Norman Ralph

Having spent the last ninety minutes on the coach back from Sheffield due to trains being delayed or cancelled I thought I’d throw a few lines together about the trip.

I was in Sheffield as I had been presenting a talk on the atheist and humanist world view to the Sheffield Atheist Society based at the university. I had been booked via the AHS so had agreed to waive expenses, something I would like to see catch on.

The talk was a relatively short one at about forty minutes but I think it went down relatively well with the exception of a couple of audience members that took the Q&A section a little personal. I will be doing a fuller post on the actual content of the talk so keep an eye out.

It is difficult not to draw comparisons between societies when you see as many as I do and I have to say that Sheffield are up there with the friendliest. It is obvious that the society under its current leadership is still searching for their identity but I have every confidence that they will be successful.

With regards to the city itself, I rather liked some parts of the centre (they have a Ribshack), it felt clean and well organised but felt rather devoid of any character. Having said, the current trend of glass facades and generic branding means it is harder and harder to get a sense of the local heritage.

It hardly seems any time at all since the AHS launched itself into the public eye at it’s press launch and convention in 2009. Next weekend, March 12th -13th, sees the AHS hold its third annual convention at Conway Hall in London.

For those that don’t know, the AHS (or to give it its full name, the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies) is a national umbrella organisation catering for non-religious societies within higher education in the UK.

The AHS has enjoyed high profile support during it’s relatively short history with patrons including author and academic Professor Richard Dawkins and journalist and writer Polly Toynbee. Dawkins said this of the AHS:

Public statements of non-belief are treated as threatening, an affront to the religious, while the reverse is not true. More concerning is the enduring assumption that religious belief does not have to earn respect like any other view, an approach that has caused politicians and public figures across the UK to withdraw from asking the vital question: why is religion given such special status in government, culture and the media? Why is belief in a higher power an indication of greater moral fortitude, character and acumen? The AHS says publicly that it isn’t; on the contrary, beliefs that are unsupported, bigoted or demand special privileges should always be challenged. No opinion should be protected from criticism simply by virtue of being religiously held.

With over thirty members covering the length and breadth of Britain and Ireland, the AHS is one of the fastest growing organisations of its ilk and the 2011 convention will be its biggest event to date.

Speaking about the convention, the British Humanist Association’s Chief Executive, Andrew Copson, who is speaking at the event said:

It is impressive to see how the AHS has grown over the last six months, more than doubling in size. It’ll be very exciting to see this reflected in the numbers that come to the AHS Convention, and I am very excited to be taking part in it.

The line up for the convention is a veritable who’s who with speakers including the philosopher, author and long-term supporter of the AHS Professor AC Grayling. Grayling spoke at the AHS’s first convention in 2009, saying:

As well as making the case for reason and science, it is great to know that the AHS will be standing up against religious privilege and discrimination. All people are entitled to their beliefs but we secularists (whether religious or humanist) are right in arguing that the state must be entirely neutral in these matters. A situation where the religious beliefs of a few may dictate the personal choices of everyone in abortion, for example, or assisted suicide is quite wrong. Yet some religious groups defend and even aim to expand their considerable privileges – public money for their “faith-based” schools, seats in the House of Lords, exemption from laws inconvenient to their prejudices. The AHS shows that increasing numbers of young people are unwilling to put up with it.

Other headliners include journalist and activist Johann Hari, comedian Robin Ince and politician Lord Warner. National Secular Society executive director Kieth Porteous Wood and the BHA Choir round off the set list.

All of the speakers are set to take to stage between 12pm and 6pm on the Saturday of the convention. Fringe events will be taking palce throughout the day, including exhibitions by a variety of local and national organisations. The day is also being broadcast live via the popular science and religion podcast The Pod Delusion.

The Sunday of the convention will be aimed primarily at the AHS’s member societies, with workshops running on sustainability, finances, debating and an awards ceremony.

