Religious openness hypothesis: III. defense against secularism within fundamentalist and biblical foundationalist ideological surrounds.
Watson, P.J. ; Chen, Zhuo ; Morris, Ronald J. 等
Religious and other social rationalities operate within an
ideological surround (Watson, 1993, 2011; Ghorbani, Watson, Saeedi,
Chen, & Silver, 2012). This claim assumes that what is
"rational" within social life is defined by conformity with
norms around which a community is organized. Traditional religious
communities organize their thought and practice around norms defined by
some shared vision of God. Modern scientific communities conform to
norms defined by some prominent reading of nature. These norms are
incommensurable. In other words, "nature" and "God"
operate as "gods" within a surround because nothing
"extra-communal" can serve as a higher "god" capable
of adjudicating between these two standards for those who maintain
ultimate commitments to one or the other. Incommensurable rationalities
can, but need not be incompatible in what they recommend. Some thought
and practice will be compatible, but much will be irrelevant across
surrounds. Maintenance of boundaries will, nevertheless, be critical for
ensuring the viability of any ideological surround (Hood, Morris, &
Watson, 1986). Incommensurable rationalities will, consequently, make
sociological adjustments that defend their boundaries within pluralistic
cultural life (e.g., Watson, 2014). To say that social rationalities
function within an ideological surround, therefore, is to say that they
operate within a normative, incommensurable, and sociological frame of
reference (MacIntyre, 1978, 1988).
Based upon this Ideological Surround Model of social life, the
Religious Openness Hypothesis argues that traditional religions have
their own community-specific potentials for defining religious and
psychological openness (Watson, Chen, Ghorbani, & Vartanian, 2015).
This suggestion argues against any tendency to imply that traditional
religions might be described as wholly reactionary or narrow-minded
(perhaps, e.g., Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992; Batson, Shoenrade,
& Ventis, 1993). The alternative suggestion is that religious, and
indeed all viable, social rationalities must maintain two forms of
openness (Tekke, Watson, Ismail, & Chen, 2015). Intra-traditional
openness will allow a community to use its own thought and practice to
better understand its own norms. Developments in the exegetical analysis
of texts, for example, might help a religious community achieve deeper
insights into its own social rationality. Extra-traditional openness
will instead nurture the sociological viability of a community by
integrating compatible but also by rejecting incompatible insights from
other culturally influential social rationalities. Rejection as an
element of openness is essential because no ideological surround can
survive with wholly porous boundaries. Modern scientific rationalities,
for example, will necessarily be closed-minded as they reject religious
assumptions about supernatural causality just as traditionally religious
rationalities will wall out any presumptions that absolutely dictate
ontological naturalism.
Empirical support for the Religious Openness Hypothesis comes from
studies using a Religious Reflection Scale (Dover, Miner, & Dowson,
2007) that was developed for Muslims but that was also modified for use
with followers of other religious traditions. Factor analysis identified
two dimensions within this instrument (Watson, Chen, & Hood, 2011).
In an American Christian sample, a Faith Oriented Reflection factor
appeared in such statements as "Faith in Christ is what nourishes
the intellect and makes the intellectual life prosperous and
productive" and "I have seriously thought about my religious
beliefs and I am very committed to the faith I now have."
Illustrative of an Intellect Oriented Reflection factor were claims that
"I believe as humans we should use our minds to explore all fields
of thought from science to metaphysics" and that "studying
nature and the universe would reveal treasures of knowledge and
truth." Faith Oriented Reflection, therefore, more strongly
reflected intra-traditional openness whereas Intellect Oriented
Reflection more clearly brought extra-traditional openness into
empirical focus. Positive correlations between these two factors would
suggest an ability to integrate faith with intellect and would thus
support the Religious Openness Hypothesis. Such relationships have in
fact appeared with Muslims in Iran (Ghorbani, Watson, Chen, & Dover,
2013) and Malaysia (Tekke et al., 2015) and with Hindus in India
(Kamble, Watson, Marigoudar, & Chen, 2014).
Religious Openness and Christians
For Christians in America, however, Faith and Intellect Oriented
Reflection display negative correlations that are usually (Watson et
al., 2011; Watson, Chen, Ghorbani, & Vartanian, 2015), but not
always (Watson, Chen, & Morris, 2014) statistically significant.
Such a result suggests tendencies toward a ghettoization of the
Christian ideological surround in which faith walls out the intellect.
In light of cross-cultural comparisons, a further implication might seem
to be that Muslims and Hindus are more open-minded than Christians. Two
empirical demonstrations make it clear that this cross-cultural
conclusion must be rejected.
First, the close-mindedness of American samples appears
attributable not to Christianity, but rather to fundamentalism (Watson
et al., 2011; Watson, Ghorbani, Vartanian, & Chen, 2015). The
Religious Fundamentalism Scale (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 2004)
correlates positively with Faith and negatively with Intellect Oriented
Reflection, and statistical procedures controlling for this measure
produce a positive linkage between these two forms of religious
reflection. In other words, fundamentalism blocks the American Christian
integration of intellect with faith. Moreover, a Biblical
Foundationalism Scale (Watson et al., 2003) expresses Christian
commitment to "fundamentals" in a language that is more
cognitively open and less condemning than that used in the original
Religious Fundamentalism Scale (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992),
Biblical Foundationalism displays a robust positive correlation with
Religious Fundamentalism, but partial correlations controlling for
Religious Fundamentalism, nevertheless, demonstrate that Biblical
Foundationalism correlates positively with Intellect as well as with
Faith Oriented Reflection (Watson, Ghorbani, Vartanian, & Chen,
2015). In short, findings for Biblical Foundationalism make it clear
that an American Christian faithfulness to "fundamentals" can
be compatible with Intellect Oriented Reflection.
Second, if Christianity were closed-minded, then Faith and
Intellect Oriented Reflection would correlate negatively regardless of
cultural context. This is not so. Christians in Iran exhibit a positive
zero-order relationship between Faith and Intellect Oriented Reflection
(Watson, Ghorbani, Vartanian, & Chen, 2015). This cultural
difference suggests that the sociological adjustments that help define
ideological surrounds may exert a critical influence on Christian
open-mindedness. Iran is a theocratic Islamic society that places
religion at the center of its social rationality. Such a society would
presumably encourage a harmonious integration of intellect with faith
for not only Muslims, but also for Christians who live there. Indeed,
evidence demonstrates that empirical markers of fundamentalism predict
greater rather than lower psychological openness in Iranian Muslims
(Ghorbani, Watson, Shamohammadi, & Cunningham, 2009). The United
States, however, is an increasingly secular society with important
foundations in an Enlightenment commitment to reason that promotes
separation of state and religion. For Americans committed to Christian
"fundamentals," "reason" as a defining feature of
secular ideological surrounds may appear to operate as a wedge designed
to extirpate faith from social life. In other words, "reason"
may be ideologically suspect, and inverse relationships between
Intellect and Faith Oriented Reflection may reflect an American defense
against secularism.
