Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Beneath the Surface: A Critique of the Common Survey Model in the Study of Nonreligion Cover

Beneath the Surface: A Critique of the Common Survey Model in the Study of Nonreligion

Secularism and Nonreligion
Volume 9 (2020): Issue 0
By: Elisa Järnefelt  
Open Access
|Jun 2020

References

  1. 1Banerjee, K and Bloom, P. 2014. Why did this happen to me? Religious believers’ and non-believers’ teleological reasoning about life events. Cognition, 133: 277–303. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.06.017
    Back to article
  2. 2Barrett, JL. 1998. Cognitive constraints on Hindu concepts of the divine. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37(4): 608–619. DOI: 10.2307/1388144
    Back to article
  3. 3Barrett, JL. 1999. Theological correctness: Cognitive constraint and the study of religion. Method & Theory in the Study of Religion, 11: 325–339. DOI: 10.1163/157006899X00078
    Back to article
  4. 4Barrett, JL and Keil, FC. 1996. Conceptualizing a nonnatural entity: Anthropomorphism in God concepts. Cognitive Psychology, 31: 219–247. DOI: 10.1006/cogp.1996.0017
    Back to article
  5. 5Boyer, P. 2018. Minds make societies: How cognition explains the world humans create. Yale University Press.
    Back to article
  6. 6Boyer, P and Barrett, HC. 2005. Domain specificity and intuitive ontology. In: Buss, DM (ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology, 96–118. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/9780470939376.ch3
    Back to article
  7. 7Carver, M. 2015. Excavation methods. In: Carver, M, Gaydarska, B and Monton-Subias, S (eds.), Field archaeology from around the world, 43–51. Springer International Publishing. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-09819-7
    Back to article
  8. 8Clément, F, Koenig, M and Harris, P. 2004. The ontogenesis of trust. Mind & Language, 19(4): 360–379. DOI: 10.1111/j.0268-1064.2004.00263.x
    Back to article
  9. 9Cotter, C. 2019. Incorporating secularism and related constructs within the critical study of religion. Implicit Religion, 22(1). DOI: 10.1558/imre.40122
    Back to article
  10. 10Cragun, RT. 2019. Questions you should never ask an atheist: Towards better measures of nonreligion and secularity. Secularism & Nonreligion, 8(6): 1–6. DOI: 10.5334/snr.122
    Back to article
  11. 11Cragun, RT, Kosmin, B, Keysar, A, Hammer, JH and Nielsen, M. 2012. On the receiving end: Discrimination toward non-religious in the United States. Journal of Contemporary Religion, 27(1): 105–127. DOI: 10.1080/13537903.2012.642741
    Back to article
  12. 12Craver, CF. 2005. Beyond reduction: mechanisms, multifield integration and the unity of neuroscience. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36(2): 373–395. DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2005.03.008
    Back to article
  13. 13Day, A and Lee, L. 2014. Making sense of surveys and censuses: Issues in religious self-identification. Religion, 44(3): 345–356. DOI: 10.1080/0048721X.2014.929833
    Back to article
  14. 14Edgell, P, Frost, J and Stewart, E. 2017. From existential to social understandings of risk: Examining gender differences in nonreligion. Social Currents, 4(6): 556–574. DOI: 10.1177/2329496516686619
    Back to article
  15. 15Edgell, P, Gerteis, J and Hartmann, D. 2006. Atheists as “other”: moral boundaries and cultural membership in American society. American Sociological Review, 71(2): 211–234. DOI: 10.1177/000312240607100203
    Back to article
  16. 16Edgeworth, M. 2016. The ground beneath our feet: beyond surface appearances. In: Mackert, G and Petritsch, P (eds.), Mensch macht Natur. Landschaft im Anthropozän. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    Back to article
  17. 17Edgeworth, M, Richter, D de B, Waters, C, Haff, P, Neal, C and Price, SJ. 2015. Diachronous beginnings of the Anthropocene: The lower bounding surface of anthropogenic deposits. The Anthropocene Review, 1–26. DOI: 10.1177/2053019614565394
    Back to article
  18. 18Field, CD. 2014. Measuring religious affiliation in Great Britain: the 2011 census in historical and methodological context. Religion, 44(3): 357–382. DOI: 10.1080/0048721X.2014.903643
    Back to article
  19. 19General Social Survey. 2018. GSS 2018 ballot 2. http://gss.norc.org/Documents/quex/GSS2018%20Ballot%202%20-%20English.pdf [Accessed February 4, 2020]
    Back to article
  20. 20Gervais, WM and Najle, MB. 2017. How many atheists are there? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(1): 3–10. DOI: 10.1177/1948550617707015
    Back to article
  21. 21Gervais, WM and Norenzayan, A. 2012. Like a camera in the sky? Thinking about God increases public self-awareness and socially desirable responding. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1): 298–302. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.09.006
    Back to article
  22. 22Gervais, WM, Shariff, AF and Norenzayan, A. 2011. Do you believe in atheists? Distrust is central to anti-atheist prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11(6): 1189–1206. DOI: 10.1037/a0025882
    Back to article
  23. 23Gervais, WM, Xygalatas, D, McKay, RT, Van Elk, M, Buchtel, EE, Aveyard, M, Schiavone, SR, Dar-Nimrod, I, Svedholm-Häkkinen, AM, Riekki, T, Kundtová Klocovà, E, Ramsay, JE and Bulbulia, J. 2017. Global evidence of extreme intuitive moral prejudice against atheists. Nature Human Behavior, 1(01510): 7 Aug. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-017-0151
    Back to article
  24. 24Gobo, G and Mauceri, S. 2014. Constructing survey data: An interactional approach. Sage Publications Ltd. DOI: 10.4135/9781446288481
    Back to article
  25. 25Groves, RM, Fowler, FJ, Couper, MP, Lepkowski, JM, Singer, E and Tourangeau, R. 2009. Survey methodology. Second Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
    Back to article
  26. 26Harris, S, Kaplan, JT, Curiel, A, Bookheimer, SY, Iacoboni, M and Cohen, MS. 2009. The neural correlates of religious and nonreligious belief. PLoS ONE, 4(10): e0007272. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007272
    Back to article
  27. 27Heywood, BT and Bering, JM. 2013. “Meant to be”: How religious beliefs and cultural religiosity affect the implicit bias to think teleologically. Religion, Brain & Behavior, 4(3): 183–201. DOI: 10.1080/2153599X.2013.782888
    Back to article
  28. 28Igo, S. 2006. “A gold mine and a tool for democracy”: George Gallup, Elmo Roper, and the business of scientific polling, 1935–1955. Journal of History of the Behavioral Science, 42(2): 109–134. DOI: 10.1002/jhbs.20165
    Back to article
  29. 29Järnefelt, E. 2013. Created by some being: Theoretical and empirical exploration of adults’ automatic and reflective beliefs about the origin of natural phenomena. Doctoral dissertation. University of Helsinki.
    Back to article
  30. 30Järnefelt, E, Canfield, CF and Kelemen, D. 2015. The divided mind of a disbeliever: Intuitive beliefs about nature as purposefully created among different groups of non-religious adults. Cognition, 140: 72–88. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.02.005
    Back to article
  31. 31Järnefelt, E, Zhu, L, Canfield, CF, Chen, M and Kelemen, D. 2018. Reasoning about nature’s agency and design in the cultural context of China. Religion, Brain & Behavior, 9(2): 156–178. DOI: 10.1080/2153599X.2018.1449137
    Back to article
  32. 32Lee, L. 2014. Secular or nonreligious? Investigating and interpreting generic ‘not religious’ categories and populations. Religion, 44(3): 466–482. DOI: 10.1080/0048721X.2014.904035
    Back to article
  33. 33Lee, L. 2015. Recognizing the non-religious, reimagining the secular. Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198736844.001.0001
    Back to article
  34. 34Lombrozo, T, Thanukos, A and Weisberg, M. 2008. The importance of understanding the nature of science for accepting evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 1: 290–298. DOI: 10.1007/s12052-008-0061-8
    Back to article
  35. 35Mauceri, S. 2015. Integrating quality into quantity: survey research in the era of mixed methods. Quality & Quantity, 50(3): 1213–1231. DOI: 10.1007/s11135-015-0199-8
    Back to article
  36. 36McCauley, RN. 2011. Why religion is natural and science is not. Oxford University Press.
    Back to article
  37. 37McPhetres, J and Zuckerman, M. 2018. Religiosity predicts negative attitudes towards science and lower levels of science literacy. PLoS ONE, 13(11): e0207125. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207125
    Back to article
  38. 38Mercier, H. 2012. The social functions of explicit coherence evalutation. Mind & Society, 11: 81–92. DOI: 10.1007/s11299-011-0095-4
    Back to article
  39. 39Mercier, H and Sperber, D. 2008. Intuitive and reflective inferences. In: Evans, JSt.BT and Frankish, K (eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond, 149–170. Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230167.003.0007
    Back to article
  40. 40Mercier, H and Sperber, D. 2017. The enigma of reason. Harvard University Press. DOI: 10.4159/9780674977860
    Back to article
  41. 41Newport, F. 2016. Five key findings on religion in the U.S. Available from: https://news.gallup.com/poll/200186/five-key-findings-religion.aspx [Accessed January 30, 2020].
    Back to article
  42. 42Oppenheim, P and Putnam, H. 1958. Unity of science as a working hypothesis. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 2: 3–36.
    Back to article
  43. 43Pew Research Center. 2017. American trends panel. Panel refresh survey. Final questionnaire. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/ATP-2017-Refresh-Questionnaire-for-release-NUMBERCHECKED.pdf [Accessed January 9, 2020].
    Back to article
  44. 44Slingerland, E. 2008. Who’s afraid of reductionism? The study of religion in the age of cognitive science. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 76(2): 375–411. DOI: 10.1093/jaarel/lfn004
    Back to article
  45. 45Slingerland, E. 2014. Toward a second wave of consilience in the cognitive scientific study of religion. Journal of Cognitive Historiography, 1(1): 121–130. DOI: 10.1558/jch.v1i1.121
    Back to article
  46. 46Slingerland, E and Collard, M. 2012. Creating consilience: Toward a second wave. In: Slingerland, E and Collard, M (eds.), Creating consilience: Integrating the sciences and the humanities, 3–40. Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199794393.003.0001
    Back to article
  47. 47Slone, DJ. 2004. Theological incorrectness: Why religious people believe what they shouldn’t. Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/0195169263.001.0001
    Back to article
  48. 48Sosis, R and Kiper, J. 2014. Religion is more than belief: what evolutionary theories of religion tell us about religious commitments. In: Bergmann, M and Kain, P (eds.), Challenges to religion and morality: Disagreements and evolution, 256–276. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199669776.003.0014
    Back to article
  49. 49Taves, A. 2011. 2010 Presidential Address: “Religion” in the humanities and the humanities in the university. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 79(2): 287–314. DOI: 10.1093/jaarel/lfr004
    Back to article
  50. 50Taves, A. 2018. What is nonreligion? On the virtues of a meaning systems framework for studying nonreligious and religious worldviews in the context of everyday life. Secularism and Nonreligion, 7(9): 1_–6. DOI: 10.5334/snr.104
    Back to article
  51. 51Taves, A and Asprem, E. 2019. Scientific worldview studies: A programmatic proposal. In: Petersen, AK, Gilhus, IS, Martin, LH, Jensen, JS and Jesper, S (eds.), Evolution, cognition, and the history of religion: A new synthesis, 297–308. Brill. DOI: 10.1163/9789004385375_020
    Back to article
  52. 52Taves, A, Asprem, E and Ihm, E. 2018. Psychology, meaning making and the study of worldviews: Beyond religion and non-religion. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 10(3): 207–2017. DOI: 10.1037/rel0000201
    Back to article
  53. 53Tourangeau, R and Yan, T. 2007. Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 133(5): 859–883. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.859
    Back to article
  54. 54Wilson, DS. 2005. Evolution for everyone: How to increase acceptance of, increase in, and knowledge about evolution. PLoS Biology, 3(12): 2058–2065. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030364
    Back to article
  55. 55Wuthnow, R. 2015. Inventing American religion: Polls, surveys, and the tenuous quest for a nation’s faith. Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190258900.001.0001
    Back to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/snr.106 | Journal eISSN: 2053-6712
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Submitted on: Feb 28, 2018
Accepted on: Mar 24, 2020
Published on: Jun 5, 2020
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2020 Elisa Järnefelt, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 9 (2020): Issue 0Next article