Understanding the Reasons That Lead Young People in Bogota to Identify as Atheist and Agnostic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article is an interesting dive into the reasons WHY young adherents are increasing the rate at which they self-identify as either atheistic or agnostic when responding to survey questions.

The author(s) successfully presents the background of this study and introduces various reasons why sociologists and demographers claim the rise is occurring. The author(s) note that the approach is rooted in Weber's framework to capture the "motivations, values, and connections of meaning that guide their actions." Essentially, the approach allows room for the respondents to say why THEY are identifying as atheistic or agnostic. The approach is interesting and covers a subset of the population (14-21 years old) that most surveys cannot access for IRB reasons. To get permission to be able to survey this group is commendable and provides some new insights.

I wish there were more than just 16 respondents surveyed tom provide a wider range of data to mull over. However, this article is still valuable with the 16 respondents.

While the presentation of the respondents' reasoning and the authors typologizing of their responses is interesting, it would be helpful to introduce some theoretical interpretation to ground the responses. For example, the author mentions and cites Berger at one point. Yet, Berger is not mentioned again as the responses are presented. In my opinion, for example, it would be impactful to connect lines 210-236 to Berger's ideas in the Sacred Canopy and how religions need to be able to convincing in their theories to be meaningful to the adherents. Religion is about meaning-making. When religions stop making meaning, they crumble. Could this explain the secularization of the youth?

Along these lines, I wonder if Stark's theories on the impact of pluralistic (or lack of pluralism) would help explain this decrease in religious self-understanding. Lines 255-260 are pertinent here. Stark (and Finke and Iannaccone) argue that a LACK of pluralism or lack of other religious options may contribute to the decline of the majority religions. On the other hand, if there 9is a range of religious options (and line 256 says no religion satisfied them), then those now satisfied with traditional (i.e., Catholic) religion may find their alternatives without falling into secularization.

Regardless, it would be intriguing to see some notions of Berger, Stark/Finke, or others introduced at least in the discussion to begin to understand the WHY of the rise on a large scale. 

I am nitpicking a bit. This piece is solid. It is well-written and the excerpts (while a bit long) are effective. 

I would welcome further conversations with the author(s) because I have focused on this issue in the U.S., but have not expanded into other countries. It is interesting to see how the rise in religious nones, agnostics, and atheists plays out in other regions of the world.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thanks for your comments

Below, we describe the changes that were made to the article “Understanding the Reasons that Lead Young People in Bogota to Identify as Atheist and Agnostic,” to address the criticisms and corrections of you.

While the presentation of the respondents' reasoning and the authors typologizing of their responses is interesting, it would be helpful to introduce some theoretical interpretation to ground the responses. For example, the author mentions and cites Berger at one point. Yet, Berger is not mentioned again as the responses are presented. In my opinion, for example, it would be impactful to connect lines 210-236 to Berger's ideas in the Sacred Canopy and how religions need to be able to convincing in their theories to be meaningful to the adherents. Religion is about meaning-making. When religions stop making meaning, they crumble. Could this explain the secularization of the youth? Along these lines, I wonder if Stark's theories on the impact of pluralistic (or lack of pluralism) would help explain this decrease in religious self-understanding. Lines 255-260 are pertinent here. Stark (and Finke and Iannaccone) argue that a LACK of pluralism or lack of other religious options may contribute to the decline of the majority religions. On the other hand, if there 9is a range of religious options (and line 256 says no religion satisfied them), then those now satisfied with traditional (i.e., Catholic) religion may find their alternatives without falling into secularization.Regardless, it would be intriguing to see some notions of Berger,  Stark/Finke, or others introduced at least in the discussion to begin to understand the WHY of the rise on a large scale. I am nitpicking a bit. This piece is solid. It is well-written and the excerpts (while a bit long) are effective. I would welcome further conversations with the author(s) because I have focused on this issue in the U.S., but have not expanded into other countries. It is interesting to see how the rise in religious nones, agnostics, and atheists plays out in other regions of the world.

On this aspect, the evaluator's recommendation was accepted. Therefore, a new section was included to present the main theoretical frameworks that support the research (see title 2: Theoretical frameworks: 80-153). In addition, throughout the article, new paragraphs were included that seek to link these theoretical frameworks to the process of interpreting the data collected. Although Stark's theory was not used as a theoretical framework, we relied on the contributions of authors widely recognized for their participation in the debates surrounding the secularization process, such as Peter Berger, Thomas Luckmann, Bryan Wilson, Charles Taylor, and Danièle Hervieu-Léger, to mention a few.                         Thank you for your generous comments. It would be an honor for us to be in contact with you.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

It is an interesting presentation of new data with a broad presentation of the qualitative data. The article does not have theoretical ambitions and is somewhat under-theorized. The article is acceptable as it is (with some minor corrections). However, the author could consider adding some theoretical perspectives. 

If the author opts for adding more theoretical perspectives, here are some comments:

The use of Peter Berger’s secularization theory (1967) could preferably have been supplemented by Berger’s own later development and the results engaged with e.g., David Martin’s secularization theory and Ronald Inglehart’s analyses of the World value Survey, which do both also address the Latin American case. Or the material could have been engaged with Latin American sociologists such as Roberto Blancarte or Cristián Parker. This theorizing would strengthen the description and analysis of the changing Colombian cultural context that enables the religious change visible in the empirical material. The young people express strong ”self-expression values” and, again, it would strengthen the article to identify them as such and to relate it to e.g. the World Values survey and/or to thinkers such as the philosopher Charles Taylor (”age of authenticity” values) or sociologist Andreas Reckwitz (”singularity” values).

