The Nature and Forms of Irreligion

  • Colin Campbell
Part of the New Perspectives in Sociology book series


The claim of the sociology of irreligion to be accepted as an important and viable sphere of study clearly cannot be admitted until its specific subject of investigation has been outlined. Irreligion itself must be identified, delineated and defined and its various forms described. This itself is a difficult task and may even prove to be a thoroughly daunting one, if the experience of the sociology of religion is anything to go by. Since irreligion is defined primarily by reference to religion, the notable lack of success in defining the latter term is hardly a good omen for success in defining the former. On the other hand, it is possible that the attempt to define irreligion may itself help in some way to provide a solution to this perennial and thorny problem. Whatever the accompanying expectations, the attempt must be made, for without even a provisional delineation a sociology of irreligion cannot exist. At a popular level the specification of irreligion seems straightforward enough; one thinks immediately of such phenomena as atheism, agnosticism, total indifference to religion, anti-clericalism and the like. By contrast, the sociological specification of irreligion is formidable indeed, because in addition to the familiar problems associated with defining religion one has additional ones arising out of the quality of rejection which the prefix ‘ir-’ implies.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    A. Kellett, ‘Isms and Ologies’ (Epworth Press, 1965) p. 142.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. W. Benn, ‘The History of English Rationalism in the Nineteenth Century’, 2 vols (Russell & Russell, New York, 1962; 1st ed., 1906) p. 4.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    See, for example, J. E. Courtney, ‘Freethinkers of the Nineteenth Century’ (Chapman & Hall, 1920).Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    See M. R. Cohen, ‘Baseball as a National Religion’, in L. Schneider (ed.), ‘Religion, Culture and Society’ (Wiley, New York, 1964).Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    See Leslie Weatherhead’s arguments for Christian agnosticism in ‘The Christian Agnostic’ (Hodder & Stoughton, 1965).Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    H. J. Blackham, ‘The Ethical Movement during Seventy Years’, in ‘The Plain View’, no. 6 (Jan 1946)Google Scholar
  7. and W. Eckstein, ‘The Need For Ethical Reconstruction’ in ‘Proceedings of the First International Congress on Humanism and Ethical Culture’ (Humanistisch Verbond, Utrecht, 1953).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    As an example of this debate see Julian Huxley, ‘The Coming New Religion of Humanism’, in ‘The Humanist’, xxii 3 (Jan-Feb 1962) and the replyGoogle Scholar
  9. 8.
    by Harry Elmer Barnes and Herbert T. Rosenfeld, ‘’, in ‘The Humanist’, xxii 4 (1962).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    W. L. Courtney, ‘Do We Believe? A Record of a Great Correspondence in the “Daily Telegraph”, October, November and December, 1904’ (Hodder & Stoughton, 1905).Google Scholar
  11. 14.
    Rev. C. M. Davies, ‘Heterodox London: or Phases of Free Thought in the Metropolis’, 2 vols (Tinsley Bros, 1874).Google Scholar
  12. 16.
    P. Aldane, ‘The Problem in East London’, in R. Mudie-Smith (ed.), ‘The Religious Life of London’ (Hodder & Stoughton, 1904).Google Scholar
  13. 18.
    J. Lofland and R. Stark, ‘The Concept of Seekership’, in ‘American Sociological Review’, xxx (1963) 868 ff.Google Scholar
  14. 21.
    M. Quin, ‘Memoirs of a Positivist’ (Allen & Unwin, 1924) p. 41.Google Scholar
  15. 22.
    Charles Y. Glock, ‘The Study of Non-belief: Perspectives on Research’, paper read at the International Symposium on the Culture of Unbelief, Rome, March 1969.Google Scholar
  16. 23.
    Universalists and Unitarians were frequently condemned as ‘infidels’ in America during the nineteenth century; see A. Post, ‘Popular Free-thought in America, 1825–1850’ (Columbia U.P., New York, 1943) p. 195.Google Scholar
  17. Also, for a discussion of how the branding of religious opponents as irreligious was employed as a strategy for advancing the aims of one Church against its rivals, see M. E. Marty, ‘The Infidel: Free-thought and American Religion’ (World Publishing Company, Cleveland and New York, 1961).Google Scholar
  18. 26.
    J. V. Langmead Casserley, ‘The Retreat from Christianity in the Modern World’ (Longmans, 1952) p. 8.Google Scholar
  19. 30.
    See G. Gorer, ‘Exploring English Character’ (Cresset Press, 1955) p. 109.Google Scholar
  20. 32.
    The popular stereotype of the atheist is detected easily enough by the frequency with which he is described by the qualifying adjectives ‘dogmatic’, ‘aggressive’, ‘arrogant’ and the like. A good illustration of this stereotype is Warren’s description of D. M. Bennett, the editor of ‘Truth Seeker’: ‘like most atheists, [he was] defiant, belligerent and aggressively hostile’. S. Warren, ‘American Freethought, 1860–1914’ (Gordian Press, New York, 1966) p. 191.Google Scholar
  21. 33.
    Glock and Stark, ‘Religion and Society in Tension’, p. 65, and Charles Glock and Rodney Stark, ‘Christian Beliefs and Anti-Semitism’ (Harper & Row, New York and London, 1966) p. 216.Google Scholar
  22. 34.
    The suggestion that the non-religious lack visibility as an organised group in American society is made by Vernon. See Glenn M. Vernon, ‘The Religious “Nones”: A Neglected Category’, in ‘Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion’, vii 2 (fall 1968) 219–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 36.
    W. L. Sperry, ‘Religion in America’ (Beacon Press, Boston, 1963) p. 256;Google Scholar
  24. S. Budd, ‘The Humanist Societies: The Consequences of a Diffuse Belief System’, in B. R. Wilson (ed.), ‘Patterns of Sectarianism’ (Heine-mann, 1967) pp. 377–405; Demerath and Thiessen, ‘On Spitting against the Wind’, pp. 674–87.Google Scholar
  25. 37.
    H. B. Radest, ‘Toward Common Ground: The Story of the Ethical Societies in the United States’ (Frederick Ungar, New York, 1969); Blackham, ‘The Ethical Movement during Seventy Years’.Google Scholar
  26. 40.
    This fear is well illustrated by Harrison’s reaction to Congreve’s move in forming a positivist church when Positivism had hardly begun to establish itself in England. Harrison feared that this would necessarily create a sect and he fervently disliked the ‘small-town pettiness’ of sects. Thereafter he consistently referred to the members of Congreve’s church as ‘the brethren’. W. M. Simon, ‘European Positivism in the Nineteenth Century: An Essay in Intellectual History’ (Cornell U.P., Ithaca, N.Y., 1963) pp. 57–8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Colin Campbell 1971

Authors and Affiliations

  • Colin Campbell

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations