87 Sevinç, Mehmedoğlu / İnançsızlığa Yönelmede Çevresel ve Entelektüel Faktörlerin Etkisi Öz



Yüklə 255,91 Kb.
Pdf görüntüsü
səhifə12/12
tarix06.05.2018
ölçüsü255,91 Kb.
#42521
1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12

112

Human & Society

and belief/nonbelief is examined (Table 1 [Tablo 1], believers are shown to be more edu-

cated than nonbelievers (χ

2

=12.271; p<.05). In other words, there is a positive correlation 



between one’s level of education and belief in God (r=.129; p<.05), as well as a negative 

correlation between one’s level of education and his/her DİSOL score (r=-.125 p<.05). 

When the cause-effect relationship between the level of education and one’s belief in God 

and his/her DİSOL score are examined, the simple linear regression analysis result reveals a 

significant relationship, according to (R

2

=.016; p<.001). But the level of education explains 



only 1% of being a nonbeliever (Table 2 [Tablo 2]). Interview data show that nonbelievers 

state that they are very pleased with intellectual activities, but more than half are not intel-

lectually active in terms of nonbelief.

The EDEI measures the participants’ relationships with their parents during their adoles-

cence. When we examined the scale results, the highest average score was found among 

believers (3.53) and then decreased among those who were raised as nonbelievers (3.36), 

and those who deconverted (3.18) (Chart 3 [Grafik 3]). We made a one-way ANOVA to see 

whether these differences were significant (Table 6 [Tablo 6]). According to the results 

obtained, it was significant (p <.001). 

According to the results of linear regression analysis, the parental relationship during the 

adolescence stage explains 3% of becoming a nonbeliever (p<.001). Our examination of 

the parents’ cohabitation (Table 7 [Tablo 7]) determined that there was a statistically sig-

nificant difference between the nonbelievers and the believers (χ

2

=12.026; p<.05). Among 



those whose parents were divorced, the first group comprised deconverted nonbelievers 

(19.4%). According to the results of linear regression analysis, the status of the parents’ 

association explains 1% of becoming a nonbeliever (R

2

=0.15; p<.001). As expected, the 



parents’ religiosity (Chart 4 [Grafik 4]) was as follows: believers (mother-3.98; father-3.54), 

deconverted nonbelievers (3.36; 2.93), and raised as nonbelievers (2.93; 2.37). The ANOVA 

testing of these differences (Table 8 [Tablo 8]) found that they were statistically significant 

(p<.01). In other words, the parents’ religiosity is influential in terms of being a nonbeliever. 

According to the results of linear regression analysis, the mother’s religiosity affected 7% 

(p<.001), and the father’s religiosity affected 9% (p<.001), of the participants. This raises the 

following question: Do nonbelievers have a more negative relationship with their parents? 

As can be seen in Table 11 (Tablo 11), the deconverted have low EDEİ scores (average 3.04) 

if their parents were more religious. Namely, they had a negative relationship with their 

parents during their adolescence stage if their parents were religious. The same case was 

also examined in interviews. As can be seen at Table 12 (Tablo 12), if the parents were non-

religious, then the nonbelievers had a stronger relationship with them (3.54); if the parents 

were religious, then the nonbelievers had a weaker relationship with them (2.91). Multiple 

regression analysis was conducted to investigate the effect of one’s relationship with his/

her parents, mother’s religiosity, father’s religiosity, and cohabitation of parents on becom-

ing a nonbeliever (Table 13 [Tablo 13]). When taken together, the effect of all of these 

predictors on the participants to become nonbelievers was 15% (R

2

=.154; p<.001). That is, 



a causal relationship between family structure and nonbelief was indicated.

At the interview, most of the nonbelievers, whether raised as such or deconverted, stated 

that they had rational reasons for their lack of belief and that there is no evidence of God’s 



113

Sevinç, Mehmedoğlu / The Effects of Social and Intellectual Factors on Being a Nonbeliever

existence. When the interviewers examined the life stories of the 32 participants, they 

found that 71.87% of them had become nonbelievers due to social or emotional factors, 

and that only 9 people were intellectually active about nonbelief. That means that they 

read books, like to join some philosophical or theological discussions, and watch TV pro-

grams or videos on belief/nonbelief. Just 3 (9.7%) of the intellectually active nonbelievers 

became nonbelievers due to intellectual factors.



Discussion and Conclusion

Comparing the data with previous studies reveals that the relationship between demo-

graphic variables and nonbelief can vary from country to country.

In this survey, nonbelievers mostly see the intellectual factors as primary But while the 

research shows that they consider themselves to be intellectually active, in reality the 

majority of them are not so in terms of nonbelief or belief. In other words, intellectual fac-

tors do not have the primary influence on being a nonbeliever.

The data show that broken families can lead individuals to nonbelief. When the partici-

pants’ relations with their parents during adolescence are examined, it is seen that those 

who deconverted have a worse relationship with their parents. Non-believing families 

raised nonbelieving children, believing families raised religious children, and deconverted 

families raised less religious children. All of these family types indicate that social factors 

are more effective than intellectual factors when it comes to one’s decision to deconvert.

So why do these people stand out for intellectual reasons? There are several reasons for 

this: (1) Artificial social codes that proclaim a link between being a nonbeliever or disin-

terested in religion and being modern or developed. As Aronson (2004) says, people want 

intelligent and successful people to be on their side and stupid and unsuccessful people 

to be on the other side (p. 153). Therefore, it is normal to think that my side is intellectually 

more developed. (2) The theory of attitude change, which posits that behavior precedes 

from thought (Zajonc, 2001, p. 226). However, when one is asked the reason for his/her 

preference, he/she tries to justify if rationally (Zajonc and Markus, 1982, pp. 123-128). When 

people do not behave according to their attitudes, they usually change their attitudes 

because they cannot undo their behavior (Taylor, 2012, pp. 148-149). In other words, those 

who adhere to no religion or who “live as if there is no God” gradually reject God’s existence 

in order to make their attitude fit their behavior.

When these data are evaluated together, affective factors are seen to be more effective 

than cognitive factors on being a nonbeliever. Events during one’s adolescence and the 

social environment are very influential when it comes to acquiring or modifying one’s 

attitudes. As a biological-psychological-spiritual being, the person and his/her environ-

ment are a whole (Hutchison, 2008, pp. 11-34). The person comes into existence in this 

multidimensional environment; maintains its existence; and lives in a specific time, culture, 

society, and belief system. Therefore, the decisions that one takes today are based upon 

the common influence of all of the components in each person’s life course and cannot 

be regarded as mere instantaneous logical cognitive products. People’s decisions are both 

cognitive and contextual, and being a nonbeliever is a contextual preference.



114

Human & Society



Kaynakça

Allport, G. (2004). Birey ve Dini. (B. Sambur, Çev.) Ankara: Elis Yayınları.

Altemeyer, B. ve Hunsberger, B. (1997). Amazing Conversions: Why Some Turn to Faith and Others Abandon Reli-

gion. Amherst ve New York: Prometheus Books.

Aronson, E. (2004). The Social Animal (9. Baskı). New York: Worth Publishers.

Atkinson, R. L., Atkinson, R. C., Smith, E. E., Bem, D. J. ve Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2010). Psikolojiye Giriş (6. Baskı) (Y. 

Alogan, Çev.). Ankara: Arkadaş Yayınevi.

Aydın, A. R. (1995). Dini İnkârın Psiko-sosyal Nedenleri. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Samsun: Ondokuz Mayıs 

Üniversitesi, SBE.

Baker, J. O. ve Smith, B. (2009). None Too Simple: Examining Issues of Religious Nonbelief and Nonbelonging in 

the United States. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 48(4), 719-733.

Bainbridge, W. S. (2005). Atheism. Interdisciplinary Research on Religion, 1(1), 1-24.

Beit-Hallahmi, B. (2007). Atheists: A Psychological Profile. M. Martin (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Atheism 

içinde (s. 300-317). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Beit-Hallahmi, B. ve Argyle, M. (1997). The Psychology of Religious Behavior, Belief and Experience. New York: 

Routledge.

Blazo, D. R. (2013). The Politics of Atheism in the West. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Memphis: The University 

of Mississippi.

Bolay, S. H. (1996). Felsefi Doktrinler ve Terimler Sözlüğü (6. Baskı). Ankara: Akçağ Yayınları.

Bradley, D. (2014). The Reasons of Atheist/Agnostics for Nonbelief in God’s Existence Scale: Development and Initial 

Validation.  Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University.

Bremmer, J. N. (2007). Atheism in Antiquitye. M. Martin (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Atheism (s. 11-26). 

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Brinkerhoff, M. ve Mackie M. (1993). Casting Off the Bonds of Organized Religion: A Religious-Careers Approach 

to the Study of Apostasy. Review of Religious Researh, 34(3), 235-258.

Brown, L. B. (1966). The Structure of Religious Belief. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 5(2), 259-272.

Brown, C. G. (2013). The Twentieth Century. S. Bullivant ve M. Ruse (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Atheism içinde 

(s. Sayfa aralığı). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bullivant, S. (2013). Defining Atheism. S. Bullivant ve M. Ruse (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Atheism içinde (s. 

11-21). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Caldwell-Harris, C., Wilson, A., LoTempio, E. ve Beit-Hallahmi, B. (2011). Exploring the Atheist Personality: Well-

being, Awe, and Magical Thinking in Atheist, Buddhists, and Christians. Mental Health, Religion and Culture, 

14(7), 659-672.

Caplovitz, D. ve Sherrow F. (1977). The Religious Drop-outs: Apostasy Among College Graduates. Beverly Hilss: 

Sage.

Çarkoğlu, A. ve Kalaycıoğlu, E. (2009). Türkiye’de Dindarlık: Uluslararası Bir Karşılaştırma. İstanbul: Sabancı Üni-



versitesi.

Çarkoğlu, A. ve Toprak, B. (2000). Türkiye’de Din, Toplum ve Siyaset. İstanbul: TESEV Yayınları.

Casanova, J. (2009). The Secular and Secularist. Social Research, 76(4), 1049-1066.

Cevizci, A. (2000). Felsefe Sözlüğü (4. Baskı). İstanbul: Paradigma Yayınları.

Cliteur, P. (2009). The Definition of Atheism. Journal of Religion and Society, (11), 1-23.

Cragun, R., Hammer, J. H. ve Nielsen, M. (2015). The NonReligious-NonSpiritual Scale (NRNSS): Measuring 

Everyone from Atheists to Zionists. Science, Religion & Culture, 2(3), 36-53.

Cragun, R. T., Kosmin, B., Keysar, A., Hammer, J. H. ve Nielsen, M. (2012). On the Receiving End: Discrimination 

toward the Non-Religious in the United States. Journal of Contemporary Religion, 27(1), 105-127.

Çınar, A. (2005). Modernity, Islam, and Secularism in Turkey: Bodies, Places, and Time. Minneapolis: University of 

Minnesota Press.



115

Sevinç, Mehmedoğlu / The Effects of Social and Intellectual Factors on Being a Nonbeliever

Ecklund, E. H. ve Scheitle, C. P. (2007). Religion among Academic Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and 

Demographics. Social Problems, 54(2), 289-307.

Ecklund, E. H. ve Park, J. Z. (2009). Conflict Between Religion and Science Among Academic Scientist. Journal for 

the Scientific Study of Religion, 48(2), 276-292.

Erkuş, A. (t.y.). Psikoloji Terimleri Sözlüğü. Ankara: Doruk Yayınları.

Ertit, V. (2015). Endişeli Muhafazakarlar Çağı: Dinden Uzaklaşan Türkiye (2. Baskı). Ankara: Orient Yayınları.

Eurobarometer. (2005). Special Eurobarometer 225: “Social Values, Sciences and Technology”. European 

Commission.

Farias, M. (2013). The Psychology of Atheism. S. Bullivant ve M. Ruse (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Atheism 

içinde (s. 468-482). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ganzevoort, R. R. (1994). Crisis Experiences and the Development of Belief and Unbelief. J. Corveleyn ve D. 

