Here are some interesting statistics on the subject. I am assuming that there is bias in these statistics. I have posted them because they reflect somewhat the information provided by other posters on this thread. http://www.whychurch.org.uk/worldwide.php Here is some information on Islam: http://www.pewforum.org/The-Future-of-th...ation.aspx
There are two other factors one might want to consider one is what type of Christianity is on the rise and, in countries where Christianity is on the decline, is there a type of symptom substitution going on?
In the United States mega churches are on the rise. Mega churches can have two types of doctrines that are of note. What's interesting about their doctrine is in how this doctrine effects the sustainability of the religion. The prosperity doctrine, for example, is very popular. It feeds on the natural greed and desperation of it's listeners. One problem with the prosperity doctrine is that it's not sustainable through out a person's life. After so many years of the great promise of a "miracle breakthrough" not materializing, people begin to realize that it's a fraud. The rich are usually slow to realize this. These are people who are successful due to their own efforts but, due to confirmation bias, they attribute their success to god. Every new success they have is confirmation that their beliefs are true. This is not so for those who are unsuccessful or, in the case of randomness, unlucky. As a whole, the prosperity doctrine is sustainable due to it's ability to bring in large numbers of people (after all everyone loves to hear how god will solve all your problems magically). While it is true that, over time many believers in the prosperity doctrine loose their faith, if the amount of new believers is equal or greater than those who have left, then the religion can sustain itself.
Another doctrinal trend in mega churches is the watering down of the traditional Christian doctrine. Mega churches need to cast their nets wide in order to bring in the largest number of people. To do this they make their doctrine appealing to the greatest variety of people. They make their doctrine appealing by not pissing people off, or as I like to say it, by making people feel good with light, feel good bullshit. There is very little accountability and or behavioral requirements in these churches. People can go to church, feel good, leave, and then do whatever. As a whole I don't know how sustainable this flavor of religion is. It is too close to agnosticism. The weak system sets up a weak belief, one that isn't strong enough to effect one's actions to any great degree. If this trend continues it's possible that a large majority of people might slip into some flavor of agnostic One who simply sleeps in on Sunday's but does not really disbelieve in a god or gods.
Another thing to consider is how Christianity is growing in other countries. If you studied the above statistics you would have some food for thought. I'd like to hear your input on this. All I can say is that perhaps places where religion has run it's course might be a model as to how the course of religion might run in these countries. This is just a possibility though.
Lastly, if you are still reading, you need to consider symptom substitution. Symptom substitution in is when people give up one bad habit but start a new bad habit. For example, someone might give up alcohol abuse but take up overeating and gain 100 pounds. This happens when the need that the old bad habit (somewhat) fulfilled is never really dealt with. Religion can be treated as a bad habit in this model. Religion fills a need. Some of these needs are extroverted, like in the need to do things in unison with a large group of people, and some are introverted, like in the search for meaning. External needs are easy to substitute with healthy things. For example you could go to a soccer game and cheer for your team with a large group of people. Internal things are a little more tricky. The alternatives are less well known. Meditation is one thing that can fill a need. Other's choose Unitarianism.
The one thing I can't seem to tackle adequately is the desire that some people have to find causal connections in non causal phenomena despite scientific evidence to the contrary. Take for example those who believe that vaccines cause autism. Or, for example, the belief in aliens. While the belief that aliens are involved at some level in human activity is not impossible it is highly improbably. This improbably is lost on the true believers.
From what I've read humans are set up to believe. It's how the brain works. If this is true then it's possible that you could use the disease model to deal with the phenomena of belief. In terms of psychology and brain science, find out why people are wired for belief, how people can fall into belief in something (the how, or the process) and how this belief is sustainable throughout a person's lifetime (how one can believe in the face of reason). Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, we could acknowledge that belief is just part of the human condition. Because of biology we are just as susceptible to belief as we are to the common cold. With this susceptibility in mind we can recognize the symptoms when we or other people start to experience them and then take measures to counteract these symptoms before the disease takes over. -Gosh that sounds fucking cold doesn't it. Oh well.
Anyway, Logically speaking, education is supposed to fix the problem of belief in unprovable things, it's supposed to make people critical skeptics, but it's not doing as good of a job as I think it ought to. Perhaps it's not education itself but the type of education that needs to be examined here. The disease model of religion might be of some use here.
