This article was downloaded by: [University of Memphis]

On: 03 October 2012, At: 14:17

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

Sociological Spectrum: MidSouth Sociological Association

Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usls20

BEYOND BELIEF: ATHEISM,

AGNOSTICISM, AND THEISTIC
CERTAINTY IN THE UNITED
STATES
Darren E. Sherkat

Department of Sociology, Southern Illinois

University, Carbondale, Illinois, USA
Version of record first published: 30 Jul 2008.

To cite this article: Darren E. Sherkat (2008): BEYOND BELIEF: ATHEISM,

AGNOSTICISM, AND THEISTIC CERTAINTY IN THE UNITED STATES, Sociological
Spectrum: Mid-South Sociological Association, 28:5, 438-459
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02732170802205932

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any
representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to
date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be
independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable

Downloaded by [University of Memphis] at 14:17 03 October 2012

for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages

whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with or arising out of the use of this material.

Sociological Spectrum, 28: 438459, 2008

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0273-2173 print/1521-0707 online
DOI: 10.1080/02732170802205932

BEYOND BELIEF: ATHEISM, AGNOSTICISM, AND

THEISTIC CERTAINTY IN THE UNITED STATES

Downloaded by [University of Memphis] at 14:17 03 October 2012

Darren E. Sherkat
Department of Sociology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale,
Illinois, USA
Atheism, agnosticism, and undoubting belief in a one true god are pivotal
issues distinguishing religious adherents. Shifts in the rates of atheism
and agnosticism can influence the composition of religious markets.
Demand side rational actor models and the new demographic approach
to religious commitments emphasize the influence of life course dynamics
on religious desires. I examine multiple predictors of different types of belief
in God using data from the General Social Surveys. I employ ordinal logistic
regression to test the effects of social status, gender, race, region and city size,
family structure, and denominational affiliation on the odds of being an
atheist, agnostic, doubting believer, or a consistent believer. I also examine
trends in these belief configurations, and whether cohort variations might
evidence a coming shift in the relative rates of belief and unbelief.

Not everyone desires religious goods, and the lust for supernatural
rewards and compensators may fluctuate over the life course and
in response to social forces. Demographic changes can influence a
variety of religious commitments, and recent examinations have
focused on the impact of demographic transitions and dynamics on
religious participation, affiliation, and belief (Edgell 2005; Greeley
and Hout 1999; Hout et al. 2001; Hout and Fischer 2002; Myers
1996; Stolzenberg et al. 1995; Wilson and Sherkat 1994). A dynamic
A version of this article was presented at the Annual Meetings of the Society for the
Scientific Study of Religion, Kansas City, MO, 2004. Data from the National Opinion Research
Center General Social Surveys were made available through the Interuniversity Consortium for
Political and Social Research.
Address correspondence to Darren E. Sherkat, Department of Sociology, SIU, Carbondale,
IL 62901, USA. E-mail: Sherkat@siu.edu

Downloaded by [University of Memphis] at 14:17 03 October 2012

Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theistic Certainty

439

view of religious preferences and the social influences which implore

religious action is in concert with demand-side rational actor
models (Ellison and Sherkat 1995a,b; Sherkat 1997, 1998; Sherkat
and Ellison 1999; Sherkat and Wilson 1995), while it is at odds with
the supply-side assumption of stable desires (e.g., Iannaccone 1990,
1991, 1995).
Beliefs in god are important for driving religious market choices,
informing religious decisions about affiliation and participation.
Studies investigating belief in God have focused almost exclusively
on binary indicators of belief versus nonbelief (Bishop 1999). In a
highly religious context like the contemporary United States, this
often leads to limited variation and a misperception of stability
in beliefs. Indeed, high rates of simple belief in god are often used
by supply side theorists to project an aura of stability to religious
preferences (Stark and Iannaccone 1994). Yet, studies using binary
indicators of belief in god do not adequately assess degrees of
doubt in those beliefs. Doubt and certainty are critical for the
assessment of religious value because high levels of doubt will
decrease the value of religious explanations, while certainty in
religious understanding enhances the value of religious narratives
(Stark and Finke 2000).
Using data from the 19882000 General Social Surveys, I examine
the relationship between different types of beliefs about god to two
important religious choices; (1) identification with a religious group;
and (2) participation in religious organizations. The connection of
belief and choice can potentially identify the market niche of religious
groups based on the belief structures within denominations (Stark
and Finke 2000; Popielarz and McPherson 1995). Further, relating
beliefs to participation lends additional nuance by identifying
the connections between certainty of beliefs in god and levels of
mobilization. I go on to assess the impact of a variety of lifecourse
and demographic factors on various types of beliefs about God,
including: (1) atheism; (2) agnosticism; (3) belief in a higher power,
but not a personal god; (4) belief in god with doubt; and (5) certain
belief in god. If demographic characteristics and life course events are
predictive of these beliefs, it lends additional support to the new
demographic perspective and to demand side theories of religious
markets. I estimate a set of ordinal and multinomial logistic
regression models predicting the likelihood of holding specific beliefs
about a supreme divine being. I examine the influence of gender,
age=cohorts, marriage, childrearing, educational attainment, and
religious ties. I also address trends, cohort, and age variations to
assess the relevance of theories of secularization and aging.