 

Line 350: Very interesting how an essentially North American perceived conflict between science and religion (Evolution vs. Creation) is imported into a Catholic context, where there is explicitly no dogmatic contradiction between the notion of creation and evolution and where the big-bang-theory was formulated by a Catholic priest.

Question that needs consideration: Are the differences between atheists and agnostics (e.g. line 578-580) really statistically significant enough to make a point out of it?

Check the use of ’population’ (e.g. in abstract and in line 19 and line 32) with a native English speaker. The use of ’population’ in a statistical sense is not as common in English as in Spanish and other languages. Consider reframing.

Line 180: ”Figures that dropped”, please consider reframing; not sure the verb ”drop” is adequate here.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thanks for your comments.

Below, we describe the changes that were made to the article “Understanding the Reasons that Lead Young People in Bogota to Identify as Atheist and Agnostic,” to address the criticisms and corrections of you.

It is an interesting presentation of new data with a broad presentation of the qualitative data. The article does not have theoretical ambitions and is somewhat under-theorized. The article is acceptable as it is (with some minor corrections). However, the author could consider adding some theoretical perspectives. If the author opts for adding more theoretical perspectives, here are some comments: The use of Peter Berger’s secularization theory (1967) could preferably have been supplemented by Berger’s own later development and the results engaged with e.g., David Martin’s secularization theory and Ronald Inglehart’s analyses of the World value Survey, which do both also address the Latin American case. Or the material could have been engaged with Latin American sociologists such as Roberto Blancarte or Cristián Parker. This theorizing would strengthen the description and analysis of the changing Colombian cultural context that enables the religious change visible in the empirical material. The young people express strong ”self-expression values” and, again, it would strengthen the article to identify them as such and to relate it to e.g. the World Values survey and/or to thinkers such as the philosopher Charles Taylor (”age of authenticity” values) or sociologist Andreas Reckwitz (”singularity” values).     Line 350: Very interesting how an essentially North American perceived conflict between science and religion (Evolution vs. Creation) is imported into a Catholic context, where there is explicitly no dogmatic contradiction between the notion of creation and evolution and where the big-bang-theory was formulated by a Catholic priest.   Question that needs consideration: Are the differences between atheists and agnostics (e.g. line 578-580) really statistically significant enough to make a point out of it?   Check the use of ’population’ (e.g. in abstract and in line 19 and line 32) with a native English speaker. The use of ’population’ in a statistical sense is not as common in English as in Spanish and other languages. Consider reframing.    Line 180: ”Figures that dropped”, please consider reframing; not sure the verb ”drop” is adequate here.

On this aspect, the evaluator's recommendation was accepted. Therefore, a new section was written to present the main theoretical frameworks of the research (see title 2: Theoretical frameworks: 80-153). In addition, throughout the article, new paragraphs were included that seek to link these theoretical frameworks in the process of interpreting the information gathered (see 480-485, 506-510, 515-535, 621-626, 763-772, 812-817). This theoretical section included some of the authors recommended by the evaluator, such as Charles Taylor and Peter Berger. Also included were others widely known for their participation in the debates surrounding secularization such as, Thomas Luckmann, Bryan Wilson, and Danièle Hervieu-Léger, among others. On the other hand, in section 3 dedicated to the Literature Review, data from Ronald Inglehart and the World Values Survey were used to present a longitudinal evolution of the percentage of Non-religions in Colombia (see 177-185).     Thank you for your comment. On this aspect, the discussion on the role of the debates between science and religion in the process of secularization was broadened. For this purpose, we refer to the idea of scientization proposed by Olivier Tschannen (1992) (see 506-510).   In response to this comment, all the figures were reviewed again and the data indicated by the evaluator were deleted. Since it was confirmed that in that case the statistical difference was not significant (see 778-779).   In regard to the use of the work “population,” it is true that upon further consideration a better word choice could have been made. The following terms were changed throughout the article: sub-group (line 8), young people (line 8, 19, to name a few).   This suggestion was taken into consideration and accepted. The new sentence reads (now line 296): “…a figure that decreased to 39.3% and 43.5% respectively among women.”

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a very interesting article because it deals with a topic that has attracted much attention in the academia in the last 10-15 years, especially in the West. Since it focuses on Latin America it offers very useful and critical insights that could be stimulating for comparisons and further elaborations. The material is very rich and brings into light a case from another part of the world breaking this way the ‘western’ monopoly on this topic.

However, there are some crucial issues that need to be addressed before moving to the publication. First, I contend that it is important to further elaborate on the methodology maybe with a short distinct section explaining for example the reasoning behind the age range selected (14-21) or if those who participated in the qualitative part of the research were selected from the sample of the quantitative part. Second, if Weber was used for the methodological part which is the theoretical background of the study? (Religion as memory -the chain of religious memory- and the observed ruptures- the secularisation theory or grounded theory, these are just some ideas and not compulsory directions). In any case, there is a need to explicitly discuss the theoretical approach followed and incorporated. Furthermore, the theoretical discussions -including the definitions over this topic (debates on atheism, non-religiosity, agnosticism, secularity, etc.)- is necessary to be included even not very extensively. Third and related to the above, the literature review should also include some of the major works in the field coming from the western societies in order to exemplify any differences and similarities. It is a pity that such rich material is not related (again not to an exhaustive depth) to some findings from the West e.g. on practices, spirituality, ethics, etc. I think that the existing literature is very rich and should be included, at least the most important authors (e.g. Lee, Zuckerman to mention only two of them) Fourth, the numbers mentioned in the section ‘literature review’ from previous studies/ polls could be related to older ones in order to showcase a rise (if this is the case). Are there, for example, any longitudinal data on the topic which show a societal change? If not, which was the situation in 2000s, for example, or even before and how do we know that nowadays it is just easier to express yourself openly so this is not an actual rise? (These are some crucial questions to reply). Fifth, in the results section the richness of the material is proven but sometimes there are too many quotes in the row. I would strongly suggest to elaborate further on the very interesting findings using the existing literature (e.g. about the role of the identity, internet, about ethical issues, about spirituality, for the later it is also crucial to define and refer to the current debates in general and in relation to atheism, non-religion, etc.). Finally, some sections end with just some quotes with no further comments/ reflection from the part of the authors.

 

Overall, I would argue that currently this is a very interesting research report but it needs to be situated more thoroughly in the existing literature and further elaborated. I understand the necessity to focus on Latin America but a few theoretical additions are in my opinion important to provide a cohesive outcome and would make the article more concise and solid. One last point is related to the conclusions which I also think that need to be elaborated and include some theoretical reflection on the issue.   This is a very interesting article because it deals with a topic that has attracted much attention in the academia in the last 10-15 years, especially in the West. Since it focuses on Latin America it offers very useful and critical insights that could be stimulating for comparisons and further elaborations. The material is very rich and brings into light a case from another part of the world breaking this way the ‘western’ monopoly on this topic.

However, there are some crucial issues that need to be addressed before moving to the publication. First, I contend that it is important to further elaborate on the methodology maybe with a short distinct section explaining for example the reasoning behind the age range selected (14-21) or if those who participated in the qualitative part of the research were selected from the sample of the quantitative part. Second, if Weber was used for the methodological part which is the theoretical background of the study? (Religion as memory -the chain of religious memory- and the observed ruptures- the secularisation theory or grounded theory, these are just some ideas and not compulsory directions). In any case, there is a need to explicitly discuss the theoretical approach followed and incorporated. Furthermore, the theoretical discussions -including the definitions over this topic (debates on atheism, non-religiosity, agnosticism, secularity, etc.)- is necessary to be included even not very extensively. Third and related to the above, the literature review should also include some of the major works in the field coming from the western societies in order to exemplify any differences and similarities. It is a pity that such rich material is not related (again not to an exhaustive depth) to some findings from the West e.g. on practices, spirituality, ethics, etc. I think that the existing literature is very rich and should be included, at least the most important authors (e.g. Lee, Zuckerman to mention only two of them) Fourth, the numbers mentioned in the section ‘literature review’ from previous studies/ polls could be related to older ones in order to showcase a rise (if this is the case). Are there, for example, any longitudinal data on the topic which show a societal change? If not, which was the situation in 2000s, for example, or even before and how do we know that nowadays it is just easier to express yourself openly so this is not an actual rise? (These are some crucial questions to reply). Fifth, in the results section the richness of the material is proven but sometimes there are too many quotes in the row. I would strongly suggest to elaborate further on the very interesting findings using the existing literature (e.g. about the role of the identity, internet, about ethical issues, about spirituality, for the later it is also crucial to define and refer to the current debates in general and in relation to atheism, non-religion, etc.). Finally, some sections end with just some quotes with no further comments/ reflection from the part of the authors.

Overall, I would argue that currently this is a very interesting research report but it needs to be situated more thoroughly in the existing literature and further elaborated. I understand the necessity to focus on Latin America but a few theoretical additions are in my opinion important to provide a cohesive outcome and would make the article more concise and solid. One last point is related to the conclusions which I also think that need to be elaborated and include some theoretical reflection on the issue.   This is a very interesting article because it deals with a topic that has attracted much attention in the academia in the last 10-15 years, especially in the West. Since it focuses on Latin America it offers very useful and critical insights that could be stimulating for comparisons and further elaborations. The material is very rich and brings into light a case from another part of the world breaking this way the ‘western’ monopoly on this topic.

However, there are some crucial issues that need to be addressed before moving to the publication. First, I contend that it is important to further elaborate on the methodology maybe with a short distinct section explaining for example the reasoning behind the age range selected (14-21) or if those who participated in the qualitative part of the research were selected from the sample of the quantitative part. Second, if Weber was used for the methodological part which is the theoretical background of the study? (Religion as memory -the chain of religious memory- and the observed ruptures- the secularisation theory or grounded theory, these are just some ideas and not compulsory directions). In any case, there is a need to explicitly discuss the theoretical approach followed and incorporated. Furthermore, the theoretical discussions -including the definitions over this topic (debates on atheism, non-religiosity, agnosticism, secularity, etc.)- is necessary to be included even not very extensively. Third and related to the above, the literature review should also include some of the major works in the field coming from the western societies in order to exemplify any differences and similarities. It is a pity that such rich material is not related (again not to an exhaustive depth) to some findings from the West e.g. on practices, spirituality, ethics, etc. I think that the existing literature is very rich and should be included, at least the most important authors (e.g. Lee, Zuckerman to mention only two of them) Fourth, the numbers mentioned in the section ‘literature review’ from previous studies/ polls could be related to older ones in order to showcase a rise (if this is the case). Are there, for example, any longitudinal data on the topic which show a societal change? If not, which was the situation in 2000s, for example, or even before and how do we know that nowadays it is just easier to express yourself openly so this is not an actual rise? (These are some crucial questions to reply). Fifth, in the results section the richness of the material is proven but sometimes there are too many quotes in the row. I would strongly suggest to elaborate further on the very interesting findings using the existing literature (e.g. about the role of the identity, internet, about ethical issues, about spirituality, for the later it is also crucial to define and refer to the current debates in general and in relation to atheism, non-religion, etc.). Finally, some sections end with just some quotes with no further comments/ reflection from the part of the authors.

Overall, I would argue that currently this is a very interesting research report but it needs to be situated more thoroughly in the existing literature and further elaborated. I understand the necessity to focus on Latin America but a few theoretical additions are in my opinion important to provide a cohesive outcome and would make the article more concise and solid. One last point is related to the conclusions which I also think that need to be elaborated and include some theoretical reflection on the issue.   This is a very interesting article because it deals with a topic that has attracted much attention in the academia in the last 10-15 years, especially in the West. Since it focuses on Latin America it offers very useful and critical insights that could be stimulating for comparisons and further elaborations. The material is very rich and brings into light a case from another part of the world breaking this way the ‘western’ monopoly on this topic.

However, there are some crucial issues that need to be addressed before moving to the publication. First, I contend that it is important to further elaborate on the methodology maybe with a short distinct section explaining for example the reasoning behind the age range selected (14-21) or if those who participated in the qualitative part of the research were selected from the sample of the quantitative part. Second, if Weber was used for the methodological part which is the theoretical background of the study? (Religion as memory -the chain of religious memory- and the observed ruptures- the secularisation theory or grounded theory, these are just some ideas and not compulsory directions). In any case, there is a need to explicitly discuss the theoretical approach followed and incorporated. Furthermore, the theoretical discussions -including the definitions over this topic (debates on atheism, non-religiosity, agnosticism, secularity, etc.)- is necessary to be included even not very extensively. Third and related to the above, the literature review should also include some of the major works in the field coming from the western societies in order to exemplify any differences and similarities. It is a pity that such rich material is not related (again not to an exhaustive depth) to some findings from the West e.g. on practices, spirituality, ethics, etc. I think that the existing literature is very rich and should be included, at least the most important authors (e.g. Lee, Zuckerman to mention only two of them) Fourth, the numbers mentioned in the section ‘literature review’ from previous studies/ polls could be related to older ones in order to showcase a rise (if this is the case). Are there, for example, any longitudinal data on the topic which show a societal change? If not, which was the situation in 2000s, for example, or even before and how do we know that nowadays it is just easier to express yourself openly so this is not an actual rise? (These are some crucial questions to reply). Fifth, in the results section the richness of the material is proven but sometimes there are too many quotes in the row. I would strongly suggest to elaborate further on the very interesting findings using the existing literature (e.g. about the role of the identity, internet, about ethical issues, about spirituality, for the later it is also crucial to define and refer to the current debates in general and in relation to atheism, non-religion, etc.). Finally, some sections end with just some quotes with no further comments/ reflection from the part of the authors.

Overall, I would argue that currently this is a very interesting research report but it needs to be situated more thoroughly in the existing literature and further elaborated. I understand the necessity to focus on Latin America but a few theoretical additions are in my opinion important to provide a cohesive outcome and would make the article more concise and solid. One last point is related to the conclusions which I also think that need to be elaborated and include some theoretical reflection on the issue.   This is a very interesting article because it deals with a topic that has attracted much attention in the academia in the last 10-15 years, especially in the West. Since it focuses on Latin America it offers very useful and critical insights that could be stimulating for comparisons and further elaborations. The material is very rich and brings into light a case from another part of the world breaking this way the ‘western’ monopoly on this topic.

However, there are some crucial issues that need to be addressed before moving to the publication. First, I contend that it is important to further elaborate on the methodology maybe with a short distinct section explaining for example the reasoning behind the age range selected (14-21) or if those who participated in the qualitative part of the research were selected from the sample of the quantitative part. Second, if Weber was used for the methodological part which is the theoretical background of the study? (Religion as memory -the chain of religious memory- and the observed ruptures- the secularisation theory or grounded theory, these are just some ideas and not compulsory directions). In any case, there is a need to explicitly discuss the theoretical approach followed and incorporated. Furthermore, the theoretical discussions -including the definitions over this topic (debates on atheism, non-religiosity, agnosticism, secularity, etc.)- is necessary to be included even not very extensively. Third and related to the above, the literature review should also include some of the major works in the field coming from the western societies in order to exemplify any differences and similarities. It is a pity that such rich material is not related (again not to an exhaustive depth) to some findings from the West e.g. on practices, spirituality, ethics, etc. I think that the existing literature is very rich and should be included, at least the most important authors (e.g. Lee, Zuckerman to mention only two of them) Fourth, the numbers mentioned in the section ‘literature review’ from previous studies/ polls could be related to older ones in order to showcase a rise (if this is the case). Are there, for example, any longitudinal data on the topic which show a societal change? If not, which was the situation in 2000s, for example, or even before and how do we know that nowadays it is just easier to express yourself openly so this is not an actual rise? (These are some crucial questions to reply). Fifth, in the results section the richness of the material is proven but sometimes there are too many quotes in the row. I would strongly suggest to elaborate further on the very interesting findings using the existing literature (e.g. about the role of the identity, internet, about ethical issues, about spirituality, for the later it is also crucial to define and refer to the current debates in general and in relation to atheism, non-religion, etc.). Finally, some sections end with just some quotes with no further comments/ reflection from the part of the authors.

Overall, I would argue that currently this is a very interesting research report but it needs to be situated more thoroughly in the existing literature and further elaborated. I understand the necessity to focus on Latin America but a few theoretical additions are in my opinion important to provide a cohesive outcome and would make the article more concise and solid. One last point is related to the conclusions which I also think that need to be elaborated and include some theoretical reflection on the issue.   This is a very interesting article because it deals with a topic that has attracted much attention in the academia in the last 10-15 years, especially in the West. Since it focuses on Latin America it offers very useful and critical insights that could be stimulating for comparisons and further elaborations. The material is very rich and brings into light a case from another part of the world breaking this way the ‘western’ monopoly on this topic.

However, there are some crucial issues that need to be addressed before moving to the publication. First, I contend that it is important to further elaborate on the methodology maybe with a short distinct section explaining for example the reasoning behind the age range selected (14-21) or if those who participated in the qualitative part of the research were selected from the sample of the quantitative part. Second, if Weber was used for the methodological part which is the theoretical background of the study? (Religion as memory -the chain of religious memory- and the observed ruptures- the secularisation theory or grounded theory, these are just some ideas and not compulsory directions). In any case, there is a need to explicitly discuss the theoretical approach followed and incorporated. Furthermore, the theoretical discussions -including the definitions over this topic (debates on atheism, non-religiosity, agnosticism, secularity, etc.)- is necessary to be included even not very extensively. Third and related to the above, the literature review should also include some of the major works in the field coming from the western societies in order to exemplify any differences and similarities. It is a pity that such rich material is not related (again not to an exhaustive depth) to some findings from the West e.g. on practices, spirituality, ethics, etc. I think that the existing literature is very rich and should be included, at least the most important authors (e.g. Lee, Zuckerman to mention only two of them) Fourth, the numbers mentioned in the section ‘literature review’ from previous studies/ polls could be related to older ones in order to showcase a rise (if this is the case). Are there, for example, any longitudinal data on the topic which show a societal change? If not, which was the situation in 2000s, for example, or even before and how do we know that nowadays it is just easier to express yourself openly so this is not an actual rise? (These are some crucial questions to reply). Fifth, in the results section the richness of the material is proven but sometimes there are too many quotes in the row. I would strongly suggest to elaborate further on the very interesting findings using the existing literature (e.g. about the role of the identity, internet, about ethical issues, about spirituality, for the later it is also crucial to define and refer to the current debates in general and in relation to atheism, non-religion, etc.). Finally, some sections end with just some quotes with no further comments/ reflection from the part of the authors.

Overall, I would argue that currently this is a very interesting research report but it needs to be situated more thoroughly in the existing literature and further elaborated. I understand the necessity to focus on Latin America but a few theoretical additions are in my opinion important to provide a cohesive outcome and would make the article more concise and solid. One last point is related to the conclusions which I also think that need to be elaborated and include some theoretical reflection on the issue.   This is a very interesting article because it deals with a topic that has attracted much attention in the academia in the last 10-15 years, especially in the West. Since it focuses on Latin America it offers very useful and critical insights that could be stimulating for comparisons and further elaborations. The material is very rich and brings into light a case from another part of the world breaking this way the ‘western’ monopoly on this topic.

However, there are some crucial issues that need to be addressed before moving to the publication. First, I contend that it is important to further elaborate on the methodology maybe with a short distinct section explaining for example the reasoning behind the age range selected (14-21) or if those who participated in the qualitative part of the research were selected from the sample of the quantitative part. Second, if Weber was used for the methodological part which is the theoretical background of the study? (Religion as memory -the chain of religious memory- and the observed ruptures- the secularisation theory or grounded theory, these are just some ideas and not compulsory directions). In any case, there is a need to explicitly discuss the theoretical approach followed and incorporated. Furthermore, the theoretical discussions -including the definitions over this topic (debates on atheism, non-religiosity, agnosticism, secularity, etc.)- is necessary to be included even not very extensively. Third and related to the above, the literature review should also include some of the major works in the field coming from the western societies in order to exemplify any differences and similarities. It is a pity that such rich material is not related (again not to an exhaustive depth) to some findings from the West e.g. on practices, spirituality, ethics, etc. I think that the existing literature is very rich and should be included, at least the most important authors (e.g. Lee, Zuckerman to mention only two of them) Fourth, the numbers mentioned in the section ‘literature review’ from previous studies/ polls could be related to older ones in order to showcase a rise (if this is the case). Are there, for example, any longitudinal data on the topic which show a societal change? If not, which was the situation in 2000s, for example, or even before and how do we know that nowadays it is just easier to express yourself openly so this is not an actual rise? (These are some crucial questions to reply). Fifth, in the results section the richness of the material is proven but sometimes there are too many quotes in the row. I would strongly suggest to elaborate further on the very interesting findings using the existing literature (e.g. about the role of the identity, internet, about ethical issues, about spirituality, for the later it is also crucial to define and refer to the current debates in general and in relation to atheism, non-religion, etc.). Finally, some sections end with just some quotes with no further comments/ reflection from the part of the authors.

Overall, I would argue that currently this is a very interesting research report but it needs to be situated more thoroughly in the existing literature and further elaborated. I understand the necessity to focus on Latin America but a few theoretical additions are in my opinion important to provide a cohesive outcome and would make the article more concise and solid. One last point is related to the conclusions which I also think that need to be elaborated and include some theoretical reflection on the issue.   This is a very interesting article because it deals with a topic that has attracted much attention in the academia in the last 10-15 years, especially in the West. Since it focuses on Latin America it offers very useful and critical insights that could be stimulating for comparisons and further elaborations. The material is very rich and brings into light a case from another part of the world breaking this way the ‘western’ monopoly on this topic.

However, there are some crucial issues that need to be addressed before moving to the publication. First, I contend that it is important to further elaborate on the methodology maybe with a short distinct section explaining for example the reasoning behind the age range selected (14-21) or if those who participated in the qualitative part of the research were selected from the sample of the quantitative part. Second, if Weber was used for the methodological part which is the theoretical background of the study? (Religion as memory -the chain of religious memory- and the observed ruptures- the secularisation theory or grounded theory, these are just some ideas and not compulsory directions). In any case, there is a need to explicitly discuss the theoretical approach followed and incorporated. Furthermore, the theoretical discussions -including the definitions over this topic (debates on atheism, non-religiosity, agnosticism, secularity, etc.)- is necessary to be included even not very extensively. Third and related to the above, the literature review should also include some of the major works in the field coming from the western societies in order to exemplify any differences and similarities. It is a pity that such rich material is not related (again not to an exhaustive depth) to some findings from the West e.g. on practices, spirituality, ethics, etc. I think that the existing literature is very rich and should be included, at least the most important authors (e.g. Lee, Zuckerman to mention only two of them) Fourth, the numbers mentioned in the section ‘literature review’ from previous studies/ polls could be related to older ones in order to showcase a rise (if this is the case). Are there, for example, any longitudinal data on the topic which show a societal change? If not, which was the situation in 2000s, for example, or even before and how do we know that nowadays it is just easier to express yourself openly so this is not an actual rise? (These are some crucial questions to reply). Fifth, in the results section the richness of the material is proven but sometimes there are too many quotes in the row. I would strongly suggest to elaborate further on the very interesting findings using the existing literature (e.g. about the role of the identity, internet, about ethical issues, about spirituality, for the later it is also crucial to define and refer to the current debates in general and in relation to atheism, non-religion, etc.). Finally, some sections end with just some quotes with no further comments/ reflection from the part of the authors.

Overall, I would argue that currently this is a very interesting research report but it needs to be situated more thoroughly in the existing literature and further elaborated. I understand the necessity to focus on Latin America but a few theoretical additions are in my opinion important to provide a cohesive outcome and would make the article more concise and solid. One last point is related to the conclusions which I also think that need to be elaborated and include some theoretical reflection on the issue.   This is a very interesting article because it deals with a topic that has attracted much attention in the academia in the last 10-15 years, especially in the West. Since it focuses on Latin America it offers very useful and critical insights that could be stimulating for comparisons and further elaborations. The material is very rich and brings into light a case from another part of the world breaking this way the ‘western’ monopoly on this topic.

However, there are some crucial issues that need to be addressed before moving to the publication. First, I contend that it is important to further elaborate on the methodology maybe with a short distinct section explaining for example the reasoning behind the age range selected (14-21) or if those who participated in the qualitative part of the research were selected from the sample of the quantitative part. Second, if Weber was used for the methodological part which is the theoretical background of the study? (Religion as memory -the chain of religious memory- and the observed ruptures- the secularisation theory or grounded theory, these are just some ideas and not compulsory directions). In any case, there is a need to explicitly discuss the theoretical approach followed and incorporated. Furthermore, the theoretical discussions -including the definitions over this topic (debates on atheism, non-religiosity, agnosticism, secularity, etc.)- is necessary to be included even not very extensively. Third and related to the above, the literature review should also include some of the major works in the field coming from the western societies in order to exemplify any differences and similarities. It is a pity that such rich material is not related (again not to an exhaustive depth) to some findings from the West e.g. on practices, spirituality, ethics, etc. I think that the existing literature is very rich and should be included, at least the most important authors (e.g. Lee, Zuckerman to mention only two of them) Fourth, the numbers mentioned in the section ‘literature review’ from previous studies/ polls could be related to older ones in order to showcase a rise (if this is the case). Are there, for example, any longitudinal data on the topic which show a societal change? If not, which was the situation in 2000s, for example, or even before and how do we know that nowadays it is just easier to express yourself openly so this is not an actual rise? (These are some crucial questions to reply). Fifth, in the results section the richness of the material is proven but sometimes there are too many quotes in the row. I would strongly suggest to elaborate further on the very interesting findings using the existing literature (e.g. about the role of the identity, internet, about ethical issues, about spirituality, for the later it is also crucial to define and refer to the current debates in general and in relation to atheism, non-religion, etc.). Finally, some sections end with just some quotes with no further comments/ reflection from the part of the authors.

Overall, I would argue that currently this is a very interesting research report but it needs to be situated more thoroughly in the existing literature and further elaborated. I understand the necessity to focus on Latin America but a few theoretical additions are in my opinion important to provide a cohesive outcome and would make the article more concise and solid. One last point is related to the conclusions which I also think that need to be elaborated and include some theoretical reflection on the issue.   This is a very interesting article because it deals with a topic that has attracted much attention in the academia in the last 10-15 years, especially in the West. Since it focuses on Latin America it offers very useful and critical insights that could be stimulating for comparisons and further elaborations. The material is very rich and brings into light a case from another part of the world breaking this way the ‘western’ monopoly on this topic.

However, there are some crucial issues that need to be addressed before moving to the publication. First, I contend that it is important to further elaborate on the methodology maybe with a short distinct section explaining for example the reasoning behind the age range selected (14-21) or if those who participated in the qualitative part of the research were selected from the sample of the quantitative part. Second, if Weber was used for the methodological part which is the theoretical background of the study? (Religion as memory -the chain of religious memory- and the observed ruptures- the secularisation theory or grounded theory, these are just some ideas and not compulsory directions). In any case, there is a need to explicitly discuss the theoretical approach followed and incorporated. Furthermore, the theoretical discussions -including the definitions over this topic (debates on atheism, non-religiosity, agnosticism, secularity, etc.)- is necessary to be included even not very extensively. Third and related to the above, the literature review should also include some of the major works in the field coming from the western societies in order to exemplify any differences and similarities. It is a pity that such rich material is not related (again not to an exhaustive depth) to some findings from the West e.g. on practices, spirituality, ethics, etc. I think that the existing literature is very rich and should be included, at least the most important authors (e.g. Lee, Zuckerman to mention only two of them) Fourth, the numbers mentioned in the section ‘literature review’ from previous studies/ polls could be related to older ones in order to showcase a rise (if this is the case). Are there, for example, any longitudinal data on the topic which show a societal change? If not, which was the situation in 2000s, for example, or even before and how do we know that nowadays it is just easier to express yourself openly so this is not an actual rise? (These are some crucial questions to reply). Fifth, in the results section the richness of the material is proven but sometimes there are too many quotes in the row. I would strongly suggest to elaborate further on the very interesting findings using the existing literature (e.g. about the role of the identity, internet, about ethical issues, about spirituality, for the later it is also crucial to define and refer to the current debates in general and in relation to atheism, non-religion, etc.). Finally, some sections end with just some quotes with no further comments/ reflection from the part of the authors.

