It's Not Just Young White Liberals Who Are Leaving Religion
Only 47 percent of American adults said they were members of a church, mosque or synagogue, according to recently released polling that was conducted by Gallup throughout last year. It marked the first time that a majority of Americans said they were not members of a church, mosque or synagogue since Gallup first started asking Americans about their religious membership in the 1930s. Indeed, Gallup’s finding was a kind of watershed moment in the long-chronicled shift of Americans away from organized religion.
What’s driving this shift? In part, it’s about people who still identify with a religious tradition opting not to be a member of a particular congregation. Only 60 percent of Americans who consider themselves religious are part of a congregation, compared to 70 percent a decade ago, according to Gallup. But the bigger factor, Gallup said, is the surge of religiously unaffiliated Americans — people who are agnostics, atheists or simply say they are not affiliated with a religious tradition. The rise of this group — sometimes referred to as “nones” because they answer “none” when asked about their faith (and, you know, it’s a play on words) — isn’t new. But the Gallup survey is part of a growing body of new research on this bloc (that includes a recent book by one of us, Ryan’s “The Nones: Where They Came From, Who They Are, and Where They Are Going”).
Let’s look at some of the new insights about the nones:
The nones are growing, but it’s hard to know exactly how many there are.
By nearly all measures, the nones now represent at least a fifth of all American adults, rivaling Catholics and evangelical Christians as the nation’s largest cohort in terms of religious faith (or lack thereof). They are the fastest-growing religious/nonreligious cohort — the nones went from 12 percent of American adults in 1998 to 16 percent in 2008, to 24 percent in 2018, according to data from the General Social Survey. Gallup puts this group at about 21 percent. Pew Research Center says 26 percent. The Cooperative Election Study suggests their ranks are even larger, at about 32 percent.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-not-just-young-white-liberals-who-are-leaving-religion/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Link is fine.
Thanks.
I am a sceptic, however that does not mean I don't personally want an afterlife to be a part of reality.
I just need to have actual 'evidence' that can either be reproduced or proven false.
I'm agnostic - so while my faith tells me an afterlife could be a part of this universe, my brain tells me that so far no evidence exists that meets the test of Scientific Method. I've come to terms with my dichotomy of feeling/thought and am fine with whichever one turns out to be valid. Though I hope I have many many years before I find out for myself. This rock is fascinating.
I don't wish my views on anyone else, either. It's a very personal thing. I don't judge others for theirs.
It's always a bit hard to really communicate on the tubz using the written word.
I've briefly gone over some of the studies you refered to and posted below, so far at first glance no dice for me, but I keep hoping. I'll put them back in my reading list so I can look up the actual papers for a rainy day.
Have a good evening!
It’s been said that string theory physicist Michio Kaku believes in God, but the truth is it depends on what “God” means.
https://bigthink.com/robby-berman/michio-kaku-believes-in-god-if-not-that-god
Co-founder of string field theory and physicist Michio Kaku made waves last year — or at least seemed to — when it was reported that he’d proven the existence of God. The Geophilosophical Association of Anthropological and Cultural Studies quoted Kaku as saying, "I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. To me, it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance." Reacting to that public comment, Kaku said: "That’s one of the drawbacks of being in a public sphere: Sometimes you get quoted incorrectly. My own point of view is that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God." "Science is based on what is testable, reproducible, and falsifiable," Kaku says. "That’s called 'science.' However, there are certain things that are not testable, not reproducible, and not falsifiable. And that would include the existence of God." He's noted that discerning whether you live in a Matrix-style construct or not would be another such 'non-falsifiable' problem.
Part of the problem, of course, is that "God" has different meanings to different people, and in discussing It/Him/Her, there’s apt to be confusion. And yet believers continue to ask scientists this question, perhaps seeking scientific confirmation for their faith. They want to know if Kaku’s an atheist, but when we can’t agree on what God is, “atheist” has even less meaning. In any event, when asked about God, Kaku is likely to quote Einstein’s suggestion that there are two types of god: “One god is a personal god, the god that you pray to, the god that smites the Philistines, the god that walks on water. That’s the first god. But there’s another god, and that’s the god of Spinoza. That’s the god of beauty, harmony, simplicity.”