Hutsebaut (Ed.), Belief and Unbelief: Psychological Perspectives içinde (s. 21-36). Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Hadaway, C. K. (1989). Identifying American Apostates: A Cluster Analysis. Journal for the Scientific Study of 

Religion, 28(2), 201-215.

Hout, M. ve Fischer, C. (2002). Why More Americans Have No Religious Preference: Politics and Generations. 

American Sociological Review, 67(2), 165-190.

Hunsberger, B. ve Altemeyer, B. (2006). Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America’s Nonbelievers. New York: 

Prometheus Books.

Hunsberger, B. (1983). Apostasy: A Social Learning Perspective. Review of Religious Research, 25(1), 21-38.

Hunsberger, B. ve Brown, L. B. (1984). Religious Socialization, Apostasy, and the Impact of Family Background. 

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 23(3), 239-251.

Hurth, E. (2007). Between Faith and Unbelief: American Transcendentalists and the Challenge of Atheism. Leiden 

ve Boston: Brill.

Hutchison, E. D. (2008). Dimensions of Human Behavior: The Changing Life Course (3. Baskı). California: Sage 

Publications.

Hyman, G. (2007). Atheism in Modern History. M. Martin (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Atheism içinde (s. 

27-46). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hyman, G. (2010). Ateizmin Kısa Tarihi. (D. Şendil, Çev.) İstanbul: Kırmızı Kedi Yayınları.

ISSP. (2008). International Social Survey Programme 2008: Religion III (No: 4950). http://www.gesis.org/issp/issp-

modules-profiles/religion/2008/ adresinden 10.10.2014 tarihinde edinilmiştir.

Keysar, A. ve Navarro-Rivera, J. (2013). A World of Atheism: Global Demographics. S. Bullivant ve M. Ruse (Ed.), 

The Oxford Handbook of Atheism içinde (s. 553-586). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Keysar, A. (2014). Shifts Along the American Religious-Secular Spectrum. Secularism and Nonreligion, 3(1), 1-16.

Khalil, M. H. ve Bilici, M. (2007). Conversion Out of Islam: A Study of Conversion Narratives of Former Muslims. 

The Muslim Worlds, (97), 111-124.

Köse, A. (1997). Neden İslam’ı Seçiyorlar. İstanbul: İsam Yayınları.

Lee, L. (2012). Research Note: Talking about a Revolution: Terminology fort he New Field of non-religion 

Studies. Journal of Contemporary Religion, 27(1), 129-139.

Leuba, J. H. ve Kantor, J. R. (1917). Statistics of Belief in God and Immortality. International Journal of Ethics, 

28(1), 109-114.

Mauss, A. L. (1969). Dimensions of Religious Defection. Review of Religious Research, 10(3), 128-135.

Meulemann, H. (2000). Beyond Unbelief: Religious Uncertainty and Religious Indifference in Countries with 

Self-induced and Enforced Secularization. European Societies, 2(2), 167-194.

Nielsen, K. (2008). İnanç, İnançsızık ve Denklik Tartışması. Hikmet Yurdu, 1(2), 245-252.

Oser, F. K., Reich, K. H. ve Bucher, A. A. (1994). Development of Belief and Unbelief in Childhood and 

Adolescence. J. Corveleyn ve D. Hutsebaut (Ed.), Belief and Unbelief: Psychological Perspectives içinde (s. 39-62). 

Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Özakpınar, Y. (1999). İnsan İnanan Bir Varlık. İstanbul: Ötüken Yayınları.




116

Human & Society

Pasquale F. L. ve Kosmin, B. A. (2013). Atheism and the Secularization Thesis. S. Bullivant ve M. Ruse (Ed.), The 

Oxford Handbook of Atheism içinde (s. 451-467). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rümke, H. C. (1952). The Psychology of Unbelief: Character and Temperament in Relation to Unbelief. London: 

Rockliff.

Scobie, G. E. W. (1994). Belief, Unbelief, and Conversion Experience. J. Corveleyn ve D. Hutsebaut (Ed.), Belief and 

Unbelief: Psychological Perspectives içinde (s. 87-98). Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Sevinç, K., Güven M. ve Metinyurt, T. (2015). Dindar ve Spiritüel Olmama Ölçeğinin (DİSOL) Türkçe’ye 

Uyarlanması. Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, (6), 59-86.

Shand, J. D. (2000). The Effects of Life Experiences over a 50-Year Period on the Certainty of Belief and Disbelief 

in God. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 10(2), 85-100.

Silver, C. F. (2013). Atheism, Agnosticism, and Nonbelief: A Qualitative and Quantitative Study of Type and 

Narrative. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Knoxville: University of Tennessee.

Smith, G. H. (1979). Atheism: The Case Against God. Buffalo. New York: Prometheus.

Smith, J. M. (2011). Becoming an Atheist in America: Contructing Identity and Meaning from the Rejection of 

Theism. Sociology of Religion, 72(2), 215-237.

Smith, J. M. (2013). Creating a Godlass Community: The Collective Identity Work of Contemporary American 

Atheists. Journal for the Scientigic Study of Religion. 52(1), 80-99.

Spray, S. L. ve Marx, J. H. (1969). The Origins and Correlates of Religious Adherence and Apostasy Among Mental 

Health Professionals. Sociology of Religion, 30(3), 132-150.

Stark, R. (2002). Toprağın Bol Olsun Sekülerleşme. A. Köse (Ed.), Sekülerizm Sorgulanıyor içinde (s. 33-74). 

İstanbul: Ufuk Kitapları.

Streib, H. ve Klein, C. (2013). Atheist, Agnostics, and Apostates. K. Pargament, J. E. Julie ve W. J. James (Ed.), APA 

Handbook of Psychology and Spirituality içinde. American Psychological Association, 1, 713-728.

Swatos, W. H. ve Christiano, K. J. (2002). Sekülerleşme Teorisi: Bir Kavramın Serüveni. A. Köse (Ed.), Sekülerizm 

Sorgulanıyor içinde (s. 96-102). İstanbul: Ufuk Kitapları.

Taylor, S. E., Peplau, L. A. ve Sears, D. O. (2012). Sosyal Psikoloji (3. Baskı) (A. Dönmez, Çev.). Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.

Uecker, J. E., Regnerus, M. D. ve Vaaler, M. L. (2007). Losing My Religion: The Social Sources of Religious Decline 

in Early Adulthood. Social Forces, 85(4), 1-26.

Vermeer, P. (2013). Religious Indefference and Religious Education in the Netherlans: A Tension Unfolds. 

Zeitschrift für Religionspädagogik, (12), 79-94.

Veevers, J. E. ve Cousineau, D. F. (1980). The Heathen Canadians. The Pasific Sociological Review, 23(2), 199-216.

Vernon, G. M. (1968). The Religious “Nones”: A Neglected Category. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 

7(2), 219-229.

Voas, D. ve McAndrew, S. (2012). Three Puzzles of Non-religion in Britain. Journal of Contemporary Religion, 

27(1), 29-48.

Wilson, J. ve Sherkat, D. E. (1994). Returning to the Fold. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 33(2), 148-161.

Wulff, D. (1999). Beyond Belief and Unbelief. J. M. Greer ve D. O. Moberg (Ed.), Research in the Social Scientific 

Study of Religion içinde (C. 10, s. 1-15). Connecticut: Jai Press.

Zajonc, R. B. ve Markus, H. (1982). Affective and Cognitive Factors in Preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 

9(2), 123-131.

Zajonc, R. B. (1960). The Concepts of Balance, Congruity, and Dissonance. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 24(2), 

280-296.


Zajonc, R. B. (2001). Mere Exposure: A Gateway to the Subliminal. Current Directions in Psychological Sciences, 

10(6), 224-228.

Zuckerman, P. (2007). Atheism: Contemporary Numbers and Patterns. M. Martin (Ed.), The Cambridge Compan-

ion to Atheism içinde (s. 47-65). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Zuckerman, P. (2009). Atheism, Secularity, and Well-Being: How the Findings of Social Science Counter 

Negative Stereotypes and Assumptions. Sociology Compass, 3(6), 949-971.



Yüklə 255,91 Kb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:
1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12




Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©genderi.org 2024
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə