Hi folks, a brief update.
My podcast from the OpenDiv conference, in which I discuss my general research trajectory, religious studies, the study of non-religion, the Religious Studies Project, and the Nonreligion and Secularity Research Network is available here on Anchor and Spotify. If you’d like to check out the other podcasts released during the event, they can be found here (on Anchor) or here (on Spotify).
Hi folks. September to January was an incredibly busy time for me, and lots of the spinning plates started to wobble dangerously and/or break. But, everything has calmed down a little bit for me now as I continue lecturing at the University of Chester, tutoring at the University of Edinburgh, and working on my research fellowship at the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities. I have a few long overdue writing commitments to turn my attention to, and much overdue promotion to do for The Critical Study of Nonreligion.
However, I wanted to alert you to a couple of FREE upcoming events where you can hear me sing/speak.
The first is a 4-day “pod-conference” around spirituality, meaning, and connection in the secular world, running 25-28 February. I am one of the guest speakers, alongside many, many more worthy contributors, including my fellow RSP co-founder David Robertson. Registration is free, and many of the talks (mine included) are pre-recorded and available to listen to at your leisure. Do check it out.
The second is an online musical theatre concert – again, pre-recorded so you can watch and listen in your own time, without having to worry about any live-streaming issues. The programme is coming together nicely and, all being well, you should catch me singing a solo, a couple of duets, and in a couple of group numbers.
‘Coming Home Again’ Digital Concert premieres on 27 February and will be available until 3 March. Tickets are available here and are free of charge, or with an optional donation to Cosmos theatre company. 20% of anything raised from this project will be donated to Capital Theatres, Edinburgh and the remaining amount will go towards putting on a production later in the year.
More from me sooner rather than later… I hope!
Almost nine years after co-founding the Religious Studies Project podcast, I am in the hot seat today as the guest interviewee, speaking about the journey to my recently published book.
The podcast and transcription can be accessed here:
And, if you’re interested, the book, “The Critical Study of Non-Religion: Discourse, Identification and Locality” is out now with Bloomsbury, and also available through Bloomsbury Collections if your institution has access.
When I was asked to provide an image to accompany the podcast, my first thought was “ah, the illusive image of ‘non-religion'” – how exactly is one meant to capture something visually not being done? But then again, finding images of “religion” is just as problematic and ideologically loaded. But then I was reminded of the painting “Pegwell Bay, Kent – a Recollection of October 5th 1858” by William Dyce.
This image is a good example of “religion” being notably absent, but also implicit in much of the imagery. The painting depicts, so the description goes, the retreat of “religion” and the rise of “science” at the site where Augustine reputedly landed in England, with a comet potentially harking back to the star of Bethlehem. Is this non-religion? Is this religion? Is it presenting a positive or nostalgic narrative of secularization? The interpretations abound.
Here’s what my colleague and RSP-friend Ethan Quillen wrote about it:
“Renowned for its association with the genre of ‘Atheist Aesthetics,’ “Pegwell Bay” depicts a discursive shift, a narrative ‘sea change’ wherein the once predominate use of ‘religious’ imagery has been replaced with that of science. Here, families gather shells and fossils on the low-tide shore as Donati’s Comet soars overhead. A site frequented by novice and professional fossil hunters, as well as notable theorists like Darwin, Dyce’s use of Pegwell Bay as a setting allows the image to speak on his behalf, revealing a discursive commentary about the ebbing tide of religious belief and the reality of a more science-minded perspective on life, the universe, and everything.
In his Faith and Its Critics, David Fergusson contends that this painting depicts a type of ‘wistful’ and ‘nostalgic’ Atheism, a longing for days gone by, which matches in tone the basis of certain theoretical definitions of Atheism by scholars such as Hyman and Buckley: ‘Modern Atheism’ (that which arose out of and within the Enlightenment) appears as a ‘re-emergence’ of the classical ‘rational-naturalism’ that defines our notion of ‘Ancient Atheism.’”https://everythingisfiction.org/2015/07/21/the-expert-in-the-room/
I just thought these thoughts were worth sharing as an addendum to the podcast. Please do have a listen/read and let me know what you think!