It’s that second “God” to which Kaku is drawn. He tells innovation tech today that the universe could have been random, but that instead “Our universe is rich; it is beautiful, elegant.” He’s stuck by what he sees as its exquisite simplicity, pointing out that all of the laws of physics could fit on a single sheet of paper, and, “In fact, what I do for a living is to try to get that sheet of paper and summarize it into an equation one inch long.” He asserts that with his string field theory, he had that one-inch explanation of everything, but that with new developments in membrane theory, he needs a little more room. For now. Still, Kaku says, this will happen. Physics is the opposite of most other fields of study, he says: With every new advance it gets simpler, and in that lies his sense of wonder. “So, that’s the God of Einstein. The God of beauty, [the idea] that says that the universe is simpler the more we study it.”
That other kind of God clearly has less appeal for Kaku, as it generally does for physicists and other scientists, including Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who says that believers he talks to tell him that God is all-powerful and good, but when he looks at ”all the ways Earth wants to kill us,” he just doesn’t see how both could be true. So when Kaku asserts that the goal of string field theory is to “read the mind of God,” it’s important to remember he’s talking about Einstein’s God of Order. To “read the mind of God” would be to find that (one-inch) equation that explains everything in the cosmos. Bearing in mind the continual game of leapfrog going on between math and physics, and that the latest leap is physics' string theory, which requires a new type of math, Kaku mischievously suggests that the ultimate solution to the schism between physicists and mathematicians could be that God is a mathematician. And, he says, the mind of God — the explanation of Order — may turn out to be string field theory’s “cosmic music,” the resonating of strings through 11-dimensional hyperspace.
snip
Then when Protestantism came about, it applied to that too.
It simply meant that one did not proscribe to the beliefs of mainstream Christianity or belong to any recognized congregation.
a-theist...anti-fa(cist)...
Interesting to see how meanings of words change over time.
Edit/Disclaimer: I want to clarify the above comparison is not meant to equate the two concepts in any way - just used as an example to emphasize how words and meanings 'evolve' over time. Does not refer to any commentators or the OP in any way.
The first time I typed his name, autocorrect changed Spong to SpongeBob! So glad I caught that in time! 
tacos and a full bar...... 
by rationale and science. 
of course, it will just make the ones left more insufferable.
Even went to a Jesuit college. Hubby was raised Presbyterian.
I was very religious through college and in my early working years. Raised in an Irish Catholic family so guilt played a big part.
When we married and had our first kid, we decided to raise him in the Catholic faith. I was involved with the church as a lector, eucharistic minister and son was an altar server.
When son was 10, we had a second son. Also baptized Catholic. By that time, the child abuse crimes were coming out; I was (as a member of the Parish Council) well aware of how much money this parish had - yet they were constantly asking for money for this or that (from a very poor parish).
In the meantime, we had some contact with the local Presby church, when my in-laws visited. It was warm and welcoming, loved to see kids and had a vigorous teen and pre-teen youth group - all free to parents (the Catholic church charged for everything). We made the switch. Younger son had a wonderful experience with the church and the youth group was wonderful. Not as much preachy, more service. The kids would travel to NC every summer for a week with a faith-based construction group, to help rural poor people repair their homes. He loved the experience and made so many friends.
The church was also wonderful to my MIL as she went through the last phase of her life. In fact, when we moved her to hospice, she thought she was in a Presbyterian rehab facility and was so happy! 
It made her final days rather lovely.
The kids are grown and we only attended church service occasionally until COVID. We like the people we've met and, being that we both are very service oriented, the focus on service speaks to us. The church has assisted with our small, secular charity and still always seems to have funds to help local efforts - lately, feeding the food insecure.
Neither of our children have stayed religious and I am OK with that. So, I guess we're a family of parents in their 60s and kids in 30s and 20s who have left organized religion.
