CANR
WORK TITLE: WHAT IT MEANS TO BE MORAL
WORK NOTES:
PSEUDONYM(S):
BIRTHDATE:
WEBSITE:
CITY: Claremont
STATE:
COUNTRY:
NATIONALITY:
LAST VOLUME: CANR 294
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/
RESEARCHER NOTES:
PERSONAL
Born June 26, 1969, in Los Angeles, CA; married Stacy Elliott; children: Ruby, Flora, August.
EDUCATION:Attended Santa Monica College; University of Oregon, B.A. (cum laude), 1992, M.A., 1995, Ph.D., 1998.
ADDRESS
CAREER
Writer and educator. University of Oregon, Eugene, 1996-98; Pitzer College, Claremont, CA, visiting assistant professor, 1998-99, assistant professor, 1999-2005, professor, 2010—, Department of Secular Studies founder, 2011; Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, affiliated professor, beginning 2002; University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark, guest professor, 2005-06, 2010. Member of board of directors of Brighter Brains nonprofit organization.
MEMBER:American Sociological Association, Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, Association for the Sociology of Religion, Pacific Sociological Association, Society for the Advancement of Scandinavian Studies, Phi Beta Kappa, Alpha Kappa Delta.
AWARDS:University of Oregon, Centurion Award, 1992, Outstanding Teaching Award, 1997; Top 5 Professor at the Claremont Colleges, Claremont Colleges, 2001-02; Book of the Year Silver Award, ForeWord, 2008, for Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us about Contentment; Scholar in Residence, Pitzer College, 2009; Silver Book of the Year, ForeWord, 2011, for Society without God. Grants from the European Union Center of California, Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture, and Association for the Sociology of Religion.
RELIGION: Atheist.WRITINGS
Contributor to books, including Parenting Beyond Belief: On Raising Ethical, Caring Kids without Religion, Amacom (New York, NY), 2016. Has also contributed many articles to academic journals, including Sociology Compass, Sociology of Religion, Journal of Contemporary Religion, Deviant Behavior, and Religion, Brain, and Behavior; contributor to websites, including Psychology Today and Huffington Post.
SIDELIGHTS
Phil Zuckerman is an American writer and educator whose academic work is chiefly focused on topics relating to sociology and religion. Specifically, Zuckerman’s research interests are secularity, atheism, apostasy, and Scandinavian culture. Zuckerman published Invitation to the Sociology of Religion in 2003. Zuckerman claims that the work is not meant to function as an all-inclusive overview of the sociology of religion but rather as a brief primer for those who are interested in or beginning study of the subject.
Reviewing the work in the Sociology of Religion journal, contributor David Yamane commented: “Although the book is not comprehensive, Zuckerman covers a good deal of ground in just 130 pages of text. He offers a general sociological perspective on religion, considers variation in religious expression by time and place, looks at how religion is socially learned, discusses new religious movements, examines how social life affects religion and vice-versa, and concludes by considering religious belief. In each chapter I found myself alternating between nodding my head in agreement and shaking it in disagreement.”
Zuckerman’s 2008 title Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us about Contentment received a great deal of critical attention. The study is based on interviews that Zuckerman conducted over the span of a year in Denmark and Sweden, which he believes may be the least religious countries in the world. What Zuckerman found through his interviews was that a huge percentage of Danish and Swedish people have vague, shallow feelings toward religion. While examining this general lack of religion, Zuckerman also comments on the fact that as a country, each seems to function just fine without it. In fact, Zuckerman found social categories such as health, welfare, and incidence of crime to be significantly more functional than those of the United States. Another significant question that Zuckerman seeks to address in his study is why there is such a lack of religion in these countries. He presents a theory that states that the culture in general serves as a substitute for religion.
Reviewing the work in the Humanist, contributor Ronald Aronson reported: “The book is personal as well as scholarly, and Zuckerman, an engaging writer, brings it to life with anecdotes about his time in Denmark and Sweden in addition to subjects’ testimonies. … Zuckerman goes on to present his fascinating interviews, typically focusing on three subjects in each chapter and framing their responses with appropriate theoretical and historical reflections. He refuses to blink before controversial questions, but never relaxes his scholarly rigor. Some of the conversations will be especially striking to Americans. … In general the interviews convey more the absence of religion than the presence of any powerful secular outlook.” A Publishers Weekly reviewer described the book as a “portrait of a people unconcerned and even incurious about questions of faith, God and life’s meaning.” Christianity Today contributor Lisa Graham McMinn commented: “Here is the point that makes Zuckerman’s book worth, well … worth checking out from the library. Zuckerman proposes what he calls a ‘socio-religious irony.’ The world’s great religions speak of caring for the sick, the poor, and the orphaned, and of practicing mercy and goodwill toward fellow humans, yet these traits are often more evident in the world’s least religious nations. Maybe that’s so, at least as reflected in governmental policies, but Zuckerman does not effectively explain why it might be so. Nor does he say how U.S. Christians might respond to this irony.” A contributor to Religion Watch remarked: “Through in-depth interviews with 149 Danish and Swedish residents, Zuckerman tries to unlock the mystery of why Scandinavia in general is so secular. Along the way, he reports several interesting findings.” Books & Culture contributor C. John Sommerville commented: “Now we have Phil Zuckerman’s Society without God, based on interviews in Denmark, which Zuckerman thinks is the country in all the world that registers the least measurable evidence of religion. First, a couple of caveats. Zuckerman conducted only 149 interviews (103 with Danes, 39 with Swedes, and 7 with immigrants from outside Scandinavia). As he acknowledges in an appendix, his sample was nonrandom, which means that ‘valid generalizability to the wider Danish and Swedish populations is not possible.’ Even so, there is good reason to suppose that a random survey would not produce greatly different results.” Dann Wigner, a contributor to Library Journal, criticized the work: “This book is an interesting conversation starter, but it has little sociological value.” Artforum International contributor Catherine Tumber noted: “Zuckerman makes much of the idea that Danes and Swedes are possessed of a ‘cultural religion’—long a controversial subject among Jewish and Catholic believers—yet he regards the concept as a recent innovation. These examples are only a few that suggest the reader is not well served by Zuckerman’s efforts to provide historical and religious context. His call for more studies of nonreligious societies may be a good idea, as long as they remain alive to the dark excursions even the most seemingly contented must take by virtue of their humanity.”
Next, Zuckerman served as the editor of Atheism and Secularity. The work is a two-volume set of essays that engage the topics of atheism and secularism from an academic perspective. The first volume explains atheism and secularity in general, clarifying any concepts, history, or other information that readers may not be aware of. The first volume also speaks to atheism’s relationship to other social movements, and how atheist and secular beliefs manifest themselves in society. The second volume provides more specific information regarding how nonreligious beliefs occur internationally. This volume includes perspectives from Japan, the former Soviet Union, Ghana, the United Kingdom, the Arab world, India, the Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries, and China.
Reviewing the work in Religion Watch, a contributor explained: “The two volumes cover both the theoretical and conceptual issues of non-belief and secularism, as well as their various atheist expressions around the world. The first volume seeks to explain who the atheists and unbelievers actually are through survey research.”
Zuckerman continues his explorations of secular life in Faith No More: Why People Reject Religion and Living the Secular Life: New Answers to Old Questions. In the latter volume, the author explores the intersection between secularism and sociology, and he explains that a growing population in Europe and America identifies as secular. He outlines different aspects of secular culture and explains how secular people continue to live moral lives. Drawing on sociological research and extensive interviews, Zuckerman presents conversations with self-identified secularists, and he finds that his subjects follow their own moral codes. Many also admit to being spiritual without being religious.
Discussing the book on the Sam Harris website, Zuckerman told his eponymous interviewer that religious rituals are valuable, but it is possible to “secularize religion.” He explained: “By that I mean keep the rituals, the holidays, the buildings, the gatherings, the knickknacks, but let the supernatural beliefs wither and fade. The example of this that first comes to mind is Reform Judaism. Most American Jews get what they like out of Judaism—the ceremonies, the holidays, the sense of belonging, multi-generational connections, opportunities for charity—and yet they have jettisoned the supernatural beliefs. Many liberal Episcopalian congregations, too, are in this vein. Also Quaker meetings.” The author added: “I have learned in my research that the vast majority of people who walk away from religion don’t miss it and find numerous ways to live meaningful lives without it—through work, family life, friends, hobbies, art, sex, philosophy, theater, hunting, working on cars, dancing, and so on. Of course, all that said, religion may not be so easily replaced, and the fact that secularism seems to correlate strongly with individualism could become a problem down the road.”
Praising the author’s efforts in California Bookwatch, a critic called Living the Secular Life “an involving survey highly recommended for sociology and spirituality thinkers alike.” Brian Sullivan, writing in Library Journal, was also impressed, asserting that the book is “highly recommended for all readers … seeking a more accurate understanding of this ever-growing segment of the American population.” According to Booklist correspondent Ray Olson, Zuckerman “shows that secularism isn’t bipolar … but includes many with some supernatural beliefs but who aren’t religiously observant.” A Publishers Weekly contributor simply called the book a “fine work,” while a Kirkus Reviews columnist advised: “As Zuckerman makes clear, without resorting to smugness, secularity is not nothing but rather a way of living that enhances moral virtues and promotes human decency.”
Zuckerman collaborated with Luke W. Galen and Frank L. Pasquale to write the 2016 book, The Nonreligious: Understanding Secular People and Societies. In this volume, the authors look to social scientists’ research to draw conclusions on nonreligious people.
Zuckerman discusses the complex history of ethical and unethical behavior in the name of faith in What It Means to Be Moral: Why Religion Is Not Necessary for Living an Ethical Life. He suggests that the religious cannot be depended upon to always act ethically. Zuckerman also argues that secular belief systems can foster behavior that is moral and useful in society. In an interview with Scott Jacobsen, contributor to the Conatus News website, Zuckerman discussed ethics and the nonreligious. He stated: “Consider research that specifically illustrates atheist morality in action: a recent international study looked at children and their likelihood of being generous or selfish in six different countries. Some of the kids had been raised Christian, some had been raised Muslim, and some had been raised without religion. The non-religious kids were the most generous—giving away, on average, a higher number of their stickers to kids they didn’t know—than the Muslim or Christian kids, who tended to be more selfish.” Zuckerman continued: “Sure, it was just one study involving kids and stickers. But it effectively points to a much larger and important reality: that the vast majority of atheists of the world are decent and humane.”
Reviewers offered mixed assessments of What It Means to Be Moral. A Kirkus Reviews critic commented: “The author does not argue convincingly why religion itself is antithetical to moral behavior.” However, the critic described the book as offering “a thoughtful perspective on humans’ capacity for moral behavior.” A writer in Publishers Weekly suggested that the volume contains “a prodigiously well-supported argument.” The same writer remarked: “While this is a comprehensive introduction to religious skepticism, Zuckerman’s conclusions will likely only convince fellow secularists.”
BIOCRIT
PERIODICALS
American Jewish History, June, 2000, Joellyn Wallen Zollman, review of Strife in the Sanctuary: Religious Schism in a Jewish Community, p. 322.
Artforum International, October, 2008, Catherine Tumber, review of Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us about Contentment, p. S40.
Booklist, November 15, 2014, Ray Olson, review of Living the Secular Life: New Answers to Old Questions.
Books & Culture, May-June, 2010, C. John Sommerville, review of Society without God, p. 19.
California Bookwatch, February, 2015, review of Living the Secular Life.
Christianity Today, February, 2009, Lisa Graham McMinn, review of Society without God, p. 57; November, 2011, review of Faith No More: Why People Reject Religion.
Humanist, January-February, 2010, Ronald Aronson, review of Society without God, p. 43.
Kirkus Reviews, October 15, 2014, review of Living the Secular Life; July 1, 2019, review of What It Means to Be Moral: Why Religion Is Not Necessary for Living an Ethical Life.
Library Journal, September 1, 2008, Dann Wigner, review of Society without God, p. 134; December 1, 2014, Brian Sullivan, review of Living the Secular Life.
Publishers Weekly, August 11, 2008, review of Society without God, p. 44; September 12, 2011, review of Faith No More, p. 72; October 20, 2014, review of Living the Secular Life; June 24, 2019, review of What It Means to Be Moral, p. 168.
Reference & Research Book News, August, 2010, review of Atheism and Secularity.
Religion Watch, November-December, 2008, review of Society without God, p. 9; January-February, 2010, review of Atheism and Secularity, p. 9; November-December, 2011, review of Faith No More.
Skeptical Inquirer, May-June, 2004, Kendrick Frazier, review of Invitation to the Sociology of Religion, p. 59; July-August, 2016, Kendrick Frazier, review of The Nonreligious: Understanding Secular People and Societies, p. 61.
Sociology of Religion, winter, 2007, David Yamane, review of Invitation to the Sociology of Religion, p. 427.
ONLINE
Conatus News, https://conatusnews.com/ (June 1, 2017), Scott Jacobsen, author interview.
Journal of Southern Religion, http://jsr.fsu.edu/ (November 8, 2011), Mark Newman, review of Du Bois on Religion.
Phil Zuckerman, https://philzuckerman.com/ (August 19, 2019).
Pitzer College, http://www.pitzer.edu/ (May 5, 2015), author faculty profile.
Sam Harris, http://www.samharris.org/ (December 3, 2014), Sam Harris, author interview.
Phil Zuckerman is a professor of sociology and secular studies at Pitzer College in Claremont, California. He is also a regular affiliated professor at Claremont Graduate University, and he has been a guest professor for two years at the University of Aarhus, Denmark.
Phil is the author of several books, including The Nonreligious (Oxford, 2016), Living the Secular Life (Penguin, 2014), Faith No More (Oxford, 2011), Society Without God (NYU, 2008), and Invitation to the Sociology of Religion (Routledge, 2003). He has also edited several volumes, including The Oxford Companion to Secularism (2017), Beyond Religion (Macmillian, 2016), Atheism and Secularity (Praeger, 2010), Sex and Religion (Wadsworth,2005), and The Social Theory of W.E.B. Du Bois (Pine Forge, 2004). Phil’s books have been translated and published in Danish, Farsi, Turkish, Chinese, Korean, and Italian.
Phil writes a regular blog for Psychology Today titled “The Secular Life,” and he also writes for the Huffington Post. His work has also been published in various scholarly journals, such as Sociology Compass, Sociology of Religion, Journal of Contemporary Religion, Deviant Behavior, and Religion, Brain, and Behavior.
In 2011, Phil founded the first Secular Studies department in the nation. Secular Studies is an interdisciplinary program focusing on manifestations of the secular in societies and cultures, past and present. Secular Studies entails the study of non-religious people, groups, thought, and cultural expressions. Emphasis is placed upon the meanings, forms, relevance, and impact of political/constitutional secularism, philosophical skepticism, and personal and public secularity.
Phil grew up in Pacific Palisades, California. Phil attended Santa Monica College before transferring to the University of Oregon, where he earned a BA (1992), MA (1995), and PhD (1998), all in sociology. His favorite writers include Tarjei Vesaas, Knut Hamsun, I.B. Singer, Richard Brautigan, Moa Martinson, Tove Ditlevsen, W.E.B. Du Bois, Steve Bruce, Peter Berger, and Erich Fromm. His favorite bands/musicians include Love, Nick Drake, The Beatles, Bert Jansch, Donovan, Turid, The Innocence Mission, Van Morrison, Bob Dylan, Neil Young, XTC, The Byrds, The Kinks, The Who, Talking Heads, Tom Petty, Elliott Smith, Kurt Vile, cat Power, Tim Buckley, Simon and Garfunkel, and Nina Simone.
He currently lives in Claremont, California, with his wife, Stacy, and their three children.
Phil Zuckerman
Professor of Sociology & Secular Studies
With Pitzer Since: 1998
Field Group: Sociology
Campus Address: Scott Hall 211
Phone: 909.607.4495
Email: phil_zuckerman@pitzer.edu
Office Hours: Contact Professor
Educational Background
BA, MA, PhD, University of Oregon
Research Interests
Secularity, Atheism, Apostasy, and Scandinavian Culture
Recent Courses
Secularism: Local/Global (SOC80)
Sociology and Its View of the World (SOC01)
Sociology Through Film (SOC81)
Classical Sociological Theory (SOC110)
Sociology of Religion (SOC114)
Scandinavian Culture and Society (SOC79)
Secularism, Skepticism, and Irreligion (SOC165)
Selected Articles, Book Chapters and Books
Books
What It Means to be Moral, Counterpoint Press, 2019. (https://www.counterpointpress.com/dd-product/what-it-means-to-be-moral/)
The Oxford Handbook of Secularism (with John Shook), Oxford University Press, 2017, was published
The Nonreligious: Understanding Secular People and Societies. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016.
Living the Secular Life. New York: Penguin Press, 2014.
Invitation to the Sociology of Religion (Chinese translation). Beijing, China: Peking University Press, 2013.
Society without God (Italian translation). Catania, Italy: Malcor D’Edizione, 2013.
Society without God (Korean translation). Seoul, Korea: Maumsanchaek, 2013.
Studying Religion and Society: Sociological Self-Portraits. London, UK: Routledge, 2013. Co-edited with Titus Hjlem.
Faith No More: Why People Reject Religion. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Atheism and Secularity. Santa Barbara: Praeger, 2010.
Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment. New York: New York University Press, 2008.
Invitation to the Sociology of Religion. New York: Routledge, 2003.
Articles and Book Chapters
“Bringing up Nones: Intergenerational Influences and Cohort Trends,” with Vern Bengtson and David Hayward. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 2018: 1-18.
“Are Human Beings Naturally Religious? A Response to Christian Smith,” in Homo Religious? Edited by Timothy Samuel Shah and Jack Friedman, Cambridge University Press, 2018.
“The Trump Administration’s Alternative Christianity,” Los Angeles Times August 11, 2017
“Secularism and Social Progress,” Free Inquiry, April/May 2016 was voted as Winner of the Selma V. Forkosch Best Article of 2016 Award
“Atheism, Secularity and Well-Being,” Sociology Compass, vol.3, no.6 (December 2009).
“Why Are Danes and Swedes So Irreligious?” Nordic Journal of Religion and Society, vol. 22, no.1 (2009).
“Aweism,” Free Inquiry, vol.29, no.3 (2009).
Recent Conference Presentations, Invited Talks and Commentary
“Religious vs. Secular Approached to Morality in the Age of Trump,” Jefferson Center, Ashland, Oregon, March 13, 2017
“What is Secular Studies?” University of Köln, January 10, 2017
“The Great Debate: Marshall vs. Zuckerman (Christianity vs. Secular Humanism)“, Oct. 23, 2013
“Secular Life in America,” Georgetown University, Washington D.C, Feb. 21, 2013
“The Rise of Irreligion in Europe and the USA: Causes and Consequences,” St. Margaret’s Episcopal Church, Palm Desert, CA, Jan. 25, 2013
“What is Secular Studies?” Santa Barbara Humanists Association, Oct. 20, 2012
Professor Zuckerman’s contributions to “The Blog” the Huffington Post include “Taxes, Unions, and Healthcare—Oh, My!” (November 13, 2012) and “One Nation under God—Not!” (September 6, 2012).
“Obama’s Battle for Ohio’s Atheist Vote,” Op-Ed, Bloomberg View, Oct. 17, 2012
“Goodness and Godlessness” University Synagogue, Irvine, CA, May 25, 2012
“Secular Studies” Orange Country Freethought Alliance Annual Meeting, UC Irvine, May 20, 2012.
“Faith No More: Why People Reject Religion,” West Colorado Atheists and Freethinkers, Grand Junction, Colorado, March 25, 2012.
“Faith No More: Contemporary Apostasy in America” Center for Inquiry, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 2012
“Are We Naturally Religious? A Response to Christian Smith,” Religion, Human Personhood, Culture, and Society Seminar, Georgetown University, Feb. 10, 2012
“What We Know About Atheists and Secular People: A Social Science Perspective,” Åbo Academie, Turku, Finland, Jan. 19, 2012
Studying Religion and Society, (co-editor, with Titus Hjlem), Routledge, 2012.
“Contrasting Irreligious Orientations: Atheism and Secularity in the USA and Scandinavia,” Approaching Religion, v.2, n.1, June, 2012.
“Deviant Heroes: Nonconformists as Agents of Justice and Social Change.” (with Brian Wolf), Deviant Behavior 33:639-654, 2012)
Professor Zuckerman authored several op-ed pieces, including “Why Do Americans Still Dislike Atheists?” in the Washington Post, April 30, 2011; “Majoring in Secular Studies” in The Guardian, May 13, 2011; and “Why Evangelicals hate Jesus” in the Huffington Post, March 3, 2011.
“The Rise of Irreligion: Causes and Consequences,” Unitarian Universalist Community Church, Santa Monica, CA, Nov. 27, 2011
“Aweism,” Adat Chaverim, Brentwood, CA, Oct. 8, 2011
“Contemporary Apostasy,” invited lecture, Reed College, Portland, OR, April 22, 2011.
“Religion and Irreligion in Contemporary Scandinavia,” invited lecture, Bethania Lutheran Church, Solvang, CA, March 26, 2011.
“Religion and Irreligion in Denmark,” invited lecture, Folkeuniversitet, Copenhagen, Denmark, March 13, 2011.
“Society Without God,” invited lecture, Jefferson Center, Ashland, OR, February, 17, 2011.
“Contemporary Apostasy,” invited lecture, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, November 26, 2010.
“Religion and Irreligion in Denmark,” invited lecture, University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark, September 27, 2010.
“Secularity and Society,” presented at the Orange County Free-thought Alliance Conference, Costa Mesa, CA, May 8, 2010.
“Society Without God,” presented at the Humanist Association of Los Angeles, Santa Monica, CA, April 11, 2010, and at Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA, April 17, 2010.
Selected Grants, Awards, and Honors
“Islam, Immigration, and Irreligion,” Travel/Research Grant, European Union Center of California, 2010.
Additional Information
Curriculum Vitae
Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns
from the Cambridge Companion to Atheism edited by Michael Martin, University of Cambridge Press, 2007
Atheism, Secularity, and Well-Being: How the Findings of Social Science Counter Negative Stereotypes and Assumptions
Sociology Compass 3/6 (2009): 949–971
Phil’s Picks – Greatest Albums
Phil Zuckerman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Philip Zuckerman
Zuckerman at a 2010 conference in Costa Mesa, California
Born
Philip Joseph Zuckerman
June 26, 1969 (age 50)
Los Angeles, California, US
Residence
Claremont, California, US
Academic background
Alma mater
University of Oregon
Thesis
Opposite Sides of the Street[1] (1998)
Academic work
Discipline
Sociology
Institutions
Pitzer College
Main interests
SecularitysecularizationapostasyScandinavian culture
Website
philzuckerman.com
Philip Joseph Zuckerman[2] (born June 26, 1969), known as Phil Zuckerman, is a professor of sociology and secular studies at Pitzer College in Claremont, California. He specializes in the sociology of secularity.[3][4][5] He is the author of several books, including Society Without God (2008) for which he won ForeWord Magazine's silver book of the year award, and Faith No More (2011).[6][7]
Contents
1
Early life and education
2
Career
2.1
Published work
2.2
Public commentary
2.3
Secular studies program
3
Personal life
4
Bibliography
5
See also
6
References
Early life and education[edit]
Born on June 26, 1969,[2] in Los Angeles, California, Zuckerman grew up in Pacific Palisades and studied at Santa Monica College. He transferred to the University of Oregon in Eugene, and there earned a Bachelor of Arts (1992), Master of Arts (1995), and Doctor of Philosophy (1998), all in sociology.[8]
Career[edit]
Zuckerman is a professor of sociology and secular studies at Pitzer College in Claremont, California.[9] He is also an affiliated adjunct professor at Claremont Graduate University.[10] He was a guest professor at Aarhus University in Denmark in 2006 and 2010.[11] He serves as the special series editor of the Secular Studies book series published by NYU Press.[12] He is on the board of directors of Brighter Brains, which builds and supports orphanages, schools, and clinics in Uganda.[13]
His research interests are secularity, atheism, apostasy, morality, and Scandinavian culture.[14]
Published work[edit]
Phil Zuckerman's analysis finds differing levels of atheists and agnostics in countries around the world[15]
Phil Zuckerman is the author of six books, including The Nonreligious[16], co-authored with Luke Galen and Frank Pasquale; Living the Secular Life;[17] Faith No More;[18] Society without God;[19] Invitation to the Sociology of Religion;[20] and Strife in the Sanctuary.[21] His works have been translated into six languages, including Persian, Korean and Turkish.[22]
Phil Zuckerman's 2008 book Society without God notes that Denmark and Sweden, "probably the least religious countries in the world, and possibly in the history of the world", enjoy "among the lowest violent crime rates in the world [and] the lowest levels of corruption in the world".[23] Zuckerman identifies that Scandinavians have "relatively high rates of petty crime and burglary", but "their overall rates of violent crime—such as murder, aggravated assault, and rape—are among the lowest on earth".[24] In 2009, New York Times columnist Peter Steinfels commented that Society Without God provides evidence that an irreligious society can flourish.[25] Society Without God won a “Book of the Year Silver Award” by Foreword Magazine in 2008[26] and was featured in The New York Times in an article by Peter Steinfel.[27]
Zuckerman's Living the Secular Life: New Answers to Old Questions was released in 2014 and reviewed in The New York Times by Susan Jacoby.[28] Living the Secular Life was designated a "Best Book of 2014" by Publishers Weekly[29] and was featured in a commentary by New York Times columnist David Brooks.[30]
The American Humanist Association has featured Zuckerman as a speaker on rising irreligion in the United States.[3] Zuckerman is on the editorial board of Secularism and Nonreligion and is a convener of the Non-religion and Secularity Research Network conference.[31][32]
Public commentary[edit]
Zuckerman has said that 20 percent of the United States are irreligious and 30 percent of citizens under 30 are.[33] Zuckerman has commented that religion is often conflated with patriotism in the United States.[34] He has stated that while "he applauds the passion and purpose" of American Atheists, they are a minority, as the majority of atheists in America "are not angry, do not hate religion and do not need a forum to vent".[35]
Zuckerman has found that murder rates in Scandinavian countries lowered after abolishing the death penalty, and has opposed the use in the United States.[36]
Zuckerman has found that the religiously unaffiliated tend to be more inclined to progressive politics, and the decline in Protestant Christianity in America is a blow to conservative causes.[37] Zuckerman has commented on the rise of secular Judaism.[38] Zuckerman commented that growing atheist movements in the United States were a response to the impact of the Christian right.[39]
Secular studies program[edit]
In 2011 he founded and currently chairs the first secular studies program.[40] When the secular studies program was announced, the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture at Trinity College noted it was the first program to offer a degree in secular studies.[41] The program lets students major in secular studies, including in a core course "Sociology of Secularity".[42][43] The first student to graduate from Pitzer College with a degree in secular studies was the first student in the United States with such a major.[44]
Personal life[edit]
Zuckerman lives in Claremont, California, with his wife and three children.[45]
Bibliography[edit]
Zuckerman, Phil (2016). The Nonreligious: Understanding Secular People and Societies. London: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199924943.
Zuckerman, Phil (2014). Living the Secular Life: New Answers to Old Questions. London: Penguin Press. ISBN 9781594205088.
Zuckerman, Phil (2011). Faith no more : why people reject religion. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199740017.
Zuckerman, Phil (2010). Atheism and secularity. Santa Barbara, California: Praeger. ISBN 9780313351815.
Zuckerman, Phil (2008). Society without God : what the least religious nations can tell us about contentment. New York: New York University Press. ISBN 9780814797143.
Manning, Christel; Zuckerman, Phil (2005). Sex and religion. Belmont, California: Thomson Wadsworth. ISBN 9780534524937.
Zuckerman, Phil (2003). Invitation to the Sociology of Religion. New York & London: Routledge.
QUOTED: "consider research that specifically illustrates atheist morality in action: a recent international study looked at children and their likelihood of being generous or selfish in six different countries. Some of the kids had been raised Christian, some had been raised Muslim, and some had been raised without religion. The non-religious kids were the most generous – giving away, on average, a higher number of their stickers to kids they didn’t know– than the Muslim or Christian kids, who tended to be more selfish."
"Sure, it was just one study involving kids and stickers. But it effectively points to a much larger and important reality: that the vast majority of atheists of the world are decent and humane."
Interview with Professor Phil Zuckerman – Sociology and Secular Studies, Pitzer College
By Scott Jacobsen June 1, 2017 No Comments
Share
Tweet
Google+
Save
+
Professor Phil Zuckerman Image: Atheists United
Phil Zuckerman is a Professor of Sociology and Secular Studies at Pitzer College. He wrote a number of books including, most recently, The Nonreligious: Understanding Secular People and Societies. Here we discuss secular studies from the personal, and expert, perspective of Professor Zuckerman.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I appreciate you giving us your time today. Your specialty is in secularism. Was secularism always a topic of interest for you? Were people in your family a major influence? Or was this simply the natural trajectory of a curious mind reasoning things out?
Professor Phil Zuckerman: I am a third generation atheist. All four of my grandparents were non-believers. My father’s folks were very poor Jews who grew up in the ghettos of Warsaw, Poland. As teenagers, they took to socialism as the best route to make the world a better place; they saw religion as hindering human progress and keeping the poor duped and pacified. My mother’s parents were upper-middle class Jews from Bohemia who found literature, art, theatre, cinema, music, and hiking much more satisfying to the soul than religion. So my Dad was a clear-cut atheist and my mom was more of an agnostic or apatheist (just didn’t care or think much about god, either way). My folks weren’t anti-religious, per se. In fact, we were fairly involved with our local Jewish community when I was growing up – but much more in an ethnic/cultural sense: celebrating holidays, eating certain foods, socializing with people from a similar background, etc. Our involvement with the Jewish community was never about God or prayer or anything supernatural. It was about heritage, history, etc. I grew up in a coastal suburb of Los Angeles in the 1970s and 1980s and religion just wasn’t a big thing. Most of my friends and neighbours were irreligious. No kids in my neighbourhood went to church. I never saw any family pray around the dinner table. But then, when I was 15, I had my first serious girlfriend. She was the daughter of an Evangelical preacher. She believed in Jesus. I was totally flabbergasted by her and her family’s beliefs. They seemed utterly insane. Yet, she and her family weren’t insane; they were kind and thoughtful people. But they believed in crazy shit. I became obsessed with understanding religious faith: how can rational people believe the utterly absurd? I’m still trying to figure this out. Sure, I’ve gained a lot of good insight throughout the course of my studying of religion, but as for really intelligent, well-educated people who are strong believers — I remain truly baffled. And in that state of confusion, I’ve turned to research on and writings about atheism, agnosticism, humanism, and secularism because they all help me articulate my own worldview which is critical of religious faith and supportive of reason, empiricism, scepticism, human rights, women’s rights, true morality, etc.
Jacobsen: How did this interest in secular studies grow into a life long specialization?
Zuckerman: First, it dawned on me about ten or fifteen years ago that no one was studying secular people or secular cultures, specifically. The social sciences are all about studying humans: what they do, what they believe, how they behave, how they act, etc. And while the social sciences have been studying religion since their inceptions, lived secularity has gone almost completely un-studied. How secular people live, think, celebrate, love, raise kids, deal with death, vote, sleep, eat, etc., etc. has been virtually ignored. And yet secular people constitute a significant chunk of humanity. Irreligion, anti-religion, atheism, agnosticism, humanism, indifference, etc. – these orientations and identifications are growing, and they capture the world-views and life-ways of hundreds of millions of people. We need to study them and understand them. Second, when I was teaching classes on religion, such as The Sociology of Religion, I was often deconstructing religion. Taking a critical/sceptical approach. One day, a student said that she had wanted to learn about religion in the world, and not just about debunking religion. She felt like my religion class was falsely titled. And she was right. So I decided to re-tool that class, and make it truly about religion in society (without too much debunking), and then I created a whole new class called “Scepticism, Secularism, and Irreligion.” In that class, I just looked at religion critically, head-on, and examined various sceptical approaches to religion, from the ancient Greeks and ancient Indians up through Freud and Russell and into the New Atheists. The course was hugely popular. Clearly, students were craving courses that debunked religion. From there, other new courses were created, such as courses on secularism as a political force in various nations around the world, courses on the Secularism and Morality, just to name a few.
“I would say that societies get worse when secularism is being forced by a dictatorship with no respect for personal freedom, freedom of conscience, or basic human rights. But, on the other extreme, when secularism is organic – that is – it emerges freely, in a democratic society, things tend to get better.”
Jacobsen: From a historical perspective, what are the origins of secularism? Who was its first adherent or proponent?
Zuckerman: That’s nearly impossible to say for sure. After all, what does one mean by “secularism”? As I see it, “secularism” can and does mean numerous things. For example, we can talk of political secularism, which is basically about the separation of church and state and government abeyance or neutrality concerning matters of religion. The most notable modern articulations of this would be found in the First Amendment of the US Constitution for instance, or article 20 of the 1947 Constitution of Japan.
But there is also what we could call philosophical or sceptical secularism, which is about critiquing religion, debunking religious claims, and attempting to disabuse people of their religious beliefs. Evidence for this form of secularism goes way, way back: there was the Carvaka/Lokoyata, who lived in India during the 7th century B.C.E, were a group of materialist thinkers who rejected the supernaturalism of ancient Hindu religion and were vociferous in their mockery of religious authorities. They were essentially atheists who saw no evidence for the existence of god or karma or any afterlife whatsoever. There was the Jewish philosopher known as Kohelet of ancient Israel (3rd century BCE), the presumed author of the Book of Ecclesiastes, who suggested that all life is ultimately meaningless and that there is no life after death. Emergent agnosticism, anti-religiosity, and an all-around debunking orientation are also very well-represented among the ancient Greeks and Romans of the classical age (Lucretius, Epicurus, Democritus, etc). These individuals criticized the claims of religion and articulated a very secular and this-worldly ethos. From within the Islamic world, there was Muhammad Al-Warraq (9th century C.E.), who doubted the existence of Allah and was skeptical of religious prophets; there is also the freethinking, anti-religious assertions of Muhammad al-Razi (10th century C.E.), and Omar Khayyam (11th century C.E.).
Finally, there is what we might call socio-cultural secularism, which entails the weakening or diminishing of religion in society, in day-to-day life. We’re talking things like more stores being open on Sundays, time spent on the internet replacing Bible study, television shows or Broadway musicals making fun of religion with little backlash, etc. At root, socio-cultural secularism is both a socio-historical and demographic phenomenon whereby a growing number people start caring less and less about religion. It involves greater numbers of people in a given society living their lives in a decidedly secular manner, utterly oblivious or indifferent to supernatural things like God, sin, salvation, heaven, hell, etc., baldly disinterested in religious rituals and activities, and less inclined to include or consider religion as a significant or even marginal component of their identity.
Your question is huge – where do these various forms of secularism originate? – and I simply don’t have the time (or expertise!) to delve into it at length. I’d suggest starting with Jennifer Michael Hecht’s Doubt: A History. Or perhaps Calum Brown’s The Death of Christian Britain.
Jacobsen: How do societies get worse and better with more secularism rather than less?
Zuckerman: First off, it depends if that secularism is forced or not. By “forced” I mean, in the 20th century, we’ve seen quite a few secular dictatorships take over a country and force/impose their dogmatic version of secularism on a captive population. These have often been violent, repressive regimes that tried their hardest to suppress religion by jailing and torturing religious leaders, killing religious people, bulldozing churches and mosques, etc. Communist Albania was one such nightmare – the corrupt and insane atheist dictatorship there even made it illegal to name your baby a Biblical name! So I would say that societies get worse when secularism is being forced by a dictatorship with no respect for personal freedom, freedom of conscience, or basic human rights. But, on the other extreme, when secularism is organic – that is – it emerges freely, in democratic societies, things tend to get better. Of course, this is just a correlation. But we know that the most highly secularized societies tend to be among the best in the world, at least according to standard sociological measures. The best countries in which to be a mother, the most peaceful countries, those countries with the lowest murder rates – their populations generally tend to be quite secular. And this correlation holds true for nearly every measure of societal well-being imaginable, such as levels of corruption in business and government, sexually transmitted disease rates, teen pregnancy rates, quality of hospital care, environmental degradation, access to clean drinking water, etc. We can even look at various studies which measure subjective happiness; year after year, nations like Denmark, Norway, and Sweden – the least religious countries in the western world — report the highest levels of happiness among their populations, while countries like Benin, Togo, and Burundi – among the most religious nations on earth – are the least happy.
One scholar who has researched this matter extensively is Gregory S. Paul. He created the “Successful Societies Scale”, in which he tries to objectively measure a whole array of variables that are indicative of societal goodness and well-being. When he measures such factors as life satisfaction, incarceration rates, alcohol consumption rates, inequality, employment rates, etc., and correlates them with religiosity/secularity, his findings are unambiguously clear: aside from the important but exceedingly outlying exception of suicide — religious societies have significantly lower suicide rates than more secular societies — on just about every other single measure of societal-goodness, the least religious nations fare markedly better than the more religious nations. But again, it is a correlation only. And it very well may go the other way: it may be that as societies improved, they become more secular – not the other way around. Norris and Inglehart’s book Sacred and Secular is a great, data-rich source for this line of thinking.
“Aside from the important but exceedingly outlying exception of suicide — religious societies have significantly lower suicide rates than more secular societies — on just about every other single measure of societal-goodness, the least religious nations fare markedly better than the more religious nations.”
Jacobsen: Is secularism beneficial or harmful for women‘s rights and human rights?
Zuckerman: No question here: wherever religion weakens, the status, freedom, and power of women improves. Wherever secularism is strong – even when forced, oddly enough – women’s health, occupational opportunities, electoral access, etc. improve. Not only are women’s status, power, wealth, and life choices stronger/better in the most secular societies on earth today, and weaker/poorer in the most religious, but secular men and women are – on average – more likely to support women’s rights and equality than their religious peers. As for human rights, well, as I said above, in situations of forced secularism under Communist dictatorships, human rights suffer terribly. But in situations of organic secularism, where people simply stop being religious of their own free will, human rights tend to thrive. And as for political secularism – the separation of church and state – things most definitely improve for the minority religions, and for the non-religious as well. In the contemporary world, where most societies have a situation of religious pluralism (more than one religion existing), then political secularism is the only viable option because to privilege one particular religion over another, or over non-religion, inevitably leads to inequality and injustice.
Jacobsen: I assume, based on some observations in my personal and professional life, that the irreligious are thought to be less trustworthy and more immoral than the religious. Does the data back this up?
Zuckerman: Yes, religious people in America view the non-religious as immoral and less trust-worthy (lots of data showing this, particularly from the work of Psychology Professor Will Gervais), and no, research shows that they are in fact not less moral or trustworthy. Catherine Caldwell-Harris, professor of psychology at Boston University, found that there exists no differences between atheists and theists in terms of levels of compassion or empathy. And studies from both the United States and the United Kingdom have reported that atheists are under-represented in prisons. Additional studies have shown that atheists and agnostics, on average, exhibit lower levels of racism and prejudice than their more God-believing peers, as well as lower levels of nationalism and militarism, and greater levels of tolerance for those they disagree with. Or consider research that specifically illustrates atheist morality in action: a recent international study looked at children and their likelihood of being generous or selfish in six different countries. Some of the kids had been raised Christian, some had been raised Muslim, and some had been raised without religion. The non-religious kids were the most generous – giving away, on average, a higher number of their stickers to kids they didn’t know– than the Muslim or Christian kids, who tended to be more selfish. Sure, it was just one study involving kids and stickers. But it effectively points to a much larger and important reality: that the vast majority of atheists of the world are decent and humane.
“When life is harsh and hard – when people don’t have access to health care, education, jobs, and society is riddled with corruption and crime, then people will turn to religious fantasies to help them cope.”
Jacobsen: If you had to have an elevator pitch in support of secularism, or those in support of a theocratic society or a government tending towards the theocratic, what would your elevator pitch be in support of secularism?
Zuckerman: First, I would sing “Imagine” by John Lennon. Then I would sing “Dear God” by XTC. Then I would say: morality should be based on empathy and compassion, not obedience to an invisible magic being – that’s moral outsourcing. Additionally, it is always better to base your beliefs on evidence rather than faith. Furthermore, scientific research has done far more to cure illness and alleviate suffering in the world than prayer. Additionally, the most secularized democracies today are doing much better than the most religious, and finally, if you find personal comfort, affirmation, and security in your religious faith, so be it – I don’t want to take that away from you. But please keep it out of our government and our public schools, and understand that no one has the right to impose their religious faith on others.
Jacobsen: What are perennial threats to secularism? What are the immediate, big issues surrounding secularism and its implementation?
Zuckerman: Well, which secularism are you referring to? The biggest threat to political secularism comes from religious fundamentalists/theocrats who wants to force their religion on the rest of society. The biggest threat to philosophical or sceptical secularism is when people live insecure, unsafe, precarious lives – in such situations, they understandably turn to religious faith for comfort. That is, when life is harsh and hard – when people don’t have access to health care, education, jobs and society is riddled with corruption and crime, then people will turn to religious fantasies to help them cope. They simply will not care about reason, rationality, empiricism, etc. And the biggest threat to socio-cultural secularism? There isn’t one. It is marching on, undeterred. The internet is a huge player in this.
Jacobsen: Thank you for your time today, Professor Zuckerman.
QUOTED: "The author does not argue convincingly why religion itself is antithetical to moral behavior."
"a thoughtful perspective on humans' capacity for moral behavior."
Zuckerman, Phil WHAT IT MEANS TO BE MORAL Counterpoint (Adult Nonfiction) $26.00 9, 10 ISBN: 978-1-64009-274-7
Why secular humanism, rather than religious dogmatism, can best foster morality.
Expanding on the argument he has put forth in previous books, Zuckerman (Sociology/Pitzer Coll.; The Nonreligious: Understanding Secular People and Societies, 2016, etc.) asserts that morality based on obedience to God "limits our capacity for empathy and compassion, stymies our ability to take responsibility for our choices and actions, obfuscates the naturally evolved sources of ethical conduct, and ultimately thwarts moral progress" in "confronting the dire problems of the day." Those problems include racism, misogyny, global warming, child abuse, and economic equality, which, according to the author, must be addressed through "empathy-driven" secular humanism, not by "following rules written down thousands of years ago" that originated from "a magical deity." As many have stated before, "prayers will not end gun violence; only rational, human-enforced policies will do that." Although Zuckerman concedes that not all religious people base their ethical decisions solely on God's teachings, he criticizes dogmatic fundamentalists, for whom faith is the mainstay of their lives, as abdicating moral responsibility to assess and act on ethical issues. Yet, admitting that faith in God can offer believers comfort, support, and help in coping with personal trauma, the author does not argue convincingly why religion itself is antithetical to moral behavior rather than a factor of "our sentiments, our feelings, our needs, our opinions, our values, our judgements, our goals, our consciences, our culture, our society" that combine "to manifest as our human-based, socially constructed morality." Zuckerman is on stronger ground in his analysis of the biological, social, and psychological roots of humans' "inherent proclivity for empathy and fairness," considering cultural relativism and tracing the history of moral behavior to its current iteration that focuses on preventing, easing, or relieving suffering; offering help to the needy; comforting the vulnerable; working to increase health, happiness, well-being, fairness, and justice; and being compassionate, altruistic, and caring. These behaviors are well supported, he asserts, by secular attitudes that include freethinking--including familiarity with various religions--scientific empiricism, and cosmopolitanism.
A thoughtful perspective on humans' capacity for moral behavior.
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2019 Kirkus Media LLC
http://www.kirkusreviews.com/
Source Citation
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
"Zuckerman, Phil: WHAT IT MEANS TO BE MORAL." Kirkus Reviews, 1 July 2019. Gale General OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A591278975/ITOF?u=schlager&sid=ITOF&xid=68560d99. Accessed 10 Aug. 2019.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A591278975
QUOTED: "a prodigiously well-supported argument."
"While this is a comprehensive introduction to religious skepticism, Zuckerman's conclusions will likely only convince fellow secularists."
What It Means to Be Moral: Why Religion Is Not Necessary for Living an Ethical Life
Phil Zuckerman. Counterpoint, $26 (400p) ISBN 978-1-64009-274-7
Sociologist Zuckerman (Society Without God) presents a prodigiously well-supported argument against religion in this meticulous but narrow work. Zuckerman concedes that people of faith do much good in the world, but they can also do bad, specifically the "more dogmatic fundamentalists" whose regressive politics are oppressive and hypocritical. Moving the aim implied by his subtitle, he claims that "it is theism, rather than religion... that comprises the true target of this book." Theism, in his argument, is inherently not loving and compassionate, since God's creations include as much misery as joy--he cites smallpox, which has killed 300 million people throughout history, as a primary example. He concludes that basing morality upon such a cruel deity makes morality arbitrary. Zuckerman lines up all the arguments against belief from the well-known Socratic dialogue, through the Enlightenment philosophers, and into the modern era. After exploring the history of religious skepticism and atheism, he presents seven "secular virtues"--freethinking, living in reality, "here-and-nowness," empathy, cosmopolitanism, acceptance of existential mystery, and scientific empiricism--and explores how they can form the secular solution to immorality. Unfortunately, Zuckerman never seriously grapples with the allure or longevity of religious traditions, which limits the scope of his argument. While this is a comprehensive introduction to religious skepticism, Zuckerman's conclusions will likely only convince fellow secularists. (Sept.)
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2019 PWxyz, LLC
http://www.publishersweekly.com/
Source Citation
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
"What It Means to Be Moral: Why Religion Is Not Necessary for Living an Ethical Life." Publishers Weekly, 24 June 2019, p. 168. Gale General OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A592040115/ITOF?u=schlager&sid=ITOF&xid=b3165a05. Accessed 10 Aug. 2019.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A592040115
THE NONRELIGIOUS: Understanding Secular People & Societies. Phil Zuckerman, Luke W. Galen, and Frank L. Pasquale. What do social scientists actually know about nonreligious men and women, whose numbers have been dramatically on the rise in recent years? The authors seek to provide a thorough and empirically grounded answer to that question, summarizing and analyzing existing research and presenting their own ongoing, original research findings. They thus attempt to fill a gap; there are countless studies of religious people, but nonreligious people have been a neglected and undifferentiated category, with different forms, types, and shades of secularity overlooked. Oxford University Press, 2016, 32? pp. $24.95.
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2016 Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
Source Citation
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
Frazier, Kendrick. "The Nonreligious: Understanding Secular People & Societies." Skeptical Inquirer, July-Aug. 2016, p. 61. Gale General OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A455989018/ITOF?u=schlager&sid=ITOF&xid=f08043bc. Accessed 10 Aug. 2019.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A455989018