I’m delighted to announce that my first sole-authored book, The Critical Study of Non-Religion, is being published in hardback on 6 August! This book represents the culmination of over a decade of empirical study of people and groups who might be considered ‘non-religious’, and acts as a bridge between critical academic study of religion and more substantive ‘lived’ approaches. You can already purchase the book on Kindle (and even get a free preview of the introduction) and it should be coming out in paperback in a year or so (if that £76.50 price tag puts you off). I’ll try and write a few more posts in the coming weeks, but in the meantime please seek it out if you have the means, and let your institutional libraries know if you’d like it to make an appearance on the shelves. For now, here are some of the wonderfully supportive reviews:
Christopher R. Cotter’s interview subjects make it plain that identifying as religious, and, as he importantly argues, nonreligious or even indifferent to it all—is an act of identification taking place in a hectic social world. Cotter invites us to hear all of these claims as tactics by which social actors position themselves in relation to others, making The Critical Study of Non-Religion a coming-of-age moment for one of the discipline’s newest subfields. – Russell T. McCutcheon, University Research Professor and Chair, Department of Religious Studies, University of Alabama, USA
An exceptional combination of textbook and original empirical study outlines the field of non-religion and shows the situational and contextual nature of our religion-related categories. It argues convincingly that non-religion studies would benefit from moving towards a critical discursive approach that does not reify non-religion as anything substantial. – Teemu Taira, Senior Lecturer, Study of Religion, University of Helsinki, Finland
Christopher Cotter’s The Critical Study of Non-Religion is an intelligent and innovative study of the porous boundaries between religion and non-religion, which charts a path through the complex interrelations of family, community and individual identity and how these interact with ideological blocs in society, such as nationalism, politics and religion. Cotter insightfully deconstructs monolithic notions of non-religion and demonstrates the overlaps and grey areas that exist between certain religious people and certain non-religious people, in the areas of assumptions, beliefs and praxis. – Carole M. Cusack, Professor of Religious Studies, The University of Sydney, Australia
By Jörg Stolz, Judith Könemann, Mallory Schneuwly Purdie, Thomas Englberger, Michael Krüggeler
(Un)Believing in Modern Society is an ambitious book, rooted firmly in the Swiss context, and making make use of numerous large-scale social surveys and over seventy qualitative interviews to add nuance to and challenge secularization, individualization and market theories of religion. The authors provide a typology, a theory and a thesis to identify types of people in society, what their common beliefs, values, practices etc are, their relationships to various religious suppliers, and to map and explain how these types have changed in the past few decades.
The book begins with three chapters outlining the parameters of the ‘me-society’ – namely the freedom and obligation of individuals to choose and take responsibility in all areas of their lives – a theory of religious-secular competition, and an overview of four broad types of (un)belief. Chapters 4–9 then present a closer look at the utility of these types in relation to ‘Identity and Social Structure’, ‘Belief, Knowledge, Experience and Action’, ‘Values and Change of Values’, Religious and Spiritual Suppliers, ‘The Perception and Evaluation of Religion(s)’ and ‘Changes in Religiosity, Spirituality and Secularity’. A concluding chapter reflects on the ‘so what?’, before offering some predictions for the future.
The typology consists of ‘institutional’, ‘distanced’, ‘alternative’ and ‘secular’ types, which are further subdivided into: ‘evangelicals’ and ‘established’; ‘distanced institutional’, ‘distanced alternative’ and ‘distanced secular’; ‘esotericists’ and ‘Sheilaists and alternative customers’; and ‘indifferent’ and ‘opponents of religion’ (52). Provided one accepts the premises of the model the diagrams with axes of low to high ‘alternative spirituality’ and low to high ‘institutional religiosity’ are remarkably easy to follow and, combined with in-depth discussion and empirical examples, help the authors succeed in their goal of nuancing and advancing existing sociological theory.
A key message is that the different types use terms differently, think and act differently, and would require different stimuli to move between types. Dialogue between types will thus often result in talking past each other. Concepts of God are different. Understandings of practice differ, as does the salience of particular identifications. Crucially, understandings of ‘religion’ and ‘spirituality’ are wildly different between types, and problems occur when it is assumed that the same things are being done or said. Furthermore, each type is imbued with the characteristics of the ‘me-society’, yet to quite different effect in each case.
Other key findings include a nuancing of the notion of vicarious religion, a critique of market theory, and some clarity on the perception of non-Christian religions in Switzerland. On vicarious religion, the authors note that most of the population recognize churches and religion as potential sources of relief, but not for themselves. Churches are a public good that is not needed by the individual but might be needed at some future hypothetical point (128-9). On market theory, it is argued that existing approaches only consider intra-religious competition but neglect secular options. Given that ‘Most members of society… belong to the distanced type [57.4%, they…] do not see why they should switch suppliers if they are in any case only members in a very weak way’ (128). And on non-Christian religions, ‘the perception of non-Christian religions is strongly linked to issues related to foreigners, asylum seekers and Swiss identity.’ Yet also it is clear that ‘a critical attitude towards foreigners and Muslims [is] ‘socially undesirable’’ (148). Buddhism and the Reformed Church tend to come off best because they are not perceived to challenge the established order and freedom of the individual. Roman Catholicism and Islam are seen as impinging too heavily upon society and individual freedoms. Each of these findings is not new per se but are given more explanatory weight and nuance through the authors’ typology and model of religious-secular competition. The authors conclude with an important and well-evidenced prediction: ‘established’ religion – in Switzerland at least – will shrink (die off), ‘alternative’ will hold its own (but remain relatively small in number), ‘distanced’ will shrink and the ‘secular’ will become largest group.
Naturally, there are plenty of criticisms that can be levelled at the broad theorizing this book presents. The data on alternative spirituality is somewhat limited, the text builds from the perspective of individuals, neglects non-Christian religions, and is restricted to the Swiss context (194). Furthermore, the authors’ definition of religion (23) is quite ‘traditional’ and implies that individuals cannot be religious without relation to a specific, established tradition – defensible, perhaps, but contestable. However, the sheer volume of data, the generosity of spirit, and the nuancing of existing sociological theories make this a must read for anyone with an interest in the current state of religion in Europe – and explanations for why this is the case.
Here is my first video pitching my candidacy for Holyrood 2021. If you are a Scottish Green Party member with a vote in the Lothian internal selection, please consider placing me high in your preferences. Thank you.
You can read my candidate statement here.
My comments on Dawkins’ Outgrowing God have been published by the Religion Media Centre. Trimmed, edited and with added content from yesterday thanks to editorial help from Ruth Peacock at the Centre.
There isn’t much that is substantively new here. In the first section, the reader is walked through a collection of points he has made over the years – most of us are atheists regarding most gods, we shouldn’t ascribe non-/religious identities to children, the God of the Old Testament is nasty, the New Testament notion of atonement is awful, we use criteria from outside the Bible to assess its moral worth, etc.
However, the central idea of the book – that it is directed towards children in order to break the transmission of religion – is an interesting one. Evidence shows time and again that family transmission is key to religion’s maintenance, with enormous importance lying in ‘credibility enhancing displays’ in the family home (judge me by what I do not by what I say).
Furthermore, for every 26 former Christians who move to the ‘no religion’ category in the UK, only one moves from ‘no religion’ to a Christian identification, demonstrating that once the link has been broken it is highly unlikely to be reformed, particularly in adulthood.
In this book, Dawkins not only targets religion in the early stages of the human life cycle, he also places it in a more infantile stage in his narrative of human evolutionary progress from superstition to science (a problematic narrative popularized in the Victorian era).
The model of religion that is constructed here is self-consciously Abrahamic (focusing on the concept of God in Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and consists of a collection of propositional ‘truths’ that are supposed to be subscribed to by ‘proper’ adherents (despite demonstrable evidence that this rarely plays out on the ground).
But mostly religion is constructed as a failed science and engaged with in that manner. This reduces religion, once again, to truth claims, neglecting the many millions of ‘believers’ who quite happily maintain belief in both religion and science, and paying scant attention to the role of ritual, material culture, practice, meaning-making and so on.
Importantly, the text fails to interrogate other areas of human life where tradition might be appealed to, or where normative claims are made – such as politics, economics, the family, national identity or love – perpetuating the problematic notion that once certain ‘religious’ beliefs are cast aside, rationality will prevail.
In many ways, for me – as a critical social scientist of ‘religion’, specializing in all things ‘non-religious’ – to comment on the quality of atheism displayed in Richard Dawkins’ latest book Outgrowing God: A Beginner’s Guide would be inappropriate. No one would expect a scholar of religion to comment positively or negatively on the substantive content of texts associated with other religions. An element of neutrality would be expected. The same for the data that makes up much of my chosen area of study. However, I can offer a brief comment on what this new publication might signify in this particular historical moment. Also, given that Dawkins’ text engages in theorizing about religion in general, and purports to offer (social) scientific analysis of religion, he is very much stepping into my territory and can be engaged with as such.
As far as Dawkins’ oeuvre is concerned, there isn’t much that is substantively new here. In the first section, the reader is walked through a collection of points he has made over the years – most of us are atheists regarding most gods, we shouldn’t ascribe non-/religious identities to children, the God of the Old Testament is nasty, the New Testament notion of atonement is awful, we use criteria from outside the Bible to assess its moral worth, etc. The writing is somewhat more generous in spirit than in previous instantiations – perhaps because of the conceit that this is notionally written for a younger audience – and Dawkins is pleasingly measured in his appreciation of the value of myth, the beauty of various Biblical verses, and so on. Less generous, perhaps, is his model of Christianity as tritheism with Mary as a goddess, his construction of some so-called ‘official doctrine’ of Islam (if he could point me to this, I’d be really keen to consult it), and his continued battering of the notion that increasing science belief equates with decreasing god belief. The second section of the book turns, as one would expect, to evolutionary theory, making the broad points that design is improbable, a designer even more improbable, and that common sense oftentimes fails in the face of empirical research.
The content is unoriginal but presented in an interesting tone that is more likely to see it read to children rather than being picked up by wannabe atheists hiding the book under the covers from their theistic parents. The model of religion that is constructed here is self-consciously Abrahamic and propositional, and pays scant attention to the role of ritual, material culture, practice, meaning-making and so on. But mostly it is constructed as a failed science and engaged with in that manner. Thus, it is relatively easy for many to dismiss should they be so inclined. Importantly, the text fails to interrogate other areas of human life where tradition might be appealed to, or where normative claims are made – such as politics, economics, the family, national identity or love – perpetuating the problematic notion that once certain ‘religious’ beliefs are cast aside, rationality will prevail. It is interesting to see Dawkins continuing his blend of anti-religious critique and popularizing of evolutionary science in a new format, long after the heyday of the New Atheist movement. The text is unlikely to win many converts to this style of thinking, but as a text that packs a lot of popular science and pop biblical criticism into an easily digestible and entertaining format, it may act as an early foray into such matters for younger readers and/or parents who are seeking an eye-opening text for the next generation.
On 5 September 2019, along with my friend and colleague David Robertson, I delivered the opening lecture at the XXXIII Jahrestagung der Deutschen Vereinigung für Religionswissenschaft (DVRW 2019) in Hannover. Or, rather, we were stuck between flights in Amsterdam, and so recorded the lecture in advance. Here it is. Thanks to the organizers for inviting us, and allowing us to share.
Conference website: https://www.dvrw2019.uni-hannover.de/
Abstract: What happens to the study of religion when the comparative categories upon which it is founded fall away? Can we reconceptualize the field? Should we? ‘After World Religions’ (2016) attempted to show some ways in which we might address this in our teaching practise, but it also showed how hegemonic categories like “world religions” continue to be in public discourse and in the institutional logic of the modern Religious Studies department. The growth of studies into the non-religious and embodied vernacular practices may suggest the broader relevance of our approach(es), but also represent a defence of categories like “religion” against these criticisms. This input paper will discuss and critically assess some possible ways forward for Religious Studies after World Religions.