Why religion went obsolete - Part 2
Despite some recent signs of revival, the headline remains true: traditional religion in America is spiraling.
In his latest book, Why Religion Went Obsolete, sociologist Christian Smith ventures to explain why. He argues that a number of different social forces and influences combined in the 1990’s and 2000’s leading to a cultural tipping point that pushed traditional religion into a state of unplanned obsolescence.
In other words, most people simply don’t find traditional religion useful. For younger generations the thought of “using” religion is about as unlikely as the thought of using a typewriter.
Not because it doesn’t “work,” but because it is no longer a widely supported cultural “technology.” People aren’t anti-religion. In fact, one characteristic of what Smith calls the “Millennial zeitgeist”—his term for the spirit of the present age—is a “you do you” attitude. If traditional religion helps you, go for it.
But most people aren’t going for it, and Smith argues that is because they perceive it doesn’t or can’t help them.
If that is true, however, it must mean that Americans either once did find traditional religion helpful or at least imagine it could be but perceive that it isn’t. And it turns out, when asked, Americans have some pretty strong and clear opinions about what religion is good for. In other words, even when people aren’t “using” religion they have expectations of religion. Part of Smith’s story is that many people distance themselves from traditional religion because they don’t see it living up to those expectations. More on that in a future post.
For now, however, I want to name the most common expectations and then reflect a little on this whole topic.
From his research, Smith identifies six expectations that the average American has of traditional religion; qualities that in the average American’s mind make traditional religion good.
A few thoughts on this list. Most people recognize that religion does have or should have or could have both interpersonal and intrapersonal benefits. Religion can make me happy, help me cope with hardship, and instill in me good morals. Religion can also help us live together in peace and harmony, maybe even serve as a galvanizing force in our national security and identity.[7]
That’s probably good news. In the Christian faith, at least, love of God is always connected to love of neighbor. Those who subscribe to traditional Christian faith ought to find it a resource for strengthening their own sense of well-being as well as a guide to caring for others. That the average person perceives traditional religion should do that is a good thing.
A shadow side to that fact, however, may be the average person’s goal. As I mentioned a moment ago, a key characteristic of Smith’s “Millennial zeitgeist” is a “you do you” attitude. The uncritical assumption that the average person carries around in contemporary American culture is that he is on a personalized, customized self-actualization project, deciding for himself who and what he will be.
If he happens to be want to be happy, calm, able to cope with life, self-assured, decent, and honest and he finds traditional religion to be a great resource in helping him to self-actualize in those ways, he’ll use it and most other people in his culture will affirm his use of it for those reasons.
But notice he doesn’t want religion to become too weird, extreme, or fanatical. He wants religion to serve him, not challenge him. And religion cannot be used to judge others—it should only be used to help us live in peace and harmony—because that would violate the Millennial zeitgeist of “you do you.”
In other words, the average person may think religion is good when it helps him become who or what he’s decided to be (and not good when it doesn’t) and when it doesn’t make it difficult for other people to be whoever or whatever they’ve decided to be.
Commitment to traditional religion ought to produce a genuine, proactive love for one’s neighbor. The average American seems to acknowledge with their lips that they believe religion is good for that purpose, but this could just as easily (and perhaps more likely) be apathy masquerading as a desire for love. In other words, what the average person might really be saying is, “I don’t care enough about you to get involved in your life and I don’t expect you to care enough about me to get involved in my life. I’ll do me. You do you. If traditional religion helps us all leave each other alone so we can become who or whatever we want to be, I’m all for it.”
Perhaps one of the reasons the average person does not want to engage traditional religion is because it doesn’t take long inside traditional religion to realize it isn’t good for that.
My last reflection on this list is that it doesn’t include the notion of truthfulness or meaning. People think religion is good because it might help them to be good or to live in harmony with other people but not because it’s true or because it’s true it helps them to understand who they are and what life is all about.
Smith notes that while pastors like me might like to believe people are committed to religion because they believe its core doctrines, that simply isn’t true for most people. Certainly for some, but most people are leveraging religion like a technology in a self-actualization campaign. If it helps them achieve some interpersonal or intrapersonal outcome, the theology just isn’t that important.
And that will go a long way to explaining why so many people have walked away from traditional religion and why fewer still are joining up. As I said a moment ago, traditional religion should (and does) have both interpersonal and intrapersonal benefits. But so do yoga, mindfulness, Crossfit, book clubs, Buddhist meditation, hiking, and bonfires. When a person’s commitment to traditional religion has little to do with the truth claims that religion is making but more to do with its perceived social benefits, if that person achieve those same benefits elsewhere without having to deal with some of the inconveniences of traditional religion, it becomes much easier to walk awa from religion.
And if enough people who were using religion for these kinds of social benefits begin to realize they can achieve the same benefits more easily or efficiently elsewhere, eventually religion becomes obsolete.
[1] Smith, 44
[2] Smith, 48
[3] Smith, 50
[4] 52
[5] 54
[6] 55
[7] Later in the book Smith will note that most people today do not believe religion has the capacity any longer to hold our nation together. Maybe it once did and it might be nice if it still could but most believe it can’t.
In his latest book, Why Religion Went Obsolete, sociologist Christian Smith ventures to explain why. He argues that a number of different social forces and influences combined in the 1990’s and 2000’s leading to a cultural tipping point that pushed traditional religion into a state of unplanned obsolescence.
In other words, most people simply don’t find traditional religion useful. For younger generations the thought of “using” religion is about as unlikely as the thought of using a typewriter.
Not because it doesn’t “work,” but because it is no longer a widely supported cultural “technology.” People aren’t anti-religion. In fact, one characteristic of what Smith calls the “Millennial zeitgeist”—his term for the spirit of the present age—is a “you do you” attitude. If traditional religion helps you, go for it.
But most people aren’t going for it, and Smith argues that is because they perceive it doesn’t or can’t help them.
If that is true, however, it must mean that Americans either once did find traditional religion helpful or at least imagine it could be but perceive that it isn’t. And it turns out, when asked, Americans have some pretty strong and clear opinions about what religion is good for. In other words, even when people aren’t “using” religion they have expectations of religion. Part of Smith’s story is that many people distance themselves from traditional religion because they don’t see it living up to those expectations. More on that in a future post.
For now, however, I want to name the most common expectations and then reflect a little on this whole topic.
From his research, Smith identifies six expectations that the average American has of traditional religion; qualities that in the average American’s mind make traditional religion good.
“Morals: Religion is good when it helps people to be good, moral, and nice.”[1]
“Positive psychology: Religion is good when it helps people cope with life, sustain a positive outlook, and feel calm, happy, affirmed, and encouraged.”[2]
“Getting along: Religion is good when it fosters community, social cooperation, peace, and harmony.”[3]
“Modeling: Religion is good when it provides societal role models for basic moral integrity, decency, and honesty—especially by religious leaders.”[4
“Moderation: Religion is good when it is moderate, not too weird, and certainly not fanatical or extremist.”[5]
“National solidarity: Religion is good when it strengthens America as a nation.”[6]
A few thoughts on this list. Most people recognize that religion does have or should have or could have both interpersonal and intrapersonal benefits. Religion can make me happy, help me cope with hardship, and instill in me good morals. Religion can also help us live together in peace and harmony, maybe even serve as a galvanizing force in our national security and identity.[7]
That’s probably good news. In the Christian faith, at least, love of God is always connected to love of neighbor. Those who subscribe to traditional Christian faith ought to find it a resource for strengthening their own sense of well-being as well as a guide to caring for others. That the average person perceives traditional religion should do that is a good thing.
A shadow side to that fact, however, may be the average person’s goal. As I mentioned a moment ago, a key characteristic of Smith’s “Millennial zeitgeist” is a “you do you” attitude. The uncritical assumption that the average person carries around in contemporary American culture is that he is on a personalized, customized self-actualization project, deciding for himself who and what he will be.
If he happens to be want to be happy, calm, able to cope with life, self-assured, decent, and honest and he finds traditional religion to be a great resource in helping him to self-actualize in those ways, he’ll use it and most other people in his culture will affirm his use of it for those reasons.
But notice he doesn’t want religion to become too weird, extreme, or fanatical. He wants religion to serve him, not challenge him. And religion cannot be used to judge others—it should only be used to help us live in peace and harmony—because that would violate the Millennial zeitgeist of “you do you.”
In other words, the average person may think religion is good when it helps him become who or what he’s decided to be (and not good when it doesn’t) and when it doesn’t make it difficult for other people to be whoever or whatever they’ve decided to be.
Commitment to traditional religion ought to produce a genuine, proactive love for one’s neighbor. The average American seems to acknowledge with their lips that they believe religion is good for that purpose, but this could just as easily (and perhaps more likely) be apathy masquerading as a desire for love. In other words, what the average person might really be saying is, “I don’t care enough about you to get involved in your life and I don’t expect you to care enough about me to get involved in my life. I’ll do me. You do you. If traditional religion helps us all leave each other alone so we can become who or whatever we want to be, I’m all for it.”
Perhaps one of the reasons the average person does not want to engage traditional religion is because it doesn’t take long inside traditional religion to realize it isn’t good for that.
My last reflection on this list is that it doesn’t include the notion of truthfulness or meaning. People think religion is good because it might help them to be good or to live in harmony with other people but not because it’s true or because it’s true it helps them to understand who they are and what life is all about.
Smith notes that while pastors like me might like to believe people are committed to religion because they believe its core doctrines, that simply isn’t true for most people. Certainly for some, but most people are leveraging religion like a technology in a self-actualization campaign. If it helps them achieve some interpersonal or intrapersonal outcome, the theology just isn’t that important.
And that will go a long way to explaining why so many people have walked away from traditional religion and why fewer still are joining up. As I said a moment ago, traditional religion should (and does) have both interpersonal and intrapersonal benefits. But so do yoga, mindfulness, Crossfit, book clubs, Buddhist meditation, hiking, and bonfires. When a person’s commitment to traditional religion has little to do with the truth claims that religion is making but more to do with its perceived social benefits, if that person achieve those same benefits elsewhere without having to deal with some of the inconveniences of traditional religion, it becomes much easier to walk awa from religion.
And if enough people who were using religion for these kinds of social benefits begin to realize they can achieve the same benefits more easily or efficiently elsewhere, eventually religion becomes obsolete.
[1] Smith, 44
[2] Smith, 48
[3] Smith, 50
[4] 52
[5] 54
[6] 55
[7] Later in the book Smith will note that most people today do not believe religion has the capacity any longer to hold our nation together. Maybe it once did and it might be nice if it still could but most believe it can’t.
Recent
Archive
2026
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
Categories
no categories
No Comments