32% of New Zealanders now consider themselves to have no religion. Really?
Census figures from 2006 show 32% of New Zealanders now consider themselves to have no religion.
However, there are two basic approaches to defining "religion”; the substantive approach, which focuses on the content of the belief system, and the functional approach, which focuses on what the belief system does to the individual or community.
The substantive model general delimits religion to the range of traditional theism: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and so on. The functional model, in contrast, is more inclusive. By defining religion according to its social function, the functional model treats religion largely as synonymous with such terms as cultural system, belief system, meaning system, moral order, worldview and cosmology.
The fatal flaw of most substantive definitions is their insistence that a belief in the divine, supernatural, hereafter etc is essential to religion. Of course, such approaches miscarry in that they fail to encompass the realities of non-theistic religions such as Confucianism. Thus, even though it is appropriate to employ a substantive definition of religion, it is clear that we must avoid a default inclusion of the divine and other characteristics traditionally thought of as religious. Perhaps what we are really observing is an increase in what I would define as a "man-centred" religion birthed out of ancient Greek philosophy, repackaged for the post-modern era.
Really.
The census question on religion (http://www.stats.govt.nz/~/media/Statistics/Publications/Census/2006-Cen...) question 18 said only :-
What is your religion?
- no religion
- Christian -> sub-categorised into Anglican, Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist, Ratana, Ringtaū, other (specify)
- Buddhist
- Hindu
- Muslim
- Jewish
- other (specify)
- or object to answering this
It did not attempt to define "religion", even in the assistance notes at the end. As such, in order to analyse the census results with the academic definitions above and to make arguments from them, you would also have to show that these distinctions are understood and employed by the general population in order for them to have affected the result.
The census design document described what their goals were with this question :-
It's interesting that you called Confucianism a "non-theistic religion". I'm not sure I'd agree that Confucianism is a religion at all, even though there is a fair lump of ritual involved. It's certainly self-aware as a specific philosophy with a well-defined goal, at least at the upper levels (this seems to mirror Scientology to me, where the upper levels are well aware of it's reality, but the "masses" are not).
This of course appears to be your main point in the final paragraph; that a "religion" seems to be defined to need a supernatural belief, and you are taking issue with this. Is Humanism a religion? Is atheism a religion? Is science a religion? All of them involve belief systems and worldviews. But so do groups such as investment bankers and political campaigners. I wouldn't describe Greenpeace as a religion, nor Barings Bank, even though there are many similarities with regard to a group-reinforced belief system and behavioural conformance.
Anyway, your post seemed to be lacking a conclusion. Do you agree with the figure of 32% from the census analysis, or are you contesting it on the grounds that the implicit definition of "religion" was somehow invalid?
If we remove Confucism,
If we remove Confucism, Buddhism and other non-theistic beleif systems from the religions, then yes Humanism goes as well and my argument falls down. However, I think what defines a religion is some sort of organised belief in an Ultimate Reality and as Freethinker has said, I have covered this in early comments. I agree, investment bankers and political campaigners etc. stop short of my definition of a religion. My conclusion is that 32% "no religion" may actually be made up of Secular Humanists which by my functional definition is a man-centred religion.
Read Mikes other posts
Hi Jim,
you make some great points, and I agree with you fully.
If you go through Mikes other posts you will see that he brings up this broad definition of religion quite often. This, in my opinion, is a way of arguing that anything can be called a religion and thus science/atheism can be called religions. If all religions are equally valid then christianity etc are as valid as science.
It is a ridiculous argument, and I have told Mike that I for one do not want to get into a philosophical discussion on the definition of religion as it is basically a tool for creationists to water down the validity of scientific evidence.
The fact that the census question gave the option for other and yet 32% still definied themselves as having 'no religion' would say to me that 32% of NZ'ers have NO RELIGION!
If you have a look at the census webpage you can download an excel file describing all the varoius 'religions' that people affiliate themselves with, and this includes;
yoga
new age
druid,
animist
wiccan
and yes confuscianism!
So Mike there was no attempt at defining religion, and you could put down whatever you wanted if you so wanted.
Here is the link to the excel file
http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2006-census-data/classification-counts-t...
Surprisingly there were no Jedis or members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The Jedis were a bit brassed
The Jedis were a bit brassed off about that I understand (that they weren't included). http://www.jedichurch.org/webapps/site/4448/5930/news/news-more.html?new... I don't think my definition of religion is as broad as you suppose. I don't think science is a religion. I do believe that secular humanism is a religion, if you use the broad functional model as opposed to the narrower substansive model. So my point, which may not have been clear, is that the "no religion" option on the census, may actually indicate a rise in secular humanism (a man-centred religion in my view). This is probably what lead our former Prime Minister to declare that NZ is a secular nation at Waitangi a couple of years back.
You can't change the meaning of a word …
Yes, that Jedi letter is interesting, I think on the whole I agree with their position that Stats NZ should not be in the position of deciding whether "Jedi" is a valid answer to Q18, especially given that they designed it to be a "self-described" field.
Now, your message started with the subject "32% of New Zealanders now consider themselves to have no religion. Really?". You seem to be proposing that some of that 32% are potentially "secular humanists", and therefore not really devoid of religion. But they still "consider themselves to have no religion", regardless.
We also have, as pointed out by the Jedi Church's letter, other answers to Q18 - "Religion Unidentifiable : 10653" and "Response outside scope : 30945". It's possible that anyone submitting "Secular Humanist" to Q18 would have ended up in one of those categories, in the same way that the Jedi have ... and therefore not be counted within the 32% "no religion" (I don't think that's true, but it's a possibility).
Secular Humanism explicitly describes itself as not being a religion. The NZ Association of Rationalists and Humanists describes itself as being for "the non-religious; those who do not have a belief in gods". I don't think there's much to be gained by trying to redefine the scope of the word "religion" after the fact, and to speculate that this would have changed the answers. Of course it would have changed the answers. But it's just baseless speculation.
There is also the point that even though *you* consider Secular Humanism to be a religion, Secular Humanists who answered "no religion" obviously "consider themselves to have no religion", which is the way the question was presented.
Interesting. Both the Jedis
Interesting.
Both the Jedis and CoFSM are just as valid as the Church of Scientology...
I would say just as valid as
I would say just as valid as any religion!
Good point
+1
I should see if I can find a module that allows for votes on comments...