Are We What Our Ancestors Ate?

I love being a social scientist but if I had to choose my career over again there is a slim chance I’d become a chef instead. In these times of multiple food television networks and best-selling celebrity chef cookbooks it is easy to think of food as something frivolous. But it is far from this.

We spend more than two hours a day consuming food and drinking (on average 2.5 hours). People in Japan and France have longer life expectancies than many living elsewhere and this may have something to do with their higher consumption of particular products (fish and red wine, respectively). On the other hand, the United States is suffering from unprecedented levels of diabetes and obesity in part because of our consumption of sugary drinks. In 2011, 44.7 million Americans (14% of the population) utilized food benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (i.e., food stamps; with an average benefit of $133.85 per month or a total of $4.46 per day). Many more people worldwide will go to bed hungry tonight (…as Americans spend more than $30 billion annually to feed their pets and almost twice as much on weight loss programs for ourselves). Spikes in the price of bread and rice have historically been the sparks of revolution around the world (...notoriously in France but more recently in the “Arab Spring” in North Africa and Middle East). In sum, the food we consume has very real and important consequences. There are good reasons we should be studying this topic.

CARA has been approached more than once by food companies wondering what we know about Catholics’ food preferences. One fast food company was particularly interested if we had data on fish consumption during Lent. On this lighter note I wondered, if I was planning to open a restaurant would I need to know the religious affiliation of the people in the neighborhood? Strangely, it might help.

When Catholics are asked what their first choice of food would be if they were dining out they most often select Italian (38%). No surprise yet. Italian food is amazing. Strangely though, Protestants—whether Evangelical or Mainline—are significantly less likely to prefer this option (21% and 25%, respectively). Protestants are more likely to prefer American fare (which really isn’t American: e.g., hamburgers are from Hamburg steak in Germany, hot dogs from frankfurters also in Germany, meatloaf again from Germany, or fried chicken which is thought to be inspired from Scottish and West African recipes. Perhaps barbecue has the best claim for authentic American heritage). 

Those of other religions, who like Catholics are rooted in immigration from other parts of the world, are more likely to prefer “non-American” food fare. Nones (those with no religious affiliation), of which 40% were raised in a Protestant denomination, are very similar in their preferences to those who currently self-identify as Protestant—sometimes the religion fades but the food sticks.

It is clear that Americans with a more recent history of immigration in their ancestral tree are more likely than those who descended from earlier settlers to prefer food from other shores. Even as many no longer self-identify as Italian Americans the preference for food from this region remains in the Catholic population.

This same CBS/Vanity Fair Poll from which results above are derived asked some other interesting questions about food preferences. Respondents were also asked what their favorite ice cream is. Catholics are more likely than those of any other religious affiliation to prefer chocolate (I’m glad to be Catholic…). That means of course that there are actually people in this country that would be more likely to prefer vanilla (e.g., Protestants and those of other religious affiliations). At least Nones and Catholics share something in common—both prefer chocolate. Perhaps this is the secret ingredient for New Evangelization?

Finally in this same survey respondents were asked about several different “indulgences” they would prefer if there were no effects on their physical health (no mention of spiritual health in the question wording…). U.S. adult Catholics choose food over sex, inactivity, alcohol, smoking, and getting a good tan.

Catholics are more likely than those of other faiths to choose food over all other options listed. Evangelicals—similar to those of other religions and Nones—split their preferences between food and avoiding exercise completely (39% and 21%, respectively). Mainline Protestants prefer eating and smoking (43% and 14%, respectively).

It is good too see the Catholic love of food but on the other hand I believe in all things in moderation (gluttony really is a sin). I enjoy Italian food (Cacio e Pepe please) on a night out but also think it is important to strive to do everything I can possible to be sure others have enough food. I’m for pasta in every pot and ice cream in every freezer. Statistically, Americans tend to pay attention to food needs most during the holidays from Thanksgiving to Christmas. It’s summer but you might consider making it a Christmas in July and donate to an organization that provides food to those in need. In 2010 more than 3,000 local Catholic Charities offices provided food to nearly 7.2 million people through food banks, soup kitchens, home delivered meals, and other means. Outside of U.S. borders Catholic Relief Services provides invaluable assistance to help those in need develop and sustain agriculture and CRS provides food assistance through its social safety net programs as well. 

