It's possible that evangelicism is growing even if religiosity on the whole is declining. It's very hard to tell from these sorts of surveys, because what constitutes being religious is extremely difficult to define. Subtle differences in phrasing lead to enormous differences in outcome, e.g. 'are you a Christian' vs 'do you go to church at least once a week' could literally have a 50 point spread in the US. (And god forbid you test if people can recite the ten commandments from memory before counting them as Christian.)
And it gets even more difficult than this because most religions don't look or feel anything like Christianity, but because that's the most common religion in the US most surveys are biased in favor of religions that look like Christianity.
So you have issues like, is the Church of Subgenius a religion? Is science a religion? Is gnosticism the same as Gnosticism? etc.
There are entire college classes you can take on the history of the methodology of the study of religion, that focus on these questions like how do you know if something is a religion and how do you determine if someone is religious or not.
edit: A fun quote I snagged from Overdosed America suggesting that the excessive belief in western medicine may in fact have some commonalities with religion:
"Could it be that, although we define our era by the tremendous scientific and technological progress that is being made (particularly in medicine), our desire to believe in this narrative of biomedical progress predisposes us to uncritical belief in its real merits? In other words, might the shared belief in the potential of medical science be, in large part, our cultural mythology?
We tend to look upon myths with romantic condescension as the stories of primitive societies that provide shared meaning and hope and ease the prospect of suffering and death -- stories that are made of 'facts' that we (scientifically sophisticated as we are) know are not really true. Our belief that we are too scientifically grounded to succumb to such nonrational beliefs may, in fact, be our myth. How else can we explain the widespread agreement that statins or the new antidepressants or the COX-2 inhibitors are genuine breakthroughs that will preserve and restore our health in ways never before possible? These are our myths, merging science and hope into our shared belief."
Slightly OT: calling it "western medicine" is playing into hands of the quacks and woo-meisters who attempt to spin modern medicine as somehow being inferior to various "complementary" and "alternative" therapies.
Download a list of the top 25 most prescribed drugs of 2011 and let me know how many are clinically superior to faith healing. The entire list is dominated by SSRIs, benzos, statins, calcium channel blockers, antipsychotics, and evergreened drugs like Nexium -- all of which are no better than generics or placebos, and in fact are considerably worse, for the vast majority of people they're prescribed to.
Then after that look at a list of the most performed surgeries and let me know how many are more effective than placebo surgery.
That's the point the author is making. The belief that you can eat whatever you want and not exercise and then take a pill to keep you alive is really no different than believing that Jesus is going to save you, at least as far as the evidence is concerned.
Some of it is inferior. Much like most alternative therapies, a lot of "western medicine" doesn't work. But it's superior in one regard.
A faith healer will wave his hands at you + 50 other people for $10/each. In contrast, a doctor will charge you $30 copay + $100 from your insurance company for an equally pointless prostate exam.
And it gets even more difficult than this because most religions don't look or feel anything like Christianity, but because that's the most common religion in the US most surveys are biased in favor of religions that look like Christianity.
So you have issues like, is the Church of Subgenius a religion? Is science a religion? Is gnosticism the same as Gnosticism? etc.
There are entire college classes you can take on the history of the methodology of the study of religion, that focus on these questions like how do you know if something is a religion and how do you determine if someone is religious or not.
edit: A fun quote I snagged from Overdosed America suggesting that the excessive belief in western medicine may in fact have some commonalities with religion:
"Could it be that, although we define our era by the tremendous scientific and technological progress that is being made (particularly in medicine), our desire to believe in this narrative of biomedical progress predisposes us to uncritical belief in its real merits? In other words, might the shared belief in the potential of medical science be, in large part, our cultural mythology?
We tend to look upon myths with romantic condescension as the stories of primitive societies that provide shared meaning and hope and ease the prospect of suffering and death -- stories that are made of 'facts' that we (scientifically sophisticated as we are) know are not really true. Our belief that we are too scientifically grounded to succumb to such nonrational beliefs may, in fact, be our myth. How else can we explain the widespread agreement that statins or the new antidepressants or the COX-2 inhibitors are genuine breakthroughs that will preserve and restore our health in ways never before possible? These are our myths, merging science and hope into our shared belief."