440

D. E. Sherkat

Downloaded by [University of Memphis] at 14:17 03 October 2012

RELIGIOUS PREFERENCES, RELIGIOUS CHOICES,

AND BELIEFS IN GOD
Modern religious markets are dominated by religious firms offering
supernatural rewards and compensators provided by the graces of
active supernatural beings (Stark 2000, 2003; Stark and Finke
2000). Beliefs in one true god are essential for comprehending
the supernatural benefits promised to the faithful, and the eternal
punishments prophesied for the infidel. Without an active and purposeful god, the merits of human actions cannot be judged, and
rewards and punishments could not be distributed. More ethereal
conceptions of a higher power or eternal spirit lack the agency
to assess the relative worth of souls, and the capacity to reward or
punish (Stark and Finke 2000; Stark 2003). This is not to say
that beliefs in a higher power are nonreligious, only that they will
be less prone to sustaining a rich and certain array of supernatural
explanations (Stark and Bainbridge 1985, 1987; Stark 2000, 2003).
Religious preferences are desired explanations regarding supernatural rewards and compensators, which are promises of rewards
(Stark and Bainbridge 1985, 1987; Bainbridge 2005). Beliefs in
god are an important element of explanations about the type and
availability of supernatural compensators. Doubts about the existence of god will devalue religious goods by making them more risky
(Stark 2003; Stark and Finke 2000). In contrast, certainty about the
existence of god suggests confidence in the products promised by
the gods. Atheism, in particular, seems to eliminate any possibility
for general supernatural compensators, while agnosticism suggests
that religious goods are too risky or uncertain to merit devotion
(Bainbridge 2005).
PREFERENCE DYNAMICS AND BELIEF IN GOD
Preference for all types of goods are learned, and consumption
influences tastes in a predictable, generally adaptive manner (Elster
1983; Sherkat and Wilson 1995; Sherkat 1997, 1998, 2003). For most
products, familiarity breeds desire, and in religious markets this is
strongly evident. Preferences are typically learned from trusted
others, but life experiences and life course circumstances also influence religious desires. Beliefs about the meaning and purpose of life,
and the presence or absence of an afterlife, are critical elements of
general supernatural compensators (Stark and Bainbridge 1987;
Bainbridge 2005). Because of the emphasis on life concerns, pivotal
life experiences will inform beliefs about the presence or absence of

Downloaded by [University of Memphis] at 14:17 03 October 2012

Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theistic Certainty

441

an agentic divine being, and will weigh heavy for producing doubt
and certainty in the existence of God.
Aging is a process that leads to death, and as humans age, there is
increased attention to personal mortality. Impending doom will likely
cause reflection on the value of supernatural compensators, and an
unwavering faith in a divine being capable of delivering an afterlife
could be a powerful supernatural rewardan explanation that
has actual this-worldly value based on the existential certainty it
generates. Given this, it can be expected that age will have a positive
impact on theistic certainty, and should be negatively related to
atheism.
Parental roles and their configuration with other social roles
help forge schemata relevant for the performance of parenting
(MacMillan and Copher 2005; Elder et al. 2003). The birth of
children and the social expectations governing parental roles help
to produce strong desires for the health, safety, and well-being of progeny. Having children is a key event in most humans lives, connecting them to a cycle of life, to a future that will (usually) live beyond
their earthly years. Even hardened atheists marvel at the miracle of
birth, and peoples feelings for their children, indeed any child, are
often tinged with an inexplicable dimension that approaches the types
of specific supernatural rewards generated by client cults (Stark and
Bainbridge 1985, 1987). Humans cannot fully protect their children,
and gods are quite useful for providing comforting explanations
about the well-being of our future, and that of our children. Indeed,
reasonable people may well care less about their own eternal futures
than those of their children and may ignore the importance of supernatural compensators until the birth of children. In contrast
to the expectations of supply side theories, such a shift in the desire
for religion is not a function of changes in religious human
capital stocks, and may happen in the absence of substantial religious
experience required for the formation of cultural capital.
Similarly, marriage, divorce, and widowhood are important life
events that cause reflection on the meaning, purpose, and trajectory
of life (Waite and Gallagher 2000; Waite and Lehrer 2003). Commitment to another in marriage establishes a relationship that is almost
always linked to childrearing, and is explicitly forged with a focus on
human frailtythe common vow till death do us part renders marriage an event that evokes the limited capacity of human lives. Given
this, marriage may help crystallize certainty about supernatural
compensators and the existence of gods. Further, the direct experience of the death of a spouse can be expected to inform beliefs. Death
of a loved one is both a traumatic loss and a cause for reflection on

Downloaded by [University of Memphis] at 14:17 03 October 2012

442

D. E. Sherkat

our own mortality. The desire to be reunited with lost loved ones in
an afterlife can be quite strong, and is a primary supernatural
compensator of many religious traditions. Overcoming death through
an afterlife is a powerful compensator because it might enable
reunification with lost relations, and especially with a spouse,
parents, or children (Greeley and Hout 1999).
Not all life events will generate a stronger faith in the existence of
divine beings. Indeed, even widowhood may generate ambivalent
feelings. While some people may yearn for supernatural reunification,
others may question the existence of a god that would allow human
suffering. Divorce is another event that may shake peoples faith in
divine beings. The experience of struggle, torment, and suffering
may promote a more doubtful and this-worldly approach to cultural
goods. When everything is uncertain, worldly factors may become
more valued.
Stratification positions have long been linked to views of the
gods, generally linked to theodicies suggesting that more fortunate
individuals value this-worldly types of religion, while less fortunate
people desire otherworldly supernatural compensators (Weber
[1922] 1993). It is less clear how positions in the stratification system
might influence beliefs in gods in contemporary societies, particularly
since fundamentalist religious values are linked to lower levels of
educational attainment and low rates of female labor force participation (Darnell and Sherkat 1997; Glass and Jacobs 2005; Keister
2003, 2008; Lehrer 1995, 1999, 2004; Sherkat 2000; Sherkat and
Darnell 1999). Certainty of belief is more compatible with rich sets
of general supernatural compensators, which Weber ([1922] 1993)
implied are favored by the lower classes. In contrast, Weberian
theorizing suggests that worldly rewards may reduce the attractiveness or valuation of otherworldly compensators, and success in this
world may lead to doubt. Further, higher levels of educational attainment may generate a more critical approach to faithperhaps even
embracing doubt as a component of religious value. Here, the issue
is not one of negotiating religious strictness or worldly demands
coming from faith, but rather the educated may develop greater
cognitive sophistication (Sherkat 2006), which leads to a more critical
view of faith. Indeed, educated Christians, for example, may be more
aware that Jesus expressed doubt.
Communities are powerful sources of preferences, leading people
to dismiss potential alternatives for the consumption of a variety of
goods (whether foreign cars, ethnic food, or alternative religious
ideas). Embeddedness in rural and regional communities can lead
to an unquestioning acceptance of articles of faith. Preferences will

Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theistic Certainty

443

crystallize because individuals have limited access to trusted sources

of alternative information (Kuran 1993; Kuran and Sunstein
1999). In the United States, this may be especially true for lifelong
rural residents, and lifelong Southerners (Simpson 2006).

