In case you missed the flurry of stories surrounding the release of the latest census data, New Zealand may at some point in the foreseeable future have to give up its status as God’s Own Country.

According to the data, the number of people who stated their religious affiliation as Christian dropped below the 50 per cent for the first time in 2013 census, while the number of people claiming no religion rose to just under 42 per cent.

Although this is not entirely surprising given New Zealand’s secular foundations and the overall decline in Christianity in most developed countries, it raises questions on whether we can expect future generations to be morally upstanding citizens without God in their lives.

This is far from obtuse conjecture. Many adults who are not religious and proud of their robust moral compass have been heavily influenced by religious teachings in their childhood, this correspondent included. But a greater number of people today are growing up without any major religious influence on their lives, or any at all.

Will this generation, and future Godless ones, have a moral foundation on which to build a society?

According to Phil Zuckerman, a professor of sociology at Pitzer College, the answer is a resounding “yes”.

Referencing his own research in a recent article published in the LA Times, he found that non-religious family life imbues its own morality on younger people, characterised by rational problem solving, personal autonomy, independent thinking, avoidance of corporal punishment, and a tendency to question everything. Zuckerman also cites a 2010 Duke University study that found that when non-religious children matured into adults they were less likely to exhibit racism than their religious counterparts.

Of course his thesis is open to critical challenge, particularly linking low crime rates to low religious participation in countries like Sweden, Denmark, Japan, Belgium and New Zealand. Or that that 99 per cent of the US prison population claimed to be religious, hence the non-religious were less likely to commit crime (I assume he has never heard the phrase “there are no atheists in foxholes”).

Regardless, it is still interesting to consider Zuckerman’s explanation for why atheists tend to raise non-religious children with staunch moral fibre: their teachings are based on empathetic reciprocity. Or put in more familiar terms “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.

That’s a tenet that can be found in one form or another in many major religions. It would appear that atheists and the religious have more in common, morally speaking, than the divide over the supernatural would suggest – a comforting thought for the future of our country.