AHS President, Richy Thompson, summed up the convention:

We’re very excited about this convention, which promises to far and away be the AHS’s biggest gathering yet. The line-up of speakers looks really great, and the events on the committee-centric day should help stimulate a new year of leaders for non-religious societies.

Tickets for the convention are avaialble from the BHA website for the Saturday, or both days. Tickets are priced at £6 (£3 students).

Following on from the success of the Chris Worfolk Foundation’s Enquiry 2010 conference, where I was a speaker, the organisation will be running another weekend conference this year.

The event will be running over the weekend of 16th and 17th April 2011 in the Scottish city of Edinburgh. Enquiry 2011 will feature headline speakers such as Professor Paul Braterman, author of 59 Seconds Professor Richard Wiseman, journalist Jon Ronson, comedian Robin Ince and Dr Gijsbert Stoet. The event will also feature live music from Carmen De Cruz and a magic show presented by Declan Dineen. Further acts and speakers are due to be announced over the next few weeks.

Tickets are available direct from the foundation’s website and will cost £45 (£35 concessions).

I hate “New Year”.

For as long as I can remember I have hated new year celebrations. Not so much the actual celebrating – I like a drink and a party as much as the next guy – but the fact that celebration takes place at all. Wht do we celebrate the transition from 31st December to 1st January? Maybe a more improtant question, is what are we actually celebrating with this quasi-festival?

Many will answer that we are celebrating the end of one year and the start of the next – a traditional rebirth metaphor On the surface, this seems a fairly good answer, if a little pagan, as this cyclical nature of death and rebirth is so ingrained in the human psyche that it would be stranger to miss a chance to celebrate the metaphor given half a chance.

My question to those that support this view would be why this particular point in the Earth’s orbit of the sun? There is at least some demarcation in other rebirth metaphors – night into day, phases of the moon, literal life and death – but this is just one of many opportunities to celebrate the fact that the planet is still orbiting its star.

Some argue that we are celebrating the fact we are moving from one calendar year to the next. This is perhaps a little more forgivable than the first argument as there is at least some demarcation. We are ripping up the calendar for 2010 and crakcing out the calendar for 2011 (I went from a Trinity Hospice in the Fylde calendar to a Marvel one).

It is far harder for me to find fault with this argument, although it still feels an arbitrary reason. I mean the calendar we use today was invented by Pope Gregory XIII to prevent Easter having to move all the time as the previous calendar had slightly miscalculated the vernal equinox, meaning the year was 11 minutes too short.

As an atheist and veritable anti-papist, I find it a little odd that I am supposed to celebrate the continued use of a tool invented to control congregations and ensure the continued influence of the Catholic Church on modern life. Don’t get me wrong here, I am fully aware that the calendar as a popular tool today has little to do with the Catholic Church and its continuing influence. However, I find it just as difficult to celebrate Christmas with its historical ties to Christianity and that tradition is well over 1000 years old. New Year as we know it less than 300 years of tradition (Britain didn’t adopt the Gregorian calendar until 1752).

The third argument (although I have only ever heard it once from a Catholic friend of mine) is the celebration of the circumcision of Jesus. This one I have absolutely no problems with. If people want to celebrate this then go ahead. Obviously, this defence only works for those sects of Christianity and Messianic Judaism that believe and therefore celebrate this. I don’t believe in Jesus as a god (and barely believe in him as a figure from history) and certainly would never celebrate the barbaric act of none-medical circumcision under any circumstances.

The final argument (and the one that my skeptical and atheist friends tend to fall back on) is one of opportunity. Why should we pass up on a chance to party just because the historical or traditional rationale for the party doesn’t hold up. Why can’t we celebrate an arbitrary festival for arbitrary (or no) reason?

Whilst there are idealistic flaws with this argument, these tend to come from contrarianism rather than any real evidentiary basis. This argument is clearly the hardest to refute as it basically says “who cares?” and in my experience, the answer is “very few”.

