The Emerging Meanings of Religiousness and Spirituality: Problems and Prospects

Abstract

This article examines traditional and modern psychological characterizations of religiousness and spirituality. Three ways in which religiousness and spirituality are polarized by contemporary theorists are examined: organized religion versus personal spirituality; substantive religion versus functional spirituality; and negative religiousness versus positive spirituality. An alternative approach to understanding religiousness and spirituality is presented that integrates rather than polarizes these constructs, and sets boundaries to the discipline while acknowledging the diversity of religious and spiritual expressions. Directions for future investigations of these two constructs are presented.Psychological investigations of religiousness and spirituality date back to the turn of the century (Coe, 1900;James, 1902James, /1961Starbuck, 1899). From these pioneering efforts to the present, a number of theories have been developed, many empirical studies have been conducted, and considerable knowledge about religious and spiritual belief, experience, and behavior has been accumulated. With the approach of the new millennium, popular and scientific interest in religion and spirituality continues

Enhancing Holistic Identity through Yoga: Investigating Body-Mind-Spirit Interventions on Mental Illness Stigma across Culture–A Case Study

“…In recent years, research has demonstrated that yoga may play a role in developing spiritual relationships. Spirituality, as a relationship construct, can be sought through relationships with a higher power, but also through the relationship with the self [19] [20] [21]. As a facet of spirituality, self-understanding seems to be an important for mental health care, stigma, and yoga [22].…”

Religiosity, Spirituality, and Mental Health in Portugal: A call for a conceptualisation, relationship, and guidelines for integration (a theoretical review)

“…When recognizing the different dimensions of "religion" and "spirituality", the understanding and definition of these phenomena is by nature complex and often these two are used interchangeably in the scientific research and clinical practice (Pargament, 1999;Zinnbauer, Pargament & Scott, 1999;Büssing et al, 2005;Koenig, King & Carson, 2012). This is essentially due to a great number of different perspectives, starting points and cultural contexts, as these terms can be seen as synonymous, overlapping, or completely different concepts (Hill et al, 2000;Tummala-Narra, 2009).…”

“…However, one must also acknowledge they are not identical (Zinnbauer, et al, 1999) and for that reason conceptualisations that focus or are narrowed to certain aspects of religion or spirituality might not be appropriate (Saucier & Skrzypińska, 2006;Nelson, 2009).…”

“…Obviously, this ambiguity and confusion has a great impact on the credibility and understanding of research and practice in this area (Koenig, 2009), leading for instance to: limited or otherwise too broad definitions of religion and spirituality, which results in a loss of their idiosyncratic characteristics (Zinnbauer, et al, 1999;Hill et al, 2000); different forms of polarisation of religion and spirituality, the former being institutional/negative/harmful and the latter individualistic/positive/beneficial (Pargament, 1999;Zinnbauer et al, 1999;Hill & Pargament, 2003;Pargament, 2007;Smith, 2007;Mutter & Neves, 2008); and pathologization of religious and spiritual beliefs/practices in diverse or minority contexts (Frame & Williams, 1996;Fallot, 1998;Lukoff & Turner, 1998;Tummala-Narra, 2009;Adams, 2012).…”

“…However a complete discussion of this conceptual history, as important as it is, is beyond the purposes of this article (for extended discussions please see Fallot, 1998;Zinnbauer et al, 1999;Hill et al, 2000;Hill & Pargament, 2003;Smith, 2007;Koenig, 2009). Thus, this paper presents some of the most significant and recent inputs in this field, highlighting that special care must be taken to properly conceptualise these two multidimensional concepts.…”