Fastest Growing religion in the world

Awaiting_the_fifth

Where is my mind?
Messages
602
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Middlesbrough, UK
Whilst reading a sort of alternative agony aunt page I came accross the asertion that Paganism is the fastest growing religion in the world.Having had my curiosity piqued I did a quick bit of googling and found extensive arguments between Christians and Muslims over which of them is the fastest growing. I have also been told that Buddhism is the fastest growing religion in the western world.

I just wondered if anyone has any actual facts on this, which religion is getting the most converts these days.

I know, (or rather I believe) that the answer is irrelevant but Im curious.
 
Accepting God in all that is, and God as greater than religion by whatever name, living in religiousness is acceptance of all.
The question poses something of an imposable answer for many are the many who never cast a vote, yet subscribe.
 
I don't know about worldwide, but the best data for the U.S. is the ARIS data ("American Religious Identification Survey"). Of the top twenty religions (by number of respondents) the honor belongs to Wiccans and then Deism (the founding fathers would be proud) followed by Sikhism. And among the major world religions (which I'm arbitrarily designating as 100,000 or more U.S. respondents in 1990), the fastest growing in the U.S. are Hinduism, Buddhism, Secularism/Atheism and Islam.


image001.gif


image004.gif


You can read more about the ARIS data here: http://www.gc.cuny.edu/studies/key_findings.htm

One of the most interesting aspects of the ARIS data is the "switching" data, which detailed the rate at which people are entering and leaving certain religions:

image019.gif



This not the greatest data though. The data is a comparison of 1990 and 2001 surveys and, of course, could be skewed by international migration and population growth rates. The methodology consisted of a 50,000 household survey essentially asking respondents: "What is your religion, if any?" There were follow up questions, some of which were tailored based on the response to the initial question. Respondents were allowed to respond any way they liked, with many giving alternative names for the same or similar religious views as can be seen in the categories in the top twenty listed above. For example, someone who identifies their religion as "Humanist" is likely to also be in the "none/secular" category or the "New Age" category and possibly either "atheist" or "agnostic" as well. Certainly "Lutheran" and "Baptist" overlaps to some degree with "Protestant." And "Evangelical" and "Pentecostal" are interchangeable in many people's minds (though not all).

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.
 
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.
 
Awaiting the fifth,
Apologies if my words confused, we are in agreement, to be religious is to have a sense of something greater than the mundane. For many years I had a spiritual teacher who was able to translate through all traditions, and for many years my teacher was life itself, consciousness is in all and everything.
 
Awaiting the fifth,
Apologies if my words confused, we are in agreement, to be religious is to have a sense of something greater than the mundane. For many years I had a spiritual teacher who was able to translate through all traditions, and for many years my teacher was life itself, consciousness is in all and everything.
 
AdD, I must be quite dense. I've been puzzling over the % figure columns in the first two graphs you show for two days and I still do not understand those numbers. Maybe it's just because the numbers are hard to read so I'm missing decimal points or something.

lunamoth
 
lunamoth said:
AdD, I must be quite dense. I've been puzzling over the % figure columns in the first two graphs you show for two days and I still do not understand those numbers. Maybe it's just because the numbers are hard to read so I'm missing decimal points or something.

lunamoth
The percentage numbers in the first two graphs are the percentages of the total pool of respondents that gave that particular response.

For example: The data shows that 1.2% responded "Church of Christ." That percentage is included in the first chart, which shows the "Christian" respondents. Collectively, the "Christian" respondents (as shown at the bottom of that chart) make up 76.5% of the respondents. If you merge the first graph with the second, you get a complete picture for all respondents, "Christian", "Non-Christian" and "No religion".
 
Back
Top