A near-empty church. Photograph: Kumar Sriskandan/Alamy.
The number of people who say they have no religion is rapidly escalating and significantly outweighs the Christian population in England and Wales, according to new analysis.
The proportion of the population who identify as having no religion – referred to as “nones” – reached 48.5% in 2014, almost double the figure of 25% in the 2011 census. Those who define themselves as Christian – Anglicans, Catholics and other denominations – made up 43.8% of the population.
“The striking thing is the clear sense of the growth of ‘no religion’ as a proportion of the population,” said Stephen Bullivant, senior lecturer in theology and ethics at St Mary’s Catholic University in Twickenham, who analysed data collected through British Social Attitudes surveys over three decades.
“The main driver is people who were brought up with some religion now saying they have no religion. What we’re seeing is an acceleration in the numbers of people not only not practising their faith on a regular basis, but not even ticking the box. The reason for that is the big question in the sociology of religion.”
[…]
The new analysis will fuel concern among Christian leaders about growing indifference to organised religion. This year the Church of England said it expected attendance to continue to fall for another 30 years as its congregations age and the millennial generation spurns the institutions of faith.
According to Bullivant’s report, Contemporary Catholicism in England and Wales – which will be launched at the House of Commons on Tuesday, both the Anglican and Catholic churches are struggling to retain people brought up as Christians.
Four out 10 adults who were raised as Anglicans define themselves as having no religion, and almost as many “cradle Catholics” have abandoned their family faith to become “nones”.
Neither church is bringing in fresh blood through conversions. Anglicans lose 12 followers for every person they recruit, and Catholics 10.
The vast majority of converts come from other Christian denominations, rather than non-Christians or people with no religion. “There’s a kind of denominational musical chairs,” said Bullivant. “No one is making serious inroads into the non-Christian population.”
[…]
A spokesperson for the Church of England said: “The increase in those identifying as ‘no faith’ reflects a growing plurality in society rather than any increase in secularism or humanism. We do not have an increasingly secular society as much as a more agnostic one.
“In a global context, adherence to religion is growing rather than decreasing. Christianity remains the world’s largest religion with over 2 billion adherents. In the UK the latest census found the overwhelming majority of people to have a faith.”
“UK and Wales” should be “England and Wales”. Both England and Wales are part of the United Kingdom (UK). The figures reported do not include Scotland or Northern Ireland, also parts of the UK.
Secondly, I dont believe the reported growth from 25% to 48.5% in three years -- change doesn’t happen that fast. My guess is that the two surveys were done on a different basis.
However -- it’s good news for us Brits.
You mean “England and Wales”. The UK comprises England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.
Ninja’d!
So people are actually religious, they’re just not admitting to it. Nice play there, spokesperson.
rq:
I laughed when I read that. Say anything, just don’t admit to reality!
Considering it was followed up with:
I assume he got confused with marking a religion box on a census form, and actually having some kind of belief (confused on purpose because how could it be otherwise, right). It happens! I mean, last time I got asked about my religion in an official setting, I automatically replied ‘catholic’. Bit of a habit, that.
Yeah, I read that (and the absurd quotes from the magic sky faerie botherer) this morning, almost choking on my tea. Something seems a bit wonky. My sense of suspicion is heightened by two things: First(minor), the article is by the religion correspondent, and Second(perhaps reflective of the first point?) the “new analysis” or report or whatever does not seem to be clearly identified or linked-to. That is, a dubious report by a possibly-biased reporter for a dubious beat. As such, I would not rule out misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation.
Stephen Bullivant at St Mary’s Catholic University is said to be the person “who analysed data collected through British Social Attitudes surveys over three decades”, so there is a clew where to go looking for this analysis. But other than that, the article could just as well be reporting on something pulled from some dog’s arse.