Biblical Foundationalism and Religious Reflection: polarization of faith and intellect oriented epistemologies within a Christian ideological surround.

Watson, P.J. ; Chen, Zhuo ; Hood, Ralph W., Jr. 等

Among other things, the Ideological Surround Model (ISM) argues that greater objectivity can be achieved through an empiricism that brings emic religious and etic social scientific perspectives into formal dialog. In this project, 421 undergraduates responded to a Christian Religious Reflection Scale along with an etic Religious Fundamentalism and an emic Biblical Foundationalism scale. Christian Religious Reflection proved to be polarized with Faith and Intellect Oriented factors correlating negatively. Faith Oriented Reflection, Religious Fundamentalism, and Biblical Foundationalism displayed negative linkages with Quest and Openness to Experience. Intellect Oriented Reflection was incompatible with Christian commitments and predicted higher Quest and Openness to Experiences. Statistical controls for the etic language of Religious Fundamentalism demonstrated that the emic language of Biblical Foundationalism could support both Faith and Intellect Oriented epis-tcmologies and was not incompatible with Quest or Openness to Experience. Participants displayed higher scores on Biblical Foundationalism than on Religious Fundamentalism. These data illustrated how a dialogical empiricism can promote objectivity.

Postmodernism argues that all observations, scientific and otherwise, emerge from socially constructed perspectives that cannot be wholly "objective" (Burr, 1995; Erickson, 2001). This is so because human consciousness can only make observations from a "somewhere" that makes it possible to see only some things, but never from an "everywhere" or a "somewhere" that makes it possible to see everything (Nietzsche, 1887/2000). This means that human observers in psychology and other social sciences, like those in Christianity and other religions, invariably see things from a limited point of view. Failures to acknowledge this epistemological constraint could support, for example, a misguided faith in the "objectivity" of a scientific psychology to yield unbiased insights into Christian commitments. But to admit the perspectival nature of all observations also threatens to trap human knowledge in a "vertigo of relativism" (Berger & Luckmann, 1966, p. 5). An Ideological Surround Model (ISM) of the relationship between psychology and religion seeks to avoid the extremes of naive objectivism and vertiginous relativism. This model assumes that a more adequate, though not absolute "objectivity" can be achieved by making the perspectival nature of knowledge an explicit object of empirical investigation (Watson, 1993, 2008a, b, in press).

According to the ISM, both psychology and religion are ideological. "Ideology" here means that each is somewhat non-empirical, normative, and sociological (Maclntyre, 1978). They are somewhat non-empirical because each rests upon foundational beliefs that cannot be falsified. Christianity is a religion that has foundations in God as the supernatural and ultimate source of explanation. Psychology is a science that formally rejects supernaturalism and has at least implicit groundings in nature as the ultimate source of explanation. Notions that God or that nature is at the foundations of the universe cannot be definitively confirmed nor disconfirmed. Christianity and psychology are, therefore, somewhat non-empirical because each uses unfalsifiable foundational assumptions to socially construct a vast array of meaningful empirical observations. Foundations also have normative implications. Faith in nature as the ultimate source of meaning, for instance, makes scientific empiricism the epistemo-logical norm. Ultimate faith in the Christian God makes biblical interpretation the norm. Commitments to these and other norms sociologically define who does and who does not belong within a particular community of understanding.

Given the unavoidable influences of ideology, the ISM argues that greater objectivity in the relationship between psychology and religion requires three forms of research: etic, emic, and dialogic (Ghor-bani, Watson, Shamohammadi, & Cunningham, 2009; Watson, in press). In anthropology, etic research programs work from perspectives "outside" a community and maintain an epistemological distance that at least theoretically makes it possible to see things in more non-sympathetically "objective" terms (e.g., Headland, Pike, & Harris, 1990). This greater tendency toward a hermeneutics of suspicion may nevertheless make it difficult for etic investigations to achieve (among other things) experiential and cultural validity in describing the psychological life of a community. Emic research makes observations using frameworks within a community and maintains an epistemological closeness that could result in a more sympathetic experiential and cultural validity. This greater tendency toward a hermeneutics of faith may nevertheless make it difficult to discover (among other things) new resources of self-critique that may exist as unactualized normative potentials within a community (Westphal, 1998). Dialogical research procedures bring etic and emic frameworks into formal empirical interaction in order to maximize the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of each.

Dialogical Empiricism and Biblical Foundationalism

Illustrating dialogical empiricism was a recent study that examined issues relevant to the epistemological assumptions of Christianity (Watson et al., 2003). The Altemeyer and Hunsberger (1992) Religious Fundamentalism Scale uses an etic perspective to operationalize unwavering commitments to the texts that define foundational meaning within traditional religious communities. The authors describe fundamentalism as, the belief that there is one set of religious teachings that clearly contains the fundamental, basic, intrinsic, essential inerrant truth about humanity and deity; that this essential truth is fundamentally opposed by forces of evil which must be vigorously fought; that this truth must be followed today according to the fundamental, unchangeable practices of the past; and that those who believe and follow these fundamental teachings have a special relationship with the deity, (p. 118)

Robust linkages with right-wing authoritarianism imply that Religious Fundamentalism essentially reflects a fascist regime of understanding (Hunsberger, 1996; Hunsberger, Pratt, & Pancer, 1994; West-man, Willink, & McHoskey, 2000). "Are religious persons usually good persons?" Altemeyer and Hunsberger (p. 113) ask. Based upon relationships like those with authoritarianism, their non-sympathetic, etic answer is that no, they are not.

But are data associated with the Religious Fundamentalism Scale influenced by ideology, and thus have an "objectivity" that reflects a particular etic perspective? Watson et al. (2003) tested that possibility by first using a dialogical empirical procedure to translate etic Religious Fundamentalism items into more emic Christian language (Watson, 2008a). In a predominantly Christian sample, positive correlations of a proposed emic with its corresponding etic expression of belief served as empirical warrant for identifying a successful translation. One Religious Fundamentalism item said, for instance, "God will punish most severely those who abandon his true religion." A successful translation said, "God has created a universe in which punishment is the unavoidable consequence of failing to follow the love and sacrifice modeled by Christ." A Biblical Foundationalism Scale combined successful translations into a presumably more sympathetic emic measure.

In additional procedures, Christian raters judged whether items from the Altemeyer and Hunsberger (1992) Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale had ideologically biased implications against Christians. Partial correlations controlling for Religious Fundamentalism then demonstrated that Biblical Foundationalism displayed linkages only with those "right-wing" statements that were at least somewhat ideologically problematic for Christians. Biblical Foundationalism, for example, predicted such putatively "authoritarian" beliefs as the reverse scored assertion, "People should pay less attention to the Bible and the other traditional forms of religious guidance, and instead develop their own personal standards of what is moral and immoral." To interpret such a relationship as evidence of "authoritarianism" suggests a tautological empirical ambush of Christians within an etic ideological surround. This is so because such a correlation merely reveals that people who believe in the Bible are people who believe in the Bible. More generally, such data illustrated the potentials of bringing etic and emic perspectives into formal empirical dialog.

Religious Reflection within a Faith Tradition

Etic ideological influences are not necessarily limited to the study of Christians (Ghorbani, Watson, & Khan, 2007; Khan & Watson, 2010; Ghorbani, Watson, Rezazadeh, & Cunningham, in press). Dover, Miner, and Dowson (2007) recently wondered whether a questing religious orientation was incompatible with Muslim commitments. With a questing orientation, "religion involves an open-ended, responsive dialogue with existential questions raised by the contradictions and tragedies of life" (Batson, Schoenrade, & Vends, 1993, p. 169). Some Quest Scale items identify religious doubt as a central feature of this "responsive dialog." Dover et al. suggest that this emphasis on doubt makes Quest inappropriate for studying Muslim religious reflection, which "operates within a faith tradition, and for the purpose of finding religious truth" (p. 204). Said differently, they imply that Quest is an etic construct that is ideologically incompatible with an emic Muslim understanding of religious reflection.

To support their argument, Dover et al. (2007) created a Muslim Religious Reflection Scale which confirmatory factor analysis revealed to have a hypothesized four-factor and higher order structure. Most importantly, they discovered that Muslim Religious Reflection correlated negatively with Quest and positively with Religious Fundamentalism, suggesting that "questing and fundamentalism may not be interpreted in the same way by Muslims and Christians" (p. 201). Indeed, they argue that exactly opposite correlations would be expected for Christians because "the nature and consequence of Christian and Muslim religious reflection may differ radically" (p. 206). The more general conclusion is that "Christians would view the highly rational and skep tical positions underlying questing as both available, and potentially desirable, to them as Christians" (p. 206).

