Understanding Unbelief

Atheists and agnostics around the world
Interim findings from 2019 research in Brazil, China, Denmark, Japan,
the United Kingdom, and the United States

Stephen Bullivant
Miguel Farias
Jonathan Lanman
Lois Lee© Understanding Unbelief (2019)
Cover photos of atheists and agnostics in Brazil, Japan, and the United Kingdom© Aubrey Wade (2019)
This publication was made possible through the support of a grant from the John Templeton Foundation (JTF grant ID#
60624) managed by the University of Kent. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do
not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation.

Stay informed about our findings and events: research.kent.ac.uk/understandingunbelief
Understanding Unbelief@U_Unbelief
info@understanding-unbelief.net

2 | St Mary’s University, Twickenham, UK

Eight key findings
1. Atheists (i.e., people who ‘don’t believe in God’) andagnostics (i.e., people who ‘don’t know whether there isa God or not, and don’t believe there is a way to find out’)
exhibit significant diversity both within, and between,
different countries. Accordingly, there are very many waysof being an unbeliever (i.e., atheists/agnostics combined).
(All)
2. In all six of our countries, majorities of unbelievers
identify as having ‘no religion’. Nevertheless, in Denmark
fully 28% of atheists and agnostics identify as Christians;in Brazil the figure is 18%. 8% of Japan’s unbelievers saythey are Buddhists. Conversely, in Brazil (79%), the USA(63%), Denmark (60%), and the UK (52%), a majority ofunbelievers were brought up as Christians. (1.1, 1.2)
3. Relatively few unbelievers select ‘Atheist’ or ‘Agnostic’as their preferred (non)religious or secular identity. 38% of
American atheists opt for ‘Atheist’, compared to just 19%
of Danish atheists. Other well-known labels – ‘humanist’,‘free thinker’, ‘sceptic’, ‘secular’ – are the go-to identity for
only small proportions in each country. (1.3)
4. Popular assumptions about ‘convinced, dogmatic
atheists’ do not stand up to scrutiny. Atheists andagnostics in Brazil and China are less confident that
their beliefs about God are correct than are Brazilians
and Chinese as a whole. Although American atheists
are typically fairly confident in their views about God,
importantly, so too are Americans in general. (2.1)

5. Unbelief in God doesn’t necessarily entail unbelief inother supernatural phenomena. Atheists and (less so)agnostics exhibit lower levels of supernatural belief than
do the wider populations. However, only minorities ofatheists or agnostics in each of our countries appear tobe thoroughgoing naturalists. (2.2, 2.3)
6. Another common supposition – that of the purposelessunbeliever, lacking anything to ascribe ultimate meaning
to the universe – also does not bear scrutiny. Whileatheists and agnostics are disproportionately likely toaffirm that the universe is ‘ultimately meaningless’ in fiveof our countries, it still remains a minority view among
unbelievers in all six countries. (2.4)
7. Also perhaps challenging common suppositions: with
only a few exceptions, atheists and agnostics endorse
the realities of objective moral values, human dignity andattendant rights, and the ‘deep value’ of nature, at similar
rates to the general populations in their countries. (3.1)
8. There is remarkably high agreement between
unbelievers and general populations concerning thevalues most important for ‘finding meaning in the worldand your own life’. ‘Family’ and ‘Freedom’ ranked highly
for all. Also popular – albeit less unanimously so – were‘Compassion’, ‘Truth’, ‘Nature’, and ‘Science’. (3.2)

Understanding Unbelief: Atheists and agnostics around the world | 3

About the authors
Prof. Stephen Bullivant (co-Leader, Understanding Unbelief) is Professor of Theology and the Sociology of
Religion at St Mary’s University, where he also directs the Benedict XVI Centre for Religion and Society. His
latest books are Mass Exodus: Catholic Disaffiliation in Britain and America since Vatican II (OUP, 2019), and
Why Catholics Leave, What They Miss, and How They Might Return (Paulist, 2019; co-authored with
C. Knowles, H. Vaughan-Spruce, and B. Durcan).
Dr Miguel Farias (co-Leader, Understanding Unbelief) leads the Brain, Belief and Behaviour group at
Coventry University. He has previously been a lecturer at Oxford University where he also did his doctorate inexperimental psychology. His major research interests are the psychobiological roots of beliefs and the effectsof spiritual practices.
Dr Jonathan Lanman (co-leader, Understanding Unbelief) is Assistant Director of the Institute of Cognition& Culture, Senior Lecturer in Anthropology at Queen’s University Belfast, and Secretary General of theInternational Association for the Cognitive Science of Religion. He previously served as Departmental andCollege Lecturer at Oxford University, where he completed his doctorate on the cognitive anthropology ofatheism. His research aims to utilise the tools of both cognitive and social anthropology to examine religion,
atheism, morality and group dynamics.
Dr Lois Lee is Senior Research Fellow in Religious Studies at the University of Kent and principal investigatoron the £2.3m Understanding Unbelief programme. Her books include Recognizing the Non-religious:
Reimagining the Secular (OUP, 2015), The Oxford Dictionary of Atheism (with Stephen Bullivant; OUP, 2016),
and the co-edited volumes Secularity and Non-religion (Routledge, 2013) and Negotiating Religion: Crossdisciplinary Perspectives (Routledge, 2017). She is founding director of the Nonreligion and Secularity Research
Network (NSRN), and co-editor of Secularism and Nonreligion and of the De Gruyter-NSRN book series,
Religion and Its Others: Studies in Religion, Nonreligion and Secularity.

4 | St Mary’s University, Twickenham, UK

Contents
Introduction........................................................................................................... 6
Note on terminology............................................................................................. 7
1. Unbelief, identity and religion............................................................................ 8
2. (Un)Belief, science and naturalism..................................................................12
3. The Values of Unbelief....................................................................................18
Endnotes............................................................................................................20
Appendix: Survey methodology ........................................................................21

Understanding Unbelief: Atheists and agnostics around the world | 5

Introduction

This report presents emerging findings from the coreresearch project of the Understanding Unbelief programme(2017-2020). Understanding Unbelief: Across Disciplines
and Across Cultures (ADAC) seeks to map the nature anddiversity of the varied phenomena traditionally – albeit
problematically and contestedly (see below) – labelled as‘unbelief’, across different national settings.
This multi-year research programme is motivated by
the growing public, scholarly, and media interest in
atheism, nonreligion, and secularity, fueled by the growing
proportions of religious ‘nones’ and ‘unbelievers’ inmany countries, the flourishing of secularist activism andnonreligious cultures such as ‘New Atheism’, and urgent
policy debates around the status and rights of atheists,
agnostics, humanists, and related groups. While thelast decade has seen a rapid expansion in research onthese topics – see, most notably, the flourishing of theinternational Nonreligion and Secularity Research Network(NSRN) – understandings of these topics have typicallyfocused on narrow (and arguably unrepresentative) groups
within the ‘nonreligious milieu’, and with a very heavy focus
on the North Atlantic world. This leaves us with many
unanswered questions:

6 | St Mary’s University, Twickenham, UK• To what extent does not believing in God correlatewith not believing in other supernatural phenomena?
• What ranges of worldviews do such people have?
• How does unbelief relate to religious and/or secular
identities, meaning, and values?
• What does unbelief look like outside of western (anddisproportionately Anglophone) countries, and/or
within minority groups within those countries?
• How do people from different countries, religious
backgrounds and socio-demographic groups
understand such central terms as ‘God’, ‘religion’ and‘atheism’ — terms frequently used in international
surveys?
The Understanding Unbelief programme – led by aninterdisciplinary team from the disciplines of sociology,
anthropology, and psychology – will address all of thesequestions, among many others, in a more systematicand comprehensive way than has hitherto been
attempted. Our overarching methodology combinesin-depth, face-to-face interviews (n = 30 per country,
across three separate regions in each) and conceptually
linked, nationally representative surveys (n = 1100

per country) across six geographically, culturally,
linguistically, politically and religious diverse settings:
Brazil, China, Denmark, Japan, the United Kingdom
and the United States. This allows us to ask moredetailed questions than large, general social surveys
not designed for probing the nuances of these specifictopics.

This report is the first publication presenting some of ouremerging, interim findings. All analyses in what follows
are based on surveys, conducted in April/May 2019, withrepresentative samples of both ‘unbelievers’ (i.e., atheists
and agnostics, as defined below) and – for comparative
purposes – the general population in each of our six
countries.

Note on terminology‘Unbelief’, ‘atheist’, ‘agnostic’Our use of the term ‘unbelief’ follows that provided in The Oxford Dictionary of Atheism (Bullivant and Lee2016): ‘The state of lacking (especially religious) faith or belief… unbelief is often used in a wide sense, implying
a generalized lack of belief in a God or gods.’ It is chiefly employed, along with its cognates (unbelievers,
unbelieving) as a convenient shorthand term, incorporating much of what is commonly termed atheism and/or
agnosticism.
More specifically, for the purposes of this report – and the methodology of the research underlying it – weoperationalise ‘unbelievers’ as those giving either the first (‘atheists’) or second (‘agnostics’) response to thefollowing widely used social survey question:
Which statement comes closest to expressing what you believe about God? (ISSP 2008)
1. I don’t believe in God. (atheists)

2. I don’t know whether there is a God, and I don’t believe there is any way to find out. (agnostics)
3. I don’t believe in a personal God, but I do believe in a Higher Power of some kind.
4. I find myself believing in God some of the time, but not at others.
5. While I have doubts, I feel that I do believe in God.
6. I know God really exists and I have no doubt about it.
7. Don’t know.