Present Study
The present project sought to empirically test the suggestion that
a defense against secularism helps explain American Christian
close-mindedness. Accomplishment of that objective first required
development of a Defense against Secularism Scale. The availability of
this instrument then made it possible to test the prediction of the
Religious Openness Hypothesis that Defense against Secularism should
correlate positively with Faith and negatively with Intellect Oriented
Reflection. The further assumption is that defensiveness helps explain
the inverse linkage of Faith with Intellect Oriented Reflection; so,
Defense against Secularism should also at least partially mediate that
relationship.
Analysis of this issue benefited from administration of additional
measures that were useful in previous clarifications of religious
openness. Religious Fundamentalism (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 2004)
and Biblical Foundationalism (Watson et al., 2003) assessed different
nuances in the expression of Christian fundamentalism. Religious Schema
Scales evaluated three constructs relevant to religious openness
(Streib, Hood, & Klein, 2010). Truth of Texts and Teachings assessed
a fundamentalist style of faith. Fairness, Tolerance, and Rationality
operationalized an acceptance of others based upon rational judgment.
The word "xenosophia" refers to the "foreigner"
(xeno) and to "wisdom" (sophia); so, the Xenosophia Scale
recorded an appreciation of the wisdom that may be available in other,
"foreign" religious traditions. Openness to Experience
(Goldberg, 1999) recorded a more general psychological openness.
Religious Orientation Scales (Gorsuch & McPherson, 1989) made it
possible to clarify the religious implications of all other variables.
The Intrinsic Religious Orientation Scale recorded sincere goals to make
religion the master motive in life. Extrinsic Personal Orientation
involved a use of religion to achieve personal well-being, whereas the
Extrinsic Social Orientation reflected the use of religion to obtain
desired social outcomes. Previous studies have demonstrated that
findings for these measures support the Religious Openness Hypothesis;
so, this investigation focused on four broad sets of hypotheses
associated specifically with Defense against Secularism.
First, Defense against Secularism should clarify religious
fundamentalism in the United States. Religious Fundamentalism, Biblical
Foundationalism, and Truth of Texts and Teachings all offered different
articulations of a personal commitment to the "fundamentals"
of faith. Truth of Texts and Teachings correlate negatively with
religious openness in German and American samples (Streib et al., 2010),
but these linkages become positive in Indian Hindus (Kamble et al.,
2014) and Malaysian Muslims (Tekke et al., 2015). Such outcomes once
again suggest that religious fundamentalism may have very different
implications outside the West. The argument of the present study was
that this difference is explicable in terms of a Western sociological
context that encourages religious defensiveness in response to secular
ideological surrounds. In short, Religious Fundamentalism, Biblical
Foundationalism, and Truth of Texts and Teachings should all correlate
positively with Defense against Secularism.
Second, these fundamentalism measures all correlate negatively with
Intellect Oriented Reflection in American samples (Watson, Chen,
Ghorbani, & Vartanian, 2015), but this relationship for Truth of
Texts and Teachings has been examined outside the West and is positive
for Indian Hindus (Kamble, 2014) and Malaysian Muslims (Tekke et al.,
2015). Again, the Religious Openness Hypothesis explains this Western
difference in terms of a defensive Christian reaction to the more
secular cultural context. The hypothesis, therefore, was that Defense
against Secularism should at least partially mediate negative
relationships of Religious Fundamentalism, Biblical Foundationalism, and
Truth of Texts and Teachings with Intellect Oriented Reflection.
Third, Defense against Secularism should work against religious and
psychological openness. In other words, Defense against Secularism
should correlate negatively with Fairness, Tolerance, and Rationality;
Xenosophia, and Openness to Experience.
Fourth, partial correlations controlling for Biblical
Foundationalism yield data that focus on a Religious Fundamentalist
Ideological Surround and vice versa. Evidence already describes the
Religious Fundamentalist Surround as relatively more closed and the
Biblical Foundationalist Surround as relatively more open in American
Christians (Watson, Chen & Morris, 2014; Watson, Chen, Ghorbani,
& Vartanian, 2015). The present study sought to describe how Defense
against Secularism might be interpreted within these two surrounds.
Partial correlations controlling for Biblical Foundationalism should
uncover a positive Religious Fundamentalism linkage with Defense against
Secularism that is framed within the context of additional relationships
indicative of a relatively more closed ideological surround. The
situation for Biblical Foundationalism seemed more complex. As a more
open ideological surround, Biblical Foundationalism might exhibit no
significant partial correlation with Defense against Secularism. On the
other hand, secular opposition to religion might appear to some
Christians as an empirical reality that helps define the contemporary
"culture wars" of the West. A positive partial correlation of
Biblical Foundationalism with Defense against Secularism might thus
reveal a perspective that discerns an at least rationally plausible
empirical reality. Such a relationship would, nevertheless, be
accompanied by other evidence documenting that this perspective on
secularism is framed within the relative openness of the Biblical
Foundationalist Ideological Surround.
Hypotheses
In summary, this study used a Defense against Secularism Scale to
further evaluate the Religious Openness Hypothesis. Administration of
Faith and Intellect Oriented Reflection Scales made it possible to
reexamine the negative correlation between these two constructs that
points toward a relatively closed American Christian religious
perspective. Religious Fundamentalism and Biblical Foundationalism
analyzed two American ideological surrounds that maintain a commitment
to "fundamentals," but that nevertheless differ in their
openness. Religious Schema Scales operationalized religious styles that
in the West range from the more closed fundamentalist perspective of
Truth of Texts and Teaching to the more open religious styles defined by
Fairness, Tolerance, and Rationality and by Xenosophia. Openness to
Experience assessed psychological openness. Religious Orientation Scales
helped define the religious implications of all zero-order and partial
correlations. Administration of these instruments made it possible to
test seven most important hypotheses about Defense against Secularism:
First, Defense against Secularism should correlate positively with
Faith Oriented and negatively with Intellect Oriented Religious
Reflection.
Second, Defense against Secularism should at least partially
mediate an inverse association of Faith Oriented with Intellect Oriented
Reflection.
Third, Defense against Secularism should correlate positively with
measures of fundamentalism, including the Religious Fundamentalism,
Biblical Foundationalism, and Truth of Texts and Teachings Scales.
Fourth, Defense against Secularism should at least partially
mediate the inverse association of these fundamentalism measures with
Intellect Oriented Reflection.
Fifth, Defense against Secularism should display negative
associations with the forms of openness expressed by Fairness,
Tolerance, and Rationality; Xenosophia; and Openness to Experience.
Sixth, a Religious Fundamentalist Ideological Surround should
predict higher Defense against Secularism along with additional evidence
of a relatively closed religious perspective.
Seventh and finally, in partial correlations controlling for
Religious Fundamentalism, Biblical Foundationalism should display a
nonsignificant or positive correlation with Defense against Secularism.
Other partial correlations should, nevertheless, point toward a
relatively more open Biblical Foundationalist Ideological Surround.
Method
Participants
Students enrolled in Introductory Psychology classes at a state
university in the southeastern United States served as the research
participants. These 143 men and 282 women were on average 18.7 years old
(SD = 1.4). This sample was 79.7% White, 12.1% African-American, and
8.2% various other racial self-identifications. In terms of
self-reported religious affiliation, this student group was 67.6%
Protestant, 10.2% Catholic, 10.4% atheist or agnostic, and 11.8%
maintaining various other religious commitments.
Measures
All instruments appeared in a single questionnaire booklet.
Reactions to all items occurred along a 0 to 4 Likert scale.
Representative statements for all but the Openness to Experience Scale
appeared in the first paper of this series of investigations (Watson,
Chen, Ghorbani, & Vartanian, 2015). Instruments appeared within the
booklet in the order in which they are described below.
Openness to Experience. Openness to Experience ([alpha] = .75, M
response per item = 2.85, SD = 0.54) was a 10-item measure from the
International Personality Item Pool (Goldberg, 1999). Illustrating
openness was the self-report, "I spend time reflecting on
things."
Religious Schema. Five items made up each of the three Religious
Schema Scales (Streib et al., 2010), which included of Texts and
Teachings ([alpha] = .89, M = 2.46, SD = 1.10); Fairness, Tolerance, and
Rationality ([alpha] = .65, M = 3.22, SD = 0.62); and Xenosophia
([alpha] = .59, M = 2.28, SD = 0.74).
Religious Orientation. The Gorsuch and McPherson (1989) Religious
Orientation Scales included the 8-item Intrinsic ([alpha] = .85, M =
2.33, SD = 0.93), 3-item Extrinsic Personal ([alpha] = .81, M = 2.35, SD
= 1.08), and 3-item Extrinsic Social ([alpha] = .80, M = 1.07, SD =
0.92) measures. Overall mean differences appeared in these Religious
Orientation means, Greenhouse-Geisser F [1.97, 828.41] = 326.30, p <
.001. As in the two companion studies in this series (Watson, Chen,
Ghorbani, & Vartanian, 2015; Watson, Ghorbani, Vartanian, &
Chen, 2015), the Extrinsic Social Orientation was once again lowest, but
no significant contrast appeared between the Intrinsic and Extrinsic
Personal Orientations.
Christian Religious Reflection. Included in the Christian Religious
Reflection Scale (Watson et al., 2011) were 7 statements expressing
Faith Oriented Reflection ([alpha] = .85, M = 2.46, SD = 0.97) and 5
statements operationalizing Intellect Oriented Reflection ([alpha] =
.73, M = 2.55, SD = 0.79).
Biblical Foundationalism. Assessing Biblical Foundationalism
([alpha] = .97, M = 2.57, SD = 1.14) were 15 items. Again, this
instrument expressed a commitment to Christian "fundamentals"
in a language that was less defensive than that used in the Altemeyer
and Hunsberger (1992) Religious Fundamentalism Scale (Watson et al.,
2003).
Religious Fundamentalism. As a revised shorter version of the
original Religious Fundamentalism Scale, the Altemeyer and Hunsberger
(2004) instrument included 12 items ([alpha] = .92, M = 2.12, SD =
1.00).
Defense Against Secularism. The final section of the questionnaire
included 17 potential expressions of a Defense against Secularism. These
items appear below in the first table of the results section.
Procedure
All research procedures received institutional approval.
Participation in this project was wholly voluntary with all responding
being completely anonymous. Administration of the questionnaire occurred
in a large classroom setting. Students entered all responses to
questionnaire items on standardized answer sheets that optical scanning
equipment later entered into a computer data file.
Scoring of all instruments focused on the average response per
item. After computation of zero-order relationships, partial
correlations reexamined all linkages after controlling for Biblical
Foundationalism in order to isolate a Religious Fundamentalist
Ideological Surround and after controlling Religious Fundamentalism in
order to delineate a Biblical Foundationalist Ideological Surround.
Finally, the mediation procedures of Hayes (2012) evaluated whether
Defense against Secularism could explain any negative relationships with
Intellect Oriented Reflection that might appear for Faith Oriented
Reflection and for the three indices of fundamentalism, including Truth
of Texts and Teachings, Religious Fundamentalism, and Biblical
Foundationalism.
Results
Factor Analysis of Defense Against Secularism
Statistical procedures first analyzed the factor structure of the
Defense against Secularism items. As defined by an eigenvalue greater
than 1.0, a principal components analysis uncovered one major
(eigenvalue = 9.68, % variance explained = 57.0%) and one minor
(eigenvalue = 1.03, % variance explained = 6.0%) component. A scree
test, cross-loadings of some items on both dimensions, and an
examination of correlations with other variables suggested that
responding could be parsimoniously described by forcing all 17 items
into the single component presented in Table 1. This single-factor
instrument exhibited high internal reliability ([alpha] = .95, M = 1.89,
SD = 0.89).
Zero-Order Correlations Among Measures
Relationships among all but the Religious Fundamentalism and
Biblical Foundationalism scales appear in Table 2. These data most
importantly pointed toward Defense against Secularism as a more closed
religious perspective. Specifically, positive associations with Faith
Oriented Reflection, Truth of Texts and Teachings, and all three
religious orientations documented the conformity of Defense against
Secularism with religious commitments; but negative linkages with
Intellect Oriented Reflection; Faith, Tolerance, and Rationality;
Xenosophia; and Openness to Experience confirmed that this scale defined
a more closed mode of intellectual and social functioning.
As with previous American samples, the two Christian Religious
Reflection Scales covaried inversely. Faith Oriented Reflection also
correlated positively with Truth of Texts and Teachings; Fairness,
Tolerance, and Rationality; and all three religious orientations.
Intellect Oriented Reflection instead exhibited positive connections
with Fairness, Tolerance, and Rationality; Xenosophia; and Openness to
Experience and also negative linkages with Truth of Texts and Teaching
and with the Intrinsic and Extrinsic Social Religious Orientations.
Hence, Faith Oriented Reflection defined a relatively more closed
religious perspective, whereas Intellect Oriented Reflection defined a
relatively more open non-religious style of functioning.
The most noteworthy additional relationships in Table 2 depict
Truth of Texts and Teachings as relatively more religious and closed in
contrast to the more open and less religious stances of Xenosophia and
of Faith, Tolerance, and Rationality. In particular, Truth of Texts and
Teachings correlated negatively with Xenosophia and positively with
Fairness, Tolerance and Rationality and with all three religious
orientations. Fairness, Tolerance, and Rationality and Xenosophia
correlated positively with each other and with Openness to Experience.
In addition, Fairness, Tolerance, and Rationality predicted a lower
Extrinsic Social Orientation, whereas Xenosophia exhibited linkages with
the Intrinsic and Extrinsic Personal Orientations that were negative and
positive, respectively.
A positive relationship appeared between the Intrinsic and
Extrinsic Social Orientations and between the two Extrinsic factors. The
Extrinsic Social Orientation also proved to be incompatible with
Openness to Experience.
Religious Fundamentalism and Biblical Foundationalism
As in previous projects, Religious Fundamentalism and Biblical
Foundationalism displayed a robust direct relationship (r = .84, p <
.001). Table 3 depicts the zero-order and partial correlations observed
for these two scales. Centrally important was the differentiation
produced between these constructs when partial correlations looked at
Religious Fundamentalism after controlling for Biblical Foundationalism
and vice versa. In these partial correlations, both instruments
predicted higher levels of Defense against Secularism, but clear
contrasts appeared in their association with other variables.
In general terms, Religious Fundamentalism emerged as an intrinsic
commitment to fundamentals that was relatively more closed and less
broadly religious. Documenting the religious commitment to fundamentals
were positive correlations with Truth of Texts and Teachings and with
the Intrinsic Religious Orientation. The closed perspective was obvious
in negative linkages with Intellect Oriented Reflection; Fairness,
Tolerance, and Rationality; Xenosophia; and Openness to Experience. Also
noteworthy was a nonsignificant partial correlation with Faith Oriented
Reflection that suggested a failure to utilize even faith-based forms of
reasoning. Linkages with the Extrinsic Personal and Social Orientations
were negative and nonsignificant, respectively.
Biblical Foundationalism, in contrast, described a religious
commitment to fundamentals that was more open and more broadly
religious. Once again, a religious commitment to fundamentals appeared
in positive linkages with the Intrinsic Religious Orientation and with
Truth of Texts and Teachings. Documenting a general openness were
positive partial correlations with Faith and Intellect Oriented
Reflection; Fairness, Tolerance, and Rationality; Xenosophia; and
Openness to Experience. Relationships with the Extrinsic Personal and
Social Orientations were both positive.
Religious Fundamentalist and Biblical Foundationalist Ideological
Surrounds
Partial correlations also characterized relationships among other
variables when framed within Religious Fundamentalist and Biblical
Foundationalist Ideological Surrounds. Data for a Religious
Fundamentalist Ideological Surround appeared in partial correlations
controlling for Biblical Foundationalism, and presentation of these
results occurs above the diagonal in Table 4. Partial correlations
controlling for Religious Fundamentalism defined outcomes within the
Biblical Foundationalist Ideological Surround, which Table 4 presents
below the diagonal.
Defense against Secularism operated as a generally more closed
process, because within each ideological surround, this scale correlated
negatively with Intellect Oriented Reflection; Fairness, Tolerance, and
Rationality; and Openness to Experience. Two results, nevertheless,
suggested that Defense against Secularism was relatively more closed
within the Religious Fundamentalist Surround. Specifically, Defense
against Secularism correlated negatively with Xenosophia only within the
Religious Fundamentalist Surround and correlated positively with Faith
Oriented Reflection only within the Biblical Foundationalist Surround.
Within both surrounds, Defense against Secularism failed to predict
Truth of Texts and Teachings, suggesting no meaningful contact with
"fundamentals" within either surround. An Extrinsic Social
Orientation was the only religious motivation to describe Defense
against Secularism in both surrounds.
In both ideological surrounds, Faith and Intellect Oriented
Reflection correlated positively, suggesting that overlapping variance
between the Religious Fundamentalism and Biblical Foundationalism scales
explained the negative zero-order relationship between these two
constructs. A positive Faith Oriented Reflection linkage with Openness
to Experience across both surrounds pointed toward additional
implications associated with this overlapping variance.
Other commonalities across ideological surrounds appeared in direct
relationships of Faith Oriented Reflection with Truth of Texts and
Teachings and with the Intrinsic and Extrinsic Personal Orientations. At
the same time, however, Faith Oriented Reflection correlated positively
with Xenosophia and Fairness, Tolerance, and Rationality only in partial
correlations controlling for Religious Fundamentalism. These latter
results, therefore, identified the Biblical Fundamentalist Surround as
relatively more open.
Further evidence of relatively greater Biblical Foundationalist
openness appeared in findings for Intellect Oriented Reflection. Within
a Biblical Foundationalist Surround, Intellect Oriented Reflection
correlated positively with Truth of Texts and Teachings, whereas this
relationship was negative within a Religious Fundamentalist Surround. As
would be expected of an index of openness, Intellect Oriented Reflection
also correlated positively with Fairness, Tolerance, and Rationality;
Xenosophia; and Openness to Experience across both surrounds. A negative
relationship with the Intrinsic Religious Orientation identified
Intellect Oriented Reflection as incompatible with sincere religious
commitments within a Religious Fundamentalist Surround, but this partial
correlation was nonsignificant within a Biblical Foundationalist
Surround. In both surrounds, Intellect Oriented Reflection correlated
positively with the Extrinsic Personal and negatively with the Extrinsic
Social Orientations.
In additional results for the Religious Schema Scales, Truth of
Texts and Teachings was relatively more open and religious when
positioned within a Biblical Foundationalist Surround. Supporting this
conclusion were findings that this scale correlated positively with
Fairness, Tolerance, and Rationality; Xenosophia; Openness to
Experience; and all three religious orientations within the Biblical
Foundationalist Surround, but within a Religious Fundamentalist Surround
associations with Xenosophia, Openness to Experience, and the Extrinsic
Social Orientation were all nonsignificant. The only remaining contrast
for Fairness, Tolerance, and Rationality was a positive correlation with
the Intrinsic Religious Orientation within the Biblical Foundationalist,
but not within the Religious Fundamentalist Surround. Xenosophia was
incompatible with an Intrinsic Religious Orientation only within a
Religious Fundamentalist Surround, and Openness to Experience was
compatible with an Intrinsic Religious Orientation only within a
Biblical Foundationalist Surround. Finally, the Intrinsic Orientation
correlated positively with the Extrinsic Personal Orientation only
within the Biblical Foundationalist and negatively with the Extrinsic
Social Orientation only with the Religious Fundamentalist surrounds.
In summary, complex patterns of partial correlations appeared
across the two ideological surround. Where differences appeared, the
most important implications were clear. The Religious Fundamentalist
Surround was a relatively more closed and the Biblical Foundational
Surround a relatively more open religious perspective.
Defense Against Secularism as Mediator
Mediation analyses examined the possibility that Defense against
Secularism could explain the incompatibilities of Faith Oriented
Reflection and various indices of fundamentalism as independent
variables with Intellect Oriented Reflection as the dependent variable.
Mediation first required that each independent variable predict the
mediator (Baron & Kenney, 1986). Significant associations with
Defense against Secularism did in fact appear for Faith Oriented
Reflection ([beta] = .57), Religious Fundamentalism ([beta] = .73),
Biblical Foundationalism ([beta] = .69), and Truth of Texts and
Teachings ([beta] = .61, ps < .001). As Table 5 demonstrates, Defense
against Secularism fully mediated negative associations of Faith
Oriented Reflection, Biblical Foundationalism, and Truth of Texts and
Teachings with Intellect Oriented Reflection and partially mediated this
connection for Religious Fundamentalism.
Clarifying Analysis
Both Religious Fundamentalism and Biblical Foundationalism
exhibited direct partial correlations with Defense against Secularism.
The absence of a relationship had been considered in the hypotheses as a
possible outcome for Biblical Foundationalism, and its linkage with
Defense against Secularism was in fact weaker than that observed for
Religious Fundamentalism. To further clarify these conceptually
noteworthy data, partial correlations reexamined connections of these
two scales with each Defense against Secularism item separately.
Religious Fundamentalism exhibited significant positive partial
correlations with all 17 items. The strongest relationship appeared for
claim, "Reason is an enemy of faith and must be rejected"
(.36, p < .001), with the weakest association being evident for the
self-report, "Reason is a weapon that the culture uses to destroy
faith" (.12, p <.05).