Overall, I would argue that currently this is a very interesting research report but it needs to be situated more thoroughly in the existing literature and further elaborated. I understand the necessity to focus on Latin America but a few theoretical additions are in my opinion important to provide a cohesive outcome and would make the article more concise and solid. One last point is related to the conclusions which I also think that need to be elaborated and include some theoretical reflection on the issue.   This is a very interesting article because it deals with a topic that has attracted much attention in the academia in the last 10-15 years, especially in the West. Since it focuses on Latin America it offers very useful and critical insights that could be stimulating for comparisons and further elaborations. The material is very rich and brings into light a case from another part of the world breaking this way the ‘western’ monopoly on this topic.

However, there are some crucial issues that need to be addressed before moving to the publication. First, I contend that it is important to further elaborate on the methodology maybe with a short distinct section explaining for example the reasoning behind the age range selected (14-21) or if those who participated in the qualitative part of the research were selected from the sample of the quantitative part. Second, if Weber was used for the methodological part which is the theoretical background of the study? (Religion as memory -the chain of religious memory- and the observed ruptures- the secularisation theory or grounded theory, these are just some ideas and not compulsory directions). In any case, there is a need to explicitly discuss the theoretical approach followed and incorporated. Furthermore, the theoretical discussions -including the definitions over this topic (debates on atheism, non-religiosity, agnosticism, secularity, etc.)- is necessary to be included even not very extensively. Third and related to the above, the literature review should also include some of the major works in the field coming from the western societies in order to exemplify any differences and similarities. It is a pity that such rich material is not related (again not to an exhaustive depth) to some findings from the West e.g. on practices, spirituality, ethics, etc. I think that the existing literature is very rich and should be included, at least the most important authors (e.g. Lee, Zuckerman to mention only two of them) Fourth, the numbers mentioned in the section ‘literature review’ from previous studies/ polls could be related to older ones in order to showcase a rise (if this is the case). Are there, for example, any longitudinal data on the topic which show a societal change? If not, which was the situation in 2000s, for example, or even before and how do we know that nowadays it is just easier to express yourself openly so this is not an actual rise? (These are some crucial questions to reply). Fifth, in the results section the richness of the material is proven but sometimes there are too many quotes in the row. I would strongly suggest to elaborate further on the very interesting findings using the existing literature (e.g. about the role of the identity, internet, about ethical issues, about spirituality, for the later it is also crucial to define and refer to the current debates in general and in relation to atheism, non-religion, etc.). Finally, some sections end with just some quotes with no further comments/ reflection from the part of the authors.

Overall, I would argue that currently this is a very interesting research report but it needs to be situated more thoroughly in the existing literature and further elaborated. I understand the necessity to focus on Latin America but a few theoretical additions are in my opinion important to provide a cohesive outcome and would make the article more concise and solid. One last point is related to the conclusions which I also think that need to be elaborated and include some theoretical reflection on the issue.   

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thanks for your comments

Below, we describe the changes that were made to the article “Understanding the Reasons that Lead Young People in Bogota to Identify as Atheist and Agnostic,” to address the criticisms and corrections of you.

This is a very interesting article because it deals with a topic that has attracted much attention in the academia in the last 10-15 years, especially in the West. Since it focuses on Latin America it offers very useful and critical insights that could be stimulating for comparisons and further elaborations. The material is very rich and brings into light a case from another part of the world breaking this way the ‘western’ monopoly on this topic.   However, there are some crucial issues that need to be addressed before moving to the publication. First, I contend that it is important to further elaborate on the methodology maybe with a short distinct section explaining for example the reasoning behind the age range selected (14-21) or if those who participated in the qualitative part of the research were selected from the sample of the quantitative part.   Second, if Weber was used for the methodological part which is the theoretical background of the study? (Religion as memory -the chain of religious memory- and the observed ruptures- the secularisation theory or grounded theory, these are just some ideas and not compulsory directions). In any case, there is a need to explicitly discuss the theoretical approach followed and incorporated. Furthermore, the theoretical discussions -including the definitions over this topic (debates on atheism, non-religiosity, agnosticism, secularity, etc.)- is necessary to be included even not very extensively.     Third and related to the above, the literature review should also include some of the major works in the field coming from the western societies in order to exemplify any differences and similarities. It is a pity that such rich material is not related (again not to an exhaustive depth) to some findings from the West e.g. on practices, spirituality, ethics, etc. I think that the existing literature is very rich and should be included, at least the most important authors (e.g. Lee, Zuckerman to mention only two of them)   Fourth, the numbers mentioned in the section ‘literature review’ from previous studies/ polls could be related to older ones in order to showcase a rise (if this is the case). Are there, for example, any longitudinal data on the topic which show a societal change? If not, which was the situation in 2000s, for example, or even before and how do we know that nowadays it is just easier to express yourself openly so this is not an actual rise? (These are some crucial questions to reply).    Fifth, in the results section the richness of the material is proven but sometimes there are too many quotes in the row. I would strongly suggest to elaborate further on the very interesting findings using the existing literature (e.g. about the role of the identity, internet, about ethical issues, about spirituality, for the later it is also crucial to define and refer to the current debates in general and in relation to atheism, non-religion, etc.). Finally, some sections end with just some quotes with no further comments/ reflection from the part of the authors.   Overall, I would argue that currently this is a very interesting research report but it needs to be situated more thoroughly in the existing literature and further elaborated. I understand the necessity to focus on Latin America but a few theoretical additions are in my opinion important to provide a cohesive outcome and would make the article more concise and solid. One last point is related to the conclusions which I also think that need to be elaborated and include some theoretical reflection on the issue.

The evaluator's criticism was accepted and new details on the composition and elaboration of the samples were included, both for quantitative and qualitative information (see lines 38-52, 56-57).         On this aspect, the evaluator's recommendation was accepted. Therefore, a new section was drafted to present the main theoretical frameworks of the research (see title 2: Theoretical frameworks: 86-159). This section included the contributions of some authors known for their participation in the debates on secularization, such as Peter Berger, Thomas Luckmann, Bryan Wilson, and Danièle Hervieu-Léger, among others. In addition, new paragraphs and comments were included throughout the article, with the purpose of linking the theoretical frameworks with the interpretation of the results (see 480-485, 506-510, 515-535, 621-626, 763-772, 812-817).   Although the bibliographical review focuses on Latin America, some references to Zuckerman's work were included. These allow us to see the coincidences in the characteristics of atheists and agnostics in different parts of the world (see 236-237, 275, 535, 889, 949).           The evaluator's recommendation was accepted. Therefore, we included data from World Values Survey (see 183-192), and data from a 2006 survey that allows us to observe the increase in the percentage of atheists and agnostics among young people in Bogota, when compared with the data from our survey (see 290-294).       In order to accommodate the evaluator's criticism, six quotations from the interviewees were deleted (see 351, 472, 540, 605, 692, 811). However, the order, structure and sequence of the presentation were not modified, since the other evaluators did not criticize it. On the contrary, they apparently found it coherent and adequate. In any case, small adjustments were made to improve the coherence and clarity of the text.       The evaluator's comment was accepted, as already mentioned, new comments were added with the purpose of interpreting the information provided by the interviewees and linking it to the theoretical frameworks. The conclusions were reworked with the intention of offering a better link between the theoretical frameworks, the reviewed bibliography, and the information from the interviews and the survey (839-849, 871-874, 881-885, 939-941, 946-949).

Reviewer 4 Report

This is written in a good English language style. What is called the "bibliogrraphy" should be called "references." At least one of the authors are listed using the Spanish "y" instead of the English "and." A bit more proofreading would be good. The author(s) refer to a Weberian schema but seem unaware of the contemporary literature on the same. There is nothing in depth on the results of the questionnaire--no technical discussion, no tables. I would expect more. The author(s) essentially repeat and confirm basic findings in the literature but do not really set up the work as hypothesis testing or even give a clear account of a research problem. The second paragraph of the very first section offers a series of questions. Overall, the work is an acceptable piece of journalism but I am not sure if it rises to what a social scientist or religious studies scholar would want to see. I suppose it could be published as is: the quality of the writing is good. But I wish the author(s) had produced a more rigorous work.  

At least one of the authors are listed using the Spanish "y" instead of the English "and." A bit more proofreading would be good. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thanks for your comments

Below, we describe the changes that were made to the article “Understanding the Reasons that Lead Young People in Bogota to Identify as Atheist and Agnostic,” to address the criticisms and corrections of you.

This is written in a good English language style. What is called the "bibliography" should be called "references."   At least one of the authors are listed using the Spanish "y" instead of the English "and." A bit more proofreading would be good.     The author(s) refer to a Weberian schema but seem unaware of the contemporary literature on the same. There is nothing in depth on the results of the questionnaire--no technical discussion, no tables. I would expect more.         The author(s) essentially repeat and confirm basic findings in the literature but do not really set up the work as hypothesis testing or even give a clear account of a research problem.       The second paragraph of the very first section offers a series of questions. Overall, the work is an acceptable piece of journalism but I am not sure if it rises to what a social scientist or religious studies scholar would want to see. I suppose it could be published as is: the quality of the writing is good. But I wish the author(s) had produced a more rigorous work.

This change was made (line 974)     The change suggested by the evaluator was made and the “y” was changed to “and” (see 18, 1016, 1018, 1021)     A new section dedicated to theoretical frameworks was included (see title 2: Theoretical frameworks: 85-159), which includes some of the relevant developments in Max Weber's theory. New paragraphs and comments were also added to link these theoretical frameworks in the interpretation of the data (see 480-485, 506-510, 515-535, 621-626, 763-772, 812-817).   Together with the theoretical frameworks related to these, the main working hypotheses were included, and in different sections, an attempt was made to link them with the presentation and interpretation of the information collected (see title 2: Theoretical frameworks: 85-159).   In order to offer a more rigorous research, new methodological clarifications were included, a section dedicated to the theoretical frameworks and working hypotheses were included, new bibliographical references were included, the relevance of the information was reviewed, new paragraphs were included to link the theoretical frameworks with the information collected, and, finally, the conclusions were redrafted.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The revised version of the article is very much improved and I would like to thank the authors for making these changes. As a consequence, I am eager to proceed with the publication. My only advise, although, I am not qualified, would be to make another thorough language editing especially of the added parts/sections. For example there is a typo in the new section about the theoretical frameworks (it says theretical). Or in p.6 the added phrased should be "This situation can also be observed in Europe or North America. Or in p.4 in the new added paragraph instead of 'people non-religious in Colombia' could change to 'non-religious people in Colombia'.