Downloaded by [University of Memphis] at 14:17 03 October 2012

DATA
I examine data from the 19882000 General Social Surveys (GSS).
The GSS is a representative sample of noninstitutionalized English
speaking adults, and in these survey years it asked a crucial question
about specific beliefs in god. During this time frame, the GSS was
not conducted in 1989, 1991, 1995, 1997, and 1999. Across these
survey years, 8,027 respondents have valid answers to the dependent
variable. The question about beliefs in god was not asked in the 2002
or 2004 editions of the GSS.
Dependent Variable: Belief in God
GSS interviewers asked respondents Which statement comes closest
to expressing what you believe about god?: (1) I know that god
exists and I have no doubts about it; (2) While I have doubts, I feel
that I do believe in god; (3) I find myself believing in god some of
the time, but not at others; (4) I dont believe in a personal god,
but I do believe in a higher power of some kind; (5) I dont know
whether there is a god, and I dont believe there is any way to find
out; and (6) I dont believe in god.
Trends, Cohorts, and Age
The age and cohort dynamics of beliefs in god are difficult to assess.
I present the trends in beliefs over GSS years. Second, I investigate
associations with age using five-year age groups. Third, I examine
cohort variations in beliefs across ten-year birth cohorts. Finally,
I compare the relative fit of models specifying a linear age effect,
and models using ten-year birth cohorts.
Marriage and Family Factors
A variety of family structure factors should impact beliefs about
god. Experiencing marriage, widowhood, and divorce are key, and
I compare these respondents to those who never married. Preliminary
analyses revealed that divorce is best looked at using the separate
ever divorced indicator. I employ three dummy variables: Married,

Downloaded by [University of Memphis] at 14:17 03 October 2012

444

D. E. Sherkat

widowed, and never divorced and compare these to the omitted never
married category. Additionally, I examine the impact of children
on beliefs in god using a measure of the number of children in the
household. I cannot always be certain whether or not family factors influence beliefs, or if long-held beliefs influence the family
outcomes. There is no reason to expect that peoples beliefs in god
drive widowhoodthough it may negatively influence remarriage
(Brown and Xu 2006). Religious beliefs are almost certain to
impact divorce and fertility. Still, marriage, divorce, widowhood,
and childrearing are important life events that will spur contemplation and reassessment of beliefs.
Religious Identification
Religious identification is examined using twelve categories conventional to sociological research (Sherkat 2001): (1) Liberal Protestant
(Presbyterians, United Church of Christ [Congregationalist],
Unitarian); (2) Episcopalian; (3) Moderate Protestant (Methodist,
Disciples of Christ, Brethren, Reformed); (4) Lutheran; (5) Baptist;
(6) Conservative Protestant (Assembly of God, Nazarene, Churches
of Christ, Pentecostal Holiness, etc.); (7) Mormon; (8) Other
Protestant; (9) Catholic; (10) Jewish; (11) Other Religion; and
(12) None. In the multivariate analyses, I combine Baptists,
Conservative Protestants, and Mormons into a dummy indicator
for sectarian groups. I also employ binary indicators for Catholics
and respondents with no religious affiliation.
Education and Income
Educational attainment is measured in terms of degree attainment
using an ordinal measure ranging from (0) no high school degree;
(1) high school degree; (2) associate degree; (3) four year degree; (4)
graduate degree. I employ a measure of household income, which is
standardized to maximize comparability across survey years. This indicator is a z-score (mean 0, standard deviation 1) calculated for the
respective household income variables (INCOME86, INCOME92,
or INCOME98).
Demographics
I distinguish respondents who were lifelong residents of the South
and respondents who were lifelong residents of nonmetropolitan
areas using dummy variables. I also employ binary indicators

Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theistic Certainty

445

for African Americans and nonwhites to compare them with white

respondents. Finally, I assess gender differences using a binary
indicator for females.

Downloaded by [University of Memphis] at 14:17 03 October 2012

ANALYTIC TECHNIQUES
I assess the basic distribution of beliefs in god, and their variation
across religious groups and levels of church attendance. Second,
I examine trends in beliefs in god across years of the GSS, five-year
age groups, and across birth cohorts. Finally, I present estimates
from an ordinal logistic regression model predicting beliefs in god.
Because there were some departures from ordinal effects, I will also
provide interpretations of some of the parameters from a multinomial
logistic regression model.
GSS results in Figure 1 show that the vast majority of Americans,
over sixty-four percent, report believing in god with no doubts. The
next most popular response was to believe with occasional doubt,
with nearly seventeen percent of respondents holding this position.
Fewer respondents, only 4.4 percent, chose the more doubtful
response of sometimes believing in god. More than eight percent of
GSS respondents reported that they dont believe in god, but do
believe in a higher power. Four percent gave the classic agnostic
response, while 2.5 percent embraced atheism. Low rates of selfprofessed atheism may, in part, reflect social desirability biases, since
atheists are viewed harshly in American society (Edgell et al. 2006).

Figure 1. Atheism, agnosticism, and beliefs in God in the United States:

19882000 General Social Surveys (N 7,980).

Downloaded by [University of Memphis] at 14:17 03 October 2012

446

D. E. Sherkat

Table 1 examines the relationship between beliefs in god and

denominational identification. Table 1 presents row percentages,
along with adjusted standardized residuals exceeding 2.0 from the
model of independence. The residuals indicate the direction of
statistically discernable departures from independence. Overall
these results elucidate the belief niche occupied by the denominational classifications. First, and quite striking, is the finding that
while only fifty-three percent of liberal Protestants and fifty-six
percent of Episcopalians have unwavering faith that god exists,
eighty-one percent of Baptists, eighty-eight percent of sectarians,
and eighty-five percent of Mormons have no doubt in the existence
of god. The residuals show that liberal Protestants are substantially less
likely to be true believers, and that Liberals, Episcopalians, Moderate
Protestants, Catholics, and Lutherans are overrepresented among
those who believe with some doubt. In contrast, Baptists, Sectarians,
and Mormons are underrepresented among doubting believers. Only
twenty-seven percent of Jews report certainty that god existsnot
much higher than the proportion of true believers among respondents
reporting no religious affiliation (twenty-two percent).
Beliefs in some higher power are much more prevalent among
liberal Protestants and Episcopalians. Thirteen percent of liberal Protestants do not believe in god, but in a higher power, while the figure
is close to eleven percent for Episcopalians (though the residual is less
than 2.0). Jews, people of other non-Christian faiths, and those with
no religious affiliation are also disproportionately represented among
those believing in a higher power instead of a personal god. Baptists,
Sectarians, Mormons, and Catholics are substantially less likely to
believe in a higher power.
Agnosticism is more widespread among liberal Protestants, Jews,
and those with no religious affiliation. Just under five percent of
liberal Protestants and Episcopalians report being agnostic (neither
produces a standardized residual greater than two). The attraction
of agnosticism is much more widespread and discernable among
Jews and nonaffiliates. Nearly twenty-three percent of Jews and
about nineteen percent of nonaffiliates subscribe to agnosticism.
Atheists are rare, and their distribution across religious categories
is sparse. Nearly fourteen percent of respondents who profess no
religious affiliation embrace atheism, a substantial departure from
the model of independence reflected in the large standardized residual
(19.6). Moderate Protestants, Lutherans, Baptists, and Catholics are
significantly underrepresented among Atheists.
In Table 2, I examine how beliefs in god are associated with
religious participation. Predictably, true believers are much more

