Abogado del Diablo said:
I think the real problem is that relgious belief is so individually stylized - even among persons to attend established and clearly identifiable institutions - that it is probably not accurate to even study religious preference in this manner.
Great point, AdD- and interesting survey even though it is flawed. Studies conducted within churches did indicate precisely what you are saying- which institution one belongs or labels themselves with doesn't tell you much. Within single Christian churches researchers found everyone from mystics to folks that practice but don't care about experience much, people who believe in evolution and people that don't, people with all variety of ethical codes. There's a lot more diversity in institutions than most of us think. Of course, this depends somewhat on the institution, too. Some churches demand more conformity to certain doctrine and/or practice than others. For example, the Mormon church demands a high level of conformity to both doctrine and practice, and these are clearly defined. Episcopal churches, however, generally only demand conformity in practice, but doctrine and experience vary a lot among members, and no one seems to mind. Then you have folks like Quakers that share only a few central beliefs, and leave a lot of the details of doctrine, experience, and practice to the individual. It is very difficult to get any real idea of what people actually believe, practice, and experience. I would wager it is impossible to do with a simple survey and would take, at minimum, depth interviewing to understand the complexity of religion in the U.S., much less the world.
As you pointed out, the labels are problematic as well. Does one mark both Protestant and Baptist? Or just Baptist? Some Quakers are secular humanists or agnostics and not Christian- do they mark Quaker (under the Christian category), or secular humanist? A person may mark Lutheran, but if their total religious experience is going to church at Christmas and Easter, wouldn't the label non-religious be more appropriate? There is also a growing trend of folks that don't like organized religion, but are very spiritually oriented- what do they mark? And of course, the classic problem that people can be more than one thing, depending on your definition. Would I mark Christian of some sort, even though a lot of Christians wouldn't consider me one? Do I mark Druid, because I follow druidic philosophy, even though I'm not neo-Pagan (some druid organizations are neo-Pagan, and some aren't)? Ugh. This is why anthropologists prefer extensive interviews and participant observation over surveys. It takes a long time and is not cost-effective, but the results are much clearer and more reliable.
