowest levels of religious adherence, affiliation, or identification in the
United States, a fact that is repeatedly acknowledged. In The None Zone, we are presented a
broadly religious cultural construction of the Pacific Northwest, but with a curious blind spot.4
Signs of irreligion in the Northwest. Indications of substantial or affirmative
irreligion in the Pacific Northwest are not negligible. Shibley reports (based on ARIS,
2001data) that 34 percent of nones in the Northwest characterize themselves as “somewhat
religious” or “religious” (2004: 203). This leaves 66 percent who consider themselves
“somewhat secular” or “secular.” Sixty-seven percent “agree somewhat” or “agree strongly”
that “God exists.” This leaves 33 percent who “disagree somewhat” or “strongly” that “God
exists.” Sixty-nine percent “agree somewhat” or “strongly” that “God performs miracles,”
leaving 31 percent who disagree. Based on an estimate of 2.4 million nones in Oregon,
Washington, and Alaska5 (defined in The None Zone as the Pacific Northwest), this means that
an estimated 1.6 million consider themselves “secular” rather than “religious,” 800,000 disagree
somewhat or strongly that “God exists,” and 750,000 disagree that “God performs miracles.”
As Shibley notes, “secular” does not necessarily mean “not spiritual,” variously defined.
However, data from the General Social Survey (NORC, 2005) indicate that 31.2 percent of
nones in the United States consider themselves “not spiritual” (with an additional 29.7 percent
reporting in as “slightly spiritual,” whatever this might mean6). The percentage of nones who
are “not spiritual” is virtually the same as those who “don’t believe in God” (13.8 percent) or
“don’t know if there is a God and. . . don’t think there is any way to find out” (18.7 percent).7
As other measures of (ir)religiosity suggest, numbers in the Pacific Northwest may well be
higher than national estimates. But even at these levels, there are an estimated 750,000 nones in
Alaska, Oregon, and Washington who consider themselves “not spiritual,” and an equal number
who consider themselves a-theistic or agnostic.8 Other GSS data suggest that 61 percent of
nones consider themselves “not religious” 9 and 40 percent consider themselves “extremely” or
“very non-religious”10 (or 1.46 million and 960,000 Northwesterners, respectively).
National GSS data also indicate that substantial percentages of nones do not report a
variety of other religious beliefs or behaviors11:

Percentage of nones stating:

6
 No Never No, definitely not No, probably not

Belief in life after death 45.0

Belief in miracles 36.6 27.7
Belief in heaven 32.1 24.2
Belief in hell 39.6 25.5
Private prayer 50.0
Meditation 66.5

GSS data on measures of religiosity by geographical area are limited by small sample
sizes for the “Pacific” region.12 Further, “Pacific” includes populous California, whose
religious complexion is distinguishable from the Pacific Northwest. With these caveats in
mind, these data also suggest the presence of atheist, agnostic, nonreligious, and non-spiritual
residents:

Average Percentage Pacific

percentage of Pacific cell
across regions respondents size

Don’t believe in God (atheist) 2.5 3.7 41

No way to find out (agnostic) 4.0 5.8 63

Extremely non-religious 3.5 5.8 19

Very non-religious 4.4 5.6 20

Not spiritual 12.0 12.2 22

Slightly spiritual 25.7 28.7 52

Excluding California, Northwest respondents would likely yield even higher rates of
irreligiosity and non-spirituality.13
At least on the basis of self-description and reported beliefs and behavior, by no means
all Northwest nones or “seculars” or residents are “religious” or “spiritual.” Based on in-depth
interviews and participant observation being conducted by this author in the region, many
explicitly reject or find little personal meaning in notions of the “sacred,” “holy,” “divine,”
“transcendental,” or “spiritual.”14 Indeed, many make explicit reference to the perceived non-
religiosity of the Northwest as an attractive and comforting aspect of the regional culture.
Available data indicate that the majority of irreligious individuals are not affiliated with
organizations pertaining to explicitly irreligious philosophies or worldviews. In the Northwest,
as in the U. S. as a whole, only a very small percentage of nots are formally affiliated with

7
organizations that embrace or advocate irreligious worldviews.15 But there does exist an
institutional tip to this “iceberg” population, much like the outcroppings of religious and
“secular spirituality” identified by Shibley.
Alongside the neo-pagan collectives and variously-defined “spiritual” groups and
movements in the Northwest considered by Shibley are local and regional skeptical, humanist,
rationalist, freethought, atheist, and other secular or irreligious groups and societies. A
representative, but not exhaustive, 16 list of these includes:
 Corvallis Secular Society (Oregon)
 Humanist Association of Salem (Oregon)
 Humanists of Greater Portland (Oregon)
 Humanists of The Rogue Valley (Oregon)
 Kol Shalom, Community for Humanistic Judaism (Portland)
 Lane County Secular Society (Oregon)
 Oregonians for Rationality
 United States Atheists (Portland)
 Humanist Society of South Puget Sound (Washington)
 Humanists of North Puget Sound (Washington)
 Humanists of Washington (Seattle)
 Secular Jewish Circle of Puget Sound (Washington)
 The Society for Sensible Explanations (Washington)
 Inland Northwest Freethought Society (Spokane, Washington)
 and similar organizations on college and university campuses in the region,
such as Secular Student Associations,17 Campus Freethought Alliances (now
Center for Inquiry On Campus),18 and others.19

Numbers of active participants and names on membership lists are small (in the tens or
hundreds for each). But many of these organizations attract the occasional participation or
temporary involvement (e.g., at meetings, lectures, and special events) of many more
individuals who are not affiliated with organizations pertinent to their irreligious worldviews.20
Many of these organizations produce their own newsletters, hold regular meetings,
socialize and collaborate with other organizations, and engage in community initiatives and
social causes. Many sponsor lecture series on topics germane to their philosophies or
worldviews for members and the public. Some produce publications other than newsletters
(e.g., Humanism for Kids, Why Evolution?, and Stargazer magazine, focusing on humanistic
child-rearing and education, from the “Family of Humanists” in Salem, Oregon). One provides
psychological and counseling services tailored for the irreligious (“Humanist Counseling
Services” in Portland, Oregon, and SMART [Self-Management And Recovery Training]
support groups for non-religious individuals struggling with alcoholism or other addictions—an

8
alternative to 12-Step programs involving surrender to a “higher power” with groups in Seattle,
Washington, as well).
Alongside the “Conversations with God” or pagan websites cited by Shibley are
websites for many of these local organizations. Additionally, relevant national websites and
chatrooms are frequented and mentioned by the affiliated irreligious in the region. Links for
many national websites are found on those of regional organizations. Some of these represent
national organizations with which local and regional groups are affiliated, or of which
Northwest nots are members (whether or not they participate in local groups). Again, a
representative but not exhaustive list includes:

 American Atheists
 American Humanist Association
 Atheistnet.com; Atheistsingles.com
 Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
(CSICOP)
 Council for Secular Humanism and the Center(s) for Inquiry
 Freedom from Religion Foundation
 Godless Americans Political Action Committee
 Infidels.org
 The Secular Web
 The Skeptic Society
 Society for Humanistic Judaism

Additionally, email and other Internet facilities are actively used media for conversation
and dissemination of information among individual nots, particularly in more remote areas with
limited population density such as Alaska (and British Columbia). Multiple postings and
exchanges occur daily among individuals in the region who describe themselves as atheist,
agnostic, skeptic, rationalist, nonreligious, secular, secular humanist, humanist, or “brights.”21
Alongside “Harmonic Convergence(s)” and pagan convocations cited by Shibley in the
Northwest, there are regional conferences, lecture series, cable access television talk-shows,22
and special events focusing on scientific, social, and political issues.23 A Northwest Secular
Symposium (June 22, 2002, in Portland; one of several held in the past decade) drew some 120
participants from Oregon, Washington, and Idaho (and featured a Philadelphia-based secular
activist, Margaret Downey, as keynote speaker). A regional meeting in Seattle (July 9-10,
2004) of the Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation drew some 150 participants
(with presentations by United States Representative, D-Washington, Jim McDermott, and
Saturday Night Live comedienne, Julia Sweeney).

9
 The scale of irreligious organizations and events is modest. This is more a measure of
the reluctance of irreligious individuals to affiliate specifically on the basis of their worldviews
than of their numbers (as indicated by the survey data cited earlier). Interviews and
observational research being conducted by this author in the region indicate that patterns of
social, organizational, and community engagement among the irreligious tend to be on a cause-
specific basis. Many are active in multiple organizations concerning a wide range of local,
national, and global issues of keen concern to them, but they are active as concerned citizens
rather than as irreligious persons.
The much larger population of nots who are unaffiliated with irreligious organizations
in the region is suggested by letters published in metropolitan newspapers (e.g., The Oregonian
in Portland, Seattle Times or Post-Intelligencer, the Vancouver, Washington, Columbian) by
readers who identify themselves as “humanist,” “secular,” or “nonreligious,” but whose names
do not appear on the membership rolls of relevant area organizations.24
An “Atheist/Humanist” section at Powell’s City of Books in Portland, Oregon, is a mere
three shelves compared with many aisles devoted to religion, the occult, New Age, spirituality,
and the like (cited by Shibley at the same store). However, there was sufficient demand to
warrant establishment of such a section within the past several years, and books move off these
shelves briskly.25 Such a section is no doubt rare in bookstores throughout the United States,
providing further indication of the existence and activity of the irreligious population in the
Pacific Northwest. Separately, the (nonreligious) “Philosophy” and “Ethics” sections at
Powell’s are large and well-trafficked.
There is, however, no reference to such book sections, organizations, networks,
meetings, websites, cable TV programs, publications, or events in The None Zone, to say
nothing of the greater number of irreligious non-affiliates. While this is particularly notable
with regard to the most “secular” region in the United States, it is hardly unique. Rather, this
may reflect a broader pattern in the behavioral and social sciences and the scientific study of
religion.
The place of irreligion in the social sciences. A fuller consideration of the treatment
of irreligion in the behavioral and social sciences may be found elsewhere (Pasquale, n.d.[a]).
Here, a few observations must suffice to indicate that the approach taken in The None Zone is
emblematic of, rather than unique in, the social sciences and the scientific study of religion.
The statements by Caporale and Bainbridge quoted at the outset of this paper can easily
be multiplied concerning the lack of direct empirical research on forms of substantial or

10
affirmative irreligion. One indication is to be found in the categorical structure of inquiry in the
social sciences and the scientific study of religion. For example, the first 20-year index (1961-
1981) of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion listed only 9 of 562 titles of varying
relevance to the irreligious, including “apostates” or “religious defectors,” “nones” or “non-
affiliates,” the “unchurched,” and “secularists.” Apart from “Secularization,” no summary
categories on irreligion or related concepts appeared. Rather, most of these studies appeared
under such categories as “Religiosity,” “Religious behavior,” and “Socioeconomic status and
religion.” References and index entries pertaining to irreligion (such as “atheism,”
“agnosticism,” “nonreligious,” “irreligious,” “naturalism,” “religious doubt” or “skepticism,”
“disbelief” or “unbelief”) are extremely rare in both mainstream texts and those devoted to
research on religion in the behavioral and social sciences.
There has been some increase in attention to topics such as the “unchurched,”
“apostates” (or religious “defection,” “disaffiliation,” or “switching”), “nones,” and religious
doubt in the past two decades. But direct focus on irreligious individuals and populations
continues to scant (whether unaffiliated with pertinent organizations or affiliated, unlabeled or
labeled—such as atheists, agnostics, religious skeptics, rationalists, humanists, and freethinkers,
among others). For example, of some 150 articles that appeared from 1989 to 2004 in the
annual publication, Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, one title referred to
“religious doubt” and another, to “belief and unbelief.” Additionally, one longitudinal study,
five articles on secularization, and twelve on religiosity provided data of varying relevance to
irreligion. Among the latter were three articles on religiosity and secularization in Europe that
indicated greater attention to atheist, agnostic, scientific, and other nonreligious worldviews
among European social scientists (Halman and Pettersen, 2001 and 2002; Billiet, et.al, 2003;
Dogan, 2003). Yet, in two articles concerning future directions for religion research, no
mention is made of irreligion or any related topic (Moberg, 2000; Dy-Liacco, et al. 2003).
Research on the “unchurched,” “apostates,” and “nones” may provide directional or
suggestive data about relatively less religious or “nonreligious” individuals. But each of these
categories includes substantively religious, as well as irreligious, individuals to varying degrees.
The substantially or affirmatively irreligious are embedded within these categories, and rarely
are they singled out for close scrutiny. A notable exception to this is the work of Bruce
Hunsberger and his Canadian colleagues, who, under the rubric of “apostasy” and “doubt,” have
provided valuable insights into substantially non/irreligious adolescents and young adults (e.g.,
Altemeyer and Hunsberger, 1997; Hunsberger, 1980 and 1983; Hunsberger, McKenzie, Pratt,