But could the Muslim data of Dover et al. (2007) reflect ideological factors that are evident in Christian data as well? Hood, Hill, and Williamson (2005) recently argued that all forms of so-called fundamentalism," Christian as well as Muslim, most importantly reflect commitments to an intratextual epistemology. With such an epistemology, efforts to discover truth about the contradictions and tragedies of life must occur within the tradition itself. The religious reflection of Christians committed to the Bible might therefore be like that of Muslims committed to the Qur'an in correlating positively with Religious Fundamentalism and negatively with Quest.

The present project used ISM assumptions to test the suggestion that a Christian emic understanding of religious reflection would display linkages with etic measures that are much like those observed previously for an emic Muslim measure. Procedures first attempted to translate Muslim Religious Reflection items into Christian language. A largely Christian sample then responded to this Christian Religious Reflection measure along with Religious Fundamentalism (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992), Biblical Foundationalism (Watson et al., 2003), and Quest (Batson & Schoenrade, 1991a, b). Administration of Religious Orientation (Gorsuch & McPherson, 1989) and Openness to Experience (Goldberg, Johnson, Eber, Hogan, Ashton, & Cloninger, 2006) measures made it possible to clarify the religious and noteworthy personality implications of all other variables. Data analysis rested upon the ISM assumption that Christian Religious Reflection and Biblical Foundationalism were emic measures whereas Religious Fundamentalism and Quest were constructions of an etic ideological surround. Tests of three hypotheses were most important.

First, data for Christian Religious Reflection should be like that observed for Muslim Religious Reflection. In other words, Christian Religious Reflection should correlate positively with Religious Fundamentalism and negatively with Quest.

Second, evidence that an emic Biblical Foundationalism might have problematic epistemological implications should be mediated, at least in part, by an etic Religious Fundamentalism. Relationship with an etic Religious Fundamentalism could indeed point toward some limitation in the epistemological perspective of a Biblical Foundationalism. In addition, however, it might also reveal how the more positive possibilities of an emic commitment to intratextuality could be obscured by the non-sympathetic etic language of the Religious Fundamentalism Scale. Mediation analyses controlling for this etic language might, therefore, uncover the less problematic potentials of Biblical Foundationalism . In other words, negative linkages of Biblical Foundationalism with Quest should be explained wholly or in part by variance associated with Religious Fundamentalism.

Finally, if Religious Fundamentalism is ideologically more non-sympathetic and Biblical Foundationalism is more sympathetic, then Christian responding should be relatively higher on Biblical Foundationalism. In other words, average responding per scale item should be higher on Biblical Foundationalism.

In summary, the purpose of this project was to explore Christian Religious Reflection in order to bring etic social scientific perspectives on Religious Fundamentalism into dialog with Christian emic perspectives on Biblical Foundationalism. Tests of the empirical hypotheses made it possible to bring etic insights into the liabilities of religious commitment into conversation with emic possibilities for acknowledging those liabilities, while also moving beyond them. For Christians conducting research in psychology, the potentials of such an approach should be clear. Diaiogical empiricism could promote a more adequate, though not absolute "objectivity" that takes the perspectival nature of all knowledge into account.

Method

Participants

Research participants were 421 undergraduates enrolled in Introductory Psychology classes at a branch campus of a large state university system in the southeastern Unites States. Included in this total were 135 men, 285 women, and one individual who failed to indicate sex. Average age was 18.3 years (SD = 2.11). The sample was 80.3% Caucasian and 13.6% African-American, with the remainder belonging to various other racial groups. Religious affiliation was 39.0% Baptist, 14.3% Methodist, 9.5% Catholic, 8.17o Presbyterian, 8.1% Church of Christ, 2.6% Church of God, 4.5% "Other Protestants," 4.3% atheist or agnostic, and 9.6% simply "Other" or failed to specify religion.

Measures

All psychological instruments appeared in a single questionnaire booklet. The response options of each involved a 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) Likert scale. The first section of the booklet contained the 10-item Openness to Experience Scale from the International Personality Item Pool (Goldberg, Johnson, Eber, Hogan, Ashton, & Cloninger, 2006). Illustrating Openness (a =.74, M response per item = 2.42 SD = 0.59) was the self-report, "Enjoy hearing new ideas."

