Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
by Nanang Nurcholis
Abstract
It is unquestionably that religiosity is a dimension increasingly studied by researchers in
psychology throughout the world. Over the years, global assessment of religiosity has been
less used, the assessment being done by using specific scales for different dimensions.
Regarding to religiosity in Islam, some scholars have different opinions and theory,
especially related to the measurement of religiosity since Islamic concept of religion is
fundamentally different from the concept of other religions and there is a great deal of
difference in specific forms of religious life between the Islamic and Judaeo-Christian
tradition. Despite its complexity and difficulty to define, some scholars have already tried to
propose a number of approaches which in turn have created various concepts. Therefore, this
article presents a common analytical study of religiosity, particularly, in the psychological
perspective. It simply intends to explain the concept of religiosity that encompasses its
definition
n, dimension, theory, type, and measurement.
Key word: religiosity, Islam, psychology, dimension, measurement
A. Religion
a. Defining religion
It is commonly known that the term religiosity is derived from the root word religare (to
tie, to bind). It also appears in religio (Latin); religion (English), and al-din (Arabic).
Although, etymologically, it has their own meaning, but terminologically and technically
those terms have same meaning.2
Some scholars have suggested that defining religion is either impossible or that it is such
a major enterprise that we could not attempt it in a short book. Wulff (1997) suggests that a
satisfactory definition (of religion) has eluded scholars to this day, and that Smith (1963)
has demonstrated that the noun religion ... (is) not only unnecessary but inadequate to any
genuine understanding. Brown (1987) spent many pages over 100 on the problems of
1
This article is presented in discussion forum on Friday, April 12, 2013, Psychology Course of Doctorate Program
State Institute of Islamic Studies (IAIN) Walisongo Semarang.
2
Fuad Nashori dan Rachmy Diana Mucharam, Mengembangkan Kreativitas dalam Perspektif Psikologi Islam,
Yogyakarta: Menara Kudus, 2002, p. 69
defining, analysing and measuring religion and its many parameters. Capps (1997) has
argued that the definitions of religion offered by eminent scholars reflect the personal
biographies of those scholars.3
Inspite of such difficulties, some scholars have successfully defined religion in their own
view. For example Peter Connolly defines it as, Any beliefs which involve the acceptance of
a sacred, trans-empirical realm and any behaviours designed to affect a persons
relationship with that realm4. Jorg Stolz perceives as the whole of cultural symbol-systems
that respond to problems of meaning and contingency by alluding to a transcendent reality
which influences everyday life but cannot be directly controlled.5 Religious symbol-systems
incorporate mythical, ethical and ritual elements as well as salvation goods. As result,
religiosity is an individual. It means an individual preferences, emotions, beliefs, and actions
that refer to an existing (or self-made) religion. And so religion is a cultural phenomenon. If
an individual prays, sacrifices, believes, loves or fears his god then this is religiosity.
Christianity, Islam, Christian Science or Raelianism, on the other hand, are religious
symbol-systems, that is, religions.6
B. Theoretical Framework
1. Religiosity
a. Defining religiosity
It is acknowledgeable that there is no a universally agreed definition for religion 7 and the
search for a generally accepted theory faces enormous difficulties in the case of religion.
(Clarke & Byrne, 1993).8 Religion means different things to different people. Depending on
social and cultural contexts and their mind-sets, people perceive and understand religion in
different ways. Even within the same religious tradition, there are varieties of interpretations
as to the meaning of religion and its relations to individual and society. Religions cant be
perceived monolithic belief systems because monolithic approach to religion fails to
Kate.M Lowenthal, Psychology of Religion : A Short Introduction, England: One World Publication, 2000, p. 3
Peter Connolly, Approaches to the Study of Religion (Introduction), (New York: Continuum, 2001), p. 4-5
5
Jorg Stolz, Explaining religiosity: towards a unified theoretical model, The British Journal of Sociology 2009
Volume 60 Issue 2, p.347
6
Ibid
7
Fatmir Mehdi Shehu, The Concept of Religious Experience: A Quranic Perspective (article), p. 4
8
Safiek Mokhlis, Relevancy and Measurement of Religiosity in Consumer Behavior Research, Journal of
International Business Research, Vol. 2. No. 3., July 2009, Faculty of Management and Economics, University of
Malaysia Terengganu, p. 76
4
There are many many credible studies which support the argument that religious experince has a vast diversity and
variety. For this line of argument see William (1895) James The Varieties of Religious Experience, Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press (Original work published 1906). For an attempt to chart slamic religious experience see
Frederick M. Denny (1991) Varieties of Religious Experince in the Quran in S. Seikaly and R. Baalbaki (eds.)