The average American household spends $2,736 per year dining out (42% of our annual food spending). Perhaps each of us could forgo a few nights eating at our favorite restaurant and give a try to being a chef at home. Take the difference in food costs and give it to a Catholic charity that provides food assistance. Fewer in the world would go to bed hungry and perhaps some of us will be inspired to start a second career as chefs.

Above photos courtesy of nicksherman, lucasartoni, and nc_hiker at Flickr Creative Commons.

The Schisms of the Religiously Unaffiliated

I recently unwittingly touched the third rail of religious research. In a post about Catholic reverts I noted in passing that Atheists have a comparatively low retention rate at 30% (percentage of children raised with an identity/affiliation maintaining this identity/affiliation as an adult).

As others blogged or wrote articles about what I had mentioned in passing I started to see people in related comments and tweets seeking to discredit the retention rate. Some responded with anecdotes (…“all my friends are Atheists and they’ve never left”), others tried to discredit the survey data (…but it is one of the largest surveys about religion ever conducted making it possible to say something about groups, like Atheists, that make up a small percentage of the population… the margin of error sampling error for Atheists in Pew’s Religious Landscape survey is ±4.3 percentage points), some said the research was obviously biased coming from CARA. Others noted that some Atheists grow up to become Agnostics or Nones (those without a religious affiliation) and that this should not be counted as a “loss.” Then it struck me. Some may not realize how different Atheists are from Agnostics and Nones. 

Pew, ARIS, and the GSS have all shown the religiously unaffiliated population overall is growing rapidly in the United States. Many seem to think this means that Atheism, being a part of this broader religious unaffiliated category, is growing quickly in the United States as well (...they may also be confused by statistics showing Atheism is growing rapidly in other countries). Yet, recent estimates from the largest surveys available put the self-identified Atheist population percentage in the U.S. at somewhere between 0.7% and 1.6% (ARIS and Pew, respectively). Differences in other surveys (with smaller samples) from recent decades are within margin of sampling error making it difficult to know if any growth is occurring in this specific population at all. As shown in the figure above, Pew found that the unaffiliated were 16% of the U.S. adult population in 2007. According to the GSS, the unaffiliated were 5% of the population in 1973 and were 18% in 2010. Nones, the unaffiliated who do not self-identify as Atheists or Agnostics, are the most numerous of the unaffiliated (75%) and they tend to believe in something no Atheist is supposed to believe in—God (83%).  

You’ll notice something else odd in the figure above as well. One in five self-identified Atheists (21%) believe in God. This finding has already been acknowledged by Pew (...they may deserve credit for being the first to document “Cafeteria Atheists”). The researchers note that  “atheists and agnostics are defined here as all respondents who described themselves as being atheist or agnostic, even though some of them may believe in some notion of God” (pg. 6). This is the same standard used for other religious affiliations (as well as other social identities and labels) in social science research. If someone identifies as Catholic they are treated as such, even though they may not go to Mass or hold important core beliefs of the faith.  

Overall 74% of the unaffiliated—Nones, Agnostics, and Atheists—believe in God. If social scientists only counted Atheists as “real” if they say they do not believe in God, the Atheist population percentage would be even smaller. My hunch would be that some Atheists would want to count anyone of any religious affiliation or non-affiliation who does not believe in God as “one of them” even if that individual does not consider themselves to be an Atheist. In that case, nearly one in 20 Americans (4.7%) could be considered an Atheist. This just means there are Atheist-Catholics, Atheist-Buddhists, Atheist-Black Protestants, Atheist-Muslims, Atheist-Evangelical Christians, Atheist-Mormons. It will also be difficult to make the case that those who are members of a religion are also opposed to organized religion (...it would also be strange to label these people as Atheists when they personally reject the label and identity of “Atheist”).

What many call “New Atheism” has sold a lot of books and is remarkably visible in the media. This is a movement that appears to be most successful in Europe and is primarily a combination of 1) denial of existence of God or a creator and 2) active opposition to organized religion. Nones are presumably not big fans of organized religion because they do not seek any membership, affiliation, or identity with one. But it is on the first point that Nones have so little in common with most Atheists. What is the core aim of New Atheism? Is it to oppose organized religion or deny the existence of God? If it’s the former some of the Nones may be a part of your movement. If it’s the latter many are not fit.

Nones do not appear to be as hostile toward religion as many assume. As the figure below shows, half of adult Nones say religion is “somewhat’ or “very much” important in their life. Even one in ten Atheists (11%) respond as such.

 

Need more evidence? Are one in five Atheists (19%) going to Heaven or headed for some other form of afterlife? Apparently six in ten Nones (61%) believe it’s a possibility. 

Perhaps the Atheists who attend religious services have the best chance of getting to Heaven? Fourteen percent attend at least once a year (other than for a wedding or funeral). Three in ten Nones would likely be at church to welcome them.

Why would an Atheist go to church? Family ties. The one thing that all the unaffiliated have in common is that about one in five are in households with a religious membership.

My biggest concern with New Atheism is in its attempt to take ownership of science. There are many people now (Michio Kaku, Francis Collins, Werner Abner, Francisco Ayala, John Polkinghorne...) and certainly in history (Athanasius Kircher, René Descartes, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur, Max Planck, Georges Lemaître...) who loved and practiced science who also expressed religious beliefs. I will defend the right of anyone to be a non-believer and not be discriminated against in any way because of that point of view or identity. I’m not alone. The Catholic Church includes Atheists among the faculty at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that advises popes and cardinals on the latest findings of science. 

One’s religious beliefs or lack thereof have nothing to do with the science they practice. When I review a paper for journal publication I don’t have a clue who the author(s) is (let alone their religious affiliation). It’s not part of the process. It would be foolish to question the science of someone based solely on their religion. The evidence is all that matters.

It’s interesting that so much of the rhetoric of New Atheism seems to really be directed at Evangelical Christians—those specifically who take the Bible literally word for word. Many New Atheists seem to think anyone who is religious holds similar beliefs. Yet, this cannot be equated with the mainstream Catholic point of view. After all St. Augustine wrote about allegorical interpretations of Genesis in the 4th Century CE. As Pope Benedict XVI has argued much more recently:

Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called "creationism" and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance.

I have to admit that in light of the quote above those Darwin fish on some Atheists’ cars make me laugh because I am a fan of both God’s and Darwin’s works (...I first learned of evolution in a Catholic school). In my opinion, the latter is simply revealing the work of the former. As a scientist (and a Catholic) I seek the truth. If I was a biologist I would probably be hunting for evidence of the origin of life just as Lemaître sought to understand the moment of the universe’s creation. But I’m a social scientist and I instead study how people practice their religions—mostly Catholics but apparently now also the self-identified Atheists who believe in God, go to church, and look forward to an afterlife. There are so many mysteries to study...

Above photo courtesy of Caro's Lines at Flickr Creative Commons.

A Falling Tide Sinks All Boats? The Media May Drown First

Gallup released some interesting data on trends in confidence in “the church or organized religion” yesterday. Key findings include that this is falling among all Americans and that it is lower among Catholics than Protestants.

Gallup isn’t the only survey organization that has been asking Americans about their confidence in institutions. Academics have been doing this as well since 1972 in the General Social Survey (GSS). I tend to prefer the GSS measure to Gallup for two reasons: 1) the response scale for the GSS uses three points whereas Gallup uses four and 2) the GSS asks specifically about confidence in “the people running these institutions” and when referring to religion asks only about “organized religion.”

By comparison, Gallup asks about “the church or organized religion.” I am concerned how a non-Christian may respond to a question with the word “church” in it and more so “the church.” Gallup asks if one has “a great deal, quite a lot, some, or very little” confidence. I’ve never been sure how much difference I am supposed to see between “a great deal” or “quite a lot.” If I was at a movie and someone told me they wanted “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of popcorn I’d buy them the large either way! The “quite a lot” seems to be unnecessary and unbalanced on the scale where one can perhaps more clearly distinguish between the GSS scale of “a great deal of confidence, only some confidence, or hardly any confidence.”