Religious orientation scales appeared next. Gor-such and McPherson (1989) measures recorded Intrinsic ([alpha] =.87, M = 2.43, SD = 0.89), Extrinsic Personal ([alpha] =.68, M = 2.32, SD = 0.86), and Extrinsic Social ([alpha] =.76, M = 1.07, SD = 0.81) religious motivations. With an intrinsic orientation, religion supplies the ultimate end in life. Illustrating the 8-item Intrinsic Scale was the claim that "my whole approach to life is based on my religion." Extrinsic measures recorded the instrumental use of religion for other ends. Three items each recorded the Extrinsic Personal (e.g., "what religion offers me most is comfort in times of trouble and sorrow") and the Extrinsic Social (e.g., I go to church mostly to spend time with my friends") orientations. The Bat-son & Schoenrade (1991a, b) 12-item Quest Scale ([alpha] =.80, M = 1.72, SD = 0.67) included such statements as UI was not very interested in religion until I began to ask questions about the meaning and purpose of life." An item exemplifying the role of doubt in Quest says, "For me, doubting is an important part of what it means to be religious."

Statements for a potential Christian Religious Reflection Scale then followed. For each of these 14 items, the attempt was to translate a Muslim articulation of religious reflection into language that was more appropriate for Christians. One Muslim expression of religious reflection said, for example, "Faith in Allah is what nourishes the intellect and makes the intellectual life prosperous and productive." The Christian version replaced "Allah" with "Christ."

Appearing next was the 20-item Religious Fundamentalism Scale ([alpha] =.93) of Altemeyer and Huns-berger (1992). The 15-item Biblical Foundationalism Scale ([alpha] =.96) then followed in the last section of the booklet.

Procedure

All subjects volunteered and received extra course credit for participating in this project. Procedures occurred in a large classroom environment. After signing informed consent forms, participants responded to all psychological scales by entering reactions to questionnaire items on a standardized answer sheet. Optical scanning equipment subsequently read these answer sheets into a computer data file.

Data analysis began with an examination of the potential Christian Religious Reflection items. The goal was to identify a final measure that maximized internal reliability and presented a clear factor structure. Effort to achieve this latter objective began with a confirmatory factor analysis that sought to determine if Christian data would fit the four and higher order factor structures observed previously with Muslims (Dover et al, 2007). Inferential statistical analyses followed the creation of a finally acceptable Christian Religious Reflection Scale.

Results

Preliminary internal reliability analysis revealed that one statement from the Christian Religious Reflection Scale displayed a negative item-to-total correlation. This item was dropped. A confirmatory factor analysis then examined whether the remaining 13-item Christian Religious Reflection Scale would fit the factor structures previously observed with Muslims. Based upon the recommendations of Hu and Bender (1999), evaluations of fit involved use of the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) plus additional measures that included the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the Root Mean Square of Approximation (RMSEA). Adequate fit is revealed if SRMS is less than.08, CFI is.90 or greater, and RMSEA is less than.06. Analyses indicated that neither the four factor (CFI =.823, RMSEA = 098, SRMR =.109) nor higher order (CFI =.812, RMSEA =.099, SRMR =.113) Muslim models adequately described Christian responding.

Failure of these data to fit the Muslim models served as warrant for conducting an exploratory factor analysis. A principal axis factor analysis with a varimax rotation uncovered two dimensions of Christian Religious Reflection. One item failed to load strongly on either factor, suggesting that the attempt to translate this statement into Christian language had ambiguous consequences. This statement was therefore eliminated as well, producing a final Christian Religious Reflection measure of 12 items ([alpha] =.62, M = 2.54, SD = 0.50). Table 1 summarizes the factor analysis of this scale. Seven items loaded on a first factor that essentially defined Faith Oriented Reflection (eigenvalue = 4.01, % variance = 33.4%). The five remaining statements loaded on a second, Intellect Oriented Reflection factor (eigenvalue = 2.13, %, variance = 17.8%).

Confirmatory factor analysis procedures demonstrated that this two-factor model displayed an only marginally adequate fit: [X.sup.2] (53) = 197.72, RMSEA =.081, CFI =.887, SRMR=.069. Modification indices revealed a strong unestimated covariance between two faith oriented items with somewhat similar conceptual implications. One of these items said, "Understanding science and the Bible helps one to realize that God exists." The other was the self-report, "I believe that through science and religion one can really understand the meaning of life." A revised two-factor model added an estimation of correlation between these two items and displayed acceptable fit, [x.sup.2] (52) = 13156, RMSEA =.060, CFI =.938, SRMR =.060. This revised model also represented a statistically significant improvement, [DELTA] [x.sup.2] (l) = 66.16, p<.00L

The internal reliability of both the Faith ([alpha] =.82) and Intellect ([alpha] =.72) measures tended to be higher than for the full scale. Average responding per item was slightly though significantly higher on the Faith (M = 2.61, SD = 0.83) than on the Intellect (M = 2.44, SD = 0.74) measure (t [420] = 2.78, p<.01).

Correlations among all measures appear in Table 2. The full Christian Reflection Scale correlated negatively with Quest and positively with the Faith and Intellect factors, Biblical Foundationalism, Fundamentalism, and all three religious orientations. Biblical Foundationalism and Religious Fundamentalism correlated negatively with Quest and Openness to Experience and positively with all three religious orientation measures. Most striking in these data was the negative correlation between the two Christian Religious Reflection factors. This result pointed toward a polarization in Christian reflection that also seemed evident in relationships with other measures. Intellect Oriented Reflection correlated negatively with Biblical Foundationalism, Fundamentalism, and an Intrinsic Religious Orientation and positively with Quest and Openness to Experience. Faith Oriented Reflected Reflection displayed significant relationships in the opposite direction with each of these variables and also predicted higher scores on the Extrinsic Personal and Social orientations.

Again, the hypothesis was that Biblical Foundationalism in comparison to the Religious Fundamentalism Scale records a more ideologically sympathetic commitment to the Bible. This possibility was explored in two ways. First, if it is more ideologically sympathetic, then an overwhelming Christian sample should and in fact did display higher average responses per item on Biblical Foundationalism (M = 2.69, SD = 0.88) than on Religious Fundamentalism (M =2.04; SD = 0.81). this difference was statistically significant (t [420] = 24.80, p <. 001).

Table 1
Faith and Intellect Oriented Factors of Christian Religious
Reflection Scale
                                                       Factors

Items                                                    1      2

Faith in Christ is what nourishes the intellect and     .70  -.28
makes the intellectual life prosperous and
productive.

My practice in Christianity is an inner reflection of   .72  -.15
my faith.

Understanding science and the Bible helps one to        .64   .10
realize that God exists.

I believe that through science and religion one can     .52   .18
really understand the meaning of life.

I have always held religious beliefs similar to the     .45  -.15
ones I hold now--I have never had times of doubt or
questioning.

Based on what I've heard or read, I have come to the    .77  -.21
conclusion that Christianity is the right religion
for me.

I have seriously thought about my religious beliefs     .61  -.22
and I am very committed to the faith I now have.

Questioning life leads to answers, which ultimately     .08   .36
leads to the truth.

The Bible does not reveal all the essential truth or   -.09   .37
facts about life and God and that is why God has
blessed us with our intellect.

I believe as humans we should use our minds to         -.19   .78
explore all fields of thought from science to
metaphysics.

In search of knowledge, one should resort to all       -.21   .70
methods, be they experimental or rational.

Studying nature and the universe would reveal          -.09    31
treasures of knowledge and truth.
Maximal loadings are underlined.

Table 2
 Correlations among Measures
Measures                            2.       3.       4.       5.

1 Christian Reflection             .81***    36***   .60***   .42***
2. Faith Oriented Reflection            -  -.26***   .82***   .73***
3. Intellect Oriented Reflection                 -  -.30***  -.47***
4. Biblical Fundamentalism                                -   .80***
5.Religious Fundamentalism                                         -
6. Quest
7. Openness to Experience
8. Intrinsic Orientation
9. Extrinsic Personal
10. Extrinsic Social
Measures                            6.        7.       8.       9.
1 Christian Reflection            -.27***      -.07   .45***   .33***
2. Faith Oriented Reflection      -.50***   -.23***   .69***   .30***
3. Intellect Oriented Reflection   .35***  .25*** -   .36***     -.03
4. Biblical Fundamentalism        -.46***   -.23***   .71***   .32***
5.Religious Fundamentalism        -.56***   -.29***    73***   .20***
6. Quest                                -     .15**  -.45***     -.07
7. Openness to Experience                         -      .07  -.18***
8. Intrinsic Orientation                                   -   .20***
9. Extrinsic Personal                                               -
10. Extrinsic Social
Measures                            10.
1 Christian Reflection            .18***
2. Faith Oriented Reflection      .18***
3. Intellect Oriented Reflection     .02
4. Biblical Fundamentalism         .15**
5.Religious Fundamentalism          .13*
6. Quest                           -.10*
7. Openness to Experience           -.07
8. Intrinsic Orientation             .06
9. Extrinsic Personal             .20***
10. Extrinsic Social                   -
*p<.05   **p<.01   *** p<001

Second, if Biblical Foundationalism is more ideologically sympathetic, then it also should display linkages with other variables that have less problematic implications after accounting for variance associated with the more non-sympathetic etic language of Religious Fundamentalism. Tests of that possibility followed the procedures of Baron and Kenny (1986) for examining mediation. In these procedures, Biblical Foundationalism served as the independent variable with Religious Fundamentalism as the mediating variable and with Quest as the dependent variable. Analysis of Quest examined one of the formal hypotheses of this project. Other relationships observed for Biblical Foundationalism nevertheless seemed relevant to the possible interaction between emic and etic perspectives. Were conceptually problematic linkages of Biblical Foundationalism with lower Intellect Oriented Reflection and Openness to Experience also mediated by Religious Fundamentalism? Would Religious Fundamentalism fully mediate the relationship of Biblical Foundationalism with Faith Oriented Reflection, and if so, how could Biblical Foundationalism be in any way relevant to a faith - oriented epistemology? In efforts to answer these questions, the two Christian Reflection measures and Openness also served as dependent variables in separate mediation analyses.

Empirical demonstrations of mediation first require that the independent variable significantly predict the mediating variable. A significant association in fact appeared between Biblical Foundational-ism and Religious Fundamentalism ([beta] =.80, p <.001). Then, the independent variable must display a significant connection with the dependent variable in the first step of a multiple regression, and that association must be reduced or eliminated when the mediating variable increases the variance explained on the second step. In the examination of Quest, Biblical Foundationalism did display an inverse association ([beta] =.46, p <.001) on the first step, and Religious Fundamentalism did increase the variance explained ([DELTA] F [2, 418] = 52.20, p <.001). On this second step, Religious Fundamentalism ([beta] =-.52, p <.001), but no longer Biblical Foundationalism ([beta] = -.05, p >.40) served as a negative predictor of Quest. A similar pattern appeared with Openness to Experience. Biblical Foundationalism was a negative predictor on the first step (([beta] =-23, p <.001), and Religious Fundamentalism increased the variance explained ([DELTA] F [2, 418] = 12.74, p <.001). Once again, Religious Fundamentalism ([beta] = -21, P <.001) but no longer Biblical Foundationalism ([beta] =-.01, p >.90) displayed a negative linkage with Openness to Experience. In short, Religious Fundamentalism fully mediated the negative association of Biblical foundationalism with Quest and with Openness to Experience.

In addition, Biblical Foundationalism was a negative predictor of Intellect Oriented Reflection ([beta] = -.30, p <.001), and Religious Fundamentalism did increase the variance explained on the second step ([DELTA] F [2,418] = 75.02, p <.001). On this second step, Religious Fundamentalism served as a negative predictor ([beta] = -.61, p <.001), but the association for Biblical Foundationalism became positive rather than negative ([beta] =.19, p <.01). Religious Fundamentalism, therefore, suppressed a positive relationship between Biblical Foundationalism and Intellect Oriented Reflection.

When Faith Oriented Intellect served as the dependent variable, Biblical Foundationalism was a reliable positive predictor ([beta] =.82, p <.01), and Religious Fundamentalism again increased the variance explained ([DELTA] F [2,418] = 2169, p <.001). On the second step, Biblical Foundationalism ([beta] =.65, p <.01) and Religious Fundamentalism ([beta] = .21, p <.01) both served as positive predictors. A Sobel Test identified Religious Fundamentalism as a significant mediator ([ZETA] = 4.57, p <.001). In other words, Religious Fundamentalism only partially mediated the association between Biblical Foundationalism and greater Faith Oriented Reflection.

Mediation analyses, therefore, seemed to confirm that a more sympathetic Biblical Foundationalism operationalized a more positive commitment to the Bible that can be obscured by the etic ideological language of Religious Fundamentalism. But perhaps these results merely revealed that Biblical Foundationalism after controlling for Religious Fundamentalism no longer had any religious implications at all. The partial rather than full mediation effect observed with Faith Oriented Reflection argued against that explanation, but a further test of the possibility involved an examination of partial correlations after controlling for Religious Fundamentalism. Positive partial correlations with the Intrinsic (.30, p <.001) and Extrinsic Personal (.28, p <.001) Religious Orientations further confirmed that Biblical Foundationalism continued to have religious implications even after removal of variance associated with Religious Fundamentalism.

Discussion

According to the ISM, research into psychology and religion can achieve a greater, though not absolute objectivity through a dialogical empiricism that formally acknowledges the perspectival nature of all knowledge. Erie tendencies toward a hermeneutics of suspicion can be brought into useful empirical "conversations" that clarify and are clarified by emic tendencies toward a hermeneutics of faith. Results of this investigation supported these ISM assumptions.

At the origins of this project was a previous suggestion that Muslim religious reflection may be radically different from that of Christians (Dover et al., 2007). A Muslim Religious Reflection Scale correlated positively with Religious Fundamentalism and negatively with Quest. Such data pointed toward the possibility that Muslims, unlike Christians, pursue a quest for existential meaning within their own tradition. Christians supposedly embrace "the highly rational and skeptical positions underlying questing" (Dover et al., p. 206), implying a greater openness to influences outside Christian traditions. The expectation from this Muslim perspective, therefore, was that Christian religious reflection would display opposite associations with Fundamentalism and Quest. The ISM argues instead that Quest reflects etic ideological assumptions that are not fully compatible with the emic perspectives of Christianity and other traditional religions including Islam. So called fundamentalists, Christian as well as Muslim, are committed to an intratextual epistemology in which all questing should occur within a tradition (Hood et al., 2005). A Christian Religious Reflections Scale used the Muslim measure as a template, and this new measure in an overwhelmingly Christian sample correlated positively with Religious Fundamentalism and negatively with Quest. Parallels of the present Christian with the previous Muslim data, therefore, supported the ISM.

Results for the Christian Religious Reflection Scale, nevertheless, revealed important contrasts with previous Muslim findings. Four factor and higher order Muslim models failed to fit the Christian data, and an exploratory factor analysis then uncovered the most unexpected result of this investigation. Christians displayed a polarization in their religious reflection. Faith Oriented Reflection pointed toward Christian emic perspectives, but Intellect Oriented Reflection appeared to be incompatible with Christian commitments. Most surprisingly, Intellect Oriented Reflection correlated negatively with Faith Orientated Reflection. It also predicted lower levels of an Intrinsic Religious Orientation, Religious Fundamentalism, and Biblical Foundationalism and higher scores on Quest and Openness to Experience. In correlations, therefore, Intellect Oriented Reflection did suggest the "highly rational and skeptical positions" mentioned by Dover et al . (2007, p. 206), although it in no way exhibited a straightforward compatibility with Christianity. More generally, polarization supported the claim that intratextuality as a central ideological motif of fundamentalism encourages an "exclusion of other interpretative factors" and means that "absolute truths are themselves protected from outside influences and are not subject to outside criticism" (Hood et al ., p. 24).

Attention to possible ideological influences on empirical findings, nevertheless, uncovered complexities in this apparent polarization. As interpreted by the ISM, Religious Fundamentalism assesses commitments to an intratextual epistemology from a non-sympathetic etic perspective. This scale along with Biblical Foundationalism appeared to assess noteworthy perspectival limitations associated with fundamentalism, but the ideological positioning of the Religious Fundamentalism Scale may so strongly reflect a hermeneutics of suspicion that it fails to capture the more positive emic potentials theoretically expressed by Biblical Foundationalism. Mediation analyses, therefore, looked at the more sympathetic language of Biblical Foundationalism after accounting for the more non-sympathetic language of Religious Fundamentalism. In these procedures, Biblical Foundationalism became a positive rather than a negative predictor of Intellect Oriented Reflection. Religious Fundamentalism also fully mediated the negative linkages of Biblical Foundationalism with Quest and with Openness to Experience. These effects could not be explained away by the argument that mediation procedures evacuated Biblical Foundationalism of all religious content. Religious Fundamentalism oniy partially mediated the relationship of Biblical Foundationalism with Faith Oriented Reflection, and Biblical Foundationalism correlated positively with the Intrinsic and Extrinsic Personal Orientations after controlling for Religious Fundamentalism. Overall, these data suggested that Religious Fundamentalