Religiously Disaffiliated, Religiously Indifferent, or Believers without Religion? Morphology of the Unaffiliated in Argentina

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In general, this is an interesting profile of the religiously unaffiliated in Argentina. Drawing on surveys conducted among 2,421 Argentines who were selected through probabilistic methods, the authors describe the religious and political beliefs and practices of the religiously unaffiliated in Argentina. In line with recent research, the authors are careful not to treat the religiously unaffiliated as a homogenous group; rather, they compare and contrast atheists and agnostics with people who simply do not identify with any religion.

I think that this study is worth publishing, but I would like the authors to clarify some things first.

On p. 6, lines 205 through 213, the authors note that some atheists and agnostics say that they believe in God. What does it mean for atheist or agnostic people to believe in God, since atheists are traditionally defined as people who do not believe that God (or gods) exist(s), and agnostics are traditionally defined as people who do not believe it is possible to know the existence of God (or gods)? It would be helpful to comment on this, at least briefly.

On p. 7, the authors note that 3 in 10 religiously unaffiliated people believe in Jesus Christ. However, Christians and religiously unaffiliated people would likely interpret the question of whether they “believe in Jesus” very differently. In Christian subcultures, if someone says they “believe in Jesus,” they are usually saying that they have accepted him as their savior and that they are Christians. However, for nonreligious people, saying that they “believe in Jesus” may simply mean that they believe Jesus is a person who actually existed as a historical figure, which is not exactly a controversial statement. It is worth noting that different people likely interpret this question very differently, lest readers come away with the misunderstanding that 3 in 10 religiously unaffiliated people say that they are Christians. Maybe some religiously unaffiliated people are Christians, but I wouldn’t necessarily jump to that conclusion based on that survey question.

In the Tables (e.g., Table 1 on p. 7), the authors use commas instead of periods when reporting statistics, such as when they report that “71,6” percent of people believe in energy. However, in the main text itself, the authors use periods instead of commas (e.g., when they say on line 245 that “71.6% believe in energy”). I would simply recommend that the authors be consistent in using either commas or periods in reporting descriptive statistics.

The authors occasionally make value judgements, or use loaded terms, when describing their respondents. For example, on line 346, the authors say that people who believe abortion should always be legal are “extremists.” I would not use language like that in a scientific report.

In Graph 7 on p. 12, the authors report on results from a survey question that asked respondents how they will approach end-of-life decisions. Apparently, respondents were asked to choose between the options that “I would let God’s will be done,” “I would ask the doctors to end my life,” “I would ask the doctors to do everything possible to prolong my life,” and “Don’t Know.” The authors have not provided an adequate amount of response categories. What if I were someone who did not believe in God, yet did not want doctors to either end my life or prolong my life in any way? There would not be any survey answer that reflected my beliefs. I would throw this question out of this report completely, because the survey responses seem relatively uninterpretable.

Throughout the text, the authors attribute non-religious affiliation to rising individualism or a weakening of bonds to institutions. For example, on lines 596-598, the authors write, “In short, non-religious affiliation is not necessarily a consequence of a loss of religiosity, but rather of the weakening of the individual bonds of belonging to institutionalised frames of reference.” Yet, there is a growing amount of U.S.-based research that reports on atheist or agnostic churches or other organizations, e.g.:

            Smith, Jesse. 2017. “Can the Secular be the Object of Belief and Belonging? The Sunday Assembly.” Qualitative Sociology 40:83-109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11133-016-9350-7

            Coley, Jonathan S. 2021. “Creating Secular Spaces: Religious Threat and the Presence of Secular Student Alliances at US Colleges and Universities.” Sociological Forum, online first, https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12725

Obviously, beyond atheist/agnostic organizations, there are a variety of non-religious organizations that unaffiliated people can also join. Thus, it may not necessarily be the case that secular people are less interested in becoming involved in like-minded groups or organizations. This is worth acknowledging in the text. 

In general, the text could benefit from thorough proofreading prior to publication.

Overall, though, this is an important survey-based report that provides original insights into the religiously unaffiliated in Argentina.

Author Response

Thanks for your comments. They have enriched the  new version of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Fine paper.  I learned a great deal from reading it

Author Response

Thank you very much.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for this study on the religiously unaffiliated and "believing without belonging" in Argentina. It is certainly informative. 

The study adds knowledge to a wider global phenomenon - the tools and the argument is well known. 

Although the academic merit of this article is limited, its significance is adequately shown, and the methods employed are adequate as well - especcially the empirical part. However, you main argument is still a bit flaky.

Some comments in no particular order:

• the dilemma between "disaffiliation" and "indifference" feels to me a bit like a false dilemma; some more nuanced analysis could improve the argument
• your use of the word "universe" has to be reconsidered
• is the search for a new "category" really the way we want to go? what do we gain? will it catch all the complexity we encounter?
• the concept of "non-affiliation" only makes sense, but also highlights, the concept of "religious affiliation"; therefore, "non-affiliation" might be as much as sociological invention as a sociological reality; your argument sometimes obfuscates this, for example:

  • This bino-155 mial conveys a rigidity that has no heuristic capacity to reflect the circulations, shifts and 156 intermittencies of individuals in their relationship with the sacred. In addition, a portion 157 of this population does not recognize a religious frame of reference in their past, so it is 158 not possible to disaffiliate from a structure to which they never ascribed. 

• Writing style is sometimes overly complicated, and English should be checked. 
• explain what you mean with "religious cosmology"
• No belonging, but beliefs (p.7): I like this table. I would like some introduction why you feel that "beliefs" are relevant - in order to avoid a protestant bias.
• categories atheist, agnost, religious affiliation, nones too schematic and too simplistic: reflect on the complexity, not just adding a new category
• E.g.: "42% of those without religion believe in Jesus Christ" - what does this mean? what does is mean to "believe in JC" - do you mean it turned up in surveys when people were asked for this? What do we learn from this?
• l289: what is a "non-religious identity"?
• more generally: isn't "identity", "identification" the problem here? are these categories relevant?
• Your presentation of the sociological data is systematic, but your analysis is not. For example l301-l306: gratuitous comments, why do these follow from the data? sounds more like opinion: i see where you want to go, but your theoretical analysis needs to be more critically sound
• Page 12-17: I find this too much raw data to my taste - I would prefer more summary and full results in appendix
• However: empirical data is presented very clearly
• p.18-20 should be split into "discussion"-section (title is up to you) and conclusion
• there is some "objectification" going in: "we are dealing with a group..." - feels like I'm reading a whodunnit

I do feel that some major rewriting and restructuring is necessary: structure your argument into your main points, and show me how your data support this: you make too many unrelated claims

Author Response

Thanks for your comments. They have enriched the  new version of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I'm satisfied with the revisions the authors have made and think that this paper makes a nice contribution to scholarly literature.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your suggestions. They have enriched the text.