Religion By The Numbers

[Wizened Sage]

It is statistically obvious that the vast majority of the earth’s people are in a false religion. Interestingly, most seem quite untroubled by this fact.

 

According to a 1996 survey (likely still reasonably accurate today) described in Encyclopedia Britannica , the largest religion by membership is Christianity (including all of the vast array of sub-groups), with about 34% of the world’s population. Other groups can be summarized as 19% Muslim, 14% Hindu, 18% other religions, and 15% non-religious. Since only one religion, at most, can be “true,†then at least two-thirds of the world’s people are in the wrong religion. If one of the smaller religions – or none - is true, then an even larger proportion is in the wrong religion.

 

Since there is a very clear geographical distribution of the world’s religions, with only minor overlaps, it becomes obvious that most people get their religion from their parents and their culture – who, obviously, must be steering them wrong. In Israel, nearly all people are Jewish. In the remainder of the Middle East and Indonesia, most are Moslem. In India, most are Hindu, and in Europe and the Americas, most are Christian.

 

When pressed on where their religious beliefs come from, nearly all people will indicate their holy books and their hearts. That is, they believe their holy texts are accurate revelations of the truth, and if their defense of these books is seriously challenged, the believer falls back on the heart with such claims as, “I feel God inside me,†or “I just know in my heart that Jesus is divine.â€

 

The trouble with this defense, of course, is that the Christian and Muslim and all other religionists claim their holy book is the true revelation, and all are likewise convinced their internal feelings provide the proof.

 

One can point out to the religionist of any stripe that, statistically, the majority of holy texts must be false and, similarly, the internal convictions of the majority must also be wrong, but to no avail. They seem to think believers in other religions should seek other evidence, external to their holy books or their feelings, but that their own are unassailable. Press upon them the obvious conclusion that it makes no sense to accept a text or a feeling if these are demonstrably wrong the majority of the time and they still don’t seem to get it. Perhaps this is because no one has ever found any trace of evidence for a god in the natural world. All “evidence†is in the holy texts or the heart. Curious indeed.

[MathGeek]

One can point out to the religionist of any stripe that, statistically, the majority of holy texts must be false and, similarly, the internal convictions of the majority must also be wrong, but to no avail. They seem to think believers in other religions should seek other evidence, external to their holy books or their feelings, but that their own are unassailable. Press upon them the obvious conclusion that it makes no sense to accept a text or a feeling if these are demonstrably wrong the majority of the time and they still don’t seem to get it. Perhaps this is because no one has ever found any trace of evidence for a god in the natural world. All “evidence†is in the holy texts or the heart. Curious indeed.

 

This has been an interesting topic for me lately as well. The "other evidence" that a religionist will offer are the logical systems established, the sheer volume of text written about the religion, the number of followers and how long the religion has been in existence. Judaism may take the title for the longest-continually operating religion in the history of Western Civilization even the adherents to it have dwindled in size over the last several thousand years, yet it in no way compares to Christianity and Islam in terms of sheer numbers of followers. Where is comes to what the right religion is lies in the heart of the newly converted and strict adherent I guess.

 

Furthermore, I have never read Daniel Dennett's "Breaking The Spell", but I believe religiosity is a matter of "heart" as it always has been. Since people are inherently different, every person has a different need for truth. Granted you and I dislike Christianity, but people we've associated ourselves with still have a need to believe and there is no way to shatter that. We've found our truth within disbelief in Christianity, and others find theirs in other belief systems. The problem is that the more apologetic a particular person, there more apt they are to make to press their beliefs into a formalized logical system, which I think is dangerous and may leave the non-believer at a strict disadvantage in an argument. For example, I watched a video with a guy who looked like Cornelius Van Til pressing forth a challenge to answer the "problem of induction". This kid basically said, "Before one is a scientist, one must be a theologian." These evangelical philosophers just love to expose the holes in something because they feel like they are being persecuted or being deemed irrelevant.

 

Sorry for this elongated rant, but I let my mind wander whenever I post. I agree with your assertion and I hope my musings give any meaning to your musings.

[par4dcourse]

Then there's the division even amonst xtians. There's over 10,000 sub sects of xtianity, all claiming to be the one true way.

[hereticzero]

Yes, and everyone knows the true religion is Astronomy, blessed Hubble be thy name.

[Telesmith]

More like 35,000 denominations and that is just in the States and that is the point at which the researchers stopped counting and that was a couple of decades ago. I have to go find that study now...