Denise Cush reviews Religion and Generation Z: Why 70% of Young People Say They Have No Religion. Christian Alternative Books, (Alresford: 2022), Pbk. 151 pages. £11.99.
It is now widely acknowledged that there has been a recent substantial increase in the number of people in Britain who identify as having ‘no religion’ when questioned in surveys. In 2016, Linda Woodhead identified December 2015 as the tipping point when the non-religious became the majority. The younger the age group, the more likely people are to identify as ‘non-religious,’ with the 70% of the book’s title being a typical finding. ‘No religion’ is now, as one of the authors puts it, ‘the default position.’
With an introduction and concluding chapter by the editor, the book consists of nine short essays written by undergraduate and postgraduate students aged 18-25 at the University of Oxford. Given the brief of discussing their personal experience of religion, their understanding of their generation’s attitudes, and their views on the future of religion, the essays take different approaches and vary in length. They are offered as ‘snapshots’ of thoughts and experiences, expressed in intelligent and articulate ways, and they come across as honest and authentic.
The nine are hardly typical of their age group—not just in their university but in being interested enough in the topic to discuss it with their college (Anglican) chaplain. There is some diversity in the group. Their academic disciplines include history, physics, music, medicine, literature, chemistry, and theology. Four talked about a Catholic background, two about an Anglican background, one Muslim, and one non-religious. This appears significant, as does the fact that three of the nine identified as LGBT+. It would have helped to know whether they attended state or independent schools. Classifying their current ‘religious’ identity was not easy, but I would say six were personally ‘religious,’ while the other three were not anti-religious but something in between—agnostic, ‘spiritual,’ or, in the words of one, ‘semi-Christian.’ They would probably all benefit from an introduction to the SOF Network!
Their various suggestions as to why young people say they are of ‘no religion’ were mostly unsurprising, including the perception of religions as having oppressive structures, outdated views on sexuality and gender, unsubstantiated truth claims, and being slow to prioritize the environmental crisis.
However, the science versus religion debate did not seem to be an issue for the authors, especially the physicist. Often cited were the concept of God, the problem of evil, and the lack of intellectual rigor in much popular Christianity. Crucially, their contemporaries seemed to be mostly unfamiliar with religion, which no longer permeates culture, and more apathetic than antipathetic. These ideas reflect what researchers have found—other common explanations include the growth of individualism and parents not wanting to impose their beliefs on children, leading to a lack of religious vocabulary. Another unsurprising finding was that the student belonging to a religious minority considered her tradition to be an important part of her identity.
Some mentioned attending Catholic schools, Church of England primary schools, or the kind of (presumably) independent schools that had ‘chapel prefects.’ However, there was little evidence of the influence of the non-confessional multi-faith RE that has been legally required in non-religious state schools for the last 34 years and was common even decades before that. The religion/no-religion binary is still framed as if the only contenders are Abrahamic theism and Western atheism. Dharmic perspectives were absent, though there were some hints of a more Pagan or nature-based spirituality.
As for the future, it was felt that churches will have their work cut out to re-engage young people with organized religion. However, the majority of this sample had worked out their own ways of ‘being religious.’ Both more liberalism and more conservatism were expected. Factors that might possibly (re-)engage the young ranged from the ‘inherent theological quality’ of music to the strange uncertainties of quantum mechanics. They also noted that ‘good religion’ is based on doubt and questioning and that the church would not be taken seriously unless it engaged seriously with the great moral issues of our time.
The editorial conclusion points out the very different situations elsewhere on the planet where ‘religion’ is flourishing and dismisses the idea of a new ‘multi-faith’ religion. Recognizing the negative tendencies toward violence, oppression, and fundamentalism in some religions, Brian Mountford finds solace in young people’s interest in self-giving, care for others and the planet, and the continuing human quest for meaning.
Personally, I enjoyed reading and reflecting on the students’ essays, especially as I was where they are half a century ago (coincidentally at St. Hilda’s, where Brian was chaplain for many years). My fellow students even then found it hard to understand why anyone would choose theology for their degree. I was amused to find that one of the students shared the same experience of the Christian Union as I had—suffice it to say that I only ever went once.
I’m left with a few main thoughts: the new ‘worldviews’ approach to RE in schools is best placed to address a situation where the majority of students no longer identify with ‘religion’; everyone really needs to learn more about both Dharmic and nature-based religious traditions (note to Brian: Hindus do not ‘worship Brahma as principal god’); and, in light of the fact that several of these young people seem to dwell, as I do, in ‘a grey area between religion and atheism,’ we should make less of the religion/no-religion false binary and more of Richard Holloway’s idea of being ‘non-binary’ when it comes to religion.
Denise Cush is Professor Emerita of Religion and Education, Bath Spa University.