‘God’

While ‘God’ is a common concept in Brazil, Denmark, the United Kingdom and the United States, it is lesscommon and less relevant in China and Japan. For the ADAC survey methodology, we have followed theWorld Values Survey in using the following terms for ‘God’ in China and Japan, for the purposes of determining
atheism and agnosticism.

China

佛祖、真主, 上帝 或者神明Fózǔ, zhēnzhǔ, shàngdì huòzhě shénmíng
Buddha, Allah, God, or Spiritual phenomena

Japan
神

Kami
Traditional Japanese term designating deity or spirit

Understanding Unbelief: Atheists and agnostics around the world | 7

1. Unbelief, identity and religion
1.1 Current religious affiliation of atheists/agnostics (combined)(q:‘Do you consider yourself as belonging to a particular religion? If yes, which?’)
1.1 Current religious affiliation of atheists/agnostics (combined)(q.: ‘Do you consider yourself as belonging to a particular religion? If yes, which?’)Shown in percentages
85
79

81
77

73
63

28
18

15

1
5
1

5

3

Don’t Know

8

7

5

2

No religion

1

0

0

1 2

Other
Brazil

China

0

3

1

0

0 0

0

MuslimDenmark

1

2

0

1

Jewish
Japan

UK

1

1

0

7
0 1

Buddhist

1

ChristianUSA

It has long been known that by no means all of those who identify as ‘nones’ or as having ‘no religion’ on surveys
are, in reality, atheists or agnostics.1 As we see above, this also works both ways: not all atheists or agnostics would
describe themselves as having no religion.
Across our six countries, between 63% (Denmark) and 85% (China) of unbelievers answer our widely used religious
affiliation question with ‘no religion’. In all countries, a significant minority opted for a religious identity, with Christianlabels being most popular in Brazil (18%), China (7%), Denmark (28%), the United Kingdom (15%), and the UnitedStates (12%), and Buddhist ones most popular in Japan (8%).

8 | St Mary’s University, Twickenham, UK

12

1.2 Religious upbringing of atheists/agnostics (combined) in each country(q: ‘What religion, if any, were you raised in?’)With the clear exceptions of China and Japan, a majority of atheists and agnostics in our countries say that they werebrought up within a religious tradition. Four in every five Brazilian unbelievers, three in five Danish and American
unbelievers, and half of all UK unbelievers, say that they were brought up as some kind of Christian.
Other religions are also well-represented in unbelievers’ backgrounds. Most notably, 8% in America were raised Jewish,
13% in Japan were raised Buddhist, and 4% in China were raised Muslim.
1.2 Religious upbringing of atheists/agnostics (combined) in each country(q.: ‘What religion, if any, were you raised in?’)Shown in percentages
82

79
70
63

60
52
42
32
26

15

14

2

5
1

13
8
3

2 2

Don’t Know

No religion

1

0

1

1 0

Other
Brazil

China

4
0

1

0

0 0

0

MuslimDenmark

1

1

0

2

Jewish
Japan

UK

7
1

3

0

0 0

Buddhist

2

ChristianUSA

Conversely, a nonreligious upbringing predominates among Chinese (82%) and Japanese (70%) unbelievers, but notamong those in the United Kingdom (42%), Denmark (32%), the United States (26%), and Brazil (15%).

Understanding Unbelief: Atheists and agnostics around the world | 9

1.3 Preferred (non)religious identities of atheists and agnostics in each country(q.:
are some
examples of
how different
peopleandwhoagnostics
do not believe
in Godor gods identify
1.3 ‘Here
Preferred(non)religious
identities
of atheists
in eachcountry
themselves.
If
you
had
to
pick
a
label,
which
of
these
comes
closesttohowyou
identify(q.: ‘Here are some examples of how different people who do not believe in God or godsyourself?’)
identify themselves.
If you had to pick a label, which of these comes closest to how you identify yourself?’)
Shown in percentages
Agnostic
Agnostic