Gallup did a fine job putting the data in context in their release. The researchers note that the decline in confidence in organized religion is consistent with a broader decline for most institutions since 1973 and that organized religion still ranks fourth among the 16 of those they regularly measure. But religion reporters at secular media outlets too often drop the context and go for the “red meat” of the story (as of Friday there were more than 10,000 news items indexed by Google News for this report). I always prefer my news a bit more well-seasoned with the full context of reality (marinated in facts and data for as long as possible).

The table below shows how many Catholics said they had a “great deal of confidence” in the set of institutions regularly measured in the GSS in 1975 and in 2010 (the most recent data available). Organized religion sits squarely in the middle of the set and has lost about 5 percentage points in the last 35 years in terms of Catholics noting a “great deal of confidence” (this change is within margin of error).

Catholics have grown more confident in the people running the military (+23 percentage points), the Executive Branch (+5 percentage points), the Supreme Court (+4 percentage points) and education (+3 percentage points)—although the changes for these latter three institutions are within margin of error. Who have Catholics lost the most confidence in? The press (-15 percentage points) and banks and financial institutions (-17 percentage points). 

In 2010, Catholics exhibited the most confidence in those running the military (59%), the scientific community (44%), and medicine (43%). They exhibited the least amount of confidence in major companies (16%), banks and financial institutions (14%), Congress (14%), organized labor (13%), and the press (10%). 

Oddly, given the Church’s social teachings, organized labor has never captured much confidence among Catholics. Banks, financial institutions, and major companies were viewed more positively by Catholics in the 1970s and have taken a steep dive since the recession (Note: banks and financial institutions were not included in the GSS until 1975).
 

Catholics have shown consistent confidence in the Supreme Court. It would be interesting to have more current data to see if the Court’s decision on the Affordable Care Act has moved opinion in any different direction. Confidence in the Executive Branch and Congress move up and down together and often higher in good economic times and lower in recessions.

Catholics have consistently had high confidence levels (relative to other institutions) in leadership in the scientific community and medicine. Educations lags slightly behind but is on an upswing.

Catholic confidence in the military has risen sharply during wars in the last two decades. Organized religion achieved its highest confidence ratings among Catholics in the 1970s and 1980s. Since the early 1990s this has dipped a bit and then sharply so in 2002 as news of clergy sex abuse cases made headlines across the country. It has recovered a bit from that low (...the more recent Gallup data may foreshadow a drop in the 2012 GSS, which has not been released yet).

The press has been battling it out with organized labor for the institution garnering the least confidence among American Catholics for decades. As of 2012 it was still losing this battle. I wonder why?

Back to what is in the news… In the figure below we aggregate multiple waves of the GSS—the first from 1973 to 1983 and again from 2000 to 2010. This increases sample sizes making it possible to reliably compare changes in confidence in religion among those of different affiliations.

Unlike the Gallup data, the GSS data indicate almost no difference between Catholics and Protestants. The boost among Protestants in the Gallup data appears to be related to use of the 4-point scale and possibly the word “church.” When this is collapsed into three more evenly “spaced” responses and respondents are evaluating “organized religion” the difference between Catholics and Protestants is negligible. As one might expect Nones, those without a religious affiliation, were very unlikely to have a “great deal of confidence” in organized religion in the 1970s and still are now.

There certainly is a crisis in confidence in America. As the Gallup researchers noted, Americans seem to be losing confidence in most institutions. This does not appear to be just a “religious thing.” Why? I think part of it has to do with the press. We may not trust it but we watch, listen, and read. Since the early 1970s I would argue that journalism has become more cynical, certainly more partisan in the last decade in both directions (e.g., Fox News, MSNBC), and it is on 24 hours a day on TV, posted in our social networks, and distributed instantly on Twitter. 

The reputation of institutions has taken a beating in this evolution—often rightfully so. All this “bad news” has also turned us on the messenger as well—often rightly so. And perhaps it is a good thing to have less confidence in so many institutions. Having too much trust could be dangerous. As a scientist I always try to be a skeptic. As a good citizen it might be better to be more of a cynic.