For Biblical Foundationalism, 13 of 17 items displayed significant
relationships. The statement exhibiting the strongest connection said,
"Pressure to be reasonable is a wedge that the culture tries to
drive between us and our faith" (.21, p < .001); and the weakest
partial correlation once again appeared for the statement about reason
serving as a weapon (.12, p < .05). The four nonsignificant
relationships (p > .05) appeared for the following items: "The
true Christian can put no trust at all in reason, science, and
philosophy" (.00); "Reason is an enemy of faith and must be
rejected" (-.05); "The demands of culture and reason to base
beliefs on science must be rejected as incompatible with religion"
(.07); and, "The theory of evolution is an example of how science
and reason are dedicated to eliminating faith" (.09).
In short, a finer grained analysis of reactions to secularism
suggested that the Biblical Foundationalist was clearly less likely than
the Religious Fundamentalist to assume that "true Christians"
should engage in a wholesale rejection of reason.
Discussion
Traditional religions maintain intra- and extra-traditional forms
of openness. Evidence supporting this Religious Openness Hypothesis
appears in positive correlations of the intra-traditional openness of
Faith Oriented Reflection with the extra-traditional openness of
Intellect Oriented Reflection. Such relationships appear in studies
conducted with Hindus in India (Kamble et al., 2014) and with Muslims in
Iran (Ghorbani et al., 2013) and Malaysia (Tekke et al., 2015). In
American Christians, however, this linkage is negative. Two observations
demonstrate that this finding cannot mean that Christians maintain a
wholly more narrow-minded faith that walls out their intellect. First,
statistical procedures controlling for Religious Fundamentalism uncover
a positive connection between these two forms of openness in American
Christians (Watson et al., 2011). Second, Christians in Iran display a
positive zero-order relationship between these two constructs (Watson,
Ghorbani, Vartanian, & Chen, 2015). The present project argued that
this American-Iranian contrast results from the sociological adjustments
of Christian ideological surrounds within the secular West that are
unnecessary within theocratic Iran. Development of a Defense against
Secularism Scale made it possible to support this hypothesis.
As hypothesized, Defense against Secularism in an American sample
correlated positively with Faith Oriented and negatively with Intellect
Oriented Reflection. Data also confirmed predictions that Defense
against Secularism would display direct connections with indices of
fundamentalism, including Religious Fundamentalism, Biblical
Foundationalism, and Truth of Texts and Teaching. Expected ties with
more closed forms of religious and psychological functioning appeared as
well in negative ties with Faith, Tolerance, and Rationality;
Xenosophia; and Openness to Experiences. Positive associations with all
three Religious Orientation Scales documented the broad religious
relevance of these defensive reactions to secularism. Perhaps most
noteworthy, however, were the mediation results. Defense against
Secularism fully mediated the inverse connections of Faith Oriented
Reflection, Biblical Foundationalism, and Truth of Texts and Teachings
with Intellect Oriented Reflection and partially mediated this effect
for Religious Fundamentalism. Such outcomes supplied especially
compelling evidence that Christian perceptions of secularism encouraged
a divorce between their faith and their intellect.
Religious Fundamentalist and Biblical Foundationalist Ideological
Surrounds
Defense against Secularism exhibited direct connections with both
Religious Fundamentalism and Biblical Foundationalism, not only in
zero-order but also in partial correlations. In conformity with previous
findings (Watson, Chen, Ghorbani, & Vartanian, 2015), the Religious
Fundamentalist Ideological Surround, nevertheless, emerged as a
relatively more closed and the Biblical Foundationalist Surround as a
relatively more open Christian perspective. At the broadest level, these
findings suggested that perceptions of secularism were relevant to both
Religious Fundamentalists and Biblical Foundationalists, but the
meanings of that relevance varied with the frame of the surround.
In partial correlations controlling for Biblical Foundationalism,
Religious Fundamentalism predicted rejection of Intellect Oriented
Reflection; Fairness, Tolerance, and Rationality; Xenosophia; and
Openness to Experience. A nonsignificant partial correlation with Faith
Oriented Reflection suggested a failure to use reason even faithfully,
an outcome observed previously (Watson, Chen, Ghorbani, & Vartanian,
2015). A negative correlation with the Extrinsic Personal Orientation
perhaps revealed an additional refusal to connect religious commitments
with personal experience. Positive linkages with Truth of Texts and
Teachings and with the Intrinsic Religious Orientation confirmed a
grounding of the Religious Fundamentalist Surround within religious
traditions. In short, extra-traditional openness seemed incompatible and
intra-traditional openness seemed irrelevant to Religious
Fundamentalism. When framed within this surround, Defense against
Secularism seemed to suggest the ghettoization of faith as a defensive
maneuver against reason.
In partial correlations controlling for Religious Fundamentalism,
the greater openness of Biblical Foundationalism was obvious in direct
linkages with both forms of Religious Reflection; Xenosophia; Fairness,
Tolerance, and Rationality; and Openness to Experience. Positive
connections with Truth of Texts and Teachings and with all three
Religious Orientations confirmed that this perspective maintained
foundations in traditional religion. In short, Biblical Foundationalism
exhibited both intra- and extra-traditional openness. When framed within
this surround, Defense against Secularism suggested that beliefs about
reason as a weapon against faith pointed toward a perceived sociological
reality, but that this reality required a use of reason to defend the
faith.
That meanings of relationships differed across ideological
surrounds also appeared in partial correlations of Religious
Fundamentalism and Biblical Foundationalism with specific items from the
Defense against Secularism Scale. Both surrounds embraced the statement,
"Pressure to be reasonable is a wedge that the culture tries to
drive between us and our faith." In contrast to the Religious
Fundamentalist Surround, the Biblical Foundationalist Surround did not
at the same time agree that "the true Christian can put no trust at
all in reason, science, and philosophy;" that "reason is an
enemy of faith and must be rejected;" and that "the demands of
culture and reason to base beliefs on science must be rejected as
incompatible with religion." These data, therefore, suggested that
pressure to be reasonable as wedge against faith meant that reason had
to be rejected within a Religious Fundamentalist Surround. Within a
Biblical Foundationalist Surround, however, the cultural use of reason
as a wedge, and not the use of reason itself had to be rejected.
Further evidence that meanings may vary across ideological
surrounds appeared in partial correlations between the two Religious
Reflection Scales. Within both surrounds, partial correlations
transformed a negative zero-order relationship into one that was
significantly positive. This outcome has sometimes been observed
previously (Watson et al., 2014) and so requires interpretation as an at
least somewhat reliable effect. Within the conceptual framework of this
project, Faith and Intellect Oriented Reflection perhaps correlated
positively within a Religious Fundamentalist Surround because they both
included shared variance defining reason as a process that functions
outside this more closed frame of faith. Within the Biblical
Foundationalist Surround, however, this positive relationship may have
further confirmed that reason is at home within this more open frame of
faith. A similar interpretation would also apply to the positive
correlation observed between Faith Oriented Reflection and Openness to
Experience within both ideological surrounds.
Additional Implications
In addition to clarifying American Christian reactions to
secularism, these data may have had additional implications that deserve
at least some attention. Three specific issues may be most important.
First, this investigation once again made it clear that
"fundamentalism" within the social sciences cannot be
interpreted as a univocal phenomenon. Contrasts between Religious
Fundamentalist and Biblical Foundationalist Ideological Surrounds made
that point previously (Watson, Chen, Ghorbani, & Vartanian, 2015),
and the present study replicated many of those previously reported
contrasts. Especially noteworthy, however, were new insights suggested
by the mediation analyses. Defense against Secularism fully mediated
negative linkages of Biblical Foundationalism and of Truth of Texts and
Teachings with Intellect Oriented Reflection; but for Religious
Fundamentalism, this mediation was only partial. Religious
Fundamentalism, therefore, appeared to have meanings beyond a defense
against secularism. Development of the Biblical Foundationalism Scale
involved the use of procedures that attempted to express Religious
Fundamentalism items in a language that was more cognitively open and
less condemning of other perspectives. The additional meanings made
evident in this partial mediation effect perhaps reflected the influence
of these condemning attitudes.
Second, the present data supplemented previous observations in
suggesting that caution is essential when interpreting the Religious
Schema Scales (Streib et al., 2010). Creation of these measures in
Germany and the United States operated from the assumption that the
closed-mindedness of Truth of Texts and Teachings could be
conceptualized as being at least somewhat in polar opposition to the
open-mindedness of Xenosophia and of Fairness, Tolerance, and
Rationality. Positive correlations among these three measures in Indian
Hindus (Kamble et al., 2014) and in Malaysian Muslims (Tekke et al.,
2015) have already challenged that assumption. In this study as well,
Truth of Texts and Teachings within the Biblical Foundationalist
Surround correlated positively with the other two religious schemas, an
outcome sometimes (Watson et al., 2014) but not always (Watson, Chen,
Ghorbani, & Vartanian, 2015) observed with American Christians. The
implication, therefore, seems clear. Meanings of the Religious Schema
Scales apparently vary across ideological surrounds.
Third, as in previous projects, mean responding to the Extrinsic
Social Orientation was significantly lower than to the Intrinsic and
Extrinsic Personal Orientations. The Extrinsic Social measure also
displayed positive partial correlations with both Biblical
Foundationalism and Religious Fundamentalism; yet, this orientation had
negative implications within both ideological surrounds. The Extrinsic
Social Orientation, for example, predicted lower levels of Intellect
Oriented Reflection; Fairness, Tolerance, and Rationality; and Openness
to Experience. This religious motivation, therefore, may have interfered
with religious potentials for openness even within the Biblical
Foundationalist Ideological Surround.
Limitations
As with any investigation, particularities in procedures
necessitate caution in interpretation. Three issues seem most
noteworthy.
First, internal reliabilities for Openness to Experience; Fairness,
Tolerance, and Rationality; and Xenosophia proved to be relatively low.
More robust zero-order and partial correlations might appear following
development of more internally consistent operationalizations of these
constructs.
Second, university students served as the research participants and
they are not representative of American Christian populations generally.
Results would surely vary with Christians sampled from denominations and
congregations defined by a more Religious Fundamentalist form of
commitment in comparison to others more closely aligned with a Biblical
Foundationalist Ideological Surround.
Third, all results of this project were essentially correlational;
so, confident inferences about causation are unwarranted. Mediation
results did, of course, support a causal model suggesting that Defense
against Secularism helped explain Christian rejections of Intellect
Oriented Reflection. Definitive evidence for causation in this and in
all other findings of this project will, nevertheless, require
supportive findings derived from other research designs.
Conclusion
According to the Ideological Surround Model, religions and other
cultural processes operate as incommensurable social rationalities
defined not only by their norms, but also by their sociological context.
Evidence testing the Religious Openness Hypothesis has supported that
idea. Faith and Intellect Oriented Reflection correlate positively among
Christians in Iran just as they do among Hindus in India and Muslims in
Iran and Malaysia. In American Christians, however, this relationship is
negative. The present investigation confirmed secularism as a
sociological context that helps explains this American difference.
Perceptions of secularism also operated as a contextual factor that
wholly or partially accounted for an antipathy toward the intellect that
described various forms of fundamentalism. Efforts to offer broad social
scientific generalizations about any religion, therefore, may need to
remain sensitive to the influences of sociological context.
More specifically, these data may also have something important to
say about diversity within conservative Christian perspectives within
the United States. Half a century ago, Pelikan (1965) worried about a
defensiveness of Christian intellectuals that seemed largely
attributable to their reaction to Darwinian evolution. In the present
project, one statement defining the Religious Fundamentalist Ideological
Surround said, "The theory of evolution is an example of how
science and reason are dedicated to eliminating faith." Hence, the
Religious Fundamentalist Ideological Surround did display this and other
forms of defensiveness. A wholesale rejection of reason more generally
suggested that the intellect will have difficulties finding any home at
all within the Religious Fundamentalist Ideological Surround.
Pelikan's worry, therefore, received empirical confirmation.
Pelikan (1965) also believed, however, that Christian intellectual
defensiveness was unnecessary. To support this suggestion, he returned
to the work of Martin Luther, who he quoted as saying, "No science
... should stand in the way of another science, but each should continue
to have its own mode of procedure and its own terms" (p. 58). The
unspoken implication, therefore, was that sciences and religions operate
as incommensurable rationalities, and incommensurable rationalities
present no existential threat to faith.
As Pelikan (1956) also pointed out, Luther found ways to interpret
Genesis that today would preclude defensiveness toward Darwinism. Many
other possibilities for accomplishing that purpose are available as well
(e.g., Girard, 2007); and all such interpretations will surely be open
to disputation and defense. Such argumentation should, nevertheless,
encourage a use of reason to develop an extra-traditional openness that
can help a tradition speak and be heard within its sociological context.
In the present study, the Biblical Foundationalist Ideological Surround
predicted an embrace of reason and did not display a significant linkage
with the statement, "The theory of evolution is an example of how
science and reason are dedicated to eliminating faith." Hence, the
defensiveness that worried Pelikan did not define this ideological
surround. If the belief is that intellectuals should find a home within
Christian Ideological Surrounds, then Biblical Foundationalism may
deserve additional research attention.
P. J. Watson
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Zhuo Chen
University of Oregon
Ronald J. Morris Erin Stephenson
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Address all correspondence to P. J. Watson, Psychology/Department
#2803, 350 Holt Hall--615 McCallie Avenue, University of Tennessee at
Chattanooga 37403, U.S.A. E-mail address is
[email protected].
References
Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1992). Authoritarianism,
religious fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. The International
Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2, 113-133.
Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (2004). A revised Religious
Fundamentalism Scale: The short and sweet of it. The International
Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 14, 47-54.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator
variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual,
strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Batson, C. D., Schoenrade, P., & Ventis, W. L. (1993). Religion
and the individual. New Yor. NYk: Oxford University Press.
Dover, H., Miner, M., & Dowson, M. (2007). The nature and
structure of Muslim religious reflection. Journal of Muslim Mental
Health, 2, 189-210.
Ghorbani, N., Watson, P. J., Chen, Z., & Dover, H. (2013).
Varieties of openness in Tehran and Qom: Psychological and religious
parallels of faith and intellect oriented Islamic religious reflection.
Mental Health, Religion, & Culture, 16, 123-137.
Ghorbani, N., Watson, P. J., Saeedi, Z., Chen, Z., & Silver, C.
F. (2012). Religious problem-solving and the complexity of religious
rationality within an Iranian Muslim ideological surround. Journal for
the Scientific Study of Religion, 51, 656-675.
Ghorbani, N., Watson, P. J., Shamohammadi, K., & Cunningham, C.
J. L. (2009). Post-critical beliefs in Iran: Predicting religious and
psychological functioning. Research in the Social Scientific Study of
Religion, 20, 217-237.
Girard, R. (2007). Evolution and conversion. New York, NY:
Continuum International Publishing.
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain,
personality inventory measuring the lower-level facetsof several
five-factor models. In I Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F.
Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychologyin Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7-28).
Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
Gorsuch, R. L., & McPherson, S. E. (1989). Intrinsic/extrinsic
measurement: I/E revised and single-item scales. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 28, 348-354.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for
observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process
modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from
http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf
Hood, R. W., Jr., Morris, R. J., & Watson, P. J. (1986).
Maintenance of religious fundamentalism. Psychological Reports, 59,
547-559.
Kamble, S. V., Watson, P. J., Marigoudar, S., & Chen, Z.
(2014). Varieties of openness and religious commitment in India:
Relationships of attitudes toward Hinduism, Hindu religious reflection,
and religious schema. Archive for the Psychology of Religion, 36,
172-198.
MacIntyre, A. (1978). Against the self-images of the age. Notre
Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
MacIntyre, A. (1988). Whose justice? Which rationality? Notre Dame,
IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Pelikan, J. (1965). The Christian intellectual. New York, NY:
Harper & Row.
Streib, H., Hood, R. W, Jr., & Klein, C. (2010). The Religious
Schema Scale: Construction and initial validation of a quantitative
measure for religious styles. International Journal for the Psychology
of Religion, 20, 151-172.
Tekke, M., Watson, P. J., Ismail, N. A. H., & Chen, Z. (2015).
Muslim religious openness and ilm: Relationships with Islamic religious
reflection, religious schema, and religious commitments in Malaysia.
Manuscript under review.
Watson, P. J. (1993). Apologetics and ethnocentrism: Psychology and
religion within an ideological surround. International Journal for the
Psychology of Religion, 3, 1-20.
Watson, P. J. (2011). Whose psychology? Which rationality?
Christian psychology within an ideological surround after postmodernism.
Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 30, 307-316.
Watson, P. J. (2014). Transition beyond postmodernism: Pluralistic
culture, incommensurable rationalities, and future objectivity. Review
& Expositor, 111, 33-40.
Watson, P. J., Chen, Z., Ghorbani, N., & Vartanian, M. (2015).
Religious openness hypothesis: I. Religious reflection, schemas, and
orientations within religious fundamentalist and biblical
foundationalist ideological surrounds. Journal of Psychology and
Christianity, 34, 99-113.
Watson, P. J., Chen, Z., & Hood, R. W., Jr. (2011). Biblical
foundationalism and religious reflection: Polarization of faith and
intellect oriented epistemologies within a Christian ideological
surround. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 39, 111-121.
Watson, P. J., Chen, Z., & Morris, R. J. (2014). Varieties of
quest and the religious openness hypothesis within religious
fundamentalist and biblical foundationalist ideological surrounds.
Religions, 5, 1-20.
Watson, P. J., Ghorbani, N., Vartanian, M., & Chen, Z. (2015).
Religious openness hypothesis: II. Religious reflection and
orientations, mystical experience, and psychological openness of
Christians in Iran. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 34, 114-124.
Watson, P. J., Sawyers, P., Morris, R. J., Carpenter, M., Jimenez,
R. S., Jonas, K. A., & Robinson, D. L. (2003). Reanalysis within a
Christian ideological surround: Relationships of intrinsic religious
orientation with fundamentalism and right-wing authoritarianism. Journal
of Psychology and Theology, 31, 315-328.
Authors
P.J. Watson is U. C. Foundation Professor of Psychology at the
University of Tennessee at Chatttanooga. He received a Ph.D. in
Experimental Psychology from the University of Texas at Arlington. His
research focuses on the psychology of religion and on personality
functioning especially as it relates to the self.
Zhuo Chen is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Psychology
at the University of Oregon. His research area is in personality and
social psychology. He received a master's degree in Research
Psychology at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga and also a
master's degree in Mathematics at the University of Oregon.
Ronald J. Morris is Clinical Assistant Professor of Psychology at
the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. He has received master
degrees in Research Psychology and in Industrial/Organizational
Psychology at the same university. His previous research has largely
centered on the psychology of religion.
Erin Stephenson (B.S. in Psychology, Wofford College) is a
master's student in the Mental Health Counseling program at the
University of Tennessee at Chattanogga. She plans to attend a doctorate
program in counseling or in sport psychology upon completion of her
master's degree.
Table 1
Factor Loadings for Items in Defense Against Secularism Scale (N = 425)
Item Loading
1 Reason is a weapon that the culture uses .64
to destroy faith.
2 Secular commitments to reason and open-mindedness .71
are a ploy to purge our laws of the essential
foundations that they must have in God.
3 Pressure to be reasonable is a wedge that the .72
culture tries to drive between us and our faith.
4 Science, philosophy, and so-called "rationality" .82
rest upon a sinful human pride that seeks to
weaken Christian faith.
5 Cultural demands that we be reasonable are just .80
a way to destroy biblical definitions of marriage.
6 Reason cannot be trusted, only faith can. .79
7 In their confused commitment to reason, .71
intellectuals are unable to avoid the deeply
mistaken notion that the creation of humanity is
based upon so-called scientific facts.
8 Secularist beliefs urge the use of reason and .82
open-mindedness in political life because the real
motive is to destroy our religious beliefs.
9 The secular demand that we be reasonable is a .83
strategy to get us to reject our faith when it
conflicts with science.
10 The government should determine what a marriage .70
is based upon the Bible and not upon reasoning
about sexuality and nature.
11 The true Christian can put no trust at all in .58
reason, science, and philosophy.
12 Secular evaluations of whether a pregnancy makes .75
sense are just one example of how beliefs based
upon reason destroy the life-affirming beliefs
of our faith.
13 Our culture uses reason to attack prayer in public .82
settings and to disparage our Christian faith
more generally.
14 Reason is an enemy of faith and must be rejected. .75
15 Intellectuals use reason to undermine our .79
Christian sense of right and wrong.
16 The demands of culture and reason to base beliefs .78
on science must be rejected as incompatible
with religion.
17 The theory of evolution is an example of how .77
science and reason are dedicated to
eliminating faith.
Table 2
Correlations Among Defense Against Secularism, Christian
Religious Reflection, Religious Schema, Openness to
Experience, and Religious Orientation Scales (N = 425)
Scale 1 2 3 4
1. Defense against Secularism - .57 *** -.49 *** .61 ***
2. Faith Oriented Reflection - - -.21 *** .78 ***
3. Intellect Oriented - - - -.34 ***
Reflection
4. Truth of Texts and - - - -
Teachings
5. Fairness, Tolerance, - - - -
and Rationality
6. Xenosophia - - - -
7. Openness to Experience - - - -
8. Intrinsic Religious - - - -
Orientation
9. Extrinsic Personal - - - -
Orientation
10. Extrinsic Social - - - -
Orientation
Scale 5 6 7
1. Defense against Secularism -.15 *** -31 *** -.22 ***
2. Faith Oriented Reflection .11 * -.15 * .09
3. Intellect Oriented .27 *** .49 *** .28 ***
Reflection
4. Truth of Texts and .17 *** -.18 *** .00
Teachings
5. Fairness, Tolerance, - .35 *** .47 ***
and Rationality
6. Xenosophia - - .25 ***
7. Openness to Experience - - -
8. Intrinsic Religious - - -
Orientation
9. Extrinsic Personal - - -
Orientation
10. Extrinsic Social - - -
Orientation
Scale 8 9 10
1. Defense against Secularism .56 *** .33 *** .24 ***
2. Faith Oriented Reflection .76 *** .53 *** .16 **
3. Intellect Oriented -.37 *** -.06 -.17 ***
Reflection
4. Truth of Texts and .80 *** .50 *** .19 ***
Teachings
5. Fairness, Tolerance, .08 .06 -.14 **
and Rationality
6. Xenosophia -.26 *** .13 ** -.04
7. Openness to Experience .06 .02 -.16 **
8. Intrinsic Religious - .39 *** .08
Orientation
9. Extrinsic Personal - - .27 ***
Orientation
10. Extrinsic Social - - -
Orientation
p < .05, * p < .01 ** p < .001
Table 3
Zero-Order (r) and Partial (rab.c) Correlations of Religious
Fundamentalism and Biblical Foundationalism With
Other Measures (N = 425)
Religious Fundamentalism
Variable r rab.c
Defense against Secularism .73 *** .38 ***
Faith Oriented Reflection .72 *** -.05
Intellect Oriented Reflection -.49 *** -.44 ***
Truth of Texts and Teachings .79 *** .31 ***
Fairness, Tolerance, Rationality -.04 -.19 ***
Xenosophia -.40 *** -.43 ***
Openness to Experience -.08 -.16 ***
Intrinsic Religious Orientation .77 *** .36 ***
Extrinsic Personal Orientation .38 *** -.15 **
Extrinsic Social Orientation .16 ** -.04
Biblical Foundationalism
Variable r rab.c
Defense against Secularism .69 *** .21 ***
Faith Oriented Reflection .87 *** .70 ***
Intellect Oriented Reflection -.31 *** .21 ***
Truth of Texts and Teachings .83 *** .49 ***
Fairness, Tolerance, Rationality .08 .20 ***
Xenosophia -.20 *** .26 ***
Openness to Experience .01 .14 **
Intrinsic Religious Orientation .77 *** .34 ***
Extrinsic Personal Orientation .53 *** .43 ***
Extrinsic Social Orientation .21 *** .15 **
Note: Partial Correlations for Fundamentalism control for
Biblical Foundationalism whereas partial correlations
for Biblical Foundationalism control for Fundamentalism.
* p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001
Table 4
Partial Cotrelations Among Measures within Religious
Fundamentalist (above diagonal) and Biblical
Foundationalist (below diagonal) Ideological
Surrounds (N = 425)
Scale 1. 2. 3. 4.
1. Defense against - -.08 -.40 *** .09
Secularism
2. Faith Oriented .10 * - .13 ** 23 ***
Reflection
3. Intellect Oriented -.22 *** .23 *** - -.15 **
Reflection
4. Truth of Texts and .08 .50 *** .10 * -
Teachings
5. Fairness, Tolerance, -.17 *** .20 *** .29 *** .33 ***
and Rationality
6. Xenosophia -.03 .22 *** .37 *** .24 ***
7. Openness to Experience -.24 *** .22 *** .28 *** .10 *
8. Intrinsic Religious -.01 .47 *** .02 .48 ***
Orientation
9. Extrinsic Personal .08 .40 *** .15 ** .33 ***
Orientation
10. Extrinsic Social .18 *** .06 -.11 * .11 *
Orientation
Scale 5. 6. 7.
1. Defense against -.27 *** -23 *** -.31 ***
Secularism
2. Faith Oriented .09 .07 47 ***
Reflection
3. Intellect Oriented .31 *** .46 *** .30 ***
Reflection
4. Truth of Texts and .19 *** -.02 -.02
Teachings
5. Fairness, Tolerance, - .37 *** .47 ***
and Rationality
6. Xenosophia .36 *** - .25 ***
7. Openness to Experience .47 *** .23 *** -
8. Intrinsic Religious .18 *** .08 .19 ***
Orientation
9. Extrinsic Personal .08 .35 *** .05
Orientation
10. Extrinsic Social -.14 ** .03 -.15 **
Orientation
Scale 8. 9. 10.
1. Defense against .06 -.07 .13 **
Secularism
2. Faith Oriented .30 *** 47 *** -.06
Reflection
3. Intellect Oriented -.21 *** .13 ** -.11 *
Reflection
4. Truth of Texts and .45 *** .12 * .03
Teachings
5. Fairness, Tolerance, .04 .02 -.16 **
and Rationality
6. Xenosophia -.16 ** .29 **** .00
7. Openness to Experience .08 .02 -.16 **
8. Intrinsic Religious - -.04 -.13 **
Orientation
9. Extrinsic Personal .16 ** - .19 ***
Orientation
10. Extrinsic Social -.06 .24 *** -
Orientation
Note: Partial Correlations within the Religious Fundamentalist
ideological surround control for Biblical Foundationalism
whereas partial correlations for the Biblical Foundationalist
ideological surround control for Fundamentalism.
* p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001
Table 5
Analysis of Defense against Secularism as Mediator of
Relationships of Faith Oriented Reflection and Various
Measures of Fundamentalism as Independent Variables
Predicting Intellect Oriented Reflection as
Dependent Variables (N = 425)
Indirect
Dependent Variable [R.sup.2] Effect CI-LL
Faith Oriented Reflection .25 *** -.25 * -.32
Religious Fundamentalism .28 *** -.16 * -.24
Biblical Foundationalism .24 *** -.25 * -.32
Truth of Texts and Teachings .24* ** -.19 * -.25
Direct
without
Dependent Variable CI-UL Mediator Direct
Faith Oriented Reflection -.19 -.17 *** .06
Religious Fundamentalism -.08 -.39 *** -.23 ***
Biblical Foundationalism -.18 -.22 *** .03
Truth of Texts and Teachings -.14 -.24 *** -.05
Note. Mediation analyses maintained the conventional focus on
unstandardized regression coefficients (B). [R.sup.2] values assess the
overall significance of the mediation model. The "indirect effect"
examines whether the influence of the mediator was significant as
defined by the lower limits (CI-LL) and upper limits (CI-UL) of the
confidence intervals. Indirect effects represent the association
between the independent variable and the mediator times the
association between the mediator and the dependent variable. Tests
of significance used 95% confidence intervals that were bias
corrected and based upon 1000 bootstrap samples. Confidence
intervals that do not include 0 identify a significant indirect
effect at the .05 level. "Direct without Mediator" effects reveal
the association of an independent variable with the dependent
variable, whereas the "Direct" effect describes this same
relationship after accounting for the influence of the mediator.
* p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001