11
and Pancer, 1993; Hunsberger, Pratt, and Pancer, 2001and 2002). It is also notable that without
his contributions, the body of data on the non/irreligious summarized in perhaps the most
comprehensive review of empirical research to date in the psychology of religion would have
been substantially reduced (Spilka, Hood, Hunsberger, and Gorsuch, 2003).
Survey research on organized irreligious populations has been so rare that one of the
most frequently cited, still, is a survey of members of an atheist organization in the U. S.—
published in 1932 (Vetter and Green). One is hard-pressed to find systematic surveys of the
memberships of atheist, agnostic, humanist, secular humanist, rationalist, freethought, or other
irreligious organizations in the research literature. Shermer (2000) reported on a survey of the
membership of his Skeptic Society and Black (1983) makes reference to an Australian humanist
group’s self-assessment (which has proven virtually impossible to secure).
A handful of sociological analyses of contemporary irreligious organizations or
movements have appeared (e.g., Demerath and Thiessen, 1962; Demerath, 1969b; in Australia,
Black, 1983). But Demerath’s observation in 1969 that “there is little scholarly literature to
rely upon” concerning these phenomena, and that what there is tends to be “more historical than
sociological” remains true today. Campbell’s (1972, 1977) analysis of secularist and rationalist
movements in the U. S. and the U. K. remains a significant contribution to a “sociology of
irreligion,” but this relied upon historical sources rather than fresh empirical data on
contemporary groups. In a brief research note, Campbell (1965), reported preliminary data on
membership composition in the British Humanist Association. Drawing from both historical
and contemporary source materials, Susan Budd supplied valuable insights into atheist,
agnostic, and humanist societies in England (1967a, 1967b, and 1977).
The greatest vein of relevant information may be found in the large and rapidly growing
literature on religiosity and its antecedents, correlates, and consequences (e.g., Batson,
Shoenrade, and Ventis, 1993; Koenig, McCullough, and Larson, 2001; Smith and Denton,
2005). The degree of relevance to irreligion, however, varies greatly depending on sampling
techniques, research aims, and methodology. In much, if not most, of this research, samples of
substantially or affirmatively irreligious individuals are small. In order to generate sufficient
sample or experimental cell sizes, irreligious individuals are frequently aggregated with
relatively-less-religious others, effectively creating samples of nones (Schumaker, 1993). As
such, they may provide data that are directional or suggestive, but not necessarily representative
of the substantially or affirmatively irreligious. Again, systematic study of “labeled” irreligious
populations (e.g., atheists, secular humanists, rationalists) are extremely rare.

12
 Survey research that includes, or consists of, questions concerning religiosity produce
data on the incidence of individuals who do not report specific religious beliefs, behavior, or
affiliation (e.g., the American Religious Identification Survey, the General Social Survey,
World Values Survey, and surveys by the Gallup Organization, Pew Forum, Barna Group, and
others). Primary interest, use, and outcomes of this work, however, are largely concerned with
incidence of forms of religiousness. Data collection and theory development have not aimed to
produce a rich or detailed understanding of forms of irreligiosity (as noted by Bainbridge, 2005,
regarding atheism). Rather, measures of religious belief and behavior, or their absence, have
been employed in broad tests of “secularization theory” (e.g., Norris and Inglehart, 2004) or
“rational choice theory” (Jagodzinki and Greeley, 2001). The de facto result has been a
comparatively undifferentiated view of irreligious worldviews and the people who hold them.
Differentiation of forms of religion and religiosity has been elaborate and detailed.
Typologies and research categories concerning the irreligious, however, have typically been
very broad and based on theological or culturally commonplace distinctions rather than drawn
from detailed empirical study (e.g., “unbeliever,” “atheist/agnostic”). Others are the product of
survey research, but tend to aggregate very different types of individuals and idea-systems at
the lower end of a religiosity continuum (e.g., “the unchurched,” “nones,” “seculars”). The
correlates of a wide range of degrees and types of religiosity have been studied (e.g.,
“maturity,” “intrinsic” and “extrinsic,” “quest,” “committed” and “consensual,”
“fundamentalist” and “liberal,” forms of “seekership,” and so on). But there has been little
parallel differentiation or study of forms of irreligion (Pasquale, n.d. [b]).
What remains to be known? It might be asked whether there is anything to be learned
or known about the irreligious. Questions that remain largely or wholly unanswered include:
 Why, when religiosity is so prevalent and its psychological or health rewards widely
promulgated, do some people adopt and remain committed to irreligious
worldviews?
 What distinguishable nonreligious or irreligious worldviews can be identified (“on
the ground” rather than in schools of philosophy or theology)? What are their
shared and differentiating attributes? How widely is each held? What are the
antecedents, correlates, and effects of different types?
 Is it meaningful to distinguish between “mature” or “immature,” “positive” or
“negative,” “critical” or “affirmative,” “enlightened” or “fundamentalist” forms of
irreligion? If so, what are the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of such

13
 orientations (such as family background, prior religious experience, physical and
mental health, personality characteristics, life-satisfaction, social adjustment, or
moral/ethical ideas and behavior)?
 What are the patterns of social behavior and organizational affiliation among the
irreligious? To what extent is there evidence of reduced social need among such
individuals (as noted, for example, by Bainbridge, 2005)? How widely distributed
is such reduced sociality? What developmental, personality, or philosophical
factors account for patterns of social behavior among irreligious individuals?
 Are there identifiable differences between irreligious individuals who affiliate with
organizations pertinent to their worldviews and those who do not?
Explaining the neglect. The comparative size and cultural or political significance of
the irreligious population may provide part of the explanation for empirical neglect (particularly
in the U. S.). However, as Campbell (1972) observed, in absolute terms, numbers of the
irreligious are not negligible, either in the U. S. or in countries with less religious populations.26
Relatively weak organization of the irreligious (as irreligious) may play a part.
However, while specific irreligious movements and organizations have shifted over time, some
have always existed since the emergence of the behavioral and social sciences (e.g., atheist,
humanist, rationalist, secularist). They have been notably under-researched. Further, one of the
largest accessible populations, that of irreligious scientists, has been studied only superficially.
Methodological lethargy may play a part. College students are among the most heavily
researched populations, in part because they are conveniently at hand in the academy.
Fieldwork is more demanding, especially with dispersed target populations. Yet researchers in
many disciplines do go into the field or collaborate with a variety of institutions outside the
academy (e.g., hospitals, clinics, churches) to study religiosity, religious organizations, and
even small-scale sects, “cults,” and new religious movements. More would seem to be
involved.
It may be that given both population size and weak organization, the impact (e.g.,
culturally, politically, economically) of the irreligious may be felt to be negligible, or the cost-
benefit ratio not sufficient to warrant the expenditure entailed in mounting more detailed
research. Yet it is frequently suggested that the irreligious tend to be over-represented among
the “cultural elite” (in the media, science, higher education, or the legal professions), lending
them a degree of influence much greater than their numbers.

