Religiosity can not be measured by any means in absolute form. Religiosity refers to the extent to which people participate in religious activities.one can hold religious belief while displaying little or no religiosity. on the contrary, someone might attend church, temple or any place of worship religiously, but privately have no religious belief.

In order to retain the impression of significant social Institutions, many religious organisations likely to inflate their membership.

Statistical data cannot be taken as authentic source of measuring religiosity.

نعم البيانات الاحصائيةلاتعد مصدرا حقيقي لا

قلبي نفسي ومتعلق بعلاقة العبد مع ربه قد يكون الإحصاء فقط عدد ونسبة لان هذاالسلوك

Dear Professor

Greeting and regards

this is the abstract of my manuscript that can answer to your question

Principles of spiritual assessment of patients and clients from the perspective of Islam

Abstract:

Background: Spiritual health (the sound heart) is achieved by communicating with God and overlapping with religiousness. Providing spiritual health services requires an examination of the spiritual health and diagnosis of the spiritual distress. Some of the spiritual problems are immoral religious ethics (sin). Some people measure the religiosity of Muslim patients and clients by following the Catholic Christianity method. The purpose of this study was "explaining the principles of spiritual assessment of patients and clients from the perspective of Islam

Method: According to the findings of the 9th stage of the research for designing and validating the prescriptive model of spiritual care / counseling of the Sound heart of, in this qualitative study, with a systematic review focused on the question "What are the principles of examining and obtaining spiritual history from the perspective of Islam?”. Religious Evidence from Shi’a interpretations and "hadiths" and scientific evidence from articles published in the years 1990 to 2018 with the key words "Exploration, Confession to Sin, Religious Evaluation, Spiritual Health Measurement Tool, Privacy, Patient Domain, Human Dignity," in scientific databases were searched. A total of 32 articles were analyzed as sample size using Walker-Evans content analysis method. The principles of spiritual examination were explained from the perspective of Islam. The validity of the data in two Delphi rounds was evaluated by a survey of the professors of the Spiritual Health Department of the Iranian Academy of Medical Sciences.

Findings: Quran and narratives, contrary to Catholicism, have strictly forbidden exploration of the privacy of individuals, confessing from others, confessing sin to others, because of the prevalence of depravity. Islam has obligated the secrecy, preservation of pride, respect and dignity of humans. Islam is allowed to investigate only: In the war and terrorist acts to protect the people and the country, to monitor the work of community officials and employees to prevent injustice, to understand the problems, needs and concerns of the people. The Quran has strongly forbidden suspicion of the servants of God, exploration, understanding and expression of people secrets, abstention and slander. The Prophet of Islam said: "I have not been called to examine the mysteries of the heart. “Therefore, the evaluation of religiousness of Muslim people is unauthorized. But evaluating the performance of agents in their social duties is imperative. Investigating the spiritual problems of patients should not lead to "inquisition"

Conclusion: Regarding the harmful consequences of "privacy investigation" and people relationship with God, health personnel should consider religious orders for spiritual assessment for counseling or care. They only should examine the reactions of spirituality vacuum that is reflected in the individual relation with himself, people and the world of nature. They must avoid "inspecting" and creating feelings of insecurity in the patient / family and society.

Keywords: patient assessment, privacy, religiosity assessment, spiritual history,

With respect

Minoo Asadzandi

Minoo Asadzandi, it doesn't quite answer the question, within itself, though the conflation between spirituality and a relationship with "god" does act as an anecdote for the idea that the views of what religion is happens to be biased heavily by one''s own culture.

To me religion is follwing a certain way of life or the basic rules of living peacefully. By this context everone does follow one or the other religion whether labbled or unlabeled. But accessing religion by number of people goining to religious places like churchs and masjids is not proper accessment of religiousity.

Religiousness is not a natural phenomenon, which is measured by arithmetical measures because religiosity is a process of two aspects: the first is apparent and the second is esoteric; the phenomenon can be measured by manifest acts that appear on the life and behavior of the religious. Note that it can not be measured accurately and with realistic results.

التدين ليس من الظواهر الطبيعية التي تقاس بمقاييس حسابية لأن التدين عملية ذات جانبين: الأول ظاهري والثاني باطني، فيمكن قياس الظاهر بأفعال ظاهرة تظهر على حياة وسلوك المتدين وقد نتوصل إلى قياسها بنسبة كبيرة من المصداقية والدقة، بينما الجانب الباطني فهو شيء غيبي بين الإنسان ومعبوده غير ملاحظ فلا يمكن قياسه بدقة وبنتائج واقعية

In psychology, religiosity is also religious activity and beliefs, but is also related to pathological conditions, such as Schizophrenia. The themes are often delusional and hallucinations are often presented. This is very different from the comments made in this discussion. The use of religiosity to describe religion can be confusing. I hope I didn't offend anyone, but my training led me down a different, but related path.

Psychology has a habit of viewing religion in terms of delusion, though psychology tends to ignore the anthropology of delusion, and in some cases, its own theory on the matter. There really is no justification for the comparison between religion and delusion, though I'm not offended. I just think it's an incorrect view.

Hi Daniel,

Thank you for responding to the reply I wrote. I really didn’t answer the question you asked because I wanted to first make a distinction between religion and religiosity. I was simply pointing out a conceptual difference in the way terminology is used. While your points are well taken, they have little to do with the point I was making. I simply pointed out how using religion and religiosity to mean the same thing can lead to misunderstanding. In psychology, religiosity can be equated with religion, however, when there exists pathology, such as Schizophrenia the religious themes can (not will) be delusional and part of the illness. I ended by saying the use of the term religiosity to describe religion can be confusing. Nowhere did I suggest that religion is viewed as a delusion. You took what I reported about the delusional state of a psychotic disorder, such as Schizophrenia and applied it to mean that Psychology views religion in terms of delusion and ignores other explanations. You also said that “there really is no justification for the comparison between religion and delusion.” I agree with you, but I never said it. My comment referred to the symptom of religiosity that is seen in some individuals with Schizophrenia.

Your arguments were much more valid years ago. For example, Freud believed that people who are religious most likely suffer from a mental illness. However, there was not empirical evidence to support his belief. Currently, advances in research methods are showing us that religion and psychopathology are independent of each other. Thus, scores on religiosity appeared

to be independent of the measures of psychological disturbance. In addition, the current view of psychology and religion is that people who are religious are no more likely to have psychological disturbance. Again, religiosity is a psychological term to describe religious delusions, generally in populations with psychotic disorders, such as Schizophrenia. Please don’t take this to mean it refers to the general population. By the way, I am very religious. I hope that explains things, Daniel.

I really didn’t answer the question you asked because I wanted to first make a distinction between religion and religiosity.

Generally "religiosity" means the measure of the amount of religion. But if you wish I will reword the question: are scientists accurately measuring the change in the fraction of the population that is religious?

Mostly in the theoretical sciences and sociology that it lacks the precise objectivity in the measurement of human phenomena as religion because it is an expression of feelings of atmosphere that are difficult to monitor and measure as they are relative behaviors that vary from person to another and affect many internal and external factors.

الغالب في العلوم النظرية وعلم الاجتماع أنها تفتقد إلى الموضوعية الدقيقة في قياس الظواهر الإنسانية كالتدين لأنها تعبير عن مشاعر جوانية يصعب مراقبتها وقياسها كما أنها سلوكيات نسبية تختلف من شخص إلى آخر وتؤثر فيها عوامل داخلية وخارجية كثيرة.

Dr. Schneider,

Points well made here. In addition to religion and religiosity, there is a level of spirituality that is an individual's relationship with the Higher Power as they know it to be. As you note with religiosity, there are also complications and ideations that can emerge from pathology and thus be manifested in an inappropriate manner.

Like the distortion of religion, there can also be a distorted view of spirituality. I have ntoed this in some clients over the years, and when this manifests it generally points to a larger disorder that must be addressed.

Hi Daniel, I know our comments are not what you originally asked so I’ll make this my last “side-comments.” After thinking about it, we probably won’t agree on terminology because there is no universal definition of religiosity. It can be confusing because we all interpret words based on our experience, education, geographical area, etc. For your discussion it doesn’t matter because you have every right to define words as you see fit. That’s the benefit of having an operational definition. Again, I just wanted to point out that it could be confusing since there are many ways to interpret a keyword in a discussion. The important thing is your topic which is relevant and very interesting. In fact it has much relevance in one of your areas of interest, substance use disorders/addiction (I read your profile). Since one of my specialties is addiction, I attached an article you might like. You might not agree with everything, I know I don’t. I hope you like it and thanks for a great discussion.

Steve

Dr. Bemker, your comments were an excellent extension of my point. I especially like how you showed both the theoretical and applied implications when terms are not defined. As I mentioned to Daniel, the discussion he started is relevant and important in many fields. Since there is not a universal definition of religiosity it might have helped to give an operational definition within the original discussion question. On the other hand, I would think that most people have their own understanding of word meaning. In this discussion, Daniel couldn't know I would have a different understanding and he dealt with it well. As always, Dr. Bemker, your expertise is a great addition to any discussion.

Steve

Religiosity is participation in religious activities or symbols of thereof; you can be religious without exhibiting it or without being a symbol of religiosity. Religiosity has given this world hates, while religious with faith in God and love for His creations is the way to love and peace.

For the Protsteant perspective where the religious life has very individual character measuring of religiosity is very questionable. Church attendance is not equal with religiosity. And what about so callec atheist-religiosity? How to measure it?

Religiosity is a complex concept that can be difficult to measure accurately. There are different ways to measure religiosity, including self-report surveys and behavioral measures. However, these measures may not always capture the full range of religious beliefs and practices.

The discussion above is interesting, difficult and impossible to measure. Also is the fact, church groups don't measure objectively effects of prayer, so very wishy washy compared to science investigations, rather haphazard.