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.
Dostları ilə paylaş: |