Quest for Understanding, Beirut, Lebanon: American University Press: 185-202
10
Talip Kucukcan, Can Religiosity be Measured? Dimensions of Religious Commitment:
Theories Revisited (article), Theology Faculty, Uludag University, Turkey, p. 1
11
Petrua-Paraschiva RUSU & Maria-Nicoleta TURLIUC, Ways of Approaching Religiosity in Psychological
Research, The Journal of International Social Research, Volume: 4 Issue: 18, Summer 2011, University of Lai,
Romania, p. 354
12
Barbara Holdcroft, What Is Religiosity?, Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice, Vol. 10, No. 1,
September, p. 89-103.
13
Barbara, Ibid
Muhammad Syukri Salleh, Religiosity in Development: A Theoretical Construct of an Islamic-Based
Development, International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol. 2 No. 14 [Special Issue - July 2012],
Centre for Islamic Development Management Studies (ISDEV) School of Social Sciences, University of Sains
Malaysia, p. 266
14
Talip Kucukcan, Multidimensional Approach to Religion: A Way of Looking at Religious Phenomena, JSRI, No.
10/ Spring 2005, p. 63
21
These dimensions are summarized by Cardwell (1980); the cognitive dimension is concerned with what
individuals know about religion, i.e., religious knowledge. The cultic dimension makes reference to the individuals
religious practices, i.e., ritualistic behavior. The creedal dimension is concerned with a personal religious belief, and
the devotional dimension refers to a persons religious feelings and experiences, i.e., the experiential dimension. (p.
6).
22
higher these four categories of the dimensions and components are, the higher the ones
religiosity is. The belief dimension captures the closeness to which an individuals set of
beliefs ascribes to the ideological constructs of the religion, namely its theology. It consists of
statement (of faith) on the (i) existence of a divine being and its nature; (ii) content and goals
of the will of the divine being, and the role of nature and humans in this will, and (iii) actions
required to fulfill this divine will. This ritual dimension measures ones involvement in a
variety of religious practices and the relationship between different practices (different
individuals weight activities differently and so practice each with different frequencies). The
experience dimension measures the extent to which individual perceive themselves to have
had encounters of a religious context (e.g. sense of salvation, sin, closeness to and fear the
Divine).23
C. Dimensions of Religiosity in Islam
In relation to dimensions of religiosity in Islam, we quote the opinion of Fuad Nashori
and Serajzadeh (1998), in his study on the Iranian Muslim youth and crime, developed an
adapted measure for religiosity based on the Glock and Stark's model. The assumption for
using the model was "since the three monotheistic religions (namely Judaism, Christianity
and Islam) seem to share similar elements in their structural tenets, some items developed by
researchers for Christianity and Judaism seem to be applicable to Islam too". For each of
Glock and Stark's five dimensions, Serajzadeh included or applied the aspects of the Islamic
faith. For example, for the "Ideological, dimension, the Islamic 'articles of faith' or the 'five
pillars' were used. For the 'Ritualistic' dimension, Serajzadeh included daily prayer (salat)
and fasting during the month of Ramadan (as part of the "Pillars of Islam"), reading the Holy
Book, the "Koran", attending public prayer (both daily and during the Friday prayer), taking
part in ceremonies held on holy days in mosques and others.24
The adaptation of the Glock and Stark's model to an Islamic religious context, although
more comprehensive than most multidimensional models measuring the Muslim populations,
has important short-comings that must be highlighted. Glock and Stark's model is an attempt
to universalize a set of primary religiosity dimensions, based on commonalties in "general
23
Jonathan H.W.Tan. & Claudia Vogel, Religion and Trust: An experimental Study, Discussion Paper/No. 240-2005,
European University Friadina Frankfurt, Department of Business Administration and Economics.
24
Abdul Latif & friends, The Muslim Religiosity-Personality Measurement Inventory (MRPI)'s Religiosity
Measurement Model: Towards Filling the Gaps in Religiosity Research on Muslims, Journal of Pertanika/ Soc. Sci.
& Hum. 13 (2): University Putra Malysia Press, 2005, p. 131-145
areas in which religiosity is manifested. This model, although perhaps achieving its general
goal, neglects the uniqueness and spirit of the individual religious tradition, however,
including each tradition's unique understanding of what religion is and is meant to be in the
life of its followers. This stems ultimately from a faith's particular worldview.
Accordingly, Glock and Stark's model is suitable for a general religiosity, in that it was
developed by looking at commonalities across the religious traditions. However, for
measuring Islamic religiosity specifically, the Glock and Stark's model may be inadequate for
generalizability and commonalities with other traditions is of less concern. Rather, what is
desired is to capture the unique qualities and the most relevant dimensions of religiosity from
the perspective of lslam alone. Thus, the dimensions of Glock and Stark's model, although
they can be shown to exist within Islamic religiosity, may not be the most appropriate given
the makeup of the Islamic religious worldview and how the worldview is manifested in the
daily lives of Muslims.
This objection has been highlighted by Shamsuddin (1992) who indicated that Muslims,
in particular, need a relatively different scale to measure religiosity because"... the Islamic
concept of religion is fundamentally different from the [above mentioned] concept of
religion."
Besides, there is a great deal of difference in specific forms of religious life between of the
Islamic and Judaeo-Christian tradition, the instruments available for measuring the
religiosity of the one religious tradition might not be appropriate for measuring the
religiosity of others. The scales available for measuring the religiosity of Jewsa and
Christian might not be quite appropriate for measuring the religiosity of Muslims because
Islam differs from both Judaism and Christianity in regard to : (i) the meaning znd scope
of religion, (ii) the nature of the acts of worship, and (iii) the dimensions of religious life
as such.25
In response, Shamsuddin proposed a model of Islamic religiosity" represented by the
concept of taqwa (God-consciousness) - a multidimensional variable of religiosity that
includes knowledge ('ilm/ma 'rifah), belief (iman), practice ('amal), (natajah) and realization
of excellence (ihsan). Smce the scope of religion, i.e. its dimensions, are defined by the very
concept of religion, "... the content dimensions of the Muslim religiosity vary considerably
with the Judeo Christian religious tradition".26
25
Quazi Shamsuddin Md. Ilyas, Dimensions of Muslim religiosity: Measurement considerations, In Qur'anic
Concepts of Human Psyche, ed. Zafar Maq Ansari, Islamabad: Institute of Islamic Culture, 1998, p. 100
26
Ibid., p. 105
In adapted measurements such as the Glock and Stark model, therefore, there remain a
lack of integration between the unique religious elements that comprise the Islamic tawhidic
worldview. The Glock and Stark's model does not reflect the Islamic religiosity elements
such as the role of the in religious practice, the different categories of knowledge that
comprise religious worldview, e.g., worldly and other-worldly dimensions of knowledge and
others that are inherent within the tawhidic worldview of Islam.
D. Measuring Religiosity
institutions are problematic because age, socio-economic status and education are three
variables that strongly correlate with the religious experience. 28
The expressive belief dimension measures the extent to which individuals behave
in society in accordance with their religious beliefs, guiding their behavior by the
principles of Christian faith and the extent to which individuals consider Christian
teachings helpful in their everyday life and they think that the hardships through which
they pass have a positive role and consider them religious people. Religious behavior
questionnaire is structured on three dimensions: daily religious practice (prayer, going
to church, visiting monasteries and possession of religious objects such as icons,
crosses, theological books), active position (bringing religious arguments in
discussions, sharing religious beliefs with others, offering religious advice and reading
religious books) and deep religious practices (fasting, confession, communion).
C. 3. Selecting instruments for measuring religiosity
Gorsuch (1984) argues that the measuring instruments in the psychology of
religion are both a bane and a boon. Tsang and McCullough (2003) consider that the
psychology of religion suffers from an abundance of scales and a lack of alternatives to
self-report measures. Because there are already many measurement scales of religiosity,
Gorsuch (1984) argued that psychologists should not build other scales before making a
review of the literature and see whether there is already an appropriate scale for what
they want to measure and instead of developing new measurements, researchers should
explore the relationship between the existing measurements and a series of
psychological constructs that have not been analyzed. Despite Gorsuch's suggestion,
between 1985 and 1999 there were built 40 other instruments to measure religiosity
(Hill and Hood, 1999), most of which are very close to the existing ones. Tsang and
McCullough (2003) argue that the construction of new scales wastes resources that
could be directed towards the study of other fundamental problems of the religion
psychology.
In addition to the self-reporting questionnaires, which are easy to administrate
and scored, to study and accurate assessment of religiosity it is necessary to use
additional techniques: interviews or peer reports. When using self-reporting
28
Ibid., p. 359
questionnaires, may occur social desirability biases (Tsang and McCullough, 2003). For
example, the relationship between intrinsic religious orientation and racial tolerance is
questionable as it is explained by the relationship between intrinsic religiosity and
social desirability. 29
E. Types of religiosity
Examining the issue of religiosity some hundred years later, Abdul Karim
Soroush, a well-known Iranian scholar distinguishes respectively; pragmatic religiosity,
Gnostic religiosity and experiential religiosity.30 First, pragmatic religiosity. In this type
of religiosity, a view or an actions ultimate purpose, utility and outcome (this worldly
or other worldly) are of paramount importance to the believer. It is a religion for life
(not synonymous with life or higher than life). 31 Its central axis is emotion and practical
rationality.
Pragmatic religiosity is mundane, causal (not reasoned), hereditary, deterministic
(not arising from choice or free will), emotional, dogmatic, ritualistic, ideological,
identity-bound, external, collective, legalistic-juristic, mythic, imitative, obedient,
traditional and habitual. The goal of this type of religiousness is the emotion and
practical rationality. Emotion is the characteristic of religiousness of the common
people, while the practical rationality is the main characteristic of the religiousness of
well educated middle class.32
This type of religiousness is characterized by its rituals, which are practiced by
the people together. It relates to heredity, not to logical reason, since it is based on
emotion. It is gradually influenced by dogmatism and prejudice, and it rejects
pluralism. It saves traditional customs dogmatically and blames everyone who tries to
question religious concepts as betrayers of religion. Consequently, it will gradually
expel and ostracize people.33
29
Ibid
Abdul Karim Soroush, Types of Religiosity, Kiyan, No. 50, 1378/2000, quoted from
http://www.drsoroush.com/English/By_DrSoroush/E-CMB-20000300-Types_of_Religiosity.html.
31
Ibid
32
Abdullah Sumrahadi, The Religious Experience of Youth: An Indonesian Sociological Perspective, The
International Journal of Humanities, Volume 9, Issue 5/2012, p. 29-30
33
Ibid., p. 30
30
We can assume that the pious people of faith are those who obey and accept
Gods commandments without any hesitation, follow the prophets way without any
reinterpretation or dynamism, and consider the clerics or religious leaders as the
guarantor of heaven (this will lead into the cultism in religious leadership). Finally,
obedience is considered as a meritorious achievement, not as something that will guide
one to a peaceful heart.
Second is Gnostic religiosity.34 This religious awareness is everything that relates
to the secret of God (not in the mythical sense, but as the problem, and as rational
questions). Here, people find a theoretical rationality which is sensitive to the
appropriate reasons in claim making. In this type of religiosity, there is no role for the
clerics because it is not based on myths and rituals which are usually cleric-centered.
On the other hand, this type of religiosity is based on several terms and forms that are
relatively close to religious pluralism. For this type of religiosity, individual
religiosity and religious individualism are having a synonymous meaning with
plurality (both in concept and interpretation). Basically, it tries to refer to the value of
truth in religion, not to the features of identity, interpretation, or claim.35
This type of religiosity can be seen as the rational existence of men of faith who
have no motives or purposes in inventing the invention, and reveal independently
non-religious concepts. This religiosity is not related to the strong faith of the society
and the narrow perspective from limited people. However, it can be seen as the faith
which is good and independent in its own truth. This Gnostic type is in between the
two, but necessarily more balanced and superior; it has neither the ritualistic attachment
of the imitators nor the direct consciousness of the mystics. It rather spends time in
intellectualizing religion, engaging in drawing pleasure out of doctrinal quibbling,
textual interpretations and the nit pickings of theologies.36
The third, experiential religiosity. When we come to experiential religiosity, we
step from the domain of separation into the domain of union. The previous types of
religiosity can be described as religiosities of distance, for the first was physical and
practical and the second mental and reflective. The first was based on instrumental
34
Gnostic comes from Greek. It means knowing, knowledge, searching for knowledge of what is happening
Ibid
36
Jerome & Friends, Educational Counter Cultures: Confrontations, Images, Vision, Trentham Books, p. 94
35
rationality and the second on theoretical rationality. One was after utility and the other
after knowledge. But experiential religiosity is neither physical nor mental, neither
instrumental nor theoretical; it seeks the evident and the manifest, and
if Gnostic religiosity is concerned with hearing, the experiential believer is concerned
with seeing.37
Experiential religiosity has several characteristics: enthusiastic, exposed, exact,
individualistic, deterministic, ideal, relatively peace, intimate, visual, pure, mystic, and
mysterious. Here, God is the beloved one, who is kind and adorable. The prophet is
an ideal and great person, a model for a successful experiencing of religion. Following
the prophet is sharing his enthusiasm, expanding and repeating his experience.
REFERENCES
Nashori, Fuad & Mucharam, Rachmy Diana, Mengembangkan Kreativitas dalam Perspektif
Psikologi Islam, Yogyakarta: Menara Kudus, 2002.
Lowenthal, Kate.M, Psychology of Religion: A Short Introduction, England: One World
Publication, 2000
Connolly, Peter, Approaches to the Study of Religion, New York: Continuum, 2001.
Stolz, Jorg, Explaining religiosity: towards a unified theoretical model, The British Journal of
Sociology 2009 Volume 60 Issue 2, p.347
37
Soroush, op.cit., p.
By
Nanang Nurcholis