Content uploaded by Jesse M. Smith
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jesse M. Smith on Feb 25, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
© , , | ./_
<UN>
Expressive Nontheism
Jesse M. Smith
The wide range of values, beliefs, and practices that frame and characterize
what we call religion, has been a major subject of social science inquiry since
the early development of the modern study of the social world itself. In ad-
dition to sociology, the disciplinary framework of the present volume, there
exists a huge literature spanning other social sciences and elds of inquiry in-
cluding anthropology, psychology, religious studies, the humanities, and the-
ology, that explores the meaning, organization, history, and expression of all
things religion. Much research has observed, documented, analyzed, and theo-
rized this putatively essential and universal human preoccupation.
Yet not until the turn of the 21st century did sustained social scientic in-
quiry of nonreligion, in its own terms, emerge (see nsrn.net for a comprehen-
sive bibliography). True, the study of the secularizing forces of modernity at
the institutional level has a long history in sociology, atheism had been studied
in the past with regards to its ocial political implementation and organiza-
tional dynamics at the level of the nation-state (Smith 2015), and research on
deconversion (Ebaugh 1988; Jacobs 1989) and religious apostasy goes back de-
cades (Brinkerhof and Mackie 1993). But critical investigation of the lives of
ordinary individuals and groups that embrace and espouse an explicitly non-
religious and/or nontheistic view had historically been lacking.
This is not to claim that until the turn of the millennium there had been total
absence of sociological interest in unbelief itself. At the 1969 Vatican sponsored
Culture of Unbelief symposium renowned scholars such as Peter Berger, Thom-
as Luckmann, Talcott Parsons, Robert Bellah, and Bryan Wilson each developed
some of their ideas regarding the sociology of unbelief (see http://philpapers
.org/rec/CAPTCO). Even a rst efort toward a programmatic sociology of ir-
religion was ofered over forty years ago through the work of Colin Campbell
(1972). But research on unbelief and unbelievers largely fell dormant in the
intervening decades and up until the mid-2000’s. Since then, however– while
still in its early stages – a signicant literature examining nonreligion and
nontheism across the individual, organizational, and societal levels has devel-
oped. The timing of this research is not accidental, but corresponds with the
growth and socio-political signicance of the now publicly conspicuous non-
believing community at large. This community is most apparent in
Western
nations, and this chapter will focus on the United States in particular. I am
concerned here with the interactional dynamics of what I will call expressive
Cipriani, RobertoGarelli, Franco. 2016. Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed February 25, 2017.
ProQuest Ebook Central.
Created from wmichlib-ebooks on 2017-02-25 06:26:37.
Copyright © 2016. BRILL. All rights reserved.
<UN>
nontheism: that is, the major forms and features of nontheism as expressed in
the public sphere.
A multitude of secular, humanist, and atheist groups across the country have
emerged. Some organizations, such as the American Humanist Association,
date back to the 1940s. Likewise, the American Atheists and the Center for In-
quiry have been around for decades (the 1960s and 1990s respectively). But a host
of new groups, alliances, and coalitions have proliferated since the mid-to-late
2000s. They range from small, local, social and support-type groups, to college
campus groups, to large collaborative organizations with bureaucracies engaged
in political and civic activity. Regardless of size, most have some kind of online
presence, and many are increasingly availing themselves of the benets of social
media; connecting with other local groups and national organizations (Smith
and Cimino 2012). Each in their way is expressive of values, beliefs, attitudes, and
practices, framed and understood in nontheistic and nonreligious terms.
Some nontheistic collectivities are more obviously “expressive” than others.
Some self-consciously adopt practices that align with, or are even borrowed
from, what is conventionally thought of as religious. The most interesting ex-
ample is the “godless congregational” – style groups, most notably the Sunday
Assembly, that began in London England in 2013. There are as of this writing,
30 established, regularly meeting, active congregations across Europe (12), the
United States (12), and Australia (6) (see sundayassembly.com). There is ap-
proximately an additional 150 developing congregations in many other coun-
tries around the globe including Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, South Africa, Ghana,
and New Delhi. Though “nontheist friendly” religious organizations such as
the Unitarian Universalist Church have been around for some time, the Sunday
Assembly and its ofshoot (Godless Revival) represents a signicant develop-
ment in public nontheistic expression. These atheist congregations have salient
boundaries regarding nontheism, and are more explicit about being “godless”
than liberal religious congregations that do not have, or require, theistic beliefs.
This essay will explore such boundaries using examples from recent non-
theist activity in the United States. This is increasingly relevant in a context
where nonreligion in America is on the rise. Drawing from the most recent
research on atheists, secularists, and other nontheists, I will discuss the salient
I have discussed diferent historical manifestations and the “mission impulse” of organized
nontheism, both within and without the United States, elsewhere (Smith 2015). Here I am
concerned primarily with its contemporary expression in the United States. Also see The
Oxford Handbook of Atheism (2013) and Atheism and Secularity (2010) for essays comparing
global expressions of nontheism.
These congregations may not meet regularly, and/or are in the process of creating more in-
terest, organizing leadership, adopting the ocial Assembly charter, etc.
Cipriani, RobertoGarelli, Franco. 2016. Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed February 25, 2017.
ProQuest Ebook Central.
Created from wmichlib-ebooks on 2017-02-25 06:26:37.
Copyright © 2016. BRILL. All rights reserved.
<UN>
elements of nontheistic expression across diferent groups within the nonthe-
ist community at large. This will involve explication of the ways in which non-
believers create and sustain social, moral, and emotional solidarities through
various activities.
Of course, more broadly the “nonreligious community” is composed of vari-
ously identied people with diferent beliefs and worldviews. A short list of
examples includes atheists/nontheists, agnostics, secularists, humanists, the
unaliated and disaliated, the deconverted, and the “nones.” Indeed, part of
the task of the emerging research has been to identify, dene, and categorize
the diversity of those claiming no religion or theistic beliefs, and studies can
employ somewhat diferent conceptualizations and apply variable analytical
frameworks to both nonreligion and nontheism. Many of these concepts and
identity labels are intertwined and overlap, and the goal of the chapter is to
speak of “nontheistic expression” broadly, thereby subsuming a number of the
above terms. However, I will note distinctions where relevant.
My conceptualization of nontheism and nonreligion is consistent with
what is found in the emerging literature. That is, nonreligion refers broadly to
the various forms, practices, and processes people engage in explicit absence
of, or contradistinction to, religious beliefs, principles or practices. Despite this
breadth, its meaning is intentional and directed, rather than a simple reference
to all aspects of social life where religion is not center stage. For instance, a
college chemistry class, a bowling league, the oce, and other “secular”
public spaces do not constitute “nonreligion” in an empirical or theoretically
meaningful way. Nontheism is the technically simpler concept, and here I use
it to mean the spotlighted absence of specic beliefs in a God, gods, or the
supernatural. Of course, nontheism itself can be more or less important to in-
dividuals, and the degree to which a person or group “adheres” to or expresses
nontheism can vary considerably.
The Growing Interest in, and Relevance of, Nontheism
An exhaustive summary of the relevant literature on nonreligion/ nontheism
is not the task of this chapter. However, briey highlighting some of the relevant
Nontheism in the most literal sense refers only to absence of belief in a god – “theism” being
Latin for “god.” However, I include the supernatural here for practical purposes, given that
research suggests the vast majority of Americans who identify as nontheist/atheist also reject
belief in the supernatural.
I couple nonreligion and nontheism together, not to suggest they are the same thing,
but again, for a practical reason: the work that examines the various kinds of unbelief
Cipriani, RobertoGarelli, Franco. 2016. Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed February 25, 2017.
ProQuest Ebook Central.
Created from wmichlib-ebooks on 2017-02-25 06:26:37.
Copyright © 2016. BRILL. All rights reserved.
<UN>
research will help clarify the usefulness of analyzing the ways in which non-
theism is expressed in society, and provide some footing for understanding the
micro interactional processes involved, and the broader social forces to which
they speak.
First, the literature discussed below has in large part developed out of an
increasing awareness of the growth and public visibility of nontheists. The re-
cent urry of studies is suggestive of the social signicance of nontheism on
the contemporary religious landscape. The bestselling new atheist literature,
public debates about god and the role of religion in society, and the general
media attention now focused on nonbelievers has arguably captured more
public interest than ever before.
The increased salience of nontheism in public life corresponds with what
has been learned from more than a decade of research that reveals signicant
shifting patterns of religiosity and aliation with traditional religious institu-
tions in the United States (Sherkat 2014). The numbers of those willing to claim
atheism is on the rise, and the religious nones since the early 1990s, now con-
stitute one of the fastest growing “religious groups” in the country (Zuckerman
2014). Though belief in god(s), a higher power, or supernatural agents decisively
remains the norm (better than 90% by some estimates), the above groups, as a
whole, are becoming a more organized and inuential segment of the popula-
tion (Cimino and Smith 2014). Nontrivial numbers of people have left religious
institutions in favor of the secular life (Zuckerman 2014), and those who were
never religious to begin with, have found at least marginally increased accep-
tance of their views in comparison to previous decades. Though atheists still
make the top of the list when it comes to America’s least appreciated groups,
their increased openness in publicly expressing their views signals a growing
supportive organizational network.
The new relevance of this community has birthed renewed sociological in-
terest. Both qualitative and quantitative studies are investigating all things non-
religious and nontheistic. Some have focused on gathering socio- demographic
information on groups including the nones, the unaliated, atheists, and ag-
nostics. These have yielded important observations regarding the relationship
of particular social characteristics to nonbelief (Kosmin et al. 2009). Gender,
(nontheism), has been largely embedded in – explicitly or otherwise – the broader research
literature on what is best termed “nonreligion.”
Though surveys nd the number of atheists, secularists, and other declared nonbelievers
are indeed on the rise, the overall percentage remains small: between 3 and 4 percent of the
population. Religious “nones” and the unaliated (which may include theists) account for a
much larger portion of the nonreligious population.
Cipriani, RobertoGarelli, Franco. 2016. Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed February 25, 2017.
ProQuest Ebook Central.
Created from wmichlib-ebooks on 2017-02-25 06:26:37.
Copyright © 2016. BRILL. All rights reserved.
<UN>
race, age, and socioeconomic status, and the intersections of each, all help
predict the likelihood of nonreligious self-identication (Brewster 2013). For
instance, in the United States, the nones are more likely to be young, educat-
ed, men (Baker and Smith 2009; Pasquale 2012). Geography, race, and politi-
cal orientation also bear on the question of unbelief. For instance, southern
states are generally less accepting of atheists than other regions of the country
(Heiner 1992), African Americans, more than whites, may experience a kind
of social obligation to espouse theistic belief as part of their cultural heritage
(Hutchinson 2013), and studies suggest that atheists are signicantly more
likely to hold progressive political views than non-atheists (Hunsberger and
Altemeyer 2006; Williamson and Yancey 2013).
Interestingly, several of the above demographic characteristics may hold for
nonbelievers on a worldwide scale, as some global survey estimates indicate
that, “nonbelievers are young, disproportionately male, educated, and are most
likely to live in Northern Europe, Japan, and communist or formerly commu-
nist nations (Keysar and Navarro-Rivera 2013)”. Certainly in Western English
speaking countries and especially the United States, there are clear patterns
between the ascribed and achieved social location(s) of the individual, and the
likelihood of expressed nonbelief.
With regard to disbelief in god, the life-course too plays an important
role. Age, biography, and stage of life often steer the direction, commitment,
and degree of both belief and nonbelief. For instance, it has long been ob-
served that commitment to religious beliefs generally increases with age
(Argue et al. 1999). However, it has also been found that as nonbelievers get
older, the strength of their atheism can similarly crystallize (Sherkat 2008).
Marriage, having children, and other life-course events are likewise associated
with patterns of (un)belief. The point is that nontheism, like theism, is not
simply a static cognitive state that “realizes” itself in some people and not oth-
ers. Rather, a host of sociological (as well as psychological) factors impel one to
identify and express nonbelief, and in diferent ways (Smith 2015).
A number of substantive domains related to nontheism/nonreligion have
been salient in the sociological research, and have helped frame the conver-
sation about nonbelievers. These include issues surrounding community and
social movement (Guenther et al. 2013; Cimino and Smith 2014), identity and
social location (Smith 2011, 2013; Williamson and Yancey 2013), social stigma
and discrimination (Cragun et al. 2011; Edgell et al. 2006; Hammer et al. 2012),
and worldview (Zuckerman 2010; Bullivant and Ruse 2013). Each of these in
turn connect to other areas of social life, most prominently, the political and
religious spheres. Several observations and research ndings regarding each
are relevant here.
