Hold on before anyone gets too excited. In my experience, these numbers are almost always misleading. They never present the whole picture, and every religion would like to think that it's "the fastest growing."

Look at the numbers, and the demographics, and you'll see a number of problems.

First, they don't specify where the new members come from. Compare them to population growth rates. Much of the Arab and Indian world has a disproportionate youth population (10 years ago, half of the population of Morocco was under the age of 18, for instance.) which means that they will be creating more families, and thus more "new" adherents. Also, Hindu and Muslim populations traditionally don't sup...

Hold on before anyone gets too excited. In my experience, these numbers are almost always misleading. They never present the whole picture, and every religion would like to think that it's "the fastest growing."

Look at the numbers, and the demographics, and you'll see a number of problems.

First, they don't specify where the new members come from. Compare them to population growth rates. Much of the Arab and Indian world has a disproportionate youth population (10 years ago, half of the population of Morocco was under the age of 18, for instance.) which means that they will be creating more families, and thus more "new" adherents. Also, Hindu and Muslim populations traditionally don't support birth control or family planning, thus they have larger families. But to say a faith is growing simply because it's population is booming isn't the same as it actually expanding its ideological base or gaining new ground. In fact, Hinduism specifically disdains conversion, and many westerners who think they have convereted to "Hinduism" are surprised when they are denied entrance to temples in India and Nepal on the basis that one cannot "convert" to Hinduism.

Other religions, such as Baha'i or Jainism, are very small, so relatively insignificant numbers of conversion will still result in a high growth rate when viewed by percentage. Thus, while Islam grew by almost 24,000,000 adherents, Baha'i, in second place on this chart, grew by only 130,900. The religion which grew the most was Christianity, by over 30,000,000.

However...

...that is not to say that I believe Christianity is really growing by that much either. A lot of Christians claim that Christianity is growing, and emphasize new conversions. However, they don't explain that most of the conversions are inter-denominational. Sure there are millions of conversions in South America every year to Evangelical Christianity, but they are mostly converting Catholics, or other Protestants. So the global population of Christians is not growing as fast as they suggest it is... there is just a shift occurring within Christianity. From the outside perspective, a person who already believed in God and believed that Jesus was his son who died on the cross for our sins bef...

...that is not to say that I believe Christianity is really growing by that much either. A lot of Christians claim that Christianity is growing, and emphasize new conversions. However, they don't explain that most of the conversions are inter-denominational. Sure there are millions of conversions in South America every year to Evangelical Christianity, but they are mostly converting Catholics, or other Protestants. So the global population of Christians is not growing as fast as they suggest it is... there is just a shift occurring within Christianity. From the outside perspective, a person who already believed in God and believed that Jesus was his son who died on the cross for our sins before they "converted" is not a true convert to Christianity. In many cases this is literally preaching to the choir.

This also fails to overlook the fact that some of these numbers are artificially large because they are grouping a large, heterodox group of faiths into a single moniker, when many of the constituent faiths have very little in common. (This is especially true of "Hinduism" which is a characterization of South Asian spirituality invented and used almost exclusively by westerners.) (Even thought they may sound alike, the Vedas and Vedanta probably have less in common than Judaism and Christianity.)

Anyway, this is like the survey that said 97% of the world believed in a "higher being," which totally overlooked the fact that there are about a billion ardent atheists in China alone.

But also, as a research who strives to be objective, this creates many dilemmas. What makes a person a new member of a faith? Is someone who is born into the church and follows the motions of ritual out of habit and not faith truly a believer? But then again, is self-identification enough to count a person among the faithful?

As an anthropologist, I can't dismiss a person's self-identification, because in the end we have little else to go by, but then what are the limits? I have met many "Sikhs" in America. Some are part of the diaspora, and follow very seriously the traditional Sikh teachings. On the other hand, some are Western converts. These people are philosophically interested in the ...

But also, as a research who strives to be objective, this creates many dilemmas. What makes a person a new member of a faith? Is someone who is born into the church and follows the motions of ritual out of habit and not faith truly a believer? But then again, is self-identification enough to count a person among the faithful?

As an anthropologist, I can't dismiss a person's self-identification, because in the end we have little else to go by, but then what are the limits? I have met many "Sikhs" in America. Some are part of the diaspora, and follow very seriously the traditional Sikh teachings. On the other hand, some are Western converts. These people are philosophically interested in the ideas of Sikhism, but they do not wear a turban, they do not carry a knife, some of them drink and smoke and eat beef and pork, and very few are prepared to die for Khalistan. So, although they express a personal affinity for Sikhism, their life and actions don't reflect it.

How should we deal with new converts who the establishment rejects? How can the numbers possibly take these complications into account?

Actually, Sohil just posted a great clip on this issue that raises another fascinating question about conversion.

In the west we have linked the idea of belief and the idea of religion to the point where we presume all that it takes to become part of a religion is to say "I believe it to be true."

However, many Eastern Religions (most notably Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Shinto) faith or belief in facts is not valued so much as the translation of philosophical ideas into practice in our lives.

That is to say, many Eastern Religions seem wholy indifferent to "Belief" and instead focused on "Action." The religions are not asserti...

Actually, Sohil just posted a great clip on this issue that raises another fascinating question about conversion.

In the west we have linked the idea of belief and the idea of religion to the point where we presume all that it takes to become part of a religion is to say "I believe it to be true."

However, many Eastern Religions (most notably Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Shinto) faith or belief in facts is not valued so much as the translation of philosophical ideas into practice in our lives.

That is to say, many Eastern Religions seem wholy indifferent to "Belief" and instead focused on "Action." The religions are not assertions of facts (like Judaism Christianity and Islam) but more ways of living.

This sheds valuable light on the phenomenon of westerners who think "I believe that Sikhism or Hinduism is true, therefore I am a Sikh or a Hindu" even though they are not seen as true converts by the orthodox communities.

This is also a key question in an interesting discussion about a clip on Christopher Hitchens' new book.

Great clip, and, sohil and Austin, I have been arguing the same thing for quite some time. The western tendency to privilege interiority, belief, and individual self-identification over custom, social and cultural affinities, and praxis is pretty much a post-Enlightenment or post-Reformation phenomenon, and it reflects a basically Protestant way of looking at the world. I often shock my students by telling them that "religion" -- as they imagine it to be, i.e. primarily creedal and dogmatic in nature -- doesn't really exist at all, except in the minds of more-or-less secularized, modern, Protestant individualists. That's the problem with modern-day proponents of atheism too: they think that ...

Great clip, and, sohil and Austin, I have been arguing the same thing for quite some time. The western tendency to privilege interiority, belief, and individual self-identification over custom, social and cultural affinities, and praxis is pretty much a post-Enlightenment or post-Reformation phenomenon, and it reflects a basically Protestant way of looking at the world. I often shock my students by telling them that "religion" -- as they imagine it to be, i.e. primarily creedal and dogmatic in nature -- doesn't really exist at all, except in the minds of more-or-less secularized, modern, Protestant individualists. That's the problem with modern-day proponents of atheism too: they think that the "belief" component is the sole component, or at least the most important, component of religion, where in fact in many historical and cultural settings it has next to no significance at all. So once they've "proven" that it's irrational to believe in religious concepts, they think they've defeated religion, when in fact they've completely missed the point of it in terms of its role in the lives of most religious people.