SOC 420 Lesson 7 SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1: Course Conclusion American religion merely appears to be uniform due to the nature of surveys on the topic. Most survey studies that include questions about religion only have space to ask about basic religious indicators such as church attendance and belief in God. This is understandable, as most surveys are focused on other topics such as crime or politics and space is at a premium. However, since Americans agree on basic religion indicators, American religion seems monolithic. In fact, under the surface American religion is startlingly complex and diverse. Americans may agree that God exists. They do not agree about what God is like, what God wants for the world, or how God feels about politics. Most Americans pray. They differ widely on to whom they pray, what they pray about, and whether or not they say grace. A vast majority of Americans are Christians, but attitudes amongst those Christians regarding the salvation of others, the role of religion in government, the reality of the paranormal, and their consumption of media are surprisingly diverse. —Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion, American Piety in the 21st Century, September 2006 (see report at this link). Welcome to Lesson 7, our class conclusion! Thank you all for your hard work, excellent insights, and patience with these lessons! Hopefully they have been informative and contributed to your understanding of the sociology of religion! Since we have already covered a fair amount, this will be brief—and not “Frasier brief.” ( (Those of you familiar with that sitcom, even though a few years in the past, will understand my meaning there…) I will not introduce new material here, but we’ll take a look back at where we’ve been as well as a few words about where we’re going from here. During this class, we’ve taken a look at what the sociology of religion is as well as several theoretical perspectives that come into play as we examine it. We have examined how we know what we know, as well as the importance of examining religion from a scientific perspective and Rational Choice theory. We have discussed religion as a group experience, paying special attention to group processes, socialization, the church-sect typology, religious conflict, and other key concepts; we have also examined how politics, fundamentalism, social class and economic concerns relate to religion. We have also read about the intersection of race and gender (including sexuality) with religion, and considered the present state and possible future of religion in America, including the development of the Protestant megachurch. We also paid close attention to the role of media in religion, as well as examining the modern marketplace of American religion and the trends these authors have detected over time. We also took a brief glimpse into other areas of interest, such as religion and science and metaphysics. I won’t go into all the details, but I invite you to look back and brush.

1. SOC 420 Lesson 7 SEQ CHAPTER h r 1: Course Conclusion
American religion merely appears to be uniform due to the
nature of surveys on the topic. Most survey studies that include
questions about religion only have space to ask about basic
religious indicators such as church attendance and belief in
God. This is understandable, as most surveys are focused on
other topics such as crime or politics and space is at a premium.
However, since Americans agree on basic religion indicators,
American religion seems monolithic. In fact, under the surface
American religion is startlingly complex and diverse. Americans
may agree that God exists. They do not agree about what God is
like, what God wants for the world, or how God feels about
politics. Most Americans pray. They differ widely on to whom
they pray, what they pray about, and whether or not they say
grace. A vast majority of Americans are Christians, but attitudes
amongst those Christians regarding the salvation of others, the
role of religion in government, the reality of the paranormal,
and their consumption of media are surprisingly diverse.
—Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion, American Piety in
the 21st Century, September 2006 (see report at this link).
Welcome to Lesson 7, our class conclusion! Thank you all for
your hard work, excellent insights, and patience with these
lessons! Hopefully they have been informative and contributed
to your understanding of the sociology of religion! Since we
have already covered a fair amount, this will be brief—and not
“Frasier brief.” ( (Those of you familiar with that sitcom, even
though a few years in the past, will understand my meaning
there…) I will not introduce new material here, but we’ll take a
look back at where we’ve been as well as a few words about
where we’re going from here.
During this class, we’ve taken a look at what the sociology of
religion is as well as several theoretical perspectives that come
into play as we examine it. We have examined how we know
what we know, as well as the importance of examining religion