There are two other factors one might want to consider one is what type of Christianity is on the rise and, in countries where Christianity is on the decline, is there a type of symptom substitution going on?
In the United States mega churches are on the rise. Mega churches can have two types of doctrines that are of note. What's interesting about their doctrine is in how this doctrine effects the sustainability of the religion. The prosperity doctrine, for example, is very popular. It feeds on the natural greed and desperation of it's listeners. One problem with the prosperity doctrine is that it's not sustainable through out a person's life. After so many years of the great promise of a "miracle breakthrough" not materializing, people begin to realize that it's a fraud. The rich are usually slow to realize this. These are people who are successful due to their own efforts but, due to confirmation bias, they attribute their success to god. Every new success they have is confirmation that their beliefs are true. This is not so for those who are unsuccessful or, in the case of randomness, unlucky. As a whole, the prosperity doctrine is sustainable due to it's ability to bring in large numbers of people (after all everyone loves to hear how god will solve all your problems magically). While it is true that, over time many believers in the prosperity doctrine loose their faith, if the amount of new believers is equal or greater than those who have left, then the religion can sustain itself.
Another doctrinal trend in mega churches is the watering down of the traditional Christian doctrine. Mega churches need to cast their nets wide in order to bring in the largest number of people. To do this they make their doctrine appealing to the greatest variety of people. They make their doctrine appealing by not pissing people off, or as I like to say it, by making people feel good with light, feel good bullshit. There is very little accountability and or behavioral requirements in these churches. People can go to church, feel good, leave, and then do whatever. As a whole I don't know how sustainable this flavor of religion is. It is too close to agnosticism. The weak system sets up a weak belief, one that isn't strong enough to effect one's actions to any great degree. If this trend continues it's possible that a large majority of people might slip into some flavor of agnostic One who simply sleeps in on Sunday's but does not really disbelieve in a god or gods.
Another thing to consider is how Christianity is growing in other countries. If you studied the above statistics you would have some food for thought. I'd like to hear your input on this. All I can say is that perhaps places where religion has run it's course might be a model as to how the course of religion might run in these countries. This is just a possibility though.
Lastly, if you are still reading, you need to consider symptom substitution. Symptom substitution in is when people give up one bad habit but start a new bad habit. For example, someone might give up alcohol abuse but take up overeating and gain 100 pounds. This happens when the need that the old bad habit (somewhat) fulfilled is never really dealt with. Religion can be treated as a bad habit in this model. Religion fills a need. Some of these needs are extroverted, like in the need to do things in unison with a large group of people, and some are introverted, like in the search for meaning. External needs are easy to substitute with healthy things. For example you could go to a soccer game and cheer for your team with a large group of people. Internal things are a little more tricky. The alternatives are less well known. Meditation is one thing that can fill a need. Other's choose Unitarianism.
The one thing I can't seem to tackle adequately is the desire that some people have to find causal connections in non causal phenomena despite scientific evidence to the contrary. Take for example those who believe that vaccines cause autism. Or, for example, the belief in aliens. While the belief that aliens are involved at some level in human activity is not impossible it is highly improbably. This improbably is lost on the true believers.
From what I've read humans are set up to believe. It's how the brain works. If this is true then it's possible that you could use the disease model to deal with the phenomena of belief. In terms of psychology and brain science, find out why people are wired for belief, how people can fall into belief in something (the how, or the process) and how this belief is sustainable throughout a person's lifetime (how one can believe in the face of reason). Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, we could acknowledge that belief is just part of the human condition. Because of biology we are just as susceptible to belief as we are to the common cold. With this susceptibility in mind we can recognize the symptoms when we or other people start to experience them and then take measures to counteract these symptoms before the disease takes over. -Gosh that sounds fucking cold doesn't it. Oh well.
Anyway, Logically speaking, education is supposed to fix the problem of belief in unprovable things, it's supposed to make people critical skeptics, but it's not doing as good of a job as I think it ought to. Perhaps it's not education itself but the type of education that needs to be examined here. The disease model of religion might be of some use here.
I have studied the Bible and the theology behind Christianity for many years. I have been to many churches. I have walked the depth and the breadth of the religion and, as a result of this, I have a lot of bullshit to scrape off the bottom of my shoes. ~Ziploc Surprise