14
 Campbell has suggested that the irreligiosity of many behavioral and social scientists
may have produced a “lens in the eye” phenomenon. Irreligiosity is taken for granted by many
as a baseline “scientific” stance from which to study other phenomena, but not recognized as an
object of study in its own right. There are some signs that naturalistic or other nonreligious
worldviews are diminished or trivialized by some scholars—even “secular” ones (much as
religion has been). Further, attention to non/irreligious worldviews seems, to a considerable
extent, to have been shunted to polemic or philosophical debates concerning “science and
religion.”
A long-standing reluctance to focus empirical attention on religion or irreligion may be
attributed to an early assumption that the meta-empirical “content” of religion placed it outside
the scope of scientific inquiry. This was accompanied by an assumption that the deeply
personal significance of such matters rendered scientists incapable of “objective” inquiry into
them. However, even in the midst of a notable relaxation, if not outright dismissal, of such
sentiments accompanying a recent surge of interest in the scientific study of religion (Ebaugh,
2002), forms of irreligion remain conspicuously undifferentiated and unstudied.
Boredom and curiosity may be involved: newly emerging (or eccentric or extreme or
violent) religious sects or cults are perhaps more novel and intriguing than, for example,
“Enlightenment-style” worldviews, widely considered passé in “postmodern” intellectual
circles. However, it has been in both periods of apparent secularization and religious
resurgence that we find little direct empirical focus on forms of irreligion and the irreligious.
Cultural factors may be at work. A noticeable propensity for European researchers to
focus somewhat more attention on irreligious individuals and worldviews may reflect a greater
prevalence and historical salience of such views than in the United States. This said, the
volume and nature of direct empirical and theoretical attention to the irreligious on both sides of
the Atlantic has been comparatively limited (to the best of this author’s knowledge).
A deep-rooted Western dichotomous view of human affairs as either secular or religious
may be involved. Such a division is noticeable in the structure of inquiry in the behavioral and
social sciences. In the secular domain (often referred to as “mainstream”), the overwhelming
focus has been on aspects of human psychology and social behavior without reference to
(substantive) religion or religiosity. In much of the research on religion and religiosity,
irreligion is approached in relatively undifferentiated terms (as the absence of selected signs of
religiosity or particular forms of religion—typically Christian). Non/irreligious worldviews and

15
related phenomena tend not to be recognized as direct objects of empirical inquiry on either
“side.”
The structure of inquiry. Another explanation may rest with the notion of religion
itself, and particularly, its substantive/functional polysemy. Religion is defined broadly enough
in The None Zone to include secular individuals and groups said to exhibit religious or spiritual
attributes, but not in such a way as to include substantially or affirmatively irreligious
individuals and organizations. Phenomena that lend themselves to analysis as though they were
substantively religious (e.g., environmentalism and survivalist, anti-governmental, or white
supremacist groups) are objects of study. But those whose beliefs or behavior may lend
themselves less to substantively-religious analysis are excluded from view. This phenomenon
is, once again, not unique to this volume.
On the one hand, the study of religion in the social sciences is customarily defined in
substantive or institutional terms. This is most often with respect to the “sacred,” “holy” or
“spiritual,” theistic or supernatural beliefs, particular behaviors, and/or explicit denominational
or institutional religious affiliation. Clearly, individuals or organizations that reflect substantial
or affirmative rejection or absence of religion and the religious (in such substantive senses) fall
outside the perimeter of this definition. Narrowly defined, the empirical study of religion does
not encompass irreligion or the irreligious.
On the other hand, religion is frequently defined in more inclusive or functional terms.
Here, the religious is broadly conceived as collective social consciousness that reflects and
unites a moral community (Durkheim, 1915), “systems of orientation” to “objects of devotion”
(Fromm, 1955), motivational symbol systems (Geertz, 1966), human intersubjective
consciousness that transcends the biological (or “invisible religion,” Luckmann, 1967),
“awareness and interest in the continuing, recurrent, permanent problems of human existence”
(Yinger, 1970: 33), intensive human commitment (as in “implicit religion,” Bailey, 1997 and
1998), “alterity” or a “primordial sense of ‘otherness’” (Csordas, 2004), and so on. From such
perspectives, to be human is to be, in one fashion or another, religious. As Fromm notes, “if
we are referring to religion in its widest sense. . .then every human being is religious” (1955:
157). In this sense, all human manifestations of ultimate concern, motivational symbolism,
existential awareness, intensive commitment, significance, or special devotion may fall within
the compass of “religion research.”
On the basis of such inclusive definitions of religion, Yinger (1970), for example, views
Comte’s Positivism, Freud’s psychoanalytic school, and Marxism as “secular religions.”

16
Swatos (1996) views environmentalism in Iceland and Bailey (1997) views English pub life as
“implicit religion.” Bellah (1970) views all of American society as permeated by “civil
religion,” and so on. Greil and Robbins (1994) note that many secular phenomena and
institutions have been viewed as though they were religions or religious, including business,
sports, politics, therapeutic groups, medicine, and social movements. In their volume on
“quasi-religions” and “para-religions,” this approach is applied to psychotherapy, witchcraft,
occultism, Twelve-Step groups, astrology, A Course in Miracles, the New Age movement, and
twelve avant-garde artists, among others.
Strangely, however, from the vantage of both exclusive substantive/institutional and
inclusive functional views of religion, affirmative irreligiosity—individual or organized—
remains conspicuously absent as an object of direct empirical attention. From the narrow
perspective, it is, as Campbell noted (1972), often excluded by definition. From the broad
perspective, it is—at least theoretically—enveloped within the religious (qua human) but rarely
identified or studied as a distinct form or manifestation of the (functionally or inclusively)
religious. This presents something of a conceptual Catch-22 with regard to irreligion. The
kinds of individuals, organizations, and worldviews described earlier are orphans not only
between the secular focus of mainstream social science and the overwhelmingly substantive
focus of the scientific study of religion, but between the substantive and functional definitions
of religion.
Neglect of the nots in The None Zone may well reflect a foundational flaw in the
structure of inquiry into something called religion. The Euro-American history, present
culture, and religious ethos of the Pacific Northwest, broadly defined, can hardly be
satisfactorily understood without attention to the substantial population of individuals who
conceive of themselves and their worldviews as nonreligious, irreligious, religiously
indifferent, or philosophically naturalistic, and not spiritually oriented in any substantial sense.
In the closing pages of The None Zone, Oregon’s “Death with Dignity [physician-
assisted suicide] Act” in Oregon is taken up. In a long and very public debate, organized
opposition of “Catholics and conservative evangelical Christians” was met by

[a] coalition of moderates, liberals, and libertarians, organized as the ‘Don’t Let
‘Em Shove Their Religion Down Your Throat Committee’. . . . The campaign
portrayed religion as an obstacle to individual freedom. (Killen, 2004: 176).

17
Supporters of the measure are characterized only as “a new religious cluster that is growing in
strength,” a “secular but spiritual population,” and “spiritual environmental cluster” with an
“emerging aesthetic and theology that situates the individual within nature and human life
within planetary life” (Killen, 2004: 177-178). It is in issues such as this that the distinctive
moral, ethical, philosophical, and political presence of the irreligious population is seen and
felt. No reference, however, is made to the role of an “irreligious cluster” in The None Zone.
For a full understanding of the region, irreligion must be recognized as a facet of the
investigation of human existential, philosophical, moral/ethical, and “ultimate” concerns.
Either the perimeter of religion, broadly defined, needs to be widened to encompass the
irreligious (on and in their own terms) or the latter must be treated as a distinctive, but relevant,
addendum to the consideration of religion, narrowly defined. For a comprehensive
understanding of the worldviews that shape the religious terrain of Northwest culture, the nots
warrant investigation side by side with the nones, the substantively religious, and the
metaphysically spiritual. This is equally true of the social sciences and religion research in
general.
Parting thought. From the broadest perspective, we may be hampered by the language
and concepts that frame and guide what it is we study. In the endeavor to understand human
approaches to finding and creating “existential” meaning, purpose, and coherence, religion and
the religious are problematic. Even where inclusive or functional definitions of these terms
ostensibly frame analysis, phenomena are habitually viewed in substantively religious terms.
What may be needed is a lexical and conceptual framework that encompasses, and
confers epistemological and ontological legitimacy to, both religious and non/irreligious,
supernatural and naturalistic, existential meaning systems (and associated behavior). In the
absence of such a framework, the non- or irreligious seem destined to remain empirically
neglected or reconstituted in substantively religious terms. Due to its long history and deep
roots in the Western mind, the concept of religion, whether compressed in substantive or
expanded in functionalist terms, limits our view of human approaches to existential wondering,
coherence, purpose, and related behavior.27 This limits our science, as well.
Ninian Smart (1969 and 1995) employed worldview to encompass both religious and
nonreligious, supernatural and naturalistic, systems. This approach enabled him to devote
attention to such idea-systems and institutions as alternative meaning systems, each on their
own terms. Together with such (inadequate) terms as “belief-system,” “philosophy,” or
“lifestance,” this represents weak movement in a productive direction. What seems to be

18
required is a more profound realignment of the lexical and conceptual parameters of “religion
research” (Pasquale, n.d. [c]). Short of this, our theoretical conceptions and empirical attention
may habitually lapse back to narrow substantive definitions of religion that exclude the
irreligious, or to broad functionalist views that blur meaningful differences among
distinguishable phenomena. And the nots will remain empirically neglected or invisible,
whether in the Pacific Northwest or elsewhere.

References

Altemeyer, Bob and Bruce Hunsberger. 1997. Amazing conversions: Why some turn to
faith & others abandon religion. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS). 2001. New York: City University of New
York, The Graduate Center. (www.gc.cuny.edu/studies)

Bailey, Edward I. 1997. Implicit religion in contemporary society. Kampen, The

Netherlands: Kok Pharos Publishing House.
-------. 1998. Implicit religion: An introduction. London: Middlesex University Press.

Bainbridge, William Sims. 2005. “Atheism,” Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on

Religion,
1 (2): 1-26. (http://www.religjournal.com)

Bellah, Robert. 1970. Beyond Belief. New York: Harper and Row.

Barron, Frank. 1963. Creativity and psychological health: Origins of personal vitality and
creative freedom. New York: D. Van Nordstrand Co. (Chapter 12: “The crisis
in belief.”)

Billiet, Jaak, Karel Dobbelaere, Ole Riis, Helena Vilaça, Liliane Voyé, and Jerry
Welkenhuysen-
Gybels. 2003. “Church commitment and some consequences in Western and central
Europe,” Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 14: 129-159.

Bishop, George. 1999. “The polls—trends: Americans’ belief in God,” Public Opinion
Quarterly 63: 421-434.

Black, Alan W. 1983. “Organised irreligion: The New South Wales Humanist Society.”
In Alan W. Black (Ed.), Practice and belief: Studies in the sociology of Australian
religion. Sydney: George Allen & Unwin, 154-166.

Budd, Susan. (1967) “The humanist societies: The consequences of a diffuse belief system.”
In
Bryan R. Wilson (Ed.), Patterns of sectarianism: Organization and ideology in social
and religious movements. London: Heineman, 377-405.

19
-------. (1967) “The loss of faith: Reasons for unbelief among members of the secular
movement in England, 1850-1950,” Past & Present, 36: 106-125.
-------. (1977) Varieties of unbelief: Atheists and agnostics in English society: 1850-1960.
London: Heinemann.

Campbell, Colin. 1965. “Research note: Membership composition of the British Humanist
Association,” The Sociological Review, 13(3): 327-337.
-------. 1969. “Humanism in Britain: The formation of a secular value-oriented movement.”
In David Martin (Ed.), A sociological yearbook of religion in Britain, Volume 2.
London: SCM Press, 157-173.
-------. 1972. Toward a sociology of irreligion. New York: Herder and Herder.
-------. 1977. “Analysing the rejection of religion,” Social Compass, 24(4): 339-346.

Caporale, Rocco. 1971. “Introduction.” In Rocco Caporale and Antonio Grumelli (Eds.),
The culture of unbelief. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1-18.

Csordas, Thomas J. 2004. “Asymptote of the ineffable: Embodiment, alterity, and the
theory of religion,” Current Anthropology, 45(2): 163-185.

Demerath, N. J. 1969a. “Program and prolegomena for a sociology of irreligion.” In Actes de

la X Conférence Internationale: Types, dimensions et mesure de la religiosité, 159-175.
Rome: Conference Internationale de Sociologie Religieuse.
-------. 1969b. “Religion, a-religion, and the rise of the religion-less church: Two case studies
in organizational convergence,” Sociological Analysis, 30(4): 101-203.

Demerath, N. J. III, and Thiessen, V. 1966. “On spitting against the wind: Organizational
precariousness and American irreligion,” American Journal of Sociology, 71: 674-687.

Dogan, Mattei. 2003. “Religious beliefs in Europe: Factors of accelerated decline,” Research
in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 14: 161-188.

Durkheim, Emile. 1915. The elementary forms of the religious Life. New York: The Free
Press.

Dy-Liacco, Gabriel S., Ralph L. Piedmont, Mark M. Leach, and Robert W. Nelson. 2003.
“A content analysis of Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion from 1997 to
2001: Where we have been and where we hope to go,” Research in the Social
Scientific Study of Religion, 14: 277-288.

Ebaugh, Elizabeth. 2002. “Return of the sacred: Reintegrating religion in the social
sciences,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41 (3): 385-295.

Fromm, Erich. 1955. The sane society. Greenwich, CT: Fawcett Publications.

Geertz, Clifford. 1966. “Religion as a cultural system.” In Michael Banton (Ed.),

Anthropological approaches to the study of religion. London: Tavistock, 1-46.

Glenmary Research Center. 2000. Religious congregations and membership in the United
States, 2000. Nashville, TN: Glenmary Research Center.

20
Greil, Arthur L. and Thomas Robbins (Eds.). 2003. Between sacred and secular: Research
and theory on quasi-religion. London: JAI Press.

Hale, J. Russell. 1977. Who are the unchurched? Washington, D. C.: Glenmary Research
Center.
-------. 1980. The unchurched: Who they are and why they stay away. San Francisco: Harper
& Row.

Halman, Loek and Thorleif Pettersson. 2001. “Religion and social capital in contemporary
Europe: Results from the 1999/2000 European Values Study,” Research in the Social
Scientific Study of Religion, 12: 65-93.
-------. 2002. “Moral pluralism in contemporary Europe: Evidence from the project Religious
and Moral Pluralism (RAMP),” Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 13:
173-204.

Hout, Michael and Claude S. Fischer. 2002. “Why more Americans have no religious
preference: Politics and generations,” American Sociological Review 67: 165-190.

Hunsberger, Bruce L. 1980. “A reexamination of the antecedents of apostasy,” Review of

Religion Research, 21 (2): 158-170.
-------. 1983. “Apostasy: A social learning perspective,” Review of Religion Research,
25 (1): 21-38.

Hunsberger, Bruce and L. B. Brown. 1984. “Religious socialization, apostasy, and the
impact of family background,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 23 (3):
239-251.

Hunsberger, Bruce, Barbara McKenzie, Michael Pratt, and S. Mark Pancer. 1993. “Religious
doubt: A social psychological analysis,” Research in the Social Scientific Study of
Religion, 5: 27-51.

Hunsberger, Bruce, Michael Pratt, and S. Mark Pancer. 2001. “Religious versus nonreligious
socialization: Does religious background have implications for adjustment?”
International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 11 (2): 105-128.
-------. 2002. “A longitudinal study of religious doubts in high school and beyond:
Relationships, stability, and searching for answers,” Journal for the Scientific Study
of Religion, 41 (2): 255-266.

Jagodzinski, Wolfgang and Greeley, Andrew. 2001. “The demand for religion: Hard core
atheism and “supply side” theory.” www.agreeley.com/articles/hardcore.html.

Keysar, Ariela, Egon Mayer, and Barry Kosmin. 2003. “No religion: A profile of America’s
unchurched,” Public Perspective, 14 (1): 28-32.

Killen, Patricia O’Connell. 2004.

“Introduction: Patterns of the past, prospects for the future: Religion in the none zone”
and “Conclusion: Religious futures in the none zone.” In Patricia O’Connell Killen and
Mark Silk (Eds.), Religion & public life in the Pacific Northwest: The none zone.

21
 Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira, 9-19 and 169-184.

Killen, Patricia O’Connell, and Mark Silk (Eds.). 2004. Religion & public life in the Pacific
Northwest: The none zone. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

Killen, Patricia O’Connell ,and Mark Shibley. 2004. “Surveying the religious landscape:
Historical trends and current patterns in Oregon, Washington, and Alaska.” In
Religion & public life in the Pacific Northwest: The none zone, Patricia
O’Connell Killen and Mark Silk (Eds.). Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press, 25-50.

Koenig, Harold G., Michael E. McCullough, and David B. Larson. (2001) Handbook of
religion and health. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kosmin, Barry A., and Seymour P. Lachman. 1993. One nation under God: Religion in
contemporary American society. New York: Harmony Books.

Kurtz, Paul. 2004. “New directions: Centers for Inquiry and human enrichment,” Free
Inquiry 24 (5).

Luckmann, Thomas. 1967. The invisible religion: The problem of religion in modern
society. New York: The MacMillan Co.

Marty, Martin E. 1961. The infidel: Freethought and American religion. Cleveland, OH:
Meridian Books.
-------. 1964. Varieties of unbelief. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Moberg, David O. 2000. “What most needs the attention of religion researchers in the
twenty-first century?” Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 11: 1-21.

National Opinion Research Center (NORC). 2004. The General Social Survey (GSS), 1972-
2002 Cumulative Datafile. (http://webapp.icpsr.umich.edu/GSS/)

Norris, Pippa and Ronald Inglehart. 2004. Sacred and secular: Religion and politics
worldwide. Cambridge, U. K.: Cambridge University Press.

Pasquale, Frank L. n.d. Papers submitted for peer review:

-------. (a) Empirical study and neglect of the irreligious in the behavioral and social sciences.
-------. (b) The varieties of irreligious experience: Typologies and distinctions.
-------. (c) The nature, varieties, and study of human existential wondering: sentention.

Pruyser, Paul W. 1968. “Problems of definition and conception in the psychological study
of religious unbelief.” Allan W. Eisler (Ed.), Challenging perspectives in the scientific
study of religion. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 185-201.

Schumaker, John F. 1992. “Mental health consequences of irreligion.” In John F. Schumaker

(Ed.), Religion and mental health. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 54-69.

Shermer, Michael. 2000, How we believe: The search for God in an age of science. New
York: W. H. Freeman.

22
Shibley, Mark. 2004. “Secular but spiritual in the Pacific Northwest.” In Patricia O’Connell
Killen and Mark Silk (Eds.), Religion & public life in the Pacific Northwest: The none
zone. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press, 139-167.

Silk, Mark. 2005. “Religion and region in American public life,” Journal for the Scientific
Studyof Religion, 44 (3): 265-270.

Smart, Ninian. 1969. The religious experience of mankind. New York: Charles Scribner’s
Sons.
-------. 1995. Worldviews: Crosscultural explorations of human beliefs. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Smith, Christian and Melinda Denton. 2005. Soul searching: The religious and spiritual lives
of American teenagers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Spilka, Bernard, Ralph W. Hood, Jr., Bruce Hunsberger, and Richard Gorsuch. 2003. The
psychology of religion: An empirical approach (Third edition). New York: Guilford.

Steeman, Theodore M. 1977. “Atheism as religious crisis phenomenon: A reflexion [sic]

on the nature of the problem,” Social Compass, 4: 311-321.

Swatos, William H., Jr. 1996. “Implicit religion, environmentalism, and institutionalized
societalism in Iceland: The case of the whale,” Research in the Social Scientific
Study of Religion, 7: 97-108.

Turner, James. 1985. Without God, without creed: The origins of unbelief in America.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Vernon, Glenn. 1968. “The religious ‘nones’: A neglected category,” Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 7: 219-229.

Vetter, George B., and Martin Green. 1932. “Personality and group factors in the making
of atheists,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 27: 179-194.

Vrcan, Srdjan. 1972. “Religion and irreligion in a socialist society: Dilemmas of the
sociological approach,” Social Compass, 19 (2): 245-261.

Wellman, Jr., James K. 2004. “The churching of the Pacific Northwest: The rise of sectarian
entrepreneurs.” In Patricia O’Connell Killen and Mark Silk (Eds.), Religion & public
life
in the Pacific Northwest: The none zone. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press, 79-105.

Yinger, Milton. 1970. The scientific study of religion. New York: MacMillan Publishing
Co.

Zinnbauer, Brian J., Kenneth I. Pargament, Brenda Cole, Mark S. Rye, Eric M. Butter, Timothy
G. Belavich, Kathleen M Hipp, Allie B. Scott, and Jill L. Kadar. 1997. “Religion and

23
 spirituality: Unfuzzying the fuzzy,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36 (4):
549-564.

Zinnbauer, Brian J., and Kenneth I. Pargament. 2000. “Capturing the meanings of
religiousness and spirituality: One way down from a definitional Tower of Babel,”
Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 12: 23-54.

Notes

24
1
Some have restricted irreligion to the active, hostile, or “alienative” rejection of institutionalized religion
(most notably, Campbell, 1972 and 1977). This restriction will not be observed here. Irreligion and the irreligious
encompasses substantial or affirmative absence or rejection of substantive religiosity, whether neutral,
positive/alternative/affirmative, or negative/critical/hostile/alienative/anti-religious in character.
As these terms are used here, irreligion and the irreligious may be more fully defined with reference to those
who
a) deliberately eschew, affirmatively reject, or exhibit substantial absence of or indifference to theistic,
transcendental, or supernatural ideas or worldviews, and
b) do not identify themselves or actively affiliate with “traditions” or institutions that embrace such
worldviews, but
c) may hold alternative worldviews (e.g., “naturalistic”) exhibiting some degree of conscious formulation and
coherence.
2
For convenience, this volume will be referred to hereafter as The None Zone.
3
In place of repeated use of quotation marks, italics will be used to when referring to words as words (to be defined), or
when a word’s meaning is ambiguous or polysemous.
4
In a recently published overview of the “Religion and Public Life” volumes, series editor Mark Silk (2005) reaffirms the
“secular” distinctiveness of the Pacific Northwest. He notes that

[i]n the Pacific Northwest, 63 percent of the people are unaffiliated or

unaccounted, according to the religious institutions, but only 31 percent of
the people say they have no religion if you ask them directly. . . (2005: 266)

Elsewhere, he states that

America’s secular frontier is, as it has always been, the Pacific Northwest—
which is why we subtitled our volume on that region “The None Zone.” But
the denizens of the None Zone do not lack for a regional civil religion. It is
called environmentalism, and it hearkens to the gospel of biodiversity. Here
let me call attention to a couple of facts. The first is that the least churched
state in the nation is Oregon, where two-thirds of the population is unaffiliated
or uncounted. The second is that Oregon is the only state in the nation with an
assisted suicide law—in fact, where assisted suicide was approved by a popular
referendum. Coincidence? I think not. So the lack of institutional religious ties
suggests a certain moral slackness on the part of Oregonians, at least by the
standards of traditional religious instruction.
But it is critical to recognize that this does not mean that Oregonians
have simply adopted a language of technological pragmatism when it comes to
death and dying. Despite the lack of institutional religious authority, these are
matters that elicit, as they do for most people, spiritual convictions. On the
website for the Death with Dignity Fund website [sic], for example, one Oregonian
wrote, ‘I know the level of participation in life—mentally, spiritually, physically,
emotionally—that I believe I need to continue as a valuable and contributing
member of earth’s family. I feel very strongly about preserving the right to
make my final, very private choice of leaving this beautiful planet in peace and
dignity.’ To be sure, not everyone in Oregon sees things this way. Specifically,
the Pacific Northwest is home to a sizable and growing minority of evangelical
Protestants who regard themselves, correctly, as the counterculture in the region.
And given the culture’s prevailing ethos, it should not be surprising that it is only
in the Pacific Northwest that a majority of evangelicals say they are against
environmentalism. (2005: 267)