447

202

2.6%

1675

Total

L2

55 D. F.

4.1%

325

4.2%
4.7%
2.0% (
3.4)
2.2% (
2.2)
1.2% (
5.3)
.3% (
4.9)
0 (
2.1)
2.3%
2.1% (
4.5)
22.6% (11.6)
6.3%
18.7% (20.0)

Agnostic

8.3%

671

13.2% (3.5)
10.6%
7.3%
7.0%
2.9% (
6.9)
1.3% (
6.2)
1.8% (
2.4)
9.1%
6.2% (
3.2)
15.9% (3.4)
21.4% (6.5)
23.5% (14.7)

Higher power

4.2%

331

4.5%
4.7%
3.9%
4.5%
2.4% (
3.1)
2.5% (
2.1)
1.8%
3.3%
4.6%
11.6% (4.7)
4.9%
6.2% (2.8)

Believe sometimes

16.6%

1331

21.9% (2.7)
23.5% (2.2)
19.4% (2.2)
21.9% (2.9)
11.1% (
5.0)
5.8% (
6.8)
9.0% (
2.0)
14.2%
20.8% (4.6)
20.7%
12.6%
15.5%

Believe with doubt

Adjusted Standardized residuals greater than 2.0 from the model of independence in parentheses.

2.8%
.6%
1.2% (
2.7)
.2% (
3.3)
1.3% (
3.0)
1.6%
2.7%
1.3%
.9% (
4.7)
2.4%
4.4%
13.8% (19.6)

Atheist

Liberal Protestant
Episcopalian
Moderate Protestant
Lutheran
Baptist
Sect
Mormon
Other Protestant
Catholic
Jewish
Other
None

Church attendance

Table 1. Beliefs in god by religious identification: 19882000 GSS

Downloaded by [University of Memphis] at 14:17 03 October 2012

64.2%

5166

53.4%
55.9%
66.2%
64.2%
81.1%
88.3%
84.7%
69.8%
65.3%
26.8%
50.5%
22.2%

(
6.0)
(
2.5)
(
14.6)

(7.8)
(7.8)
(2.7)

(
2.8)

True believer

100.0%

8027

100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

Total

448

100.0%

1706

Total

L2

40 D.F.

100.0%

49.1% (13.8)
11.6%
18.4% (3.2)
11.6%
2.8% (
3.2)
2.5% (
3.9)
1.3% (
3.5)
2.8% (
6.7)
0 (
4.9)

Agnostic

100.0%

35.8% (11.6)
16.2% (6.9)
18.1% (4.3)
13.1%
7.4%
5.3% (
3.1)
1.2% (
5.0)
2.4% (
9.9)
.5% (
6.6)

Higher power

100.0%

25.4% (3.6)
15.6% (4.4)
21.7% (4.9)
14.7%
8.3%
6.1%
2.4% (
2.6)
5.8% (
5.6)
0 (
4.9)

Believe sometimes

100.0%

18.7%
11.6% (3.9)
17.1% (5.0)
16.0% (3.6)
9.8% (2.5)
8.7%
4.7%
12.3% (
5.9)
1.1% (
8.4)

Believe with doubt

Adjusted Standardized residuals greater than 2.0 from the model of independence in parentheses.

53.5% (12.4)
7.5%
12.0%
5.0% (
3.0)
5.0%
3.0% (
2.8)
4.0%
6.5% (
4.1)
3.5% (
2.0)

Atheist

Never
Less than once a year
Once a year
Several times a year
Once a month
2-3 times a month
Nearly every week
Every week
More than once a week

Church attendance

Table 2. Beliefs in god and church attendance: 19882000 GSS

Downloaded by [University of Memphis] at 14:17 03 October 2012

100.0%

10.4% (
11.7)
6.0% (
6.0)
9.3% (
6.1)
11.7%
7.9%
10.3% (3.2)
7.6% (4.5)
25.9% (10.5)
11.0% (9.5)

True believer

100.0%

17.1%
8.4%
12.2%
12.5%
7.9%
8.9%
6.0%
19.4%
7.4%

Total

Downloaded by [University of Memphis] at 14:17 03 October 2012

Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theistic Certainty

449

likely to be regular religious participants than are those who have

doubts in the existence of god. Indeed, while about thirty-seven
percent of true believers attend church at least weekly, only
thirteen percent of those who believe with some doubts attend with
this frequency.
Consistent with my expectations, those who believe in a higher
power instead of a god are not very active in religious organizations.
Among those holding belief in a higher power, thirty-six percent
report never attending church and another sixteen percent go less
than once a year. Indeed, seventy percent of respondents who believe
in a higher power go to church once a year or lessmaking them
nearly as inactive in religious organizations as committed atheists.
A small percentage of respondents who believe in a higher power,
about three percent, report going to church weekly or nearly
weeklywhile the corresponding percentage of atheists with at least
weekly attendance is ten percent.
Agnostics attend church even less frequently than do those
who believe in a higher power, with forty-nine percent reporting
that they never attend church. Atheists are similarly, and understandably, less active in religious groups, with nearly fifty-four
percent reporting that they never attend. What is interesting,
however, is that somewhat higher proportions of atheists report
relatively regular church attendance when compared to agnostics
or those who believe in a higher power. The motivation for participation in religious organizations by atheists is likely not a function
of preferences for religious goods, though atheism is embraced
by many Unitarian-Universalist and other liberal Protestant congregations. Instead, atheists motivations for participation in religious
groups probably stem from social influences, such as a desire for
camaraderie, status, or political activities.
Secularization theorists have recently been invigorated by findings
suggesting an increase in the proportion Americans who hold no
religious affiliation (Hout and Fischer 2002; Sherkat 2001). In
Table 3, I present the trends in beliefs by survey year. I find trendless
fluctuation in these beliefs across survey years. The GSS found
fewer atheists and more doubters than would be expected in 1988.
No survey year posts a substantially higher or lower rate of true
believers. In 1994 and 1998, the survey picked up more respondents
claiming belief in a higher power than expected under the model of
independence. Respondents who believe in a higher power were
underrepresented in 1991. The 1994 GSS also found fewer agnostics
than expected under independence. Overall, there are no clear trends
between 1988 and 2000.

D. E. Sherkat

450
Table 3.

Downloaded by [University of Memphis] at 14:17 03 October 2012

Survey
year

Beliefs in god by survey year

Atheist

Agnostic

Higher
power

Believe
with
doubt

Believe
sometimes

True
believer Total

1988
1991
1993
1994
1998
2000

1.5% (
2.8) 3.8%

7.9%
4.4%
2.3%
4.5%
6.9% (
2.1) 5.2% (2.2)
2.9%
4.2%
8.5%
3.1% (
2.1)
2.5%
2.8% (
2.5) 9.9% (2.2) 3.8%
3.2%
4.9%
9.8% (2.0) 4.7%
2.8%
4.2%
7.1%
3.5%

18.9% (2.6)
18.2%
15.0%
16.1%
14.7% (
2.0)
16.5%

63.5%
62.8%
66.3%
64.9%
62.8%
65.8%

Total

2.5%

4.0%

16.6%

64.4% 100.0%

X2

56

25 D. F.

8.4%

4.1%

100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

Adjusted Standardized residuals greater than 2.0 from the model of independence in
parentheses.

With only twelve years spanned by the GSS data, cohort differences in religious belief may provide a more accurate projection of
the future belief structure of the US population. While younger
cohorts do have lower rates of unwavering faith in gods, looking
across cohorts in Table 4 it seems as if this may be explained by simple aging effect, rather than a cohort effect that would lead to cohort
replacement. While about fifty-seven percent of those born between
1970 and 1984 profess unwavering faith that god exists nearly
seventy-four percent of those born before 1919 believe in god without
doubts. Belief with some doubt is higher than expected under the
model of independence among cohorts born after 1950, while
Table 4.

Birth year
19701984
19601969
19501959
19401949
19301939
19201929
18831919

Cohort variations in beliefs about god

Atheist

Agnostic

Higher
power

Believe
sometimes

Believe
with
doubt

True
believer

Total

4.3% (3.2) 5.1%

2.4%
4.4%
2.7%
5.2% (2.7)
2.5%
3.6%
1.8%
3.2%
2.5%
3.0%
1.5%
2.5% (
2.4)

10.1%
7.9%
8.8%
10.1% (2.6)
7.5%
6.3% (2.2)
6.4%

3.3%
20.8% (3.2) 56.5% (
4.6)
5.2% (2.5) 19.2% (3.4) 61.0% (
3.4)
3.6%
18.8% (2.8) 61.0% (
3.4)
4.5%
14.0% (
2.8) 65.2%
4.2%
14.4%
69.0% (3.0)
4.0%
12.1% (
3.6) 72.2% (4.9)
3.4%
12.4% (
2.9) 73.8% (5.4)

100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

Total

2.5%

4.1%

8.3%

4.1%

100%

L2

134

30 D. F.

16.6%

2.5%

Adjusted Standardized residuals greater than 2.0 from the model of independence in
parentheses.

Downloaded by [University of Memphis] at 14:17 03 October 2012

Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theistic Certainty

451

members of cohorts born before 1929 are underrepresented among

doubting believers.
Respondents born from 19401949 are more likely to report
believing in a higher power, and those born between 1950 and 1959
are more attracted to agnostic beliefs. Members of the youngest
cohort report higher rates of atheism than would be expected under
the model of independence, and the lowest rates of atheism are in
the oldest cohort (though the standardized residual is not smaller
than
2). Still, the second oldest cohort charts a higher rate of atheism than the second youngest cohort. In sum, the portrait of beliefs
by cohort is more in line with an aging explanation than one emphasizing cohort distinctivenessalthough, the relationship breaks down
somewhat for atheism.
Aging may influence beliefs in god, and while we cannot fully
separate age groups and cohorts in the limited GSS time frame, it
is useful to examine age group variations. Table 5 presents age
group broken down in five year intervals for all but the youngest
and oldest groups. Most of the age variation in beliefs is a function
of differing proportions of true believers vs doubters. Respondents
under age forty are less likely to be true believers, and more likely
than expected under independence to believe with some doubt. In
Table 5.

Age
1824
2529
3034
3539
4044
4549
5054
5559
6064
6569
7074
7579
8084
85 and up

Age variations in beliefs about god

Agnostic

Higher
power

3.2
2.9
2.7
2.1
2.9
2.3
3.5
1.9
1.8
2.8
1.3
1.6
2.7
1.4

5.4%
4.8%
3.7%
6.0% (3.2)
3.6%
4.4%
3.0%
3.2%
4.6%
2.1% (
2.1)
2.0% (
2.1)
2.9%
3.4%
2.1%

9.8%
7.5%
8.3%
9.0%
10.0%
9.0%
8.6%
8.2%
7.9%
8.0%
4.5% (
2=8)
6.1%
7.4%
7.5%

5.6% (2.2) 20.7% (3.1)

4.4%
21.1% (3.7)
3.5%
18.9% (2.0)
3.0%
19.4% (2.5)
5.1%
16.4%
4.6%
15.5%
3.7%
13.7%
4.7%
11.2% (
3.2)
3.5%
16.1%
3.8%
13.7%
3.5%
11.3% (
2.9%)
4.9%
12.0% (
2.2)
3.4%
10.1% (
2.1)
2.1%
11.6%

55.3%
59.4%
62.9%
60.5%
62.0%
64.1%
67.5%
70.8%
66.0%
69.5%
77.4%
72.5%
73.0%
75.3%

(
5.4) 100.0%
(
3.2) 100.0%
100.0%
(
2.7) 100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
(3.0) 100.0%
100.0%
(2.3) 100.0%
(5.6) 100.0%
(3.1) 100.0%
(2.2) 100.0%
(2.8) 100.0%

8.4%

4.1%

64.4%

100.0%

Total

2.5

4.0%

L2

169

65 D. F.

Believe
sometimes

Believe
with
doubt

Atheist
(%)

16.6%

True
believer

Total

Adjusted Standardized residuals greater than 2.0 from the model of independence in
parentheses.

Downloaded by [University of Memphis] at 14:17 03 October 2012

452

D. E. Sherkat

contrast, respondents over age fifty-five are more likely to believe

without doubt, and less likely to believe with doubt. There are few
other significant departures from the model of independence.
Respondents age sixty-five to seventy-four are less likely than
expected to be agnostic, and those age seventy to seventy-four are
also less likely than expected to believe in a higher power.
Table 6 presents the coefficients from ordinal logistic regression
models predicting belief in god. Models 1 and 2 control for basic
demographic correlates of beliefs, with the first model using a linear
age and the second modeling cohort effects. Notably, I find that age
has a significant positive impact on beliefs in godas age increases
the odds of having a more certain belief in the existence of god
increase. A comparison of Model 1 and Model 2 shows that cohort
effects do not appreciably improve the fit of the model; the likelihood
ratio chi-square differs by only five points at a cost of five degrees of
freedom (though the models are not nested). Models controlling
for both age and cohort (not presented because of the potential for
colinearity problems) showed no significant effect of cohort, while
the positive effect of age remained. Younger cohorts have less
certain beliefs, while older cohorts are more certain, with a slight
nonlinearity apparent in the more skeptical views of those born
between 1950 and 1959 (though subsequent analyses revealed that
the 19501959 cohort does not differ significantly from the two
younger cohorts). Multinomial regression results (not shown),
revealed that net of other factors, age was not significantly
related to atheism versus absolute certaintywhich is one source of
disproportional effects between the multinomial and ordinal models.
Women choose significantly more faithful stances about god when
compared to men. Net of other factors, being female increases
the odds of holding more confident beliefs about god by seventy-two
percent in Model 4. Further, both African Americans and other
nonwhites are more certain in their beliefs in god. Indeed, net of other
factors, African Americans had nearly twice the odds of favoring a
more certain belief category compared to whites (exp. B 1.92 in the
final model). Income has no significant effect on beliefs controlling for
other factors, but education lowers the odds of being in a more certain
belief category by eight percent in Models 1 and 2, and by six percent
when religious affiliation is taken into account (in Models 3 and 4). The
multinomial logistic regression results showed that education is particularly predictive of being agnostic versus being an absolute believer.
Compared to those who have never married, married and widowed
respondents have substantially higher odds of having more confident
beliefs about god. Widowed and married respondents do not differ

453

X2

p < .05, two tailed.



p < .01, two tailed.



p < .001, two tailed.

7949
863, 12 D. F.

3.50

2.49

1.52

1.21

.28

.624=1.87
.758=2.13
.325=1.38

.016=.98

.079=.92
.421=1.52
.440=1.55
.131=1.14
.113=1.12
.326=1.39
.714=2.04

.008=1.01

Model 1
Logit=exp(logit)

Ordered logistic regression of beliefs in god

Age
19701984 Cohort
19601969 Cohort
19501959 Cohort
19401949 Cohort
19301939 Cohort
19201929 Cohort
Female
African American
Other Race
Income
Education
Married
Widowed
Ever Divorced
Children
Rural
Southern
Sect
Catholic
No Religious Affiliation
Intercept 1
Intercept 2
Intercept 3
Intercept 4
Intercept 5

Table 6.

7949
868, 17 D. F.

4.00

2.99

2.02

1.71

.78

.342=.71

.257=.77

.370=.69

.183=.83

.042=.96
.004=1.00
.623=1.86
.765=2.15
.311=1.36

.008=.99

.077=.92
.449=1.57
.499=1.65
.185=1.20
.122=1.13
.332=1.39
.713=2.04

Model 2
Logit=exp(logit)

7949
1781, 15 D. F.

.538=1.71
.636=1.89
.344=1.41

.029=.97

.065=.94
.287=1.33
.317=1.37
.092=1.10
.080=1.08
.244=1.28
.505=1.66
.915=2.50
.347=1.41

1.769=.17

3.87

2.78

1.69

1.33

.29

.005=1.01

Model 3
Logit=exp(logit)

Downloaded by [University of Memphis] at 14:17 03 October 2012

7949
1778, 20 D. F.

.238=.79

.257=.82

.293=.75

.201=.82

.131=.88

.074=.93
.540=1.72
.654=1.92
.330=1.39

.020=.98

.063=.94
.333=1.40
.374=1.45
.157=1.17
.080=1.08
.250=1.28
.504=1.66
.911=2.49
.345=1.41

1.763=.17

4.25

3.15

2.06

1.70

.67

Model 4
Logit=exp(logit)

Downloaded by [University of Memphis] at 14:17 03 October 2012

454

D. E. Sherkat

substantially or significantly from one another in the certainty of

belief. However, flipping the omitted category from the models
revealed that divorced respondents are significantly less certain than
widowed or married respondents. In Model 2, divorced respondents
are found to have significantly more faithful beliefs than those who
never married, but that does not hold controlling for age or affiliation. Having children also increases faith in the existence of God.
Controlling for other factors, each child adds an eight percent
increase in the odds of being in a more confident belief category in
the final model. Lifelong southerners and lifelong residents of rural
areas have significantly higher levels of certainty in their beliefs in
god. Indeed, in Models 1 and 2, lifelong southerners are found
to have more than twice the odds of being in more certain belief
categories compared to other respondents.
Finally, sectarian Protestants are substantially and significantly
more ardent believers. Compared to the mostly liberal-moderate
Protestant omitted category, being a sectarian increases the odds
of being in a more positive category by 150 percent in Model 3 and
149 percent in Model 4. Catholics are also more faithful in
their beliefs in god when compared to the mostly mainline Protestant
omitted category. Net of other factors, being Catholic increases the
odds of being in a more certain belief category by forty-one percent.
Predictably, having no religious affiliation reduces the odds of being
in a more faithful category. Compared to the mostly mainline omitted
groups, those without an affiliation have eighty-three percent lower
odds of being in a more faithful category.
DISCUSSION
The new demographic perspective on religious commitment focuses
on how sociological processes structure religious affiliations, rate of
participation, and religious desires (Greeley and Hout 1999; Hout
et al. 2001; Hout and Fischer 2002; Myers 1996, 2000; Stolzenberg
et al. 1995). Life course events influence peoples religious ties,
commitments, and values. In this article, I have shown how basic life
course events are strongly associated with beliefs about Godsa key
factor for generating religious demand. Without beliefs in active
gods, supernatural rewards and compensators are limited (Stark
and Bainbridge 1987; Stark and Finke 2000). Hence, the demonstration of life course influences on beliefs in god strongly suggests
that religious demand shiftsin concert with demand side rational
actor models (Sherkat 1997, 1998, 2003) and contrary to a key
assumption of supply side theories (Iannaccone 1990, 1995).

Downloaded by [University of Memphis] at 14:17 03 October 2012

Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theistic Certainty

455

As people get older, they come to hold more certain beliefs about
god. Strength in commitment to religious beliefs appears to grow over
the life course as a fairly linear function of age. The one departure is
that atheism also seems to crystallize with age. Hence, I found that
belief certainty grows over timecertainty of belief in god, or
certainty that gods do not exist. Belief in god does not appear to be fading. There are no trends revealing an increase in atheism or a decrease
in belief certainty. Nor are there substantial cohort variations suggesting that cohort replacement will eventually cause increases in atheism
or decreases in certainty. While the 19501959 birth cohorts are somewhat less certain in their religious beliefs compared to older and
younger cohorts, the relationship between beliefs in god and age
appears to be more of a function of age than cohort differences.
And, cohorts born after 1959 appear to be more faithful than the
19501959 cohorts. Unfortunately, the GSS only carried this particular
belief item for a relatively short time sequence. With a longer time
sequence, it would be possible to separate age and cohort effects in a
more systematic fashion (Yang 2006; Yang and Land 2006, 2008).
Marital events and childrearing are also associated with variations
in beliefs about god. Married and widowed respondents were found
to have substantially more certainty in the existence of god when
compared to divorced and never married respondents. Widowhood,
however, did not either shake or bolster faith when compared to
married respondents who had not experienced the death of a spouse.
Having children also increases confidence in the existence of god.
Marriage, child birth, divorce, and widowhood are important life
course events, which likely cause reflection on the meaning and
permanence of earthly existence. However, with the exception of
widowhood, these life course events are selectiveand religious
factors are known to increase rates of marriage and fertility, and
lower the likelihood of divorce (Sherkat and Ellison 1999). Future
work should focus on charting the effects of religious beliefs and ties
on life course events, and life course events on religious commitments. To do this, researchers will need high quality longitudinal
data with multi-wave indicators of religious beliefs, participation,
and affiliation.
Educational attainment decreases certainty in beliefs in God.
Educational attainment is especially predictive of agnosticism. While
I cannot be certain of the causal connection, the finding is in concert
with longitudinal research showing that educational attainment
decreases beliefs in the inerrancy of the bible (Sherkat 1998). Of
course, sectarian religious beliefs and affiliations are also associated
with low educational attainment (Darnell and Sherkat 1997; Lehrer

Downloaded by [University of Memphis] at 14:17 03 October 2012

456

D. E. Sherkat

1999; Glass and Jacobs 2005). Net of education, income did not
effect beliefs about god. Future research should explore whether
occupational factors contribute to beliefs, and theorizing is needed
to identify occupational characteristics which might be associated
with particular religious beliefs.
Religious communities teach preferred explanations about the
supernatural. Mainline liberal Protestant groups profess a view
of the gods which is riddled with doubt, questioning of faith, and
even the rejection of old man in the sky images of gods (Stark
2000). Not surprisingly, I found that moderate and liberal Protestants
are substantially more likely to doubt the existence of god, and are
much more likely to think of god as a higher power rather than
a divine being with agency and motivation. This contrasts with
the certainty of beliefs in god held by conservative sectarians
and Catholics. The dynamics of belief niches for organizations is a
potentially important area of study, and it would be profitable to
examine the intersection between denominational and congregational
belief structures and individual beliefs. Such investigations could
examine how structural ties influence beliefs, as well as how beliefs
motivate ties and influence shifts in affiliation. These potential
advances could only be realized with multilevel longitudinal data.
REFERENCES
Bainbridge, William Sims. 2005. Atheism. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on
Religion 1:124.
Bishop, George. 1999. Americans Belief in God. Public Opinion Quarterly
63:421434.
Brown, Suzannah and Xiahe Xu. 2006. Religious Subcultural Variations in
Remarriage Timing: Evidence from the National Survey of Family Growth.
Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Southern Sociological Society,
New Orleans, LA.
Darnell, Alfred and Darren E. Sherkat. 1997. The Impact of Protestant Fundamentalism on Educational Attainment. American Sociological Review 62:306316.
Edgell, Penny. 2005. Religion and Family in a Changing Society. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Edgell, Penny, Joseph Gerteis, and Douglass Hartmann. 2006. Atheists as Other:
Moral Boundaries and Cultural Membership in American Society. American
Sociological Review 71:211234.
Elder, Glen H. Jr., Monica K. Johnson, & Robert Crosnoe. 2003. The Emergence
and Development of Life Course Theory. Pp. 322 in Handbook of the Life
Course, edited by Jeylan Mortimer and Michael Shanahan. New York: Plenum.
Ellison, Christopher G. and Darren E. Sherkat. 1995a. Is Sociology the Core
Discipline for the Scientific Study of Religion? Social Forces 73:12551266.

Downloaded by [University of Memphis] at 14:17 03 October 2012

Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theistic Certainty

457

. 1995b. The Semi-Involuntary Institution Revisited: Regional Variations in

Church Participation Among Black Americans. Social Forces 73:14151437.
Elster, Jon. 1983. Sour Grapes: Studies in the Subversion of Rationality. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Glass, Jennifer and Jerry Jacobs. 2005. Childhood Religious Conservatism and
Adult Attainment among Black and White Women. Social Forces 84:555579.
Greeley, Andrew M. and Michael Hout. 1999. Americans Increasing Belief in Life
After Death: Religious Competition and Acculturation. American Sociological
Review. 64:813835.
Hout, Michael and Claude S. Fischer. 2002. Why More Americans Have No
Religious Preference: Politics and Generations. American Sociological Review
67:165190.
Hout, Michael, Andrew Greeley, and Melissa J. Wilde. 2001. The Demographic
Imperative in Religious Change in the United States. American Journal of
Sociology 107:468500.
Iannaccone, Laurence. 1990. Religious Practice: A Human Capital Approach.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 29:297314.
. 1991. The Consequences of Religious Market Structure: Adam Smith and
the Economics of Religion. Rationality and Society 3:156177.
. 1995. Voodoo Economics? Reviewing the Rational Choice Approach to
Religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 34:7689.
Keister, Lisa A. 2003. Religion and Wealth: The Role of Religious Affiliation and
Participation in Early Adult Asset Attainment. Social Forces 82:175207.
. 2008. Conservative Protestants and Wealth: How Religion Perpetuates
Asset Poverty. American Journal of Sociology 113:12371271.
Kuran, Timur. 1993. The Unthinkable and the Unthought. Rationality and Society
5:473505.
Kuran, Timur and Cass R. Sunstein. 1999. Availability Cascades and Risk
Regulation. Stanford Law Review 51:683768.
Lehrer, Evelyn. 1995. The Effects of Religion on the Labor Supply of Married
Women. Social Science Research 24:281301.
. 1999. Religion as a Determinant of Educational Attainment: An Economic
Perspective. Social Science Research 28:358379.
. 2004. Religion as a Determinant of Economic and Demographic
Behavior in the United States. 2004. Population and Development Review
30(4):707726.
MacMillan, Ross and Ronda Copher. 2005. Families in the Life Course:
Interdependency of Roles, Role Configurations, and Pathways. Journal of
Marriage and the Family 67:858879.
Myers, Scott M. 1996. An Interactive Model of Religiosity Inheritance: The
Importance of Family Context. American Sociological Review 61:858866.
. 2000. The Impact of Religious Involvement on Migration. Social Forces
79:755783.
Popielarz, Pamela A. and J. Miller McPherson. 1995. On the Edge or In Between:
Niche Position, Niche Overlap, and the Duration of Voluntary Association
Membership. American Journal of Sociology 101:698720.

Downloaded by [University of Memphis] at 14:17 03 October 2012

458

D. E. Sherkat

Sen, Amartya. 1973. Behavior and the Concept of Preference. Economica

40:241259.
Sherkat, Darren E. 1997. Embedding Religious Choices: Integrating Preferences
and Social Constraints into Rational Choice Theories of Religious Behavior.
Pp. 6586 in Rational Choice Theory and Religion: Summary and Assessment,
edited by L. A. Young. New York: Routledge Press.
. 1998. Counterculture or Continuity? Competing Influences on
Baby Boomers? Religious Orientations and Participation. Social Forces
76:10871115.
. 2000. That They Be Keepers of the Home: The Effect of Conservative
Religion on Early and Late Transitions into Housewifery. Review of Religious
Research 41:344458.
. 2001. Tracking the Restructuring of American Religion: Religious
Affiliation and Patterns of Mobility, 19731998. Social Forces 79:14591492.
. 2003. Religious Socialization: Agents of Influence and Influences of
Agency. Pp. 151163 in Handbook for the Sociology of Religion, edited by
Michele Dillon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
. 2006. Religion and Cognitive Sophistication. Paper presented at the
annual meetings of the American Sociological Association, Montreal, Canada.
Sherkat, Darren E. and Alfred Darnell. 1999. The Effect of Parents Fundamentalism on Childrens Educational Attainment: Examining Differences by Gender
and Childrens Fundamentalism. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
38:2335.
Sherkat, Darren E. and Christopher G. Ellison. 1999. Recent Developments and
Current Controversies in the Sociology of Religion. Annual Review of Sociology
25:363394.
Sherkat, Darren E. and John Wilson. 1995. Preferences, Constraints, and Choices
in Religious Markets: An Examination of Religious Switching and Apostasy.
Social Forces 73:9931026.
Simpson, Brent. 2006. The Poverty of Trust in the Southern United States. Social
Forces 84:16251638.
Stark, Rodney. 2000. Religious Effects: In Praise of Idealistic Humbug. Review of
Religious Research 41:289310.
. 2003. One True God: The Historical Consequences of Monotheism. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Stark, Rodney and William Sims Bainbridge. 1985. The Future of Religion: Secularization, Revival, and Cult Formation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
. 1987. A Theory of Religion. New York: Peter Lang.
Stark, Rodney and Roger Finke. 2000. Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human side of
Religion. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Stark, Rodney and Laurence R. Iannaccone. 1994. A Supply-Side Reinterpretation
of the Secularization of Europe. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
33:230252.
Stolzenberg, Ross M., Mary Blair-Loy, and Linda J. Waite. 1995. Religious Participation over the Early Life Course: Age and Family Life Cycle Effects on Church
Membership. American Sociological Review 60:84103.

Downloaded by [University of Memphis] at 14:17 03 October 2012

Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theistic Certainty

459

Waite, Linda J. and Evelyn Lehrer. 2003. The Benefits from Marriage and Religion
in the United States: A Comparative Analysis. Population and Development
Review 29:255275.
Waite, Linda J. and Maggie Gallagher. 2000. The Case for Marriage: Why Married
People are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially. New York: Doubleday.
Weber, Max. [1922] 1993. The Sociology of Religion. Boston: Beacon Press.
Wilson, John and Darren E. Sherkat. 1994. Returning to the Fold. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion 33:148161.
Yang, Yang. 2006. Bayesian Inference for Hierarchical Age-Period-Cohort Models
of Repeated Cross-Section Survey Data. Sociological Methodology 36:3974.
Yang, Yang and Kenneth C. Land. 2006. A Mixed Models Approach to AgePeriod-Cohort Analysis of Repeated Cross-Section Surveys: Trends in Verbal
Test Scores. Sociological Methodology 36:7597.
. 2008. Age-Period-Cohort Analysis of Repeated Cross Section Surveys:
Fixed or Random Effects? Sociological Methods and Research 36 (Special
Issue):297326.