Cipriani, RobertoGarelli, Franco. 2016. Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed February 25, 2017.
ProQuest Ebook Central.
Created from wmichlib-ebooks on 2017-02-25 06:26:37.
Copyright © 2016. BRILL. All rights reserved.
<UN>
Taking the rst, secular-atheist groups across the country have become
more vocal, interconnected, collaborative, and increasingly, politically active
(Cimino and Smith 2014; Smith 2013). Some scholars suggest a veritable social
movement has occurred within the secular and atheist community (Cimino
and Smith 2014). Whether or not one acknowledges a “new atheist movement,”
concepts from the social movement literature have been fruitfully applied to
examine the nature of nontheistic groups (Guenther et al. 2013; Smith 2013;
Cimino and Smith 2007). Researchers argue the increased presence of this
community is part of the broader public response to a perceived encroach-
ment of religion – especially conservative and evangelizing religion – into the
public and political sphere.
The arguments about the nature and direction of organized secular-atheist
activity vary, but are otherwise premised on the relationship of the secular to
religion and other social institutions. One view, for example, states that secu-
lar groups in the United States have taken up a more defensive position with
regard to religion because of the unexpected failure of secularism to overcome
religious dogmatism. In doing so, secular groups have come to adopt or even
mimic the very religious groups they see as most troublesome (Cimino and
Smith 2007). Other observers suggest this is only one part of a more com-
plicated situation; that many of the nonbelievers involved in organizing see
secularism in America as succeeding, even poised to become more like West-
ern Europe (Smith 2013). Irrespective, the proliferation of nonbeliever groups
includes a wide range of people and perspectives. They also serve disparate
functions, from liberal humanist groups sympathetic to religion, to ex-religion
support networks, to outspoken atheist activist organizations.
The second research domain deals with identity and its social processes; the
formation, trajectory, and negotiation of nonreligious and nontheistic person-
al and social identities. The tendency has been to focus on atheists, secularists,
and apostates. Studies of identity fall into two general categories, those that
examine individuals who adopt a nonreligious identity (often as the corollary
of disaliation from a religious one), and those that examine the identity poli-
tics and collective behaviors of secular/atheist organizations. Such research
has ofered diferent models of identity development (LeDrew 2013; Smith
2011) and aided understanding of how and why people come to claim their
unbelief with specic identity labels. Research has also explored the ways in
A number of other nonreligious labels exist; some have been in use for many decades
(e.g.freethinker, humanist), while others apparently have come into wider use more recently
(e.g. apatheist, antitheist).
Cipriani, RobertoGarelli, Franco. 2016. Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed February 25, 2017.
ProQuest Ebook Central.
Created from wmichlib-ebooks on 2017-02-25 06:26:37.
Copyright © 2016. BRILL. All rights reserved.
<UN>
which atheist identities are collectively constructed through group dynamics
(Cimino and Smith 2014; Smith 2013).
Interwoven with the issue of identity is the third substantive aspect of non-
theism, its social stigma. Almost without exception the literature over the last
decade examining nonreligion has commented on, or put at the center of anal-
ysis, the American public’s distrust toward atheists. Studies have investigated
the social costs of being an open atheist (Gervais et al. 2011); the ways in which
atheists negotiate the stigma of their unbelief in their interpersonal relation-
ships (Fitzgerald 2003); and the skepticism of the general public toward them
(Edgell et al. 2006).
Edgell and colleagues (2006) discussion of the social othering of atheists ar-
ticulates a central issue. They argue the American public is distrustful of non-
believers, not because they have evidence atheists are in fact less trustworthy
or moral, but because atheism acts as a powerful symbolic identity marker, one
that is incompatible with the meaning of being an American (which “requires”
belief in god). Therefore, those who “choose” nonbelief are choosing to stand
outside a normative social boundary the public has deemed (and constructed)
as essential to full cultural membership in American life. The consequences
of this regarding the way nonbelievers view themselves and interact with the
public help set conditions that give rise to particular forms of nontheistic ex-
pression in public life.
Finally, nontheistic worldview(s) have been central to studies of nonbe-
lievers. Though several studies have tangentially explored the specics of
nonbelief – often with regard to what motivates identication with atheism
(Smith 2011) – two recent edited volumes present work that directly deals with
the content of nontheistic worldviews (see Bullivant and Ruse 2013; Zucker-
man 2010). Scholars here address everything from philosophical arguments
for and against atheism, to variations of nontheistic worldviews around the
globe, to atheist views on morality and the purpose of life, to the relation-
ship between atheism and the natural and social sciences. Underlying each of
these substantive discussions are the various empirical and expressive forms
through which nontheism is realized.
Elements of Expressive Nontheism
The foregoing gives context for understanding the expression of nontheism
in the broader cultural milieu. Nontheism, like secularism, secularization, and
other related social processes, is expressed at every sociological level: the in-
dividual, organizational, and societal. I have identied four basic elements of
Cipriani, RobertoGarelli, Franco. 2016. Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed February 25, 2017.
ProQuest Ebook Central.
Created from wmichlib-ebooks on 2017-02-25 06:26:37.
Copyright © 2016. BRILL. All rights reserved.
<UN>
nontheism which traverse each level to varying degrees, and are integrated or
implicit throughout: boundaries, practices, ideologies, and emotions. Combined,
these embody and structure nontheistic expression in American society.
This involves a social and interactionist view: nontheism is both the cause
and product of its social expression. That is, expressive nontheism is not sim-
ply (or only) a manifestation of the intrinsic cognitive or intellectual disposi-
tions of individuals and collectivities (Smith forthcoming), but a product of
social conditions and forces. Though the validity of (non)theistic epistemo-
logical and ontological claims per se may be independent of the social, the
atheistic expression of the individual cannot be neatly separated from the so-
cial contexts in which the need for that expression is born.
Boundaries
Boundaries are at the center of all social life. Nontheism, as expressed in so-
ciety involves social, symbolic, and moral boundary work (Guenther et al.
2013; Smith 2013). The obvious boundary between theism and nontheism is
constructed at both “sides.” Theists and religionists usually argue the necessity
of god for moral and meaningful lives. Nontheists and the irreligious likewise
delineate this boundary, frequently through opposing the theological procla-
mations of the religious, showing their irrationality, and taking issue with the
idea a deity is needed for productive, purposeful lives. Scholars too, point to
this basic boundary. In the Oxford Handbook of Atheism (which includes both
nontheist and theist contributors), editors Bullivant and Ruse (2013:1) wrote:
A world with God and a world without God are two very diferent places,
with very diferent meanings and obligations for us humans who occupy
them. Humans created, loved, and supported by the deity are humans
very diferent from those who wander alone, without external meaning
or purpose, creating their own destinies.
Insider-outsider group processes are well documented in the sociological lit-
erature. But in addition to the simple “us versus them” distinction the bound-
aries of nontheistic groups are also permeable. For instance, atheist groups
often welcome apostates and others who have left religion in favor atheism. As
Guenther et al. (2013:472) observe in their study of the Inland Empire Atheists,
Agnostics, and Skeptics, “Converts to atheism serve an important role in op-
positional othering because they provide much of the insider information that
helps maintain the boundary between atheist and religious believers.”
Cipriani, RobertoGarelli, Franco. 2016. Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed February 25, 2017.
ProQuest Ebook Central.
Created from wmichlib-ebooks on 2017-02-25 06:26:37.
Copyright © 2016. BRILL. All rights reserved.
<UN>
Symbolic and moral boundaries are at the heart of expressive nontheism.
Ethnographic accounts describe the moral narratives nontheists engage as
they negotiate relationships and seek to undermine the normative assumption
that morality is rooted in religion or a divine authority (Smith 2011; LeDrew
2013). As least two related components exist regarding this process. First is the
oppositional moral identity work of open atheists (Smith 2013). Here, they op-
pose, reject, or otherwise underscore the moral failings of religion and belief,
showing how an atheist perspective is the morally superior one. Second, is
the positive humanist oriented work in which there is a “blending of athe-
ism with a positive system of ethics” (Cimino and Smith 2014). This blending
is apparent in the public campaigns of secular organizations and the atheist
cyberactivism that has emerged in recent years. Both components of nonthe-
istic moral meaning making are at play in the accounts of atheist individuals,
and at the organizational level of the nontheist community at large. As a good
portion of the activism surrounding atheism has been directed at removing
the negative connotations of disbelief through destigmatization (Cimino and
Smith 2014; Smith 2013;), much efort has gone in to promoting atheism as
a viable worldview capable of providing moral footing in the contemporary
world, and conductive to promoting the social good. The ocial motto of the
Sunday Assembly, “Live Better, Help Often, Wonder More,” concisely expresses
this idea.
In addition to symbolic and moral boundaries, there are other social bound-
aries that involve practical concerns including political orientation and social
attitudes. For instance, although there are of course conservative atheists,
atheists generally tend to hold liberal views on social issues such as marriage
equality and capital punishment. Some studies even suggest progressive poli-
tics is a tenet of atheism in America (Williamson and Yancey 2013). Regardless
of their particular political positions, open nontheists – especially those who
organize – co-construct social boundaries through activities that engage the
political sphere. The defensive and activist positioning of the new atheists is
an example of the strategies some nontheists employ as they competitively
engage their theist counterparts in public discourse. This goes a long way in
promoting the collective identity necessary for building atheist partnerships
and coalitions, and for developing the characteristics of a social movement.
Practices
Boundaries are constructed by and through social action, which requires sym-
bolic interaction and embodied practice (Waskul and Vannini 2006). For as
long as there have existed groups in society with the explicit goal of promoting
Cipriani, RobertoGarelli, Franco. 2016. Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed February 25, 2017.
ProQuest Ebook Central.
Created from wmichlib-ebooks on 2017-02-25 06:26:37.
Copyright © 2016. BRILL. All rights reserved.
<UN>
secular values and nontheistic explanations of world, the notion of “nontheistic
practice” is applicable. A number of secular organizations such as the American
Humanist Association have been doing this for many decades. But it has been
since the mid-2000s, against the backdrop of the growth of the nonreligious,
with the proliferation of secular activist groups, the emergence of the new athe-
ism, and the increased public discourse surrounding nonreligion generally, that
the concept of “expressive nontheistic practice” gains the most purchase.
The Sunday Assembly stands as the clearest example. Many of their activi-
ties are borrowed from congregational religious practice. For instance, a typi-
cal Assembly involves congregants singing along and dancing to the band or
choir’s selected “secular hymns.” Selected members share “personal moments.”
There are also “readings” and talks on secular themes. One Assembly I attend-
ed even scheduled an “awkward silence moment” in the program, which was
duly observed halfway through the service. Though the “church for atheists”
notion is embraced (usually tongue-in-cheek) by organizers and participants
alike, it is the case that such activity is in part modeled after religious practice.
Thus, as the godless seek and nd edication through congregational practice,
they also nd themselves arming the social benets (e.g. moral solidarities)
that come from the collective expression of (non)beliefs and values. The rel-
evance of Durkheim’s collective representations – the ideas, beliefs, and values
constructed through ritualized interaction, which are irreducible to, and yet
experienced by, the individual in collective contexts – is apparent no less in
nonbelieving groups as believing.
But expressive nontheistic practice is relevant beyond its obvious applica-
bility to groups like the Sunday Assembly. The secular community at large is
made of a number of disparate groups, with varying goals and variable levels
of cooperation and conict, both with the religious community, and with each
other. As groups within this wider organized secular community continue to
negotiate, explore, and sufuse important life events with nontheistic mean-
ing, normative practices emerge. For example, increasingly, some groups seek
to provide solidarity through nontheistic rituals and secular rites of passage.
As Cimino and Smith (2014:13) observe in their study of the “atheist awaken-
ing” in America, “organized secularist groups have sought to create nontheist
alternatives to traditional religion – ofering, for example, atheist assemblies or
services, funerals, weddings, meditation services, or commemorations of ‘secu-
lar saints.’” Some voices in the nontheist community even propose “spiritual
atheism” as a life stance. Such a position suggests an experiential quality to
Such sentiments are by no means adopted by all nontheists. In fact, much of the secular
conversation today is about how little, or much, the nonreligious life should “look like” the
religious one.
Cipriani, RobertoGarelli, Franco. 2016. Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed February 25, 2017.
ProQuest Ebook Central.
Created from wmichlib-ebooks on 2017-02-25 06:26:37.
Copyright © 2016. BRILL. All rights reserved.
<UN>
unbelief, or a nontheistic immanence; a kind of sacralization of the secular, in
which atheism centers one’s experience of the world. It is reasonable to sug-
gest this can motivate and animate behavioral practices that have the tone or
appearance of religious practice.
Of course not all nontheistic cultural expressions imply such seriousness,
or the solemnity of, for instance, contemplative “atheist mediation.” Online
and in groups across the country one can nd atheist themed comedy, mu-
sic, magic, and other forms of entertainment. Myriad blogs and websites
service the conversational and networking needs of nonbelievers. Reddit.
com’s atheist forum, Richard Dawkins website, PZ Myer’s Pharyngula blog,
and “The Friendly Atheist,” rank as some of the most popular. Whatever the
forum, be it virtual or physical, all this serves to construct, communicate,
and evolve potential practices based on nontheistic views, identities, and
communities.
The identity politics of atheism (Smith 2013) can also be seen as part of
the identity practices surrounding nontheism. Signicant media attention has
been paid to the public campaigning of organized atheist activism. Atheist
billboards in cities and of freeways, signs on the sides of buses, and other
public advertisements with secular, humanist, and atheist messages – nearly
unthinkable in previous decades – have become routine. This campaigning is
generally geared toward promoting and normalizing nontheism. Pronounce-
ments range from being anti-religious to friendly humanist. Most of these
public messages, which often depict images of friendly looking people, seek
to destigmatize nonbelief, promote secular values, or ofer nonreligious alter-
natives to the religious messages prevalent during the holiday season. In re-
spective order, examples of each include: “Good Without God? Millions Are,”
“Free to Think for Myself,” and “You Know It’s a Myth: This Season Celebrate
Reason!”
Richard Dawkin’s “Out Campaign,” which is modeled after the gay rights
movement and is premised on similar assumptions regarding identity politics
and minority discourse, believes the athesim is similarly marginalized, and
poised to undergo an analogous social liberation and normalization process.
Indeed, it has concentrated its eforts on realizing its goal of changing cul-
tural attitudes, and normalizing atheism on a national scale. In addition to
reecting a more vocal nontheist constituent, some evidence suggests this
public normalization is already underway. For instance, though not without
controversy, the rst public atheist monument (Hoskinson 2013), and the rst
atheist television channel (see https://atheists.org/AtheistTV), is likely to be
followed by other atheist rsts; each crystalized public expressions of non-
belief that both instantiate and help set the stage for normative nontheist
practices.
Cipriani, RobertoGarelli, Franco. 2016. Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed February 25, 2017.
ProQuest Ebook Central.
Created from wmichlib-ebooks on 2017-02-25 06:26:37.
Copyright © 2016. BRILL. All rights reserved.
<UN>
Ideologies
The third element of expressive nontheism involves ideology. By ideology,
I simply mean the integrated and interrelated sets of ideas, beliefs, and values.
I use the term broadly, and in the plural, to acknowledge the overlapping and
sometimes conicting nontheistic ideologies of diferent groups of nonbeliev-
ers. For instance, atheist activists and secular humanists may express related
ideologies, but they may also diverge in important ways (Smith 2015). More-
over, historical ideological expressions of nontheism also vary, and diferent
worldviews and particular ideological systems including humanism, existen-
tialism, Marxism, and Buddhism may imply or argue a nontheistic view (see
Bullivant and Ruse (2013) for essays on each). Here I am discussing nontheistic
ideology more abstractly.
Nontheism is expressed in various ways, and ideology is part of the core
content of that expression; it is the “what” of what is being expressed. When
nontheists communicate with each other, create organizations and communi-
ties, and engage their theist counterparts and the broader public, they explic-
itly and implicitly construct and transmit ideas about the world and our place
in it, specic views regarding the implications of a godless universe, and values
related to both.
The public mission statements of atheist organizations signal nontheistic
ideology. They adjoin propositional statements and assumptions about the na-
ture of reality with values and instrumental goals. An example from the Ameri-
can Atheists (see atheists.org) is instructive and reasonably representative of
organized, activist atheism. Its statement begins, “Atheism may be dened as
the mental attitude which unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and
aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook veriable by experience
and scientic method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority
and creeds.” It goes on to outline a variety of reasons its organization exists,
a few of which include, “to stimulate and promote freedom of thought and
inquiry concerning religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and prac-
tices; to advocate, labor for, and promote in all lawful ways the complete and
absolute separation of state and church”; and “to promote the study of the arts
and sciences and of all problems afecting the maintenance, perpetuation, and
enrichment of human (and other) life.” It continues with the themes of pro-
moting humanistic values and prosocial behaviors, working toward equality,
and promoting human happiness and well-being.
These proclamations are less the logical extensions of a godless universe per
se, than the expression of values premised on the idea they are consistent with
Rather than ideology in a Marxian sense, or some other more restricted use of the term.
Cipriani, RobertoGarelli, Franco. 2016. Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed February 25, 2017.
ProQuest Ebook Central.
Created from wmichlib-ebooks on 2017-02-25 06:26:37.
Copyright © 2016. BRILL. All rights reserved.
<UN>
a nontheist perspective. In other words they have “nontheist content” in the
sense that they suggest what is good and worthy of our attention is obtainable
independent, and without need of, a divine authority. For self-identied non-
theists, scientic thinking and enlightenment values provide a core justica-
tion for a godless worldview, and most of the nontheistic arguments they em-
ploy are aimed at the rational failures of theism and the detriments of religion.
The science-versus-religion debate is in no sense a new one, but recent
polemics from public nontheists (notably the new atheists), and their theist
counterparts have relighted the conversation for the general public. Best sell-
ing books by atheists including Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Jerry Coyne
argue that scientic and religious ways of thinking are fundamentally diferent
and incompatible, both in how they arrive at truth claims, and what consti-
tutes evidence for such claims. Whereas many believers, including theist sci-
entists, continue to argue some form of compatibility between science and
religion. The point is that the contemporary salience of this debate and the
nontheistic ideologies currently on ofer are not accidental. Rather, they are
premised on the discursive environment and socio-political nature of the con-
temporary American situation.
Morality is at play no less in ideology than in the other expressive elements
of nontheism. In addition to the eforts of nonbelievers to break the association
of atheism with immorality through public campaigning, morality is central in
another way. As Wielenberg (2013:89) observes, “Any discussion of atheism and
morality should begin with the recognition that ‘morality’ can mean two quite
diferent things. Sometimes ‘morality’ refers to human moral beliefs or practic-
es; other times, [it] refers to moral truths or facts.” Indeed, a major theme from
the growing qualitative and interview-based research (LeDrew 2013; Smith 2011;
Smith 2013) suggests that nonbelievers spend signicant time contemplating
moral questions; not only to argue that people can live moral lives without god,
but because of a commitment to understanding the nature and basis of moral-
ity itself (Beit-Hallahmi 2010). As their mission statements suggest, nontheist
organizations such as the American Atheists concern themselves not just with
destigmatizing atheism but actively participating in public discourse about the
sources, possibilities, and future of moral and ethical behavior in society.
Emotions
The “expressive” in expressive nontheism would make little sense without rec-
ognition of the critical role of emotion. Emotions motivate behavior, endow
experience with meaning, and give plausibility to ideologies and worldviews.
Cipriani, RobertoGarelli, Franco. 2016. Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed February 25, 2017.
ProQuest Ebook Central.
Created from wmichlib-ebooks on 2017-02-25 06:26:37.
Copyright © 2016. BRILL. All rights reserved.
<UN>
Practices, beliefs, and identities that resonate emotionally give substance and
justication to them. There is also an important relationship between emo-
tions and religious and other kinds of social movements (Cowen 2008). Thus,
emotions are neither superuous nor simply supplemental to the three other
elements of expressive nontheism. Though the arguments of atheists often sug-
gest they value the rational over the emotional; logic and reason over appeals
to personal experience, the role of emotion in the how and why of nontheistic
expression should not be overlooked. Geertz (1973) showed that a collective’s
“moods and motivations” – their ethos, is a fundamental constituent of their
worldview (and ideology). Emotions have a long history of study in the sociol-
ogy of religion insofar as emotion has been implicit in the range of religious
phenomena examined. As Corrigan (2008:3) notes, the study of emotion, “has
been wrapped in religious phrasing of questions about meaning, contingency,
ultimacy, and intention.”
The importance of emotion in religious expression, from experiences of ec-
stasy and the numinous, to the idea religious truth claims nd conrmation
in personal religious conversion experiences, is readily apparent. On the other
hand, emotion in nonreligious expression has comparatively been ignored in
the literature, despite its relevance for understanding expressive nontheism.
Events such as the Reason Rally – popularly referred to as the “Woodstock
for Atheists” – reect an increased willingness of American nontheists to create
public spaces in which to express their views. Reportedly the largest gathering
of nontheists in American history, thousands convened on the national mall in
Washington .. in the spring of 2012. This unprecedented event underscored
a desire to express secular messages and vocalize religious skepticism. Nonbe-
lievers held signs such as, “Hi Mom, I’m an Atheist!” “Good without God” and,
“Religion: together we can nd the cure.” The emotive aspect in these messages
gave nontheists opportunity to express anxiety, frustration, and in some cases,
hostility toward religion in a socially acceptable space and with the support
of fellow nonbelievers. In addition to creating cohesion and solidarity among
nonbelievers, this expressiveness lends a sense of legitimacy for nonbelievers
and their views. The emerging solidarities of the nontheist community are per-
haps most on display at such public events.
Emotions are not just psychophysical states of mind and body with origins
internal to the individual. They are shaped by social arrangements and struc-
tures. Hochschilde (1983) showed that people engage in emotion work, observe
“feeling rules,” and manage their emotions through social and interactional
processes. These are evident in group settings with strong social and sym-
bolic boundaries. One study of an Evangelical Christian group revealed how
members constructed a very specic idea about happiness (Wilkins 2008). To
Cipriani, RobertoGarelli, Franco. 2016. Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed February 25, 2017.
ProQuest Ebook Central.
Created from wmichlib-ebooks on 2017-02-25 06:26:37.
Copyright © 2016. BRILL. All rights reserved.
<UN>
demonstrate they were “happier than non-Christians” because of their experi-
ence of Christ and knowledge of eternal truths, they engaged in “happiness
talk” and other ways of managing their emotions, which in turn validated their
beliefs. This created a highly controlled group dynamic such that members
learned to adjust their emotional responses and overall demeanor to t the
constructed group denition of what it meant to be Christian (Wilkins 2008).
The emotion work in atheist groups may not be as apparent as this, but the
example is nevertheless instructive for understanding the emotional dynamics
found in the congregational context of the Sunday Assembly. As mentioned
earlier, Assembly services are similar to religious congregational activity, in
that members sing, dance, bear secular testimonies, revere “secular saints,” and
otherwise collectively interact in ways that engage the emotional resources
(Gallagher and Newton 2009) critical to creating collective identity, communi-
ty, and a sense of legitimacy. In other words, the Assembly’s practices help de-
velop its manifest purpose of ofering a supportive, expressive, identity-based
community for nontheists. But this is in part accomplished through the more
latent process of building emotional solidarities in a programmatic “religion-
like” context that validates ideology and other elements of nontheistic expres-
sion outlined above.
Conclusion
The preceding is intended to initiate sociological thinking on the idea of ex-
pressive nontheism. I have identied four basic elements to this expression, but
others might be added to this list. Of course, boundaries, practices, ideologies,
and emotions are integrated and overlapping social processes rather than dis-
crete events or mutually exclusive concepts. Though it is dicult to speak of
one without implying another, it is nevertheless useful to parse through the
way nontheism is expressed by way of these elements in order to work through
the challenge of conceptualizing nonbelief in research, identied decades ago
at the Culture of Unbelief symposium – that seminal sociological reection on
the social relevance of unbelief itself (see Caporale and Grumelli 1971.)
Contemporary studies of atheists and secularists have examined various
social and psychological processes including identity, stigma, collective be-
havior, and social movement. But the expressive qualities of nontheism per
se, have largely remained tacit and implied. Bringing “expressiveness” to the
fore and investigating – for instance – the emotive aspects of nontheism will
benet future research for the simple reason that emotions shape behavior
and give substance to experience. Emerging nontheist groups like the Sunday
Cipriani, RobertoGarelli, Franco. 2016. Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed February 25, 2017.
ProQuest Ebook Central.
Created from wmichlib-ebooks on 2017-02-25 06:26:37.
Copyright © 2016. BRILL. All rights reserved.
<UN>
Assembly; their work toward shared experience, the trust that is cultivated
in congregational contexts (Seymour et al. 2014), and their pursuit of collec-
tive awe, wonder, and the “celebration of life” in a godless universe is not
fully intelligible without incorporating and understanding the “empirics of
expression.”
When we speak of nontheist identities we should consider not only that
some people choose to adopt labels like atheist, nontheist, and secularist, but
examine how that label is instantiated by and through the elements of expres-
sion. For instance, afective bonds are central to the kind of collective identity
processes and resulting solidarities that make groups successful at meeting
their aims (Hetherington 1998). Focusing only on the surface arguments and
public actions of nontheist groups, such as American Atheists’ establishment
of the rst public atheist monument in Florida, without closely examining the
relationship of the expressive elements in which such actions are embedded,
will miss the relevant context of understanding.
The nontheist community is diverse and complex. Various secular groups
have diferent goals and meet diferent “secular needs” in an increasingly di-
verse (non)religious marketplace. The social legitimacy and the possibilities
of “the secular life” (Zuckerman 2014) in America appear to be solidifying and
expanding (respectively). The multiple secularities (Wohlrab-Sahra and Bur-
chardt 2012) and the “polysecular” (Shook 2014) nature of the contemporary
situation produce varying levels of cohesion/cooperation and conict/compe-
tition between secular groups and with the broader public (Smith 2015). Iden-
tifying and analyzing the ways diferent secular and atheist groups “do” bound-
aries, practice, ideology, and emotion, will aid understanding of the nature and
direction of these groups, and better account for the reality of the “many paths,
many meanings” (Smith forthcoming) quality to the growing nontheist com-
munity at large.
The specic sets of social, historical, and political conditions that give rise
to expressive nontheism are likewise complex and multifaceted. Some secular
groups have a long history in American society, but the public expression of
nontheism is today more apparent. In part, this is due to practical issues such
as the increasingly ubiquitous role of technology and social media in every-
day life, and the increasing numbers of those who claim no religion or theistic
belief. More substantively, shifting patterns of religious aliation (includ-
ing disaliation), demographic changes, and an evolving religious/irreligious
Although, as Cimino and Smith (2014) suggest, the actual increase in the numbers of – for
instance – atheists, may reect more willingness of the already unbelieving to claim atheism,
rather than represent new “converts” to atheism.
Cipriani, RobertoGarelli, Franco. 2016. Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed February 25, 2017.
ProQuest Ebook Central.
Created from wmichlib-ebooks on 2017-02-25 06:26:37.
Copyright © 2016. BRILL. All rights reserved.
<UN>
landscape (Sherkat 2014) set the stage for the character, quality, and degree
of nontheistic expression. Religion in politics, increased political polarization,
(Hout and Fischer 2002) and changing attitudes on social issues (e.g. gay mar-
riage, drug use, anti-science sentiment) all coalesce in ways that shape public
discourse and motivate unbelief in society.
The public role of religion and America’s traditional association of religion
and morality have encouraged nonbelievers to publicly demonstrate the pos-
sibilities (or in some cases perceived necessity) of an atheistic moral com-
munity; one that disentangles social values and the promotion of the public
good from religion and theistic claims. The American Atheists, the Sunday As-
sembly, The Center for Inquiry, the Secular Coalition of America, and other
nontheist groups, congregations, and political organizations provide a social
space, identity resource, support system, and outlet for advocacy in ways that
clearly typify the elements above. Hopefully this discussion helps point to the
utility of exploring and analyzing the evolving public spaces in which nonthe-
ism nds its expression.
References
Argue, Amy., Johnson, David R., and Lynn K. White. 1999. “Age and Religiosity: Evi-
dence from a Three-Wave Panel Analysis.” Journal for the Scientic Study of Religion
38(3): 423–435.
Baker, Joseph O’Brian, and Buster Smith. 2009. “The Nones: Social Characteristics of
the Religiously Unaliated.” Social Forces 87: 1252–1263.
Beit-Hallahmi, Benjamin. 2010. “Morality and Immorality Among the Irreligious.” In
Atheism and Secularity, Edited by Phil Zuckerman. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Brinkerhof, Merlin B., and Marlene M. Mackie. 1993. “Casting of the Bonds of Orga-
nized Religion: A Religious-Careers Approach to the Study of Apostasy.” Review of
Religious Research 34: 238–261.
Brewster, Melanie E. “Atheism, Gender, and Sexuality.” 2013. In The Oxford Handbook of
Atheism. NY, New York: Oxford University Press.
Bullivant, Stephen and Michael Ruse. 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Atheism. Oxford,
United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Campbell, Colin. 1972. Toward a Sociology of Irreligion. New York: Herder and Herder.
Caporale, Rocco and Antonio Grumelli. 1971. The Culture of Unbelief: Studies and Pro-
ceedings from the First International Symposium on Belief. Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press.
Cimino, Richard, and Christopher Smith. 2007. “Secular Humanism and Atheism be-
yond Progressive Secularism.” Sociology of Religion 68:407–424.
Cipriani, RobertoGarelli, Franco. 2016. Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed February 25, 2017.
ProQuest Ebook Central.
Created from wmichlib-ebooks on 2017-02-25 06:26:37.
Copyright © 2016. BRILL. All rights reserved.
<UN>
Cimino, Richard, and Christopher Smith. 2014. Atheist Awakening: Secular Activism and
Community in America. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Cowen, Douglas E. 2008. “Emotion and the Study of New Religious Movements.”
Pp.125–140 in The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Emotion, edited by John Cor-
rigan. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Cragun, Ryan T., Kosmin, Barry, Keysar, Ariela, Hammer, Joseph H., and Michael
Nielsen. 2011. On the receiving end: Discrimination toward the non-religious in the
United States. Journal of Contemporary Religion. 27(1):105–127.
Ebaugh, Helen R.F. 1988. Becoming an Ex: The Process of Role Exit. Chicago, IL: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press.
Edgell, Penny, Joseph Gerteis, and Douglas Hartmann. 2006. “Atheists as “Other”: Moral
Boundaries and Cultural Membership in American Society.” American Sociological
Review 71(2):211–234.
Fitzgerald, Bridget. 2003. Atheists in the United States: The construction and negotia-
tion of a non-normative identity. State University of New York doctoral thesis.
Gallagher, Sally K., and Chelsea Newton. 2009. “Dening Spiritual Growth: Congrega-
tions, Community, and Connectedness.” Sociology of Religion 70(3):232–261.
Geertz, Cliford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Gervais, W.M., Sharif, A.F., & Norenzayan, A. 2011. Do you Believe in Atheists? Distrust
is Central to Anti-Atheist Prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
101(6):1189–1206.
Guenther, Katja M., Mulligan Kerry and Cameron Papp. 2013. “From the Outside In:
Crossing Boundaries to Build Collective Identity in the New Atheist Movement.”
Social Problems 60(4):457–475.
Hammer, Joseph H., Ryan T. Cragun, Jesse M. Smith, and Karen Hwang. 2012. “Forms,
Frequency, and Correlates of Perceived Anti-Atheist Discrimination.” Secularism
and Nonreligion 1:43–58.
Heiner, R. 1992. Evangelical heathens: The deviant status of freethinkers in Southland.
Deviant Behavior, 13, 1–20.
Hetherington, Kevin. 1998. Expressions of identity: Space, performance, politics. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 1983. The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human
Feeling. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Hoskinson, Cyd. 2013. “Atheists Erect a Public Monument.” Available at http://www
.npr.org/2013/06/29/196911698/athiests-erect-a-public-monument, accessed June
2015.
Hout, M., & Fischer, C. 2002. Why more Americans have no religious preference: Poli-
tics and generations. American Sociological Review, 67, 165–190.
Hunsberger, Bruce E., and Bob Altemeyer. 2006 Atheists: A groundbreaking study of
America’s nonbelievers. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Cipriani, RobertoGarelli, Franco. 2016. Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed February 25, 2017.
ProQuest Ebook Central.
Created from wmichlib-ebooks on 2017-02-25 06:26:37.
Copyright © 2016. BRILL. All rights reserved.
<UN>
Hutchinson, Sikivu. 2013. Godless Americana: Race and Religious Rebels. Oregon, IL:
Quality Books Inc. Indel Books.
Jacobs, Janet. 1989. Divine Disenchantment: Deconverting from New Religions. Bloom-
ington IN: Indiana University Press.
Keysar, Ariela and Juhem Navarro-Rivera. 2013. “A World of Atheism: Global Demo-
graphics.” In The Oxford Handbook of Atheism, edited by Bullivant, Stephen and Mi-
chael Ruse. 43–87. Oxford University Press (USA).
Kosmin, Barry A., Ariela Keysar, Ryan T. Cragun, and Juhem Navarro-Rivera. 2009.
American Nones: The Prole of the No Religion Population. Hartford, CT: Institute for
the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture.
LeDrew, Stephen. 2013. “Discovering Atheism: Heterogeneity in Trajectories to Atheist
Identity and Activism.” Sociology of Religion 74 (2). doi:10.1093/socrel/srt014.
Pasquale, Frank L. 2012. “A Portrait of Secular Group Aliates.” In Atheism and secular-
ity, edited by Phil Zuckerman, 43–87. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Seymour, Jefrey M., Welch, Michael R., Gregg, Karen Monique and Jessica Collett. 2014.
“Generating Trust in Congregations: Engagement, Exchange, and Social Networks.”
Journal for the Scientic Study of Religion 53(1):130–144.
Sherkat, Darren. 2008. “Beyond Belief: Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theistic Certainty in
the United States.” Sociological Spectrum 28(5):438–459.
Sherkat, Darren. 2014. Changing Faith: The Dynamics and Consequences of Americans’
Shifting Religious Identities. New York: New York University Press.
Shook, John. 2014 “Polysecularity and Rival Secularisms.” Conference paper presenta-
tion. Society for the Scientic Study of Religion, annual meeting.
Smith, Christopher and Richard Cimino. 2012. Atheisms unbound: The role of the
new media in the formation of a secularist identity. Secularism and Nonreligion
1(1):17–31.
Smith, Jesse M. 2011. “Becoming an Atheist in America: Constructing Identity and
Meaning from the Rejection of Theism.” Sociology of Religion 72(2):215–237.
——— 2013. “Conceptualizing Atheist Identity: Expanding Questions, Constructing
Models, and Moving Forward.” Sociology of Religion 74(4):454–463.
——— 2013. “Creating a Godless Community: The Collective Identity Work of
Contemporary American Atheists.” Journal for the Scientic Study of Religion 52:
80–99.
——— (forthcoming). “Secularity: Many Paths, Many Meanings.” Oxford Handbook of
Secularism.
——— 2015. “Atheism.” In World Religions and Their Missions, Pp. 17–45. New York,
Peter Lang Publishing.
Waskul, Dennis D., and Phillip Vannini. 2006. “The Body in Symbolic Interaction.”
Pp.1–18 in Body/Embodiment: Symbolic Interaction and the Sociology of the Body,
edited by Dennis D. Waskul and Phillip Vannini. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing.
Cipriani, RobertoGarelli, Franco. 2016. Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed February 25, 2017.
ProQuest Ebook Central.
Created from wmichlib-ebooks on 2017-02-25 06:26:37.
Copyright © 2016. BRILL. All rights reserved.
<UN>
Wielenberg, Erik J. 2013. Atheism and Morality. In The Oxford Handbook of Atheism. NY,
New York: Oxford University Press (USA).
Wilkins, Amy C. 2008. “Happier than Non-Christians: Collective Emotions and Sym-
bolic Boundaries among Evangelical Christians.” Social Psychology Quarterly
71(3):281–301.
Wohlrab-Sahra, Monika and Marian Burchardt. 2012. “Multiple Secularities: Toward a
Cultural Sociology of Secular Modernities.” Comparative Sociology 11:875–909.
Williamson, David A., and George Yancey. 2013. There Is No God: Atheists in America.
Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littleeld.
Zuckerman, Phil. 2010. (Ed) Atheism and Secularity. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
———. 2014. Living the Secular Life: New Answers to Old Questions. New York, Penguin
Press.
Cipriani, RobertoGarelli, Franco. 2016. Annual Review of the Sociology of Religion. Leiden: BRILL. Accessed February 25, 2017.
ProQuest Ebook Central.
Created from wmichlib-ebooks on 2017-02-25 06:26:37.
Copyright © 2016. BRILL. All rights reserved.