The view afforded by The None Zone is reprised. “Only” some 3 million (of 10 million) people “say they have
no religion,” environmentalism is the region’s “civil religion,” and “spiritual convictions,” at least those triggered by such
topics such as death, are prevalent.
A “sizable and growing” minority of Evangelical Christians is noted, but no reference is made to the substantial
irreligious minority. Self-described Evangelicals make up only 1 percent of the Oregon population and less than .5
percent in Washington (based on ARIS data). Based on other sources, Wellman (2004) estimates that 5 percent are
“entrepreneurial evangelicals” (independent of established churches), and 23 percent identify themselves with some form
of evangelical Christian group. Those professing no religion who describe themselves as secular, not religious, not
spiritual, atheist or agnostic represent an estimated 8 to 12 percent of the populations of these states, and those simply
indicating no religion, 24 percent (based on ARIS and GSS data).
5
The population estimate for all three states in 2003 was 10,340,000, with Alaska at 648,800, Oregon at 3,559,600, and
Washington at 6,131,400. (Source: Population Division, U. S. Census Bureau, “Annual Estimates of the Population for
the United States.” Release date, December 18, 2003; revised, May 11, 2004.)
Based on ARIS 2001 data, an estimated 21percent of Oregonians and 25 percent of Washingtonians are nones (professing
non-religious/irreligious identities or no religious identification/affiliation ). Alaska was not included in the study due to
research costs, but data from other sources indicate that Alaskans are equally unchurched or religiously unaffiliated (e.g.,
Hale, 1977 and 1980; Glenmary Research Center, 2000). For example, estimates of religious “non-adherents” based on
membership reports from 149 religious bodies indicate that Oregon, Washington, and Alaska are among the four states
with the lowest levels of religious adherence at 31, 33, and 34 percent, respectively (Glenmary Research Center, 2000).
Employing a conservative estimate of 20 percent nones in Alaska, in ARIS terms, the total number of estimated nones in
the region is 23.3 percent of the estimated regional population in 2003, or some 2.4 million people.
6
The meanings of “spirituality” are complex and highly variable (e.g., Zinnbauer, et al., 1997; Zinnbauer and Pargament,
2000). They range from a distinctly earth-bound and nonsupernatural sense of awe or gratitude or connectedness to a
substantively religious experience of the divine, and much in between.
7
The GSS item concerning spirituality (SPRTPRSN) appeared in the 1998 survey and asked “To what extent do you
consider yourself a spiritual person . . . very spiritual, moderately spiritual, slightly spiritual, not spiritual?” The number
of self-identified nones (RELIG, or religious identification) was 192 respondents. The item concerning peoples' belief in
God (GOD) appeared in surveys in 1988-91, 1993, 1994, and 1998. The total number of nones in this cumulative sample
was 774 respondents. It should also be noted that, apart from nones, the GSS data indicated that 15 percent of individuals
in the U. S. considered themselves “not religious” and 12 percent considered themselves “not spiritual.” In the
Northwest, this would mean minimum estimates of 1.5 million who profess to be “not religious” and 1.2 million who
profess to be “not spiritual.”
8
Based on the estimate of 2.4 million nones in the Pacific Northwest given earlier (Note 5).
9
The GSS item (RELPERSN) asked respondents in the 1998 survey, “To what extent do you consider yourself a religious
person? Are you. . .very religious, moderately religious, slightly religious, not religious at all?” The number of nones
sampled was 192 respondents.
10
The GSS item (FEELREL) asked respondents in the 1988-1991 and 1998 surveys, “Would you describe yourself as. .
.extremely/very/somewhat religious, neither religious nor non-religious, somewhat/very/extremely non-religious?” The
sample of nones was 247 respondents. An additional 12.6 percent professed to be “somewhat religious” and 9.6 percent
were “neither religious nor non-religious.” One wonders what these terms and phrases mean to respondents. For
example, does “neither religious nor non-religious” reflect mere indecision, a thoroughgoing and affirmative indifference
to religion or personal religiosity, or something else?
11
GSS mnemonics for each of these questions are POSTLIFE, MIRACLES, HEAVEN, HELL, PRIVPRAY, and
MEDITATE.
12
Cell sizes for Pacific respondents who are also nones are too small to be meaningful.
13
ARIS data indicate fewer “nones” (19 percent) and substantially more Roman Catholics (32 percent), for example, in
California than in Oregon (at 21 and 14 percent) or Washington (at 25 and 20 percent, respectively).
14
Some may make uneasy reference to or use of the term “spiritual,” but with careful qualification of the non-religious
and non-supernatural meaning they attach to it.
15
Available estimates place affiliates of irreligious organizations in the low hundreds of thousands, at best. This is a very
small proportion of substantially or affirmatively irreligious individuals in the U. S., who number in the millions (even on
the basis of the most stringent criteria). In the Northwest, affiliates may number in the thousands, at best, while the
irreligious number in the many hundreds of thousands, as noted in the text.
16
In Alaska, there is a representative of American Atheists and an informal Internetwork, but apparently no free-standing
group, in part due to low population density and distances involved. A free-standing secular humanist discussion group
was formed in Anchorage in 2000, but met monthly for only two years. Based on personal communication with the
leader of this group, as of October, 2004, Anchorage humanists interested in group affiliation were participating, instead,
in a weekly Sunday forum (prior to normal services) at the Anchorage Unitarian Universalist Fellowship “where the
minister is very welcoming to Humanists.” “Another group that has a large number of Humanist members is Alaskans for
Peace and Justice,” which, among other things, mobilized in opposition to the U. S. war in Iraq. A pattern of cause-
specific organizational involvement is characteristic of the irreligious.
Although Killen and Silk (2004) do not include Idaho in their definition of the Northwest, the regional irreligious
community customarily does. Idaho-based nots often appear at regional events in Seattle or Portland, and Washington or
Oregon-based nots sometimes appear at Idaho events. Idaho-based organizations include Humanists of Idaho and Idaho
Atheists, Inc., both in Boise.
17
Affiliates of the American Humanist Association.
18
Affiliates of the Council for Secular Humanism.
19
To these may be added organizations that hover between the secular and the religious, and that count substantially
irreligious participants among their members, such as the Ethical Culture Society (Seattle) and many Unitarian
Universalist fellowships in the region.
20
The founder of a local (secular) humanistic Judaism group indicated in a personal communication that she has been
frustrated over the years by the substantial number of irreligious Jews who express support for a “secular philosophy of
Judaism” or a nonreligious approach to Jewish culture, but who are not members because they are “not joiners.” Some
appear for special events (such as secular Seders or Yom Kippur “services”) or participate in particular social or
community initiatives. On this basis, she estimates that were such individuals to join as members, the household count
would be four or five hundred rather than 73 (as of September, 2005).
21
This refers to an attempt, originating in California, to do for the irreligious what “gay” has done for homosexuals. See,
for example: www.the-brights.net.
22
For example, weekly Cable Access programs currently running in Portland, Oregon, include “Bunk Busters” (U. S.
Atheists) and “Conversations with Dr. Don” (secular humanist). Eighty weekly installments of “The Humanist
Perspective” (produced by the Council for Secular Humanism, Amherst, New York) ran on Portland Cable Access in
2002 and 2003.
23
For example, “Darwin Days” and an annual “Day of Reason” are celebrated by many secular, skeptical, and humanist
groups. Following the efforts of a group of irreligious citizens led by a retired school administrator, a “Day of Reason”
was declared by the Mayor of Portland (6/23/01) and Governor of Oregon (on the Summer Solstice in 2002, 2004, and
2005).
Irreligious individuals and organizations participate in events (often in concert with religious groups) concerning
community affairs, drug rehabilitation, the homeless, church-state separation, war and peace, the environment, human
rights, gender issues, same-sex marriage, and civil liberties, among others.
24
Another indication of nots unaffiliated with irreligious organizations is the existence of loosely organized friendship
networks, discussion groups, and intellectual “salons” that characterize themselves as substantially secular. Data-
collection on these “networks” has just begun, but initial indications are that secular, in these cases, encompasses a range
of views including subordination of matters religious to this-worldly affairs and social action, a non-committal and arm’s-
length scientific consideration of both the positive and negative attributes and consequences of religion as a human
phenomenon, substantial indifference to organized religion or personal religiosity, and affirmative irreligiosity.
Participants in one such network in Portland, Oregon, are current or retired professionals and social scientists who meet
regularly and/or maintain active contact via the Internet. Claimed Internet “membership” is 330, with 200 of these in
Portland.
25
Personal communications, Powell’s City of Books floor managers, February, 2003, and June, 2005. Interviews with
both affiliated and unaffiliated nots in the Northwest suggest that there is limited interest in reading books on atheism,
freethought, humanism, or secularism. Some indicate that reading on such matters indicate is confined to related
newsletters and periodicals, and that little to be gained from philosophical texts on worldviews they’ve long since
internalized. This said, books like Susan Jacoby’s Freethinkers and Jennifer Hecht’s Doubt, A History are mentioned by
some as recent reads. Jared Diamond’s Germs, Guns, and Steel generated a good deal of “buzz” in the Portland
freethought community.
26
Estimates of the number of non/irreligious individuals in the U. S. vary depending upon definitional criteria, survey
and sampling methods, and time of survey. At the low (and most stringent) end of the range are those who identify
themselves as having no religious identification, being “secular” or “not religious,” and being a-/non-theistic or agnostic,
or as “extremely nonreligious” (3 to 4 percent, based on ARIS and GSS data). In the mid-range are estimates from the
GSS of a-theists and agnostics over a twenty year period (6.5 percent), a-theists and agnostics who are “not religious” (4.5
percent) or “not” and “slightly religious” (6.2 percent), nones who are “not religious” (5.9 percent), respondents who are
“extremely” or “very non-religious” (6.9 percent), and nones who are “extremely” or “very non-religious” (3.9 to 5.6
percent). There are also those who report having “no religious beliefs” (Roper, 6 percent). And there are GSS estimates
of a-theists and agnostics in 1998 (8.0 percent), nones who were explicitly “not religious” in 1998 (8.6 percent), and those
who “do not believe in God” plus those who “don’t know” (Barna: 7 to 10 percent; Gallup: 8 to 10 percent). At the high
end of the range, from 11 to 15 percent of Americans have considered religion “not very important” (Pew and Gallup),
and GSS data suggest that 12 percent of Americans consider themselves “not spiritual” and 15.3 percent consider
themselves “not religious.” As of the 1990’s some 14 to 16 percent of Americans report “no religious preference.” The
Barna Group reports between 6 and 13 percent of Americans who profess to be atheist or agnostic, or to have no religious
faith, in the past ten years. At the high end of these estimates, however, we find specific religious beliefs (e.g., in an
afterlife) and/or behaviors (e.g., prayer) in evidence. A reasonable estimate may be 6 +/- 3 percent of Americans who are
substantially or affirmatively non/irreligious, or from 7 to 21 million Americans, 10 and older, or 6 to 19 million, 18 and
older, based on 2000 census data. (See Bishop, 1999, for a review of the surveys from which some of these findings are
drawn.)
27
It has never, for example, applied equally well to such phenomena as Shinto, Buddhism, Confucianism, Daoism,
Hinduism, Methodism, Roman Catholicism, Latter Day Saints, Anabaptists, Scientology, or Islam.