In a recent webinar, Dee Allsop of Heart + Mind Strategies remarked on an interesting data point in the Religious Freedom Index published by the Becket Fund, a nonprofit law firm that defends people of all faiths in the practice of their religion. The report found that a very large proportion (73%) of Americans consider themselves accepting of people of faith, but the respondents’ perception of social acceptance is much lower (38%), i.e., they think others are less accepting of faith than they are.

Several high-profile conflicts between government policies and religious exercise surely contribute to that perception. Despite that, however, the Becket data provides reasons for optimism. It found that “even in areas that typically draw partisan division, the legal protection of religious freedom is notably unifying to public opinion.” Respondents who distrust the U.S. Supreme Court were still likely to support the Court’s religious freedom decisions.

Another reason for optimism comes from research Sutherland Institute conducted on attitudes about religion, with a particular focus on adults who do not affiliate with any religion, sometimes referred to as “nones.”

The results of Sutherland’s survey were written up in an excellent report by Sutherland Visiting Scholar Sam Abrams. He notes one finding that echoes Becket’s research. Even among the “nones,” among whom just 11% have a positive view of religious organizations, “46% believe religious freedom is a net positive.” It appears that many Americans take a similar approach to religious freedom as they do to the freedom of speech – a willingness to respect the rights of others with whom they disagree.

A unique contribution of the Sutherland data is that it did not provide only a snapshot of attitudes at a single point but also looked at how attitudes about faith could change.

The survey arose out of a series of reports describing the “social benefits of religion.” The reports describe ways that religious organizations and people of faith contribute to their communities, providing social services, strengthening families, bolstering physical and mental health, and providing the essential infrastructure for education in the United States. These reports gather empirical data about these benefits and more.

The process of compilation raised an important question. What purpose does all of this research serve? If these contributions were well known, would that knowledge make a difference in attitudes about religion?

That is where the study discussed in the webinar comes in.

The survey asked a sample of American adults whether they thought religion was “part of the problem” or “part of the solution” to societal challenges. The initial snapshot showed 56% of the total sample thought religion was part of the solution for society. One important finding was a significant divergence between the general sample and the subsample of respondents who identify as “nones.” The “nones” were far less likely to view religion positively. Only 23% saw religion as part of the solution.

What was unique about the survey was what happened next. Heart + Mind Strategies, which conducted the research, shared with respondents “15 factual statements about religion’s societal contributions, each drawn from credible sources like national newspapers, academic journals, and think tanks.”

After this “information treatment,” the sample was given another chance to respond to the question of whether religion is part of the solution or problem to society’s challenges. The finding here was that, among the total sample, seeing religion as part of the solution increased from 56% to 71%. More striking, though, is that among “nones,” the percentage doubled, going from 23% to 46%.

The findings of the Sutherland study can provide some optimism. The initial finding is that, when exposed to information about the contributions of people of faith and religious organizations, even those skeptical of religious belief can increase their appreciation.

Some of the other findings in the study are also important.

For instance, there are differences within the category of “nones” with subgroups of atheists and agnostics, those who described their religion as nothing in particular, and those who had been religious but no longer were. There were differences among these groups, with larger shifts from “problem” to “solution” among the latter two.

Second, though most “nones” are satisfied with their lives, a large proportion said there was something important missing in their lives. Perhaps this group, in particular, would be willing to join with people of faith in promoting humanitarian and similar efforts.

Taken together, the findings point to possible common ground between those affiliated with a religion and those who are not. They also suggest that people of faith should not feel hesitant about sharing the religious motivation for the things they do. A greater understanding of those motivations just might remove some barriers to acceptance and appreciation.