Sie sind auf Seite 1von 16

RELIGIOSITY: A SHORT EXPLORATION1

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

appreciate varieties of religious experience and expressions of religious orientation. 9 As


displayed throughout human history religions are not static but dynamic forces. It is this
dynamism and fluidity which enable religions to survive on personal as well as societal
levels.
Religious commitment entails more than one dimension. Ones acceptance of and
position towards supernatural being, towards an ultimate reality and its manifestations,
involve a multidimensional process such as attitudes, beliefs, emotions, experiences and
rituals. Research on religious commitment indicates that religiosity is not a uni-dimensional
experience in individuals lives. This means that religious orientation has various
dimensions.10
Religiosity is a complex concept and difficult to define (Fetzer Institute, 1999, Hackney
and Sanders, 2003).11 It is due to at least two reasons. The first reason is the uncertainty and
imprecise nature of the English language. Colloquially, in Rogets Thesaurus (Lewis, 1978),
religiosity is found to be synonymous with such terms as religiousness, orthodoxy, faith,
belief, piousness, devotion, and holiness. These synonyms reflect what studies of religiosity
would term as dimensions of religiosity, rather than terms that are equivalent to religiosity. A
second reason for this complexity is that current interest in the concept of religiosity crosses
several academic disciplines, each approaching religiosity from different vantage points, and
few consulting one another (Cardwell, 1980; Demerath & Hammond, 1969).12
For example, a theologian would address religiosity from the viewpoint of faith
(Groome & Corso, 1999), while religious educators could focus on orthodoxy and belief
(Groome, 1998). Psychologists might choose to address the dimensions of devotion, holiness,
and piousness, whereas sociologists would consider the concept of religiosity to include
church membership, church attendance, belief acceptance, doctrinal knowledge, and living
the faith (Cardwell, 1980). This use of different terms across academic disciplines to identify
9

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.

what could be thought of as like dimensions of religiosity makes it difficult to discuss


without an explicit definition from the viewpoint of religious education and the application of
that knowledge to the lived experience.13
Generally, all people who have approached this domain have found it difficult to define
religiosity when this concept is the subject of scientific research (as mentioned above). Thus,
there are multiple definitions and models. The majority of theorists say there is a distinction
between religiosity and spirituality. Shafranske and Maloney (1990) define religiosity as
representing the adherence to the practices and beliefs of an organized church or religious
institution, while spirituality is seen as having a personal, experiential connotation.
In this way, spirituality may or may not include religion and it can manifest itself within
or without a religious context. Hackney and Sanders (2003) perceive religiosity is a multilayered concept involving cognitive, emotional, motivational and behavioral aspects.
Richards and Bergin (1997) see religion as a subset of the spiritual, considering that is
possible for someone to be spiritual without being religious and to be religious without being
spiritual. Being spiritual means having a transcendental relation with a superior being,
whereas being religious means adopting a certain religious creed or church.
In simple term, religiosity may be referred to as the state of ones belief in God,
characterized by his piety and religious zeal. The higher his piety and religious zeal are,
hence the stronger his belief in God, the higher his religiosity is. But what seem to be
synonymous with religiosity - for instance religiousness, orthodoxy, faith, belief, piousness,
devotion, and holiness - are actually not exactly equivalent to religiosity. Instead, as rightly
argued by Holdcroft (2006), they are just the reflections of the dimensions of the religiosity.
Because of this, most of the generally cited authors of religiosity such as Lenski (1961), King
(1967), and Glock (1972) use the term `dimensions to measure religiosity. Only Verbit
(1970) measures the religiosity in terms of its components.14
Additionally, Fuad Nashori defines religiosity as follow:
Religiositas seringkali diidentikkan dengan keberagamaan. Religiositas diartikan
sebagai seberapa jauh pengetahuan, seberapa kokoh keyakinan, seberapa pelaksanaan
ibadah dan kaidah dan seberapa dalam penghayatan atas agama yang dianutnya. Bagi

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

seorang Muslim religiositas dapat diketahui dari seberapa jauh pengetahuan,


keyakinan, pelaksanaan dan penghayatan atas agama Islam.15
In relation to religiosity in Islam, he further explains;
Dari pengertian diatas maka religiositas dalam Islam menyangkut lima hal yakni
aqidah, ibadah, amal, akhlak (ihsan) dan pengetahuan. Aqidah menyangkut
keimananan kepada Allah, Malaikat, Rasul dan seterusnya. Ibadah menyangkut
pelaksanaan hubungan antar manusia dengan Allah. Amal meyangkut pelaksanaan
hubungan antara manusia dengan sesama makhluk. Akhlak merujuk pada spontanitas
tanggapan atau perilaku seseorang atau rangsangan yang hadir padanya, sementara
ihsan merujuk pada situasi dimana seseorang merasa sangat dekat dengan Allah Taala.
Ihsan merupakan bagian dari akhlak. Bila akhlak positif seseorang mencapai tingkatan
yang optimal, maka ia memperoleh berbagai penglaman dan penghayatan keagamaan,
itulah ihsan dan merupakan akhlak tingkat tinggi. Selain keempat hal diatas, ada lagi
hal penting yang harus diketahui dalam religiositas Islam yakni pengetahuan
keagamaan seseorang.16
B. Dimensions of religiosity
One of the earliest theorists on the dimension of religiosity proposed a four-dimensional
model in approaching religious orientation and religious group involvement (Lenski, 1961:
21-24). These dimensions are first, associational aspect which includes frequency of
religious involvement in worship and prayer services; second communal dimension which
relates to the preference and frequency of ones primary-type relations; third, doctrinal
orthodoxy which refers to the intellectual acceptance of the prescribed doctrines of the
church; and fourth, devotionalism which involves private or personal communion with God
through prayers, meditation and religious behavior.17 While King (1967) proposes ten
dimensions, namely credal assent and personal commitment, participation in congregational
activities, personal religious experience, personal ties in the congregation, commitment to
intellectual search despite doubt, openness to religious growth, dogmatism, extrinsic
orientation, financial behavior and financial attitude, and talking and reading about
religion.18
Glock and Stark (1965) have been influential in defining religious orientations, origins,
and dimensions. In doing so, Glock and Stark identified five dimensions of religiosity:
experiential, ritualistic, ideological, intellectual, and consequential. 19 According to Glock, the
15

Fuad Nashori dan Rachmy Diana Mucharam, op.cit, p. 71


Ibid, 72-73
17
Talip Kucukcan, op.cit. p. 1
18
Muhammad Syukri Shaleh, op.cit., p. 266
19
Barbara, op.cit., p. 90
16

experiential dimension of religiosity refers to the achievement of direct knowledge of the


ultimate reality or to the experience of religious emotions in the form of exaltation, fear,
humility, joyfulness and peace.20 The ideological dimension is constituted by expectations
that the religious will hold to certain beliefs (i.e., professed doctrines), and the intellectual
dimension has to do with the expectation that the religious person will be informed and
knowledgeable about the basic tenets of his faith and sacred scriptures (i.e., history,
sacraments, morality). Glock and Stark admitted that these latter two dimensions are closely
related, since knowledge of a belief is a necessary condition for its acceptance. However,
they also acknowledged that belief does not necessarily flow from knowledge, nor does all
religious knowledge accompany belief.
Apart from the above authors, others such as Fukuyama (1960), for instance, proposes
four dimensions (cognitive, cultic, creedal, and devotional) 21, Allport and Ross (1967)
identifies two basic dimensions (extrinsic and intrinsic), Bergan and McConatha (2000)
proposes a number of dimensions associated with religious beliefs and involvement, and
Ellison et al. (1989) examines three dimensions (private devotion, religious attendance, and
denominational connection). Ellison (1991) later expanded on and examined four dimensions
of religiosity (denominational ties, social integration, personal sense of the divine, and
existential certainty)3. Of all the authors, only Verbit (1970) seems to be the only one who
does not use the term dimensions. Instead, he uses the term components. He proposes six
components of religiosity, namely ritual, doctrine, emotion, knowledge, ethics, and
community. Nevertheless, he uses component just as a term in which dimensions are
embedded in. He believes that religion has several components, and an individuals
behavior vis--vis each one of these components has a number of dimensions.
However, all in all irrespective of the terms, the core dimensions and components of the
religiosity proposed by these authors could be observed to have included, thus could be
categorized into, four main things. They are belief, knowledge, practice and experience.22 The
20

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

Muhammad Syukri Salleh, op.cit

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

C.1. Theoretical and psychometric considerations


Hill and Malty (2009) argue that in the measuring of religiosity the following
aspects must be considered: the theoretical aspects (the conceptual clarity of the
measured dimensions), the psychometric issues (validity, fidelity of the measuring
instruments), the sample representativeness and the cultural sensitivity of the
instruments to measure religiosity. Theoretical coherence is necessary to achieve a real
scientific progress. Not any scale is appropriate for a particular study, it is crucial that
the researcher should choose that measuring instrument with the best representation of
the concept intended to be measured. They are also very important aspects of
psychometric instruments measuring religiosity: validity and fidelity. Validity concerns
the extent to which a scale measures what it proposes to measure. Fidelity refers to the
extent a scale is consistent. There are two types of consistency: internal consistency and
consistency over time. Internal consistency refers to the extent that all items measure
the same scale and is measured by Cronbach alpha coefficient, and consistency over
time relates to test-retest fidelity and is represented by the coefficient of correlation
between subjects' responses to the same test applied at different times (from 2 weeks to
6 months).27
C.2. Sample representativeness and cultural sensitivity
Hill and Malty (2009) argue that increasing the number of tools to measure
religiosity does not protect the psychology of one of the harmful aspects: unrepresentativeness of the sample of persons. Most samples are composed of young,
middle-class, American college students (Hill and Pargament, 2003). Hill (2005) argues
that these convenient samples - easily accessible for the studies conducted by academic
27

Petrua-Paraschiva RUSU & Maria-Nicoleta TURLIUC, op.cit., p. 358

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

Mehdi Shehu, Fatmir, The Concept of Religious Experience: A Quranic Perspective.

37

Soroush, op.cit., p.

Mokhlis, Safiek, 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.
James, William, The Varieties of Religious Experience, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press (Original work published 1906)
Kucukcan, Talip, Can Religiosity be Measured? Dimensions of Religious Commitment:
Theories Revisited (article), Theology Faculty, Uludag University, Turkey.
________, Multidimensional Approach to Religion: A Way of Looking at Religious Phenomena,
JSRI, No. 10/ Spring 2005.
Paraschiva RUSU, Petruta & Nicoleta TURLIUC, Maria, Ways of Approaching Religiosity in
Psychological Research, The Journal of International Social Research, Volume: 4 Issue:
18, Summer 2011, University of Lai, Romania.
Holdcroft, Barbara, What Is Religiosity?, Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice,
Vol. 10, No. 1, September.
Syukri Salleh, Muhammad Religiosity in Development: A Theoretical Construct of an IslamicBased 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.
H.W.Tan, Jonathan & Vogel, Claudia, Religion and Trust: An experimental Study, Discussion
Paper/No. 240-2005, European University Friadina Frankfurt, Department of Business
Administration and Economics.
Latif, Abdul & 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.

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.
Soroush, Abdul Karim,Types of Religiosity, Kiyan, No. 50, 1378/2000, quoted from
http://www.drsoroush.com/English/By_DrSoroush/E-CMB-20000300Types_of_Religiosity.html.
Sumrahadi, Abdullah, The Religious Experience of Youth: An Indonesian Sociological
Perspective, The International Journal of Humanities, Volume 9, Issue 5/2012.
Jerome & Friends, Educational Counter Cultures: Confrontations, Images, Vision, Trentham
Books.

RELIGIOSITY: A SHORT EXPLORATION


This paper is written to fulfill the assignment of Psychology Course
Supervised by Dr. H. Fuad Nashori, S.Psi., M.Si., Psi

By
Nanang Nurcholis

DOCTORATE PROGRAM POSTGRADUATE


IAIN WALISONGO SEMARANG
2013

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen