Increase in people identifying as having No Religion

smacl wrote: »

Not saying you're wrong, but what's the logic behind that? My own limited experience from my daughter's friends at that age was that while they were going to a Catholic school and no doubt were listed as Catholic by their parents most of them have no use for the church when asked. I suspect that while some would consider themselves Catholic as a default position, as many would not due to the authoritarian and often regressive position of the church. What strikes me a very different from the generation that I grew up with is the number of openly gay school children and the marked intolerance of their peers to homophobia. I don't know how widespread this is, but would guess it is a growing trend, and one where the RCC has managed to alienate itself from this generation following their stance on same sex marriage. Pure speculation, but I reckon the RCC are going to lose out to the more liberal Christian denominations over time as well as to atheism.

I think we're seeing new patterns. There's probably still a lingering RC link with parents and middle aged. That keeps their kids still in touch with RC.

But the RC church itself shows no interest in changing or disassociating itself from old scandals or obsolete ideas and values. Its seems to be entrenching into a hardcore even more fervent group and isolating the moderates or the less committed. Its actively pushing them away. You might not see this if you have no involvement with the RC.

As such I think we'll see these patterns, fall away into a more consistent decline across all ages. You'll see the moderates fall away with a hardcore remaining. Unless of course the RC actually does a radical re-inventing of itself. But can't see that happening myself. Its seems to be self destructing.

Mellor wrote: »

Your first post was referring to the previous census. Some of the conclusions in the article were ridiculous.

The greatest % increase is useless as a measure of "fastest growing". What is people declaring "Jedi" went from 5 people to 20 people. 300% increase. Fastest growing or irrelevant minority?
Total numbers are pointless too given population growth. Only total % changes is halfway logical.

And extrapolating the increase in muslims out to 2043 was silly. As we can see from the actual results, they got that wrong.

I'm not sure what the relevance of the dual citizens /migrants is. Most likely the majority of them declared a religion. They'd only be a net NR% increase if there was a greater rate of NR among them. I'd imagine the Brazilians (largest group) were mostly catholic

Actually that was my second post. My first was saying the pattern of immigration had changed. it has changed between census and it wasn't what I had assume (experienced either).

That was the point of showing articles from the last census and this latest one. How some things have changed as expected and some things haven't. Which means that planning around rates of change is a bit of a lottery. Though the large the total number the less likely it is to change. Which is why RC will fall but will still be a significant maybe even still largest group. Also why non religion is likely to continue to grow.

But much of this thread is making assumptions. I can't say ridiculous or irrelevant to another assumption because it doesn't suit my argument. If you ever done stats, or data mining, it often shows up something different than you are expecting. As we can see between census the pattern of immigration has changed significantly for those groups.

I can appreciate most here are solely interested in No Religion and RC. I'm just interested in the other groups aswell.

Mellor wrote: »

Probably not tbh. Of people 25-29 who identified as NR, most likely developed that opinion in their adult life, had they had their own private census at 15, they'd prob have been content to stick down RC.

Not saying you're wrong, but what's the logic behind that? My own limited experience from my daughter's friends at that age was that while they were going to a Catholic school and no doubt were listed as Catholic by their parents most of them have no use for the church when asked. I suspect that while some would consider themselves Catholic as a default position, as many would not due to the authoritarian and often regressive position of the church. What strikes me a very different from the generation that I grew up with is the number of openly gay school children and the marked intolerance of their peers to homophobia. I don't know how widespread this is, but would guess it is a growing trend, and one where the RCC has managed to alienate itself from this generation following their stance on same sex marriage. Pure speculation, but I reckon the RCC are going to lose out to the more liberal Christian denominations over time as well as to atheism.

looksee

Possibly if there are adults living in the same household as the person who fills in the form, there should be a way for those adults to indicate that they agree with the information that has been provided on their behalf.

beauf wrote: »

Actually correction....

The largest increases in foreign nationals since 2011 were from people born in Romania and Brazil. Meanwhile, the number of people holding dual Irish nationality almost doubled from 55,905 in 2011 to 104,784 in 2016.

Indeed the Census is especially prone to underestimate the numbers of religious minorities of immigrant origin. Therefore, it is of limited use for this purpose.

For example, in a survey of Chinese studentsconducted in 2006, just after the Census night of that year, three in ten of the Chinese reported that they were not included in the Census.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/census-2016-will-get-religion-all-wrong-1.2613938

Your first post was referring to the previous census. Some of the conclusions in the article were ridiculous.

The greatest % increase is useless as a measure of "fastest growing". What is people declaring "Jedi" went from 5 people to 20 people. 300% increase. Fastest growing or irrelevant minority?
Total numbers are pointless too given population growth. Only total % changes is halfway logical.

And extrapolating the increase in muslims out to 2043 was silly. As we can see from the actual results, they got that wrong.

I'm not sure what the relevance of the dual citizens /migrants is. Most likely the majority of them declared a religion. They'd only be a net NR% increase if there was a greater rate of NR among them. I'd imagine the Brazilians (largest group) were mostly catholic

smacl wrote: »

Mellor wrote: »

Each year the % is growing, so too does the peak.
The 25-29 people peaking in 2006 are choosing the same options in 2016 - now in the 35-39 group, it's just that the current 25-29 group are surpassing them.

I suspect the peak also relates to the age group that are filling out the census for the first time themselves rather than having it filled on on their behalf by their parents. Realistically, most of those under 18 and many of those still living at home after this will have their religious affiliation declared for them by the person filling out the form who is more likely a self describing Catholic. If the census was carried out individually and in private by those at a younger age, I'd guess the peak would be further back.

Probably not tbh. Of people 25-29 who identified as NR, most likely developed that opinion in their adult life, had they had their own private census at 15, they'd prob have been content to stick down RC.

I'd guess the % of adults doing their own form is similar between 20-24 and 25-29 - slightly different but not massively so

smacl wrote: »

Why so?

Teenagers... :rolleyes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLuEY6jN6gY

I wonder if people had the options

Roman Catholic
Catholic
Christian

With the differences explained. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism how it would split the RC.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think not. You might find a higher percentage of unbelievers in the 15-19 age bracket than you see at present, but I'd still expect the peak to be in the 25-29 bracket.

Why so?

Peregrinus wrote: »

Statisticians are a conservative bunch. The problem with a change, as far as they're concerned, is that the data from consecutive censuses will no longer be comparable, which means trends and changes can be less reliably discerned. Given that, simply declaring that you think that all the people who ticked a particular box have misunderstood the question (whereas all the people who ticked the "no religion" box are fearless independent thinkers of particularly piercing intelligence) is not likely to be a sufficiently strong case to induce them to change the question.

While this is a perfectly valid point what it highlights is that the implications of self identifying as a Catholic in today's society are very different to those of times past. For example, if we look at attitudes to same sex marriage and contraception, it is clear that most Irish Catholics take a moral stance very different to the dogmatic Vatican line trotted out by the RCC. As such, I wonder what meaningful use the results of this census can be put to. So while I wouldn't advocate changing the question, if there is more information that we as a society would like to know about ourselves, we should ask some additional more specific questions rather than reading the tea leaves. For example, one of the more common uses we see for this data is to support or not the Church's dominant position in the school system. If we want to know whether our society would like the church to continue running our schools it is a question we should ask directly rather trying to infer a preference based on nominal religious affiliation.

I don't know how the questions would be worded, but one or two additions relating to secularity as opposed to religion would seem sensible.

I would expect the rate of decline in RC will rapidly as the clergy is vanishing. But even with the decline in 10 yrs RC will still be dominant.

Religion should not be in state schools regardless of that.

beauf wrote: »

From a schools point of view you'd have to everyone who is not RC, that is (all other religions + no religions) and the rate of change, as impetus to change the school patronage.

This, plus modelling of the kind exemplified by Mellor in this thread, which suggests that the proportion of unbelievers is not only much higher than before but is going to continue rising strongly for the forseeable future. That's very relevant to long-term planning.

From a schools point of view you'd have to everyone who is not RC, that is (all other religions + no religions) and the rate of change, as impetus to change the school patronage.

I seem remember a local headmaster commenting they had 50+ different nationalities in their school.

beauf wrote: »

That's why I quoted it to show the change.

Ah, sorry. Misunderstood you.

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're quoting a four-year old article which, obviously, doesn't take into account the results of last year's census....

That's why I quoted it to show the change.

smacl wrote: »

I suspect the peak also relates to the age group that are filling out the census for the first time themselves rather than having it filled on on their behalf by their parents. Realistically, most of those under 18 and many of those still living at home after this will have their religious affiliation declared for them by the person filling out the form who is more likely a self describing Catholic. If the census was carried out individually and in private by those at a younger age, I'd guess the peak would be further back.

I think not. You might find a higher percentage of unbelievers in the 15-19 age bracket than you see at present, but I'd still expect the peak to be in the 25-29 bracket.

Mellor wrote: »

Each year the % is growing, so too does the peak.
The 25-29 people peaking in 2006 are choosing the same options in 2016 - now in the 35-39 group, it's just that the current 25-29 group are surpassing them.

I suspect the peak also relates to the age group that are filling out the census for the first time themselves rather than having it filled on on their behalf by their parents. Realistically, most of those under 18 and many of those still living at home after this will have their religious affiliation declared for them by the person filling out the form who is more likely a self describing Catholic. If the census was carried out individually and in private by those at a younger age, I'd guess the peak would be further back.

beauf wrote: »

The pattern of immigration changed over that time, from eastern European to African, perhaps even now to Middle Eastern . . .

You're quoting a four-year old article which, obviously, doesn't take into account the results of last year's census.

On the basis of the recently-published census figures, Islam is not the fastest-growing religion in Ireland, either in numbers terms (increase of 14,200 versus Orthodoxy increase of 18,000) or in percentage terms (Orthodoxy, Hinduism and "other religions" are all growing faster in percentage terms). On the basis of this weeks figures Islam is currently the third-largest religious identification in Ireland (after "Catholic" and "Church of Ireland") but it will shortly become the fourth, because it's about to be overtaken by Orthodoxy.

(And of course the growth in "no religion" and in "not stated" dwarfs the growth in all the religious identifications, including Orthodoxy.)

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/census-2016-will-get-religion-all-wrong-1.2613938

Actually correction....

The largest increases in foreign nationals since 2011 were from people born in Romania and Brazil. Meanwhile, the number of people holding dual Irish nationality almost doubled from 55,905 in 2011 to 104,784 in 2016.

Indeed the Census is especially prone to underestimate the numbers of religious minorities of immigrant origin. Therefore, it is of limited use for this purpose.

For example, in a survey of Chinese studentsconducted in 2006, just after the Census night of that year, three in ten of the Chinese reported that they were not included in the Census.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/islam-to-become-irelands-second-religion-by-2043-29874239.html

Peregrinus wrote: »

Possibly, but I doubt that's a huge factor. The absolute number of non-Irish no-religionist has actually gone up, from just below 100k in 2011 to a bit above 100k in 2016. But the number of Irish no-religionists has risen hugely, from about 170k in 2011 to about 365k in 2016. Even if every single non-Irish no-religionist from 2011 had been naturalised in the meantime and been replaced by a fresh cohort of 100k unbelieving immigrants, which doesn't strike me as very likely, that would still only account for half the rise in Irish-citizen no-religionists. I think the rise is largely accounted for by:

- Irish citizens who didn't tick the "no religion" box in 2011 but did in 2016, and

- Irish citizens born since 2011 (presumably, the children of non-believing parents).

The pattern of immigration changed over that time, from eastern European to African, perhaps even now to Middle Eastern.

The second fastest growing religion in Ireland is Orthodox Christianity, where numbers have doubled in the space of five years, rising to 45,223 in 2011. This is almost entirely down to immigration from
the former Soviet bloc states where Orthodox Christianity is dominant.

That would seem to have changed.

Population statistics compiled by the Central Statistics Office confirmed that Islam is now Irelandâ€™s fastest-growing religion and, at its current rate of expansion, it is set to become the second religion in the State after Catholicism by 2043....Irelandâ€™s Muslim population exceeding 100,000 by 2020.

Compared to RC

Roman Catholic, a fall of 132,220 from 2011

129,039 Church of Ireland members in April 2011, an increase of 6.4pc in just five years.

darjeeling wrote: »

The graph looks like this:

.