So, I continue to party at new year. I also continue to have this argument with anyone that will listen in the hope that one day someone will offer a better option than “if you can’t beat them, join them”.

Any ideas then feel free to add a comment!

I have just had confirmation that I will be speaking at this year’s Enquiry conference in Birmingham in June. I am not sure yet what I am speaking on, but the theme for the event is on “atheism in the 21st century” so should be a really great opportunity. What is most exciting is that I am speaking on the same bill as people like Professor A.C. Grayling, Dr Evan Harris, Andrew Copson and Maryam Namazie. What a coup!

Community groups across Leeds have come together to unite behind a campaign to save an openly atheist doctor from being deported to Pakistan where he faces persecution for his beliefs. The campaign is designed to raise awareness via the media as well as social networking sites and an online petition.

Dr. Shaukat Aman Ullah became heavily involved with local atheist and humanist groups while studying for his doctorate at the University of Leeds. Dr. Ullah was in the UK on a student visa and applied for asylum on the completion of his Ph.D. His application was rejected in March; he is currently appealing the ruling.

Chris Worfolk, trustee of the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist & Secular Student Societies said:

This is exactly what our asylum laws were set up for. Here is an individual who faces genuine persecution for his beliefs in his own country. If we truly value freedom of expression and the right to your own beliefs we must grant asylum.

Sophie Stringfellow, president of Leeds Atheist Society said:

Being part of the Atheist Society has really opened my eyes as to how some people view non-belivers, even in modern society. If we encounter this attitude in a secular country such as the UK, I fear what attitudes may be encountered in Parkistan.

Parkistan has no separation of church and state and 95% of the population are Muslim. Apostasy is punishable by death, as is speaking out against Islam (as this is considered blasphemy).

Since the decision a coalition of Leeds community groups, led by Leeds Atheist Society have come together in order to raise awareness of Dr. Ullah’s case. Dr. Richard Parker of the Leeds-based Humanist Action Group commented:

It’s amazing to see how many people have volunteered to help spread the word. I would strongly urge everyone to sign the petition and show their support.

Arslan is a personal friend of mine and is already receiving death threats from people who wish to punish him for his decision to reject Islam. Support this campaign and sign the petition. If you have any messages of support or would like to get involved with the campiagn then either contact me or join the Facebook group and leave a message there.

I have been “out” as an atheist for about eight years now and have lived with the associated consequences through the cut throat environment of high school, the holier than thou (excuse the pun) world on university and the politically correct arena of real life employment. Out of all those experiences it was the time at university that I found the need to explain and defend my position almost inescapable. Maybe it was the inquisitive and argumentative nature of students, but at school and at work the topic of religious belief has never really been an issue.

It was this thought that has inspired a series of articles that I am going to be releasing over the next few weeks. There are five in all, but I think that the final two will probably get posted as a single piece as I feel that the flow is better suited that way. So, for those of you that have been ignoring my posts recently due to the lack of real or meaningful content should start refreshing those RSS feeds and rechecking those bookmarks!

The article series is called Living as an Atheist and will hopefully highlight some of the issues that are faced by atheists when trying to apply the principles and ideas that tend to be associated with an atheistic world view to real life situations.

The first piece will be on what it means to be a young atheist in sixth form/college and then university. The main thesis is that the 16-25 age bracket is the key defining period in how an atheist will develop their wolrdview and what features of that worldview persist into life beyond education.

The second article is about university atheist societies and it is aimed to coincide with the anniversary of the official press launch of the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies. The focus of this article will be on sustainability and leadership within the student community of an atheist society. This is a subject which I have been invited to speak on at the AHS Conference in Oxford att he end of February.

The third part of the series is an essay on working in a multi-ethnic environment and the clash of British capitalism and religious imperatives. The key points under exploration will include the compatability of the market system with Islamic ideas on trade and finance as well as the human element of actually working alongside adherants to a number of religions and how “office banter” can lead to difficult situations and damaging misunderstandings.

The fourth and fifth articles will be a short history of my own journey to atheism and then an in depth analysis into the development of my world view and how that is implemented both in my student world and my professional world.

So, keep your eyes peeled as I am unsure yet as to which day will be ebst for publication but will probably depend on when I need to kill the msot time at work over the next week.

I was invited to speak at the Humanist Society of West Yorkshire last night on my experience with Leeds Atheist Society and the AHS. This is my first real public speaking engagement since stepping down as AHS president in June this year. Below is an excerpt from the lecture that focusses on my own personal history with these organisations, although my lecture went into a bit more detail about the general history and possible future too.

I want to talk to you about the current burst of enthusiasm amongst students to take on religious societies at their own game and build student societies based around atheist or humanist or secularist principles.

There has been a great flurry of activity over the past two or three years with regards to getting young people, especially students, involved in these societies. Much of this activity has been instigated and masterminded right here in Leeds.

Before I go on to talk about the bigger picture, or even the local picture I want to introduce you to my own personal picture.

It all started when a when an enthusiastic first year friend of mine approached me in a bar to ask if I would sign a petition to request the formation of an Atheist Society at the University of Leeds Student Union. I declined the offer. I wasn’t an atheist, at best I was agnostic. How could I sign the form?

Luckily, that wasn’t the end of story. Whilst I had felt unable to literally sign up as an atheist there and then, it did inspire me to look at the matter in far more detail then I ever had previously. It was with this new found desire to understand atheism that within a month I was standing front and centre at the Atheist Society launch party in January 2007, fully signed up as a proverbial card carrying atheist. By the April of 2007 I was elected Secretary and had taken on a central leadership role within the Society.

This is probably a good time to speak about the growth of the Leeds University Atheist Society, seeing as much of the rest of the talk will branch off from this history as we go on.

As I mentioned before, Leeds Atheist Society was created in December 2006 as the brainchild of Chris Worfolk and quickly established itself as a society of big ideas when it announced that less than six months after forming it would put on a week long awareness event. This event was known as Rationalist Week and is now an annual flagship event for the society and has even been adopted by a number of other student societies and inspired the recent creation by the British Humanist Association’s Humanist Week.

Rationalist Week 2007 was the catalyst that allowed a small group of dedicated members to turn Leeds Atheist Society into the largest and most active student atheist society in the UK.

The society grew from a dozen members in 2006-2007 to fifty members in 2007-2008, making the society one of the fastest growing groups on campus. This growth in popularity did not go unnoticed and the society narrowly missed out on winning “Best New Society” at the annual Students Union awards.

As we moved in to our first full year we put on our first weekend away, taking 12 members to London for a weekend of debate, history and partying. We also ran a constant stream of events ranging from simple talks and lectures through to interfaith debate.

A real feather in the society’s cap was the introduction of the One Life course – a secular look at the important questions in life. The course is aimed at non-atheists and is designed to let them explore the meaning of life and the question of ethics without the need for a god.

I was elected president shortly after Rationalist Week 2008, a week that played host to over 40 events, saw us introduce a more spacious marquis and allowed us to reach in excess of a thousand students.

As president of the society, I helped steer us towards our current vision of education and enlightenment. This means a focus on teaching atheists as well as religious people what being an atheist or a humanist or a secularist really means. The launch of Perspective course also allowed us to teach atheists about other religions.

The society continued to grow and by the end of the 2008-2009 academic year we could boast a membership of just over 100. We also continued to develop Rationalist Week, with the 2009 event going 24/7 with events all day every day for a week. Answers course was also launched in March, aimed at developing our own members’ ability to express themselves and their atheist ideas.

In April 2009, a brand new executive committee took over the running of the society with a new brand of the education vision. The focus of the society is about not just educating our members but helping them to enrich their lives by providing opportunity for charity and helping them discover a way to live a more positive life based on humanist philosophies.

The growing popularity and the ever increasing range of events started to get the attention of other faith groups on campus. A screening of the documentary “What Muslims Want” developed into a heated debate, but nothing compared to some of the difficulties we were to encounter.

During Atheist Week in November 2007 we had our banners stolen in broad daylight and in February 2008 during the run up to my lecture on freedom of speech entitled “We will mock Muhammed if we want to…” I received personal death threats from anonymous Muslims. The society also received several threats from various quarters and in the end I took the decision to self-censor and remove some of the more controversial material from the presentation. Whilst running Rationalist Week 2008, we again had problems with our banners – this time seeing them defaced and covered in religious graffiti.

This problem was highlighted during Rationalist Week 2009 during a debate between Leeds Atheist Society and the Islamic Society. Not only was the atmosphere in the marquis highly charged with personal and religious insults flying around, but a group of Asian men sabotaged our generating equipment and physically threatened a number of our members.

So, I have regaled you with the saga of Leeds Atheist Society and many of you might wonder what this has to do with the growth of the student movement nationally. Well, the reasons that drove our society’s formation are behind many of the societies springing up across the UK.

There are several factors that have been suggested as causing, or helping to cause, this recent phenomenon. The ones I want to look at are the “Atheist Superstars”, the rise of religious fundamentalism and the encroachment of religion into our daily lives.

The deluge of publications that have erupted over the past decade or two has literally swept atheist and humanist ideas into the forefront of the public consciousness. People like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Chris Hitchens and Arianne Sherine have rarely been out of the bestseller lists or off the pages of newspapers since the turn of the century.

Atheism is no longer confined to the meeting rooms of community and education centres, it is no longer associated with dusty tomes and leather patched philosophy teachers. It is part of pop culture now and as such is part of youth culture. I know that several of my friends, and even me, would say that the availability of this material has played a significant role in our taking up of the atheist battle standard.

Another factor is the rise of religious fundamentalism in the Middle East and the USA. It is virtually impossible to watch the news or read a paper or magazine without some reference being made to religious terrorism or some form of extremism – whether it be suicide bombs in Kabul or imprisoned school teachers in Sudan.

Whilst many students do not link their lack of belief directly to fundamentalism, there is a clear link between the religious rhetoric of Western leaders and the growing feeling amongst young people that they need to have their say about religion. This means that religion is no longer something that can be ignored and whispered about every now and again when some story slowly filters into the public domain. These days every religious story is in the public domain and moreover it is right in the middle of the public consciousness.

Finally, the most student orientated factor is the presence and power of religious societies on campuses across the UK. These societies represent less that 10% of the student population but many have a disproportionate amount of power and influence not only within Students Unions but also on higher education policy in general.

Many student atheist societies form to act as a counterpoint for these organisations, a way of forcing debate and critical thought amongst the student population. Religious societies have national representational bodies; some are even governed centrally too. It is this national influence that sparked the idea of a national atheist organisation specifically for students.

This national organisation started out as a single online resource centre for student atheists to use and a forum for them to share ideas and best practice, this hub was called Secular Portal. It was on a discussion thread on Secular Portal that an idea was floated to hold an atheist student conference. Several weeks later, representatives from six student societies along with advisers from the BHA, NSS and HSS sat in a lecture theatre at the University of Edinburgh and formed the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies. That was June 2008.

My role moving forwards from the creation of the AHS was to write the constitution. My remit was simple; write a comprehensive, democratic and sustainable constitution that allowed for the AHS to work towards charitable status within a few years. If any of you have had to write this kind of document will know, turning a simple remit into a workable document is not the simplest task. Nevertheless, by the November of 2008 we were ready to ratify the constitution and officially form the AHS as a legal entity.

It was decided to host the ratification conference in Leeds, the largest and most active of the founding member societies. At the conference, the constitution was ratified and I was elected its first president. My manifesto was clear, I was to lead the AHS to a national launch within six months and build membership to a sustainable level by our first AGM to be held in June 2009.

The first part of that manifesto was probably the easiest, although not without glitch, as we had a venue we could use for free in London and a host of press pulling speakers we could enlist to help us out. The only problem was ensuring that enough students would attend to help us gain members so we could really push on and move forwards.

The launch event itself was a massive success. Held in Conway Hall, home of the South Place Ethical Society, with guest speakers Richard Dawkins, Polly Toynbee and Anthony Grayling we managed to attract a sizeable audience and getting some fantastic press.

I stepped down as president in June 2009 to hand over to the next executive and the AHS has continued to build its national presence and develop its policies and procedures to continue to work towards a charitable status.

It is still vitally important that student atheist, humanist and secularist societies continue to thrive and that they are continued to be supported by a national organisation that aims to help out individual societies in a practical and meaningful way. This means supporting the development of new societies, provided guidance and resources to existing societies and also providing practical training to the committees of those societies to ensure sustainability and longevity. A national voice only works well if the4 focus is on the people it claims to speak for and not if its priorities lie in press coverage and campaigning.

Take in the Leeds Atheist Society logo above as it may be the last chance we see it. After three good years of service and exposure to thousands of students over that period, it is nearing retirement. This is due to the new committee looking to move the society in a new direction.

I have always hada softspot for this logo. It may be simple design but for a lot of Leeds students, past and present, it has come to represent the very values that the society has stood for over the years. The colours representing the dawn of enlightenment, the application of reason to improtnat questions, the use of open debate to draw to rational conclusions and not least of all embodying the bright futures many of our alumni have gone on to. The tree itself representing the tree of knowledge, the foundation of the society based on strong roots in philosophy, science and art. The branches representing the many groups of atheists or agnostic people that make up the society.

I will be sad to see it go but hopefully the new committee will devleop an idea even stronger and bolder and this will help forge a new era for the society.

There has long been speculation as to what traits atheists share with each other. I have mentioned it several times in this blog, particularly when writing about branding and marketing. Whilst I have made some claims about the personal and political similarities between atheists, there has never been any real study on the personality of self identifying atheists. That is until now.

Professor Luke Galen, an associate professor of psychology at Grand Valley State University in Allendale, Michigan, has just published a report on this very subject. He sampled over 5000 thousand people across the USA, Canada, UK and Australia who fitted into the general category of being irreligious. The report focussed on the self-labelling of the respondents as well as their socio-economic background and their main personality traits.

The results made for interesting, if not particularly surprising, reading. Some of the key findings of the study have been included below, but the full report can be found here.

The first major finding of the report was the differences between multiple and single labels, i.e. respondents were asked to choose all that apply from a list and then select one to best describe them. See fig.1 for the results.

Professor Galen summarised these findings thus:

Interesting distinctions appear when examining the difference
between an inclusive selection (which is to say, when
respondents were allowed to select more than one label) versus
when they were asked to set all others aside to choose the
most descriptive single label. For example, although 9 percent
of the sample chose “spiritual” among multiple labels,
when asked to pick a single self-identification, only 2 percent
chose “spiritual.” This large proportional reduction indicates
that far fewer chose spiritual as their sole label than were willing
to include it among other labels. The label “agnostic” was
similarly “jettisoned” by a relatively high proportion of individuals.
In fact, many respondents appear to use “agnostic”
and “atheist” interchangeably; among those who selected
“agnostic” as one of their multiple labels, they evenly split
between “atheist” and “agnostic” when choosing a sole identification
label. It therefore appears that “agnostic” is used
alongside other labels but frequently discarded when push
comes to shove. “Humanist” seems to be a popular secondary
label and contrasts in that regard to “atheist.” For example,
around two-thirds of self-described humanists also consider
themselves atheists; half of both atheists and agnostics also
consider themselves humanists. However, the “supplemental”
nature of humanism is evident in that, whereas two-thirds of
the sample included “humanist” among their multiple selfidentifications,
only a quarter chose that as their sole label.

I think Galen has hit the nail on the head when it comes to which labels people jettison when it boils down to selecting one label. It has long been my experience that if you push someone who is generally irreligious to give you a single term to describe their philosophy on life they will usually revert back to the atheist label. This conclusion, whilst never demonstrated in detail before this study, was actually the main reason why Leeds Atheist Society chose their name over the many others they could have gone for.

The socio-economic make up of the sample was also interesting with 41% having a masters degree or higher, nearly a third claiming to earn over $100,000 p.a. (circa £60,000 p.a. as of today’s exchange rate) and 74% being male. All three statistics are all higher than the equivalent statistics for religious followers. More interestingly, those that describe themselves as atheist also felt more actively involved in their philosophy than those that did not self-identify as atheists (bearing in mind that the sample was taken from readers of Free Inquiry and members of related bodies).

The final major finding of the study was the personality make up of the sample. The table above shows how the sample broke down based on a variety of psychological personality markers.

Galen concluded that:

[R]elative to the religious or churched segment of
the population, the nonreligious are distinguished both demographically
(more likely to be male, highly educated, never
married or cohabiting) and by their personality (more open to
new experience and intellectually oriented, less agreeable).
Although overall life satisfaction and social contact in our nonreligious
sample was equivalent to the religious comparison
group, the latter perceived a higher level of social support,
possibly provided by their religious organizations. Among our
large survey of the nonreligious, there was a range of philosophical
beliefs: respondents included self-labeled atheists,
agnostics, humanists, and spirituals. The label “atheist”
appears to be becoming more common among younger individuals,
suggesting that fewer nonreligious young people are
choosing more tentative labels relative to older cohorts.
Finally, in contrast to many general population studies that
lump together those who are confident in their nonbelief with
those who may be weakly religious, the present study allows
the ability to distinguish degrees of nonbelief, yielding interesting
results. Confident nonbelievers such as atheists were
more emotionally well-adjusted relative to tentative nonbelievers;
the latter, though, appear to place a greater emphasis on
being agreeable to, and trusting of, others. The present study
indicates that the common assumption of greater religiosity
relating to greater happiness and satisfaction is overly simplistic.
Many of the nonreligious, particularly those involved
with an increasingly visible movement or community characterized
by stronger varieties of nonbelief, are actually as welladjusted
and satisfied as the highly religious, with those
uncertain of their beliefs showing more distress.
More research remains to be done, for example regarding
the factors that differentiate individuals who are raised in a
religious context who remain religious versus those who
become nonreligious. Those with high openness to experience
and lower agreeableness may not be satisfied with “tradition”
and may seek out experiences that further reinforce irreligious
tendencies. A less agreeable, more individualistic style may
lead one to assert confidently a disbelief in socially required
spiritual platitudes, with a resulting trade-off between greater
emphasis on personal integrity but lower social acceptance.
Many nonreligious individuals with such personality traits likely
select life experiences throughout their educational and
social development that result in further skepticism and
increased certainty of nonbelief. These various pathways to
irreligion will become increasingly relevant as the nonreligious
continue to grow as a proportion of the population.

This report is an excellent starting point to really understanding the make up of the non-religious community at large. However, as Galen himself wrote, far more research needs to be done to really drill down into the psyche of the non-believer and only then can we gain full insight into what these people want and need from their involvement with organisations such as those I have mentioned before on this website.

I would be interested in seeing some research done on a younger demographic (the average age of the sample used above was over 50) as it is this groups (along with the over 80s surprisingly) that make up the largest group of politically and publicly active atheists. I would also like to see a better sample from the UK, as Galen only received around 2% of his respondents from here.

As always, your comments and thoughts are most welcome.