11

This recent article from anonhq.com has been widely shared on Facebook.

It claims:

A recent global survey conducted by National Geographic shows that the worlds fastest growing religion is not Islam or Christianity, but no religion at all – atheism.

However, the cited article from National Geographic makes a much weaker claim.

The religiously unaffiliated, called "nones," are growing significantly. They’re the second largest religious group in North America and most of Europe. In the United States, nones make up almost a quarter of the population. In the past decade, U.S. nones have overtaken Catholics, mainline protestants, and all followers of non-Christian faiths.

National Geographic makes a firmer distinction between "nones" and atheists.

Within the ranks of the unaffiliated, divisions run deep. Some are avowed atheists. Others are agnostic. And many more simply don’t care to state a preference.

Are the stronger claims that the number of religiously unaffiliated people is growing faster (in absolute terms) than any religion?

Sakib Arifin
  • 15,705
  • 14
  • 63
  • 137
  • This [question](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8910/is-atheism-the-fastest-growing-religion-in-the-history-of-the-united-states) takes about atheists in the USA. Is that close enough to close as a duplicate? – Oddthinking Jul 09 '16 at 17:42
  • 2
    No, cause this question talks about the world's not the USA's. – Sakib Arifin Jul 09 '16 at 17:46
  • I understand it isn't an exact duplicate. I was hoping it would address your skepticism sufficiently not to require another answer. You've already seen that the anonhq article is not supported by references. – Oddthinking Jul 09 '16 at 17:50
  • 1
    That's a interesting distinction I didn't stop to think about at all until I read this question. _Not affiliated to a religion_ is _different_ from atheism. That is something I can see fairly clearly on my family now that I think about it - I have a few believers-in-god that aren't exactly part of any religion. – T. Sar Jul 11 '16 at 19:49
  • 3
    @ThalesPereira It is also possible to be religious and not believe in any god. – called2voyage Jul 11 '16 at 20:07
  • 3
    Many religions that have seen a distinct growth in popularity in recent times are still lumped together as "other / none / unaffiliated" in most questionaires -- I am looking at the neopagans here (Wiccan, Ásatrú etc.). Myself, the German 1987 census registered as "Protestant" (while I was more leaning toward atheism at the time), and the 2011 census as "none / other" (while I am actually *much* more religious now than I was in 1987), simply because Ásatrú is not recognized by the state yet. Statistics lie. – DevSolar Jul 12 '16 at 13:35
  • 4
    "but no religion at all – atheism." "No religion at all" does not equal atheism, right? I think atheism is an 'active disbelief' in god or gods not just the mere lack of an affiliation or identifying as belonging to a recognized god-worshiping religion. I think someone could be "no religion" but not atheist. – If you do not know- just GIS Oct 02 '16 at 22:04
  • 1
    Atheism doesn't require active disbelief, just the absence of belief, in the existence of gods or deities. It's possible to be religious and atheist, or nonreligious and atheist, or antireligious and atheist. You're right about the affiliation too; being atheist says nothing about whether affiliation exists, even whether it's an affiliation to a theistic or deistic religion (paradoxically enough). – Nij Oct 03 '16 at 05:47
  • 1
    [xkcd](https://xkcd.com/1102/) on "fastest growing" – Henry Oct 03 '16 at 07:08
  • @called2voyage - No, I don't think be religious and not believe in any god. Not without redefining the actual meaning of "religion," in any case. Perhaps you are thinking more along the lines of being spiritual. – PoloHoleSet Oct 03 '16 at 13:52
  • @AndrewMattson See [these results](https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Areligion&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8). None of the definitions *require* god(s), though some of them are strongly associated with the concept. Religion versus spirituality is more about the divide between organized and corporate versus eclectic and personal. – called2voyage Oct 03 '16 at 13:55
  • @called2voyage - "a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." ..... your link. Not "some of them are strongly associated with the concept" - pretty much ALL of them are. While some people like to try and redefine religion as an exercise in semantics, usually to try and undercut atheist claims of objectivity, religion requires that belief in the superhuman controlling power. Not all belief systems are religions, but all religions involve that belief in a greater controlling power. Like I said, you'd have to redefine what religion is. – PoloHoleSet Oct 03 '16 at 14:01
  • @AndrewMattson I will not continue to split hairs with you. There are easily found open discussions about nontheistic definitions of religion. That is sufficient for a nontheistic use of the word here. – called2voyage Oct 03 '16 at 14:05
  • @called2voyage - except the articles are using the term in more of an ironic sense, not a literal one, so, trying to link your comment back to the original question isn't all that valid. – PoloHoleSet Oct 03 '16 at 14:07
  • @AndrewMattson My comment was not in regards to "No religion" being a religion, but was a response to "Not affiliated to a religion is different from atheism." There are, for example, adherents of Neopaganism which are also atheists. This is not an ironic sense, but a literal one. The point is that a question addressing the growth of "No religion" does not address the growth of atheism. As there are some who claim a religion, but are also atheists. – called2voyage Oct 03 '16 at 14:09
  • @called2voyage - thanks for sharing your thoughts. – PoloHoleSet Oct 03 '16 at 14:10
  • 1
    @Nij wrong. Just because you don't believe in a god doesn't mean you're an atheist. You could be (and most will be) an agnostic. – jwenting Oct 04 '16 at 06:48
  • @jwenting Agnosticism and atheism are orthogonal axes; **they are not exclusive**. A person can be both agnostic and atheist, one but not the other, or neither. The definition of atheism is, literally, to not believe in the existence of any gods. – Nij Oct 04 '16 at 06:50
  • @Nij yet your assertion is that anyone who's not actively religious must be atheist, blatantly incorrect. – jwenting Oct 04 '16 at 06:51
  • @jwenting I have not at all, anywhere, claimed that a person without active religion must be an atheist. I have claimed that being atheist is not determinate of being religious, and vice versa, which is diametrically opposed to the idea you are wrongly trying to ascribe to me. – Nij Oct 04 '16 at 06:56
  • @Nij: And it's still oversimplifying. I am religious. I pray, I give thanks, I make sacrifices. But I don't actually believe in the tangible *existence* of the gods I am praying to, or rather, I don't care either way. The rituals help me cope with things in my life I have no control over, in a good way. What does that make me? ;-) – DevSolar Dec 06 '16 at 16:51
  • If you don't care either way, you're apathetic. If you lack belief, you're an atheist. These aren't simplifications, they're just descriptors with definitions. – Nij Dec 06 '16 at 22:02
  • @Nij: I think you are taking these definitions *way* too binary. But this isn't the place to discuss it at length. Let's just say that I disagree with either the "apathetic" or the "atheist" label, because they just don't fit. – DevSolar Dec 07 '16 at 13:09

1 Answers1

8

The data for this claim comes from a 2015 study by the Pew Research Center, one of the leading groups analyzing religious demographics.

However, the claim being made is in direct contradiction to the study's subtitle:

Why Muslims Are Rising Fastest and the Unaffiliated Are Shrinking as a Share of the World’s Population

Where does the Anon News claim come from? The National Geographic article it quotes focuses on the secularization of Western Europe, Australia and North America. This is a well-known demographic trend that has been tracked and analyzed since the late 1960s.

Some researchers at that time expected that the entire world would secularize, so the data collection in other regions of the world had to be accordingly careful. The result disproved the universality of the thesis (same source):

Similarly, the religiously unaffiliated population is projected to shrink as a percentage of the global population, even though it will increase in absolute number. In 2010, censuses and surveys indicate, there were about 1.1 billion atheists, agnostics and people who do not identify with any particular religion. By 2050, the unaffiliated population is expected to exceed 1.2 billion. But, as a share of all the people in the world, those with no religious affiliation are projected to decline from 16% in 2010 to 13% by the middle of this century.

At the same time, however, the unaffiliated are expected to continue to increase as a share of the population in much of Europe and North America. In the United States, for example, the unaffiliated are projected to grow from an estimated 16% of the total population (including children) in 2010 to 26% in 2050.

But this does not make "no religion" the fastest growing group even in the West, as the numbers of Muslims and Hindus are expected to roughly double from immigration. The claim is completely false.

Community
  • 1
Avery
  • 44,313
  • 16
  • 183
  • 179
  • The answer seems to focus on projections, instead of historical data. As it is already accepted I guess there won't be any additions – WalyKu Oct 25 '16 at 14:39
  • @WalyKu I was on mobile and could not link to the historic graph, but you can see it at the source yourself, if you care to click – Avery Oct 25 '16 at 14:40