Nice one with the graph.
Notice across all the years, the % is higher for 0-9 than it is for 10-14. Presumably because the parents of the 0-9 children are c.30 verses c.40 for the older group.
I notice that the slope between the first two data point roughly matches the slope from the 30 to 40 on all graphs.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Interesting. The "peak" for no-religionists remains firmly in the 25-29 cohort.

As the group becomes established and matures, you'd expect that peak to flatten and spread out a bit, particularly into later age ranges, but that doesn't seem to be happening. Which I suppose is consistent with the idea that the no-religionists group is not yet mature, i.e. it's still growing strongly through "conversion" of members of other groups.

Each year the % is growing, so too does the peak.
The 25-29 people peaking in 2006 are choosing the same options in 2016 - now in the 35-39 group, it's just that the current 25-29 group are surpassing them.

In any particular age group, is a different set of people to the same age group in a different year. So I decided to age time shift all the graph results, to see how a given groups choices changes over time. And well, it's quite telling...

Each year sits under the next year, even with the time shift. This shows that the increases in people selecting N/R are not just people making a decision in their youth and sticking with it. Much older people are actively changing their mind. I'd have thought that 50 years old in 1991, who are now 75 year olds would have been set in their ways. The above shows otherwise, the % has nearly doubled.

Two of the lowest N/R rates on all the graphs are children in 1991 and 2001. The vertical red line represents the selections of those children across all years as they aged. From 1.5% in 1991 to 17.5% in 2016, more or less the same people.

From that it's logical that the 35-39 group will be 20-25% in 2026, and the 25-29 group higher again. National average could be 15% or more.

Interesting. The "peak" for no-religionists remains firmly in the 25-29 cohort.

As the group becomes established and matures, you'd expect that peak to flatten and spread out a bit, particularly into later age ranges, but that doesn't seem to be happening. Which I suppose is consistent with the idea that the no-religionists group is not yet mature, i.e. it's still growing strongly through "conversion" of members of other groups.

darjeeling

There's a CSO table giving nos in each age group, and we have the total non-religious count, plus the graph showing how the non-religious are distributed across age groups.

From all that, we can get the proportion within each age group who are non-religious, and compare it to previous years.
The 2016 numbers are only an estimate, but should be reasonably close to the numbers we'll get in October.

The graph looks like this:

That's a big change from last time, but it looks right given the over 70% increase across the board.

Mellor wrote: »

You misread that part.

No religion would probably be about 1/6 in Dublin city. (1/10 nationally)

Sorry, yes, it's 1/3 non-Catholic in Dublin, Galway cities.

darjeeling wrote: »

The blog also notes that almost 1/3 people in Dublin city, Galway city identify as having no religion.

You misread that part.

No religion would probably be about 1/6 in Dublin city. (1/10 nationally)

magicbastarder wrote: »

i know it's a trivial thing, but i'm struck by the 'identifying as having no religion' and 'number of catholics' wording (i.e. it's not phrased as 'number identifying as catholics').

For the purpose of the census, identify as a catholic makes one a catholic.
Identifying as having no religion, means you identify as having no religion, there is no relevant collective noun.

Some people would argue that they should use atheists as the collective noun, but I think in a strict sense it's not entirely the same.

Wheety wrote: »

True. It's almost like they're saying these people may be Catholic but they ticked the box to say no religion. Probably just a protest tick

However the Catholics are sure they're ticking the correct box.

Not like a lot of people are filling in the form and still just ticking Catholic because they feel they should, and completing it on behalf of their kids too.

Is this sarcasm going over my head, or are you serious?

If the latter, I'd imagine that there are lots of cataholic because they feel they should, or they have to. Due to their parents, the fact that they were baptised, or simple the need to identify with the right group.

dixiefly wrote: »

There should be a sub question to the religious won basically asking how many ceremonies (outside funerals) of the chosen religion the person has attended in, say, the previous month. This would better answer the questions posed here.

No their shouldn't. There's no attendance requirements to maintentain membership.

Just like an atheist doesn't become a catholic if he steps foot inside a church for a wedding or baptism

darjeeling wrote: »

[not clear if the N/R line shows N/R % of each age group, or % of all N/R split by age group]

I think it's clear enough tbh. It's a distribution graph, so it's showing the distribution of the people selecting N/R vrs the distribution of the total population. The total percent add up to 100% for each. It's not the rate of N/R - which could be worked out from that data.

Basically if the lines matched up perfectly then age wouldn't be a factor. But the fact the lines are off shows;

People 50 and over are less likely to identify as N/R,
People from 15 to 49 are more likely to idenify as N/R,
Children 14 and under are less likely to be listed as N/R

I find the below 15 part surprising as you'd expect that people wit kids 0-14, would be in the 15-49 age group themselves. Possibly shows a divide between parents and non-parents

The current question is "what is your religion?" There's no mention of baptism, and the options suggested include several religions that do not practice baptism.

Of the nearly 470k people who ticked "no religion", I reckon (as I indicate above) that a large chunk of them were baptised. If I'm right, the evidence that people understand the question to mean "were you baptised?" is not strong.

It may be that the question should be changed, but you're not making a very strong case for it. Statisticians are a conservative bunch. The problem with a change, as far as they're concerned, is that the data from consecutive censuses will no longer be comparable, which means trends and changes can be less reliably discerned. Given that, simply declaring that you think that all the people who ticked a particular box have misunderstood the question (whereas all the people who ticked the "no religion" box are fearless independent thinkers of particularly piercing intelligence) is not likely to be a sufficiently strong case to induce them to change the question.

A statistician might also make the point that it's not for the state to decree what ought to determine someone's religious identity. The purpose of the census is to find out what their religious identification is, and the question should not build in any implicit value judgment about what constitutes a "valid" religious identity and what does not. It's reasonable to go on to ask what a religious identification means in terms of practice, belief, affiliation, etc, but for that kind of information you want to undertake further, qualitative research. The census is not a good place to do that. Without having undertaken that research, simply issuing a pontifical decree to the effect that "they think it means baptism" says rather more about the person issuing the decree than it says about the people ticking the "Catholic" box.

And it is faintly ridiculous to have non-believers pontificating about what tests people should have to pass before their identification as Catholic or Jewish or Muslim or whatever can be accepted as valid. Turn the situation around, and imagine believers seeking to invalidate the identity of professed no-religionists by issuing pronouncements about how they must have understood the question. How does that look to you? Well, that's exactly how you look to other people right now.

Finally, it's worth pointing out that the Irish census question on religion is in pretty standard form, at least for the anglosphere.

Ireland: "What is your religion?"
[Followed by a list of options, including "other, write in your religion" and (last) "no religion".]

UK: "What is your religion?"
[Followed by a list of options, including "no religion" (the first option) and "any other religion, write in" (the last option)]

Australia: "What is the person's religion?"
[Followed by a list of options, including "other - please specify" and (last) "no religion".]

Canada: "What is this person's religion?"
[Respondent is invited to write in a denomination, or check a "no religion" box.]

New Zealand: "What is your religion?"
[Followed by a list of options, including "no religion" (the first option) and "any other religion, write in" (the last option)]

South Africa: "What is the person's religion, denomination or belief?"
[There's a box to fill in, with the instruction "Please write the complete name. If no religion, write 'none'."]

the_syco

The current question is pretty much "were you baptized, yes or no?".

And people tick the "yes" that they were baptized.

IMO, the wording should be different.

beauf wrote: »

Maybe many of that 40% have become Irish citizens in that time.

Possibly, but I doubt that's a huge factor. The absolute number of non-Irish no-religionist has actually gone up, from just below 100k in 2011 to a bit above 100k in 2016. But the number of Irish no-religionists has risen hugely, from about 170k in 2011 to about 365k in 2016. Even if every single non-Irish no-religionist from 2011 had been naturalised in the meantime and been replaced by a fresh cohort of 100k unbelieving immigrants, which doesn't strike me as very likely, that would still only account for half the rise in Irish-citizen no-religionists. I think the rise is largely accounted for by:

- Irish citizens who didn't tick the "no religion" box in 2011 but did in 2016, and

- Irish citizens born since 2011 (presumably, the children of non-believing parents).

Peregrinus wrote: »

...
In 2011, nearly 40% of no-religionists were non-Irish. In 2016, thatâ€™s down to a bit over 20%. The growth in non-believers is nearly all among Irish citizens.

Maybe many of that 40% have become Irish citizens in that time.