Non-religious

Spiritual but not religious
13

27

16

17
14

9

17

13
14

13

27
21

Rationalist

26

5

3

12
17

6
8

12
6

7
4

Humanist

8

3
7
2

2

9

2
0

Other

0

1
0

2
4

1

4

9

Secular0
7

6

8

Sceptic

2

Seeker

4
20

18
8

11

Religious label

8

9

11
18

Atheist

5

9

9

2

34

6

6

3

16

Free thinker

4
1

BrazilChina

Denmark

2

2

1

1

0

1

1

2

Japan

UK

USA

As explained earlier in this report (see ‘Note on terminology’), this report uses i) atheist and ii) agnostic to describe
those respectively answering i) ‘I don’t believe in God’ and ii) ‘I don’t know whether there is a God, and I don’t believe
there is any way to find out’ on the commonly used seven-option survey question: ‘Which statement comes closest to
expressing what you believe about God?’. We are using unbelievers to refer to atheists and agnostics together.
As previous studies have shown, many people who are de facto atheists or agnostics do not choose to identify
themselves, either primarily or at all, by these terms. (There are many reasons for this, which are being explored in thequalitative research undertaken within ADAC.)
Our data strongly reinforces this. In none of our countries is ‘Atheist’ or ‘Agnostic’ the preferred identity of atheists oragnostics. The country with the highest percentage of ‘Atheist’-identifying atheists is the USA (39%), in Denmark, it is
only 19%. Meanwhile in Brazil, 27% of actual agnostics identify as such, compared to just 2% in Japan.

10 | St Mary’s University, Twickenham, UK1.3 Preferred (non)religious identities of atheists and agnostics in each country(q.: ‘Here are some examples of how different people who do not believe in God or gods identify themselves.
If you had to pick a label, which of these comes closest to how you identify yourself?’)
Shown in percentages
AtheistAtheistNon-religious
30
21

36

6

7

31
29

9

3

20

4

Humanist

7

Religious label

Agnostic

12

6

2
2

16

2
5

7

9

3
9

7

5

8

4

4

4

5

6

6

13
35

39

3

19

22

20

Seeker7

7

Spiritual but not religious

Free thinker

6

19

11

Rationalist

14

Sceptic

0
5
8

Other

Secular

1

1

3

1

1

2

3

3

2

5

6

0

2

1

3

2

1

1

2

1

1

2

Brazil4

China

Denmark

2

Japan

UK

USA

There is a great diversity of preferred self-descriptors both within and across the six countries. Among all the possible
options, only ‘Atheist’ (among Brazilian, UK, and US atheists), ‘Non-religious’ (among Danish, Japanese, and UK atheists,
and Japanese and UK agnostics), and ‘Agnostic’ (among UK and US agnostics) attract more than a quarter of unbelievers
from any one country.
Other, historically important designations are markedly less popular. With the single exception of Chinese atheists (17%),‘Humanist’ was the preferred identity of fewer than one in ten atheists or agnostics in each of our countries. (See also
‘sceptic’ and ‘secular’.)
Small but non-trivial numbers of atheists and (especially) agnostics in all our countries primarily identified with a religious
designation. This includes 12% of Brazilian atheists and fully 17% of Danish agnostics.
All of this is important for two main reasons. Firstly, it means that social-scientific studies of atheists or agnostics which
focus only on those who self-describe in this way - e.g., typically as a write-in option on a survey’s ‘Other (please specify)’
category – are limited to only a very small, and likely atypical, subset of de facto atheists and agnostics. Secondly, it
underscores the point that there is no single term – or discrete set of terms – for referring to these people which a majorityof them would actively choose for themselves. We acknowledged in the introduction the contested nature of the terms
unbelief and unbelievers: there does not, however, appear to be any self-evident candidate to replace it.

Understanding Unbelief: Atheists and agnostics around the world | 11

2. (Un)Belief, science and naturalism

1 Different groups’ mean strength of agreement with the statement
eel confident that my beliefs about God's existence are the right ones’
2.1 Different groups’ mean strength of agreement with the statement= strongly disagree; -1 = somewhat disagree; 0 = neither agree nor disagree;‘I feel confident
that myagree)
beliefs about God’s existence are the right ones’= somewhat
agree; 2 = strongly(-2 = strongly disagree; -1 = somewhat disagree; 0 = neither agree nor disagree;
1 = somewhat agree; 2 = strongly agree)
2

1

-0

-1

-2

BrazilAtheists

Agnostics

General Population

China

Denmark

Japan

UK

USA

On a scale from -2 (strongly disagree) to +2 (strongly agree), we asked both our samples to rate their agreement witha statement expressing confidence ‘that my beliefs about God’s existence are the right ones’. This produced several
interesting results.
First, agnostics tend to have the least confidence in their views (from -0.21 in Japan to +0.13 in the UK). Thisis perhaps not wholly surprising, given that not knowing is, etymologically speaking, agnosticism’s defining
characteristic.
Second, and contrary to some popular suppositions, being an atheist does not necessarily entail a high level ofconfidence or certainty in one’s views. All six of our countries’ atheists express overall levels of confidence in theirbeliefs about God’s existence either notably lower than (Brazil, China), or broadly comparable to (Denmark, Japan,
UK, US), the general population’s. For instance, the comparatively high level of confidence exhibited by America’s
atheists matches more-or-less exactly the high ‘religious confidence’ of Americans-in-general. Overall, among
American atheists, 45% ‘strongly agreed’ and 20% ‘somewhat agreed’ with our question’s statement; among ourgeneral population sample, these proportions were 44% and 24% respectively.

12 | St Mary’s University, Twickenham, UK2.2 Proportions of i) atheists, ii) agnostics, and iii) the general population ‘strongly’or ‘somewhat’ agreeing with the existence of various supernatural beings/phenomena
80

2.2 Proportionsof i) atheists, ii) agnostics, and iii) the general population ‘strongly’ or ‘somewhat’
70
agreeing with the existence of various supernatural beings/phenomena
60i) Atheists
50

40

30

20

Karm
a

Uni
or li versal
fe fsorce piritUndof g erlyin
ood g foor e rces
vil

ings
l be
tura
erna
Sup

Sig
"menifican
ant t ev
to b entse"Peo
mys ple wt
tica h
l po
wer
s

Ob
mysjects w
tica th
l po
wer
s

gy
rolo
Ast

n
atio
carn
Rein

Life

afte

r de

ath

10

2.2 Proportions of i) atheists, ii) agnostics, and iii) the general population ‘strongly’or ‘somewhat’ agreeing with the existence of various supernatural beings/phenomena
BrazilChina

Denmark

Japan

UK

USA

80

ii) Agnostics
70
60

50

40

30

20

Brazil

Japan

UK

a
Karm

Uni
or li versal
fe fsorce piritUndof g erlyin
ood g foor e rces
vil

gs
bein
ural
rnat
Sup
e

s
DenmarkSig"menifican
ant t ev
to b ents
e"

s
China

Peo
mys ple wt
tica hl powerOb
mysjects w
tica th
l po
wer

gy
rolo
Ast

n
atio
carn
Rein

Life

afte

r de

ath

10

USA

Understanding Unbelief: Atheists and agnostics around the world | 13

2.2 Proportions of i) atheists, ii) agnostics, and iii) the general population ‘strongly’iii) General
populationor ‘somewhat’agreeing with the existence of various supernatural beings/phenomena
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

Denmark

Japan

UK

a
Karm

Uni
or li versal
fe fsorce piritUndof g erlyin
ood g foor e rces
vil

ings
l be
tura
erna
Sup

Sig
"menifican
ant t ev
to b ents
e"

s

s
China

Peo
mys ple wt
tica h
l po
wer

rolo
Ast
BrazilOb
mysjects w
tica th
l po
wer

gy

n
atio
carn
Rein

Life

afte

r de

ath

10

USA

While ‘belief’ and ‘unbelief’ are normally used in relation to God (or gods), there are many other supernatural beings andphenomena that substantial percentages of the general population believe to exist. Logically, unbelief in God need notentail unbelief in these other things. Accordingly, our survey probed the extent to which unbelievers agree that various
supernatural phenomena either exist (e.g., ‘objects with mystical powers to heal or harm’) or are true (e.g., astrology).2
On the whole, and across all our countries, atheists show the lowest levels of supernatural belief; agnostics show slightly
higher levels; and within the general population such beliefs are typically rather prevalent.
While there is substantial variation both within and between countries on unbelievers’ most/least believed-in phenomena,a few points stand out. First, the beliefs that there are ‘underlying forces’ of good and evil, that ‘there exists a universal
spirit or life force,’ and that ‘most significant life events are meant to be and happen for a reason’ are the most endorsed
among unbelievers globally.
Second, among our atheists, Japanese are the least, and Brazilian and Chinese the most, ‘supernaturally inclined’.
Chinese agnostics, meanwhile, are strikingly more likely to believe in supernatural phenomena than those from othercountries.

14 | St Mary’s University, Twickenham, UK2.3 Proportions of atheists and agnostics who are naturalists (i.e., who ‘strongly’ or ‘somewhat’
disagreewith allsupernatural
beings/phenomena’
2.3 Proportionsof ‘existenceatheists andofagnostics
who arenaturalists (i.e., whoquestions)‘strongly’or ‘somewhat’ disagree with all ‘existence of supernatural beings/phenomena’ questions)
Shown in percentages

27

12

8

2

26

11

27

AtheistBrazilChina

Denmark

7

29

8

35

10

Agnostic

Japan

UK

USA

While Figure 2.2 reveals the percentages of unbelievers (in God) who nonetheless believe in other specific supernatural
phenomena, there is also the question of the proportion who don’t believe in any supernatural phenomena at all. Here, we
present the percentage of unbelievers who are thoroughgoing naturalists.
For the purposes of this report, we are using a consistently negative answer to each and every supernatural phenomenon
as a proxy for naturalism.
As can be seen above, in none of our six countries surveyed does the percentage of unbelievers who qualify as naturalists
approach 50%. Even among American atheists, the most naturalistic group across our surveyed countries, only a third
seem to have a wholly naturalistic world view. Among Chinese atheists meanwhile, fewer than one in ten does.
As one might predict from the previous graphs, agnostics are consistently less likely to be naturalists than atheists. In no
country does more than one in ten agnostics qualify; in China, it is more like one in fifty.

Understanding Unbelief: Atheists and agnostics around the world | 15

4 Proportions of atheists/agnostics (combined) and the general population ‘strongly’r ‘somewhat’ agreeing with the statement ‘The universe is ultimately meaningless’)
2.4 Proportions of atheists/agnostics (combined) and the general population ‘strongly’
hown inorpercentages‘somewhat’ agreeing with the statement ‘The universe is ultimately meaningless’
47

36
32

30
25

25

25

24

30

23

17
14

Atheist/Agnostic combined
BrazilChina

Denmark

General Population
Japan

UK

USA

For many centuries, there has been substantial scholarly and public discussion regarding the wider implications of notbelieving in God – debates which continue to the present day. For example, it has often been argued that for those
without a belief in the existence of a God, the universe can possess no ultimate meaning or purpose.
While this is normally discussed at the level of abstract argument, our data allow us explore whether or not, as a matterof empirical fact, unbelievers do regard the universe as ‘ultimately meaningless’.
While there is some variation across countries, two points stand out. First, in no country surveyed does the proportionof either unbelievers, or the general population, affirming a meaningless universe reach 50%.
With the exception of Brazil, where 47% endorse such a view, only around a third of unbelievers in each country regard
the universe to be ultimately meaningless. While unbelievers are admittedly more likely to take this view than the
population at large, curiously this is not so in Japan.

16 | St Mary’s University, Twickenham, UK2.5 Proportions of atheists/agnostics (combined) and general population ‘strongly’ or ‘somewhat’
2.5 Proportionsof atheists/agnostics
agreeingwith selectedscience items(combined) and general population ‘strongly’or ‘somewhat’ agreeing with selected science items
Shown in percentages

87
80
74
71
66

68

74

70

69

69

66

63

68
63
59

52

50

49

49

46
43
33
26

28

‘Humans have developed over time from
simpler, non-human life forms.’‘The scientific method is the only
reliable path to knowledge.’

Atheist/Agnostic combined
BrazilChina

Denmark

General Population
Japan

UK

USA

Discussions of unbelief often involve discourse on ‘science’ vs. ‘religion’. Consequently, we aimed to examine the extent
to which atheists and agnostics would endorse a scientific account of human origins, as well as a strong statement ofscience as the only reliable path to knowledge.
The data appear to show a divergence between East Asian (China, Japan) and other countries (Brazil, Denmark,the United Kingdom, the United States). In both China and Japan, the percentages of unbelievers and the general
population who regard science as the only reliable path to knowledge are nearly identical. By contrast, the percentagesof unbelievers in Brazil, Denmark, the United Kingdom and the United States endorsing this statement are substantiallyhigher than the general population. Further, in both China and Japan, members of the general population are more likely
to endorse an evolutionary account of human origins than the unbelieving subgroup. This relationship is reversed in
Brazil, Denmark, the United Kingdom and the United States.
While those figures may suggest a united East Asian approach to science and religion, it is also important to note thesubstantial difference between China and Japan in relation to the status of science. Seven-in-ten of Chinese participants
agree that science is the only reliable path to knowledge, compared to only three-in-ten of Japanese participants.

Understanding Unbelief: Atheists and agnostics around the world | 17

3. The Values of Unbelief

3.1 Proportions of atheists/agnostics (combined) and general population ‘strongly’or ‘somewhat’agreeingwith selected worldview
items and general population ‘strongly’ or ‘somewhat’
3.1
Proportionsof atheists/agnostics(combined)
Shown in percentages
agreeingwith selected worldview items
86

83

77

75 75

73

72 73

73

70

68

69

64

53
45

46
40
33

36

36
30

33

21
13

‘In the long-run, society becomes
better over time.’‘All human beings, regardless of where
they are born, are born with dignity anda special set of rights.’
93
89
82
77

78

79

76

77
70

78

71

60
55

56

55
47

45
41

Atheist/Agnostic combined

18 | St Mary’s University, Twickenham, UK

China

50
44

‘What is right and wrong is up
to each person to decide.’‘Nature has deep value beyond its
usefulness for human beings.’

Brazil50

51

Denmark

General Population
Japan

UK

USA

46

44

Perhaps the most debated implications of unbelief in the existence of God concern morality and values. In relation tomoral relativism and objectivism, we asked participants to rate their agreement with the statement ‘What is right andwrong is up to each person to decide.’
Our findings suggest no consistent difference between unbelievers and the general population. Percentages agreeing
with this statement ranged from 41% among the general population of China, to 60% among the general populationof Brazil. While unbelievers are more likely to endorse this statement in China and the United States, members of thegeneral population are more likely to endorse it in Brazil, Denmark, Japan, and the United Kingdom.
As to human dignity and the objective existence of human rights, unbelievers are typically less likely to affirm these thanare the general populations – although note Denmark and the United States, where the proportions are near-exactly
the same, and the fact that affirmation of dignity and rights is the majority position among unbelievers in all surveyedcountries.
In relation to the ‘deep’ value of the natural world, regardless of its usefulness to humans, in half of the countries
surveyed (Denmark, the United Kingdom, the United States) our unbelievers and general samples endorsed it at nearidentical levels. In the other half (Brazil, China, and Japan), unbelievers were less likely to endorse the statement (82%vs. 89% in Brazil, 77% vs. 93% in China, and 55% to 79% in Japan). Across all countries and across both samples,
however, the majority of participants endorse the claim of the inherent value of the natural world.
By contrast, a belief in progress – that ‘in the long-run, society becomes better over time’ – shows a huge amount ofcross-national variation. In Japan, just 13% of unbelievers and 21% of the population as a whole affirmed this statement.
The Chinese figures are vastly different: 69% of unbelievers, and 83% of the general population.

3.2 Five top-ranked‘values’ choices by atheists/agnostics and general population (from 43 options)
3.2 Five top-ranked ‘values’ choices by atheists/agnostics and general population (from 43 options)

Freedom Family
FamilyGod

Learning

Science

Justice

Freedom Truth

Freedom Equality
FamilyFreedom

FamilyJustice

Science

Equality

Science

Self-improvement

FamilyFamilyFreedom
Freedom

NatureJustice

Friendship

Postive thinking Justice

Friendship

FamilyFamilyFreedomCompassion
Compassion Freedom

FamilyFamilyFriendship
Freedom

FamilyFamilyFreedomGod

NatureBeing in the moment

NaturePostive thinking

Freedom

Truth

Compassion

Compassion

Truth

NatureLearning

Truth

Compassion

Compassion

Truth

Freedom

Atheist / Agnostic
BrazilChina

Equality

Denmark

General Population
Japan

UK

USA

‘When it comes to finding meaning in the world and your own life, which of the above are most important to you?
Please select the five items most important to you.’
Understanding Unbelief: Atheists and agnostics around the world | 19

In figure 2.4, we saw that the majority of unbelievers disagreed with the statement that the universe is ultimately
meaningless. This raises the questions of what makes the universe meaningful for unbelievers, and to what extent might
this differ from the general population.
To address these questions, we presented participants with a list of 43 words and short phrases (e.g. ‘Beauty’, ‘Art’,‘Family’, ‘Romantic love’, ‘Nature’, ‘Justice’, ‘The connectedness of everything’, ‘A higher power’, plus ‘Other (please
specify)’) and asked them to select the five items most important to them for finding meaning in the world and in theirown lives. Despite all items being chosen by at least one person in every country, we found very high levels of agreement
across our samples. Out of the possible 43 options, only 14 made it into the overall Top Fives for any of our six countries’
unbeliever or general population samples.
Figure 3.2 shows a remarkable level of similarity between unbelievers and the general population across our countries inwhat makes the world and life meaningful. ‘Family’ was the most frequently chosen item in all general population samples,and in four of the six unbeliever samples. Further, where it was not the most frequently chosen item, it came either second(Brazil) or third (China). ‘Freedom’ was also a frequently chosen item across all samples. It was the most frequently
chosen item by Brazilian and Chinese unbelievers, ranked second behind ‘Family’ in half of our samples, and never fellout of the Top Five chosen items in any sample.
Other items frequently appearing in the Top Five across both samples are ‘Compassion’ (6), ‘Truth’ (5), ‘Nature’ (4),
‘Science’ (3), ‘Friendship’ (3), and ‘Equality’ (3).

Endnotes
1

For example, Pew data from 2017 shows that 17% of US nones ‘believe in God as described in the Bible’, and a further 53% believe in a
‘God, higher power, or spiritual force’. See: https://www.pewforum.org/2018/04/25/when-americans-say-they-believe-in-god-what-do-theymean/04-25-18_beliefingod-00-04/

2

For brevity’s sake, our graphs give shorthand descriptions of the phenomena in question. The actual wording used on the (English language) survey
were as follows: Life after death: ‘There is some sort of life after death.’; Reincarnation: ‘Sometime after I die, I expect that I’ll be born again in
another body.’; Astrology: ‘The positions of the stars and planets affect people’s lives.’; Objects with mystical powers: ‘Some objects have mysticalpowers (e.g. to heal, harm or bring good luck).’; People with mystical powers: ‘Some people have mystical powers (e.g. to heal, harm or bringgood luck).’; Significant events ‘meant to be’: ‘Most significant life events are meant to be and happen for a reason.’; Supernatural beings: ‘Thereexist supernatural beings, who might be good, evil or neither, such as angels, demons, ghosts or spirits.’ [NB: culturally appropriate entities weresuggested for each country]; Underlying forces of good and evil: ‘There are underlying forces of good and evil in this world.’; Universal spirit or life
force: ‘There exists a universal spirit or life force.’; Karma: ‘There is a power in the universe that causes good things to happen to people who behave
morally and bad things to happen to people who behave immorally.’

20 | St Mary’s University, Twickenham, UK

Appendix: Survey methodology
All data were gathered through the Qualtrics Panels service in April-May 2019For each country (Brazil, China, Denmark Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States), we gathered two samples. The
first is a sample composed only of unbelievers (n = 900), which is made to be representative of the unbelieving populationof each country in relation to Age, Sex, and Region. The other is a General Population sample (n = 200), made to be
representative of the general population in relation to Age, Sex, and Region, which we use for the purpose of comparison.
Our total global sample for ADAC will be n = 6600. Please note, however, that these interim findings are based on asample of n = 5285, broken down like so: Brazil (n = 846), China (n = 903), Denmark (n = 593), Japan (n = 1016),
UK (n = 1109), and USA (n = 818).
In order to develop representative samples of unbelievers in our chosen countries, we utilised the most recently available
data from two largescale, highly respected survey programmes: the World Values Survey (WVS; 2010-2014) and theInternational Social Survey Programme (ISSP; 2008) to establish a demographic picture of unbelievers according to threevariables (Age, Sex, and Region). We then set demographic quotas for our own survey based on this picture. For example,
if our data from the WVS indicates that 40% of the unbelievers in a particular country are female, we then set quotas of
40% female and 60% male for our own sample of said country.
Based on our analysis of existing WVS and ISSP data regarding belief in the existence of God, we established thefollowing quotas for our unbelieving samples.
Continued overleaf

Understanding Unbelief: Atheists and agnostics around the world | 21

Age

Sex

RegionBrazil

50% - 18-29
25% - 30-49
25% - over 50

75% - men
25% - women

50% - Southeast
25% - Northeast
25% - South

China

25% -18-29
45% - 30-49
30% - over 50

55% - men
45% - women

15% - North China
10% - Northeast
25% - East
30% - South Central
10% - Southwest
10% - Northwest

Denmark

20% - 18-29
35% - 30-49
45% - over 50

60% - men
40% - women

30% - Capital Region
15% - Sealand
20% - Southern Denmark
20% - Central Denmark
15% - Northern DenmarkJapan

15% - 18-29
35% - 30-49
50% - over 50

55% - men
45% - women

35% - Kanto
15% - Kansai/Kinki
15% - Kyushu/Okinawa
10% - Chubu
10% - Tohoku
5% - Hokkaido
5% - Chugoku
5% - Shikoku

UK

20% - 18- 29
40% - 30-49
40% - over 50

60% - men
40% - women

10% - Greater London
10% - Scotland
5% - Northern Ireland
5% - Wales
30% - East Anglia, Southwest,
Southeast
25% - North, North West,
Yorkshire
15% - West, East Midlands

USA

30% - 18-29
40% - 30-49
30% - over 50

75% - men
25% - women

10% - New England
10% - Middle Atlantic
20% - South Atlantic
5% - West South Central
15% - East North Central
10% - West North Central
10% - Rocky Mountains
20% - Pacific22 | St Mary’s University, Twickenham, UK

Understanding Unbelief: Atheists and agnostics around the world | 23

St Mary’s University
Waldegrave Road
Twickenham
London TW1 4SX
T +44 (0) 20 8240 4000
www.stmarys.ac.uk

24 | St Mary’s University, Twickenham, UK