2. from a scientific perspective and Rational Choice theory. We
have discussed religion as a group experience, paying special
attention to group processes, socialization, the church-sect
typology, religious conflict, and other key concepts; we have
also examined how politics, fundamentalism, social class and
economic concerns relate to religion. We have also read about
the intersection of race and gender (including sexuality) with
religion, and considered the present state and possible future of
religion in America, including the development of the Protestant
megachurch. We also paid close attention to the role of media in
religion, as well as examining the modern marketplace of
American religion and the trends these authors have detected
over time. We also took a brief glimpse into other areas of
interest, such as religion and science and metaphysics.
I won’t go into all the details, but I invite you to look back and
brush up on any details in our text readings, lessons, and other
required and recommended readings that you feel you need to
understand better, follow up on, and/or learn more about.
Finally, you all gave yourselves your own opportunity to see
that pluralism in practice in the American religious marketplace
in your own Meet the Believers exercise! Hopefully you found
that an insightful and worthwhile experience that helped you see
the concepts we’ve read about at work!
As we conclude this course, then, what I’d like to do is revisit
Berger’s Heretical Imperative, where we have not only
considered the place of the heretic in Berger’s argument but to
some extent have taken the place of one. Though we vary as to
our position on the spectrum of deduction (believers), induction
(investigators), or reduction (skeptics) in terms of various
religions, we have spent a little while practicing induction and
investigating religion as a human phenomenon. Though we can’t
confirm the veracity of Objective truth claims from a scientific
standpoint—as said before, that’s the believer’s quest!—we can
study what humans do with their religion subjectively and
intersubjectively, how they construct meaning (again,
subjectively and intersubjectively), and the social outcomes of

3. their religious beliefs. That’s what we do in the sociology of
religion.
So as we consider the modern marketplace of religion in
America and its present character, it’s well worth taking a look
back at this perspective. America remains a country that’s open
to religion and largely friendly to it, for the most part, though
it’s possible this may be shifting somewhat. A great deal of
religious diversity exists in America, as well as religious
practice. Although Americans clearly prefer some forms of
religion to others, and some religions are not favored, they do
their best to try to be tolerant to all the varieties of religion that
exist. Some religions face challenges, such as Mormons,
Muslims, and several other groups that face historical and
modern misunderstandings. Likewise, Catholics and Jews also
faced oppression in America prior to the 20th century, though
suspicion of both religious groups decreased substantially
during that century. So we see that, as indicated in previous
lessons by the Pew Forum studies, the Baylor University
research report, and studies of American religion in general,
America remains a nation of believers, though of many different
kinds of belief. The religious marketplace metaphor remains
particularly appropriate in describing the different varieties of
belief in America today.
However, this risks painting a rather simplistic picture of the
reality of current American religious life. Remember first of all
that there’s a rather substantial difference between belief—our
convictions about God and religion—and religiosity, or how we
practice that belief in private and in public. Believers seem to
rate relatively high in terms of belief, but there may be a wide
degree of variation in what they are actually doing in response
to that belief. So even though Americans particularly value
religious belief, and we continue to see high rates of religious
belief and self-reported private religious practice, such as
prayer, this does not necessarily translate into higher levels of
outward religiosity, particularly in terms of church attendance.

4. We know that church attendance in many mainline Protestant
denominations has been gradually declining for several decades,
and to a lesser extent, in Catholicism as well. Intriguingly in
light of what Putnam and Campbell report about the “nones”
and the “spiritual rather than religious” impulse, millennials in
particular report high rates of belief but lower church
attendance.
I don’t wish to take extensive issue with these findings, which I
highly respect as the work of informed and more than capable
colleagues; I simply wish to point out that we’re merely
scratching the surface and that there are more questions to be
asked and investigated. (This is where the rest of us come in on
Assignment 7; more on that shortly.) ( For instance, the
research methodologist in me, rearing its ugly head, ( can’t help
but notice a potential difficulty: The practice of relying on self-
reported data can be problematic, as study respondents may
wish to represent themselves well even if they remain
anonymous. These effects have been reported in past
methodological studies of self-reporting, memory, and other
subjective measures that have at times proven to be more of an
indication of what the respondents wish were true rather than
the actual reality of the situation. So analysts of American
religion continue to find a pleasant picture of American
religion, and there’s little doubt that this is what Americans
wish to be—and are to some extent. But there are additional
complexities in this picture that bear further investigation.
Another trend to watch, as indicated previously, is the “rise of
the nones.” The Pew Forum, Johnstone, and American Grace all
describe this movement at length, though unfortunately, the
Christiano text largely bypasses this. This category may be a bit
complex, since as some sociologists of religion have used the
category, it may include non-denominational Protestants who
deliberately choose to remain independent of a particular
affiliation for various reasons of their own, as well as other
individuals who simply resist joining any religious organization
at all and/or who defy the traditional labels of “atheist” and

5. “agnostic” for yet other reasons.
Religious scholars have seen pushback over the past several
decades against “organized religion” and a continuance of
individuals who seek spirituality of whatever form it may take.
Americans are nothing if not inventive, and a fair amount of
what we see in the “rise of the nones” may well be a subjective
and small-scale intersubjective invention (social construction!)
( of more individualistic brands of belief, spirituality, and
worship rather than perceived conformity to an existing
religious organization. If so, the American religious
marketplace is certainly in transition, though whether it’s in
expansion mode (as it were) or as some fear perhaps even in
collapse remains to be seen.
And so, with all that said, let’s “keep moving forward” (in the
words of Disney’s Robinson family) ( and look for what else we
can discover! Happily, you have a chance to do just that coming
up. Looking forward to Assignment 7, past students have
wanted a bit more information about what I’m looking for in the
final paper. As you see from the syllabus, there are several
different approaches you could take, but the gist is that I am, as
your instructor, now turning you loose to tell what you’ve
learned about the sociology of religion in this class, using the
information you’ve already read—and at least two other well-
researched, authoritative and credible sources that you haven’t
been required to read. (The optional reading in the lesson links
is fair game, fine! I do appreciate your independent research
and it shows me you’re seriously going above and beyond!)
Another hint: When using Google, you can restrict your search
to college-related sites with the “site:edu” search term, although
still beware of the occasional university-hosted student blog and
so forth. So in short, please use credible, authoritative and
especially well-researched information that will help you make
your point!
Another thing to remember with Assignment 7, as indicated on
Blackboard with the assignment prompt: You are welcome to

6. use ideas from previous assignments from this class to help you
write Assignment 7, BUT please, PLEASE keep in mind that I
expect you to revise those ideas in light of what you’ve learned
since you completed those earlier assignments. Points can be
deducted if you choose to merely copy and paste large blocks of
text, so feel free to clarify, expand, and/or go more into depth!
Also, just to make sure it’s clear, if you are using any work at
all from another class to help you write Assignment 7, you need
to make sure you clear that with me first. I am generally OK
with it, but please make sure you let me know first.
Also, another hint: As you write, I highly recommend that you
stay focused on a specific issue, relate other relevant issues to it
in an informed and logical way, AND remember, as always, that
you are writing to tell me what you know. This does not mean
you have to use a lot of “big words” or highly advanced
terminology, especially when that terminology doesn’t fit or
when it doesn’t communicate meaning. In fact, sometimes that’s
used as a cover by people who are trying to “sound smart” even
though they know no more than you do about what they’re
writing about—or in the case of some Wikipedia authors and
editors, maybe even less. ( See here for an alarming possibility,
and only one reason I ask you to avoid this source—and, please
make no mistake, also be cautious about many other Internet
sources.
My beef as a whole with Wikipedia, BTW, is that it’s a
dangerous combination of too easily available and too subject to
change. This is particularly true when it’s entirely possible that
some idiot can change truth to error in mere seconds without
much accountability. It is true that Wikipedia has changed its
processes over time so that individuals can be held accountable
for what they write or edit, much of the edited information is
recoverable, incorrect and/or irresponsible changes can now be
undone, and “troll” users can be banned. Even more to the
point, some universities and professional associations have
asserted editorial control over various topics and areas of
interest to them. None of this was the case when Wikipedia

7. started. So certainly, the quality is improving. Still, since it’s
the first place many students look to find information, I think
it’s well worth getting into the habit of digging deeper.
Moreover, the involvement of various experts notwithstanding,
the general idea of people on all levels of expertise, including
pretense or enmity, being able to comment on any given subject,
should make us all think twice about “buying into” what’s said
there. This is true of Wikipedia specifically and also of the
entire Internet in general—as we learned during the 2016
election and the prevalence of “fake news.” The Internet is
social construction, almost literally, and at times for the worse
rather than the better.
In any case, back to the writing style of your papers. It is true
that you want to explain to me what you know and what you’ve
learned. This is especially true in Assignment 7. However, if it
sounds like you’ve tried to swallow and then regurgitate the
dictionary, or if you toss around a lot of ill-used jargon, that’s
not going to help. Don’t try to use pseudo-intellectual
smokescreens—just use whatever language clearly
communicates the concepts you’re discussing. In short: Be
yourselves. Be your best, grammatically correct, most informed,
and insightful selves, to be sure, but be yourselves. Write like
YOU—at your best. I particularly enjoy Rachel Toor’s sound
advice about academic writing—an article I highly recommend
to all of you.
And with that, thanks for all your hard work, and should you
feel so motivated, ( feel free now that the term is over to find
me on LinkedIn or Facebook, though due to my privacy settings,
the latter might be harder. (As noted elsewhere, I do not use
Twitter—it drives me insane, quite frankly.) ( But let me know
if you would like to keep in touch, want a letter of
recommendation, or have other questions of any kind! Thanks
again in any case, and I’ll look forward to reading your
Assignment 7! And thanks also for all your hard work! It’s been
great working with all of you! Best wishes in the future!

8. 1