Exploring Jewish Belief and Practice in America
What do American Jews believe about God—and how do those beliefs shape their lives?
A survey of 345 random American Jews saught to better understand the diverse theological landscape of American Judaism today. Do Jews believe in God? If so, what kind of God? Personal, distant, metaphorical, unknowable? And how do those beliefs - or non-beliefs - inform ritual practice, spiritual engagement, and daily Jewish life?
​
Do American Jews believe in God?
*Note: there was no description of God provided. This was the very first question of the survey, so participants self-defined what they thought "God" meant.
Responses by denomination
The survey responses to the question "Do you believe in God?" reveal significant variation across Jewish denominational lines, reflecting a broad spectrum of theological beliefs and relationships with spirituality. Among the most traditionally observant groups, Orthodox and Modern Orthodox respondents expressed the highest rate of belief in God at 88%, with virtually no one responding "no," and only small percentages expressing uncertainty or complexity. Conservative and Traditional Egalitarian Jews also showed a strong majority belief (63%), with few expressing disbelief or uncertainty. In contrast, belief levels drop in the more liberal and secular movements—Reform Jews showed only 50% responding "yes," with 28% selecting "it's complicated."
​
The divergence is even more pronounced in non-theistic or culturally identified groups. Secular and Humanist Jews overwhelmingly do not believe in God (80%), and "Just Jewish" respondents—a category often encompassing unaffiliated or cultural Jews—gave the most nuanced responses, with a majority (52%) indicating “it’s complicated.” Renewal and Reconstructionist Jews, often associated with spiritual but non-traditional approaches to Judaism, had a mixed distribution, with 56% saying "yes" but 38% choosing "it’s complicated." Overall, the totals suggest that while a majority (55%) of respondents affirm belief in God, a significant portion (26%) express ambivalence or complexity in their beliefs, highlighting the diverse and evolving nature of Jewish identity and theology.
Responses by age
The age-based responses to "Do you believe in God?" reveal a compelling U-shaped pattern in spiritual complexity. The youngest group (0–18) shows the lowest level of belief (33%) and the highest combined rates of uncertainty and complexity, with 11% unsure and 33% selecting “it’s complicated.” This may reflect a stage of life marked by limited exposure to theological frameworks or personal experiences that shape faith. Similarly, young adults (19–29) show increasing belief (50%) but still carry a significant degree of ambivalence, with nearly a third expressing complicated feelings. These early stages of life often involve exploration, questioning, and developing personal identity, all of which can contribute to uncertain or evolving beliefs.
​
Interestingly, this complexity returns later in life. Among those aged 65 and older, belief in God remains relatively strong (57%), but 27% say “it’s complicated,” and 8% are unsure. This may reflect the deepened introspection that can come with aging, as questions of mortality and the afterlife become more immediate. Some may find comfort in faith, holding onto it more firmly, while others might wrestle with doubt or reevaluate long-held beliefs. In contrast, middle-aged adults (30–65) show the most confident belief in God, with around 60% affirming belief and the lowest levels of uncertainty. This group may represent a period of stability in both life and faith, before the existential complexities of later years begin to reemerge.
Names for God
God is known by many names, as shown in this word cloud. "God" is used most often, followed by "HaShem" - The Name - and "Adonai" - My Lord. Adonai is used as a place holder for the Tetragrammaton - Yud-Hay-Vav-Hay - which is the ineffable name of God.
​
Many are also opting for other ways to talk about God, including the use of "the Divine," "The Holy Blessed One," "the Creator," and "Shechinah" to name a few.
There is a good balance of Hebrew and English names for God. Some choose to keep the Hebrew alive - "Ruach HaHayim," "El Elyon," "Nishmat Kol Chai" - while others prefer to find names in their vernacular - "Great Architect," "Energy," "Universe."
​
However, a significant number of people said that they choose which name they use depending on their audience, highlighting a strong awareness of context and sensitivity to how the concept of God is communicated and heard.
​
A small group stated “I don’t use any,” which may reflect agnosticism, atheism, or a desire to avoid naming the ineffable.
What is God?
*Note: participants were able to choose more than one response, so percentages do not add up to 100%, but instead break down how many of the participants chose a certain response.
Participants shared a wide range of ideas about what God means to them. About 43% described God as a personal being who is actively involved in their lives, highlighting a sense of intimacy and guidance. 75% saw God more as a force or energy that connects everything, reflecting a spiritual sense of interconnectedness rather than a singular being. Around 40% thought of God as a metaphor or symbol for meaning and morality, using the idea of God as a framework to guide ethical living rather than as a literal entity. About 22% believed in a creator who no longer intervenes in the world - a God who set things in motion but now stays in the background. Only 17% saw God as a being who rewards and punishes, while around 20% viewed God as completely unknowable, pointing to the idea that some aspects of divinity are beyond human understanding. About 32% saw God as a spark within each person, emphasizing the divine potential and light within us all. Finally, 12% said they don’t believe in God at all.
​
These findings highlight the incredible diversity of Jewish thought about God today. People are exploring the idea of God in deeply personal, philosophical, mystical, and symbolic ways. Some experience a close, personal connection, while others sense divinity in the interconnectedness of all things or in the very core of their own being. Many think of God more as a metaphor that helps them make sense of life’s big questions. This variety reflects the diversity within Judaism, where asking questions, rethinking old ideas, and finding your own spiritual path as all important parts of the tradition.
Where is God?
Note: The graph shows the percentage of times each answer was chosen out of all responses, while the analysis shows the percentage of participants who selected each answer. Because people could choose multiple answers, the percentages in the analysis don’t add up to 100%.
The majority of respondents perceive God as a presence that is everywhere—in all things and in all places, with 228 total answers indicating this belief. This view suggests a widespread sense of God’s omnipresence, permeating all aspects of existence. The second most common perception is that God resides inside each person, as part of our soul or consciousness, chosen by 193 respondents. This reflects an intimate, internalized understanding of the divine, emphasizing personal spirituality and inner experience. Closely following, 186 respondents associate God with moments of connection, justice, love, or awe, indicating that many find divine presence in meaningful emotional and moral experiences. Less commonly, 99 respondents view God as existing in heaven or a spiritual realm beyond our world, highlighting a more traditional, transcendent notion of God’s location. A smaller portion of respondents, 62, expressed uncertainty with “I’m not sure/I don’t know,” showing some ambivalence or openness on the question. Finally, 34 respondents selected “Nowhere—God does not exist,” representing a minority viewpoint that rejects the existence of God altogether.
Many people picked more than one answer, which suggests that their understanding of God is layered and open. Lots combined ideas of God being everywhere, inside us, and present in special moments, showing a spirituality that’s flexible and personal rather than locked into strict rules. This mix of beliefs - seeing God both inside and out, in everyday life and deep emotions - points to a more holistic way of thinking about the divine. It seems like many today prefer a spiritual view that brings together inner awareness, meaningful experiences, and a sense of God everywhere, instead of sticking only to traditional religious categories.
How would you describe your relationship with God?
Note: Roll over the graph to see how many responses fit into certain themes and theme pairs.
The survey question “How would you describe your relationship with God?” was open-ended, allowing participants to express themselves in their own words. I then grouped the responses into 10 overarching themes: Complex/Ambiguous, Cultural/Communal/Historical, Distant/Abstract, Emotional/Experiential, Evolving, Philosophical, Relational/Personal, Ritualistic, Skepticism/Doubt/Non-belief, and Theodicy/Trauma. Some responses fit into more than one category.
​
This Sankey Diagram visualizes how many responses were classified under each theme, with each category represented on both sides of the diagram. Hovering over a line will show you the specific pair of categories and the number of responses assigned to that combination. If you’d like to explore a particular theme in more depth, click on the corresponding button below to visit a dedicated page.
It’s important to note that categorizing these responses isn’t an exact science; there are countless ways they could have been grouped. I chose these 10 categories because they emerged as the most prominent themes in the data. Everyone’s relationship with God is unique, but perhaps one of these categories might resonate with your own experience.​
Below is a more detailed analysis of these results.
Relationship with God Analysis
*Note: this question. had no options to choose from, but was instead completely open ended.
Summary of responses
-
Varied Beliefs About God’s Nature:
-
Many describe God as an abstract, formless, or non-personal force—e.g., “hum of the universe,” “energy,” or “higher power.”
-
Others see God as a personal, loving figure who guides or challenges them.
-
Some reject the idea of a traditional God altogether, identifying as atheists, agnostics, or secular Jews with cultural but not spiritual connections.
-
-
Relationship Dynamics:
-
Evolving and complex: Numerous respondents describe their relationship as “ever-evolving,” “complicated,” “changing,” or “a work in progress.”
-
Emotional ambivalence: Responses range from “close and loving” to “nonexistent.”
-
Some report moments of deep connection during prayer, community involvement, or nature, but not a constant presence.
-
Others feel a reciprocal relationship where God seeks connection as much as they do.
-
-
Faith and Doubt Coexisting:
-
Many acknowledge moments of doubt, questioning, or skepticism, especially in the face of suffering (e.g., Holocaust, tragedies).
-
Some express a “good faith” or “faith with doubt” approach—engaging in religious practice despite uncertainty about God’s existence.
-
-
Role of Community and Practice:
-
Community, tradition, and ritual (e.g., prayer, commandments, tikkun olam) are important for many, often more so than a direct personal connection.
-
Some find meaning in Jewish identity and texts even without a strong spiritual relationship.
-
-
Function of God in Their Lives:
-
God is often a source of comfort, hope, strength, or moral inspiration.
-
For some, God is more about the “idea” or “concept” of divinity, serving as a guiding or motivational force.
-
A few describe God as distant or silent but still present in their worldview.
-
-
Non-belief and Secularism:
-
Several respondents explicitly state no belief in God but maintain cultural or ethical Jewish identities.
-
Some reject the idea of God as a controlling or judgmental figure, preferring a more humanistic or naturalistic worldview.
-
Analysis
-
Spectrum of Belief and Connection: The responses reveal a broad spectrum, from devout, personal relationships to outright atheism, with many nuanced positions in between. This reflects the diversity within contemporary spiritual and religious identities, especially within Judaism.
-
Relational Language: Many use relationship metaphors (partner, master-servant, friendship, conversation), indicating that people conceptualize God not just as a theological entity but as a dynamic “other” in their lives, whether real or symbolic.
-
Ambiguity and Complexity: The repeated use of words like “complicated,” “unclear,” “vague,” and “ever-changing” highlights how spiritual identity and faith are not static but fluid and sometimes contradictory. This can point to ongoing internal dialogue and wrestling with belief.
-
Role of Suffering and Justice: Several respondents struggle with theodicy—the problem of evil and suffering—as a key barrier to a straightforward relationship with God. This is a central tension affecting faith.
-
Community vs. Individual Faith: Community, ritual, and shared cultural identity are significant for many respondents, sometimes serving as the primary mode of connection to God or spirituality, even when personal belief is weak or absent.
-
Modern Spirituality: There’s a clear trend towards more abstract, pantheistic, or mystical interpretations of God that move away from anthropomorphic or interventionist models, reflecting broader shifts in contemporary spirituality.
-
Pragmatic Faith: Some responses reveal a pragmatic approach—engaging in religious practice “just in case” or because it promotes moral behavior and community cohesion, regardless of firm belief.
What is God's role in suffering?
When asked about God's role in suffering, a majority of respondents (over 50%) said that humans have free will and are responsible for bad things happening in the world, not God. This perspective aligns with a long-standing Jewish theological tradition that upholds human agency and moral responsibility. By absolving God of direct culpability for evil or suffering, these individuals underscore the view that while God may set the framework of existence, it is ultimately human action that determines moral outcomes. Meanwhile, roughly 20% expressed the belief that God is not involved in suffering at all, suggesting a universe in which divine presence is distant or nonexistent in the face of pain. This view might emerge from disillusionment with traditional theodicies or from a belief in a non-interventionist God who created the world but allows it to operate independently. Around 15% said suffering may be part of a divine plan that humans cannot fully understand. This position is deeply rooted in classical Jewish texts, such as the Book of Job, where divine wisdom transcends human understanding. For these individuals, faith in God's overarching purpose provides a form of spiritual consolation, even in the absence of clear answers. A smaller but notable group (about 10%) described God as a compassionate companion who suffers alongside humanity. This relational theology echoes teachings found in post-Holocaust Jewish thought. For these respondents, God may not cause or prevent suffering, but is deeply present in human pain, offering comfort and solidarity rather than control. Other responses touched on themes such as divine testing or growth through hardship, while about 15% identified as atheists or agnostics, expressing doubt or disbelief in any divine role at all. These perspectives suggest that for some, suffering challenges not only theological categories but the very plausibility of belief itself. T
Do the Jewish people have a unique relationship or covenant with God?
*Note: these percentages represent overlapping responses, not separate groups. Many participants expressed multiple views. For instance, some who reject the covenant also emphasized a cultural or historical connection. Because of this overlap, the percentages do not add up to 100%, but instead show how common each viewpoint is across the whole group.
The dominant theme in the data is a strong affirmation that Jews have a special role or mission, even when rejecting the term “chosenness.” A clear majority—well over half—believe Jewish responsibility centers on ethical, cultural, or religious duties, often linked to mitzvot, moral leadership, or social justice, rather than superiority. For many, the covenant signifies responsibility, not privilege, reflecting a modern view of chosenness as a moral and spiritual burden to better the world.
​
However, about 25–30% explicitly rejected the idea of a covenant or divine selection, citing discomfort with exclusivity or superiority. These participants framed Jewish identity in cultural, historical, or ethical terms, emphasizing heritage and community over theology. For many, Jewish distinctiveness is rooted in shared experience rather than divine designation.
​
A significant portion—around 35%—highlighted a historical or cultural connection instead of a theological one, especially among secular or progressive Jews. This common response suggests Jewish identity is tied to collective memory and tradition rather than a metaphysical covenant, allowing meaningful belonging without belief in divine chosenness.
​
Lastly, many respondents expressed uncertainty about the covenant’s meaning or uniqueness. Some acknowledged a special relationship with God while recognizing other peoples may have theirs. Others saw the covenant as a human-created concept, highlighting communal meaning-making without requiring supernatural origins.
Are the mitzvot (commandments) Divinely given?
The responses to the question of whether the mitzvot are divinely given reveal a diverse range of beliefs within the Jewish community. The most common perspective, expressed by about 40-45% of respondents, is that some mitzvot are divinely inspired while others are human-made. This view reflects a balanced understanding that acknowledges both spiritual influence and human interpretation, suggesting that mitzvot have evolved over time within cultural and historical contexts. Approximately 35-40% rejected the notion of divine origin altogether, instead seeing mitzvot as cultural or ethical traditions. Meanwhile, around 15-20% affirmed the traditional belief that mitzvot are God’s instructions to the Jewish people, consistent with classical religious teachings. About 10-15% expressed uncertainty about the divine nature of mitzvot, highlighting the theological complexity and personal doubt many face when interpreting these ancient laws today. Additionally, a smaller group, roughly 5-10%, offered alternative interpretations, viewing mitzvot as human pathways to the Divine or as actions mediating the relationship with God, rather than direct divine commands. Overall, the responses illustrate the rich diversity of contemporary Jewish thought, showing how faith, culture, and modern values interact in shaping understandings of mitzvot.
Does God reward and punish people?
The most common answer, chosen by approximately 40% of participants, was that God sometimes rewards and punishes, but not always clearly or directly. This view suggests a nuanced understanding of divine justice, acknowledging that while there may be a higher power influencing outcomes, its workings are often subtle, indirect, or difficult to discern in daily life.
​
Around 38% of respondents indicated that they do not believe in divine reward or punishment at all. This group likely includes individuals who do not see evidence of supernatural justice, emphasizing more human-centered ethical frameworks rather than divine oversight.
​
About 10% of respondents believe that God rewards and punishes in this life, reflecting a belief in immediate, tangible consequences for actions within one’s earthly existence. A smaller segment, roughly 7%, believe that divine reward and punishment occur in the afterlife, indicating faith in a transcendent realm where ultimate justice is meted out.
​
Finally, approximately 10% of respondents expressed uncertainty, indicating ambivalence or lack of clarity about the concept of divine reward and punishment. This reflects the complex theological questions and diverse interpretations surrounding the nature of God’s justice.
​
Overall, the data reveals that while a plurality accepts some form of divine justice, many hold more skeptical or ambiguous views, illustrating varied theological perspectives and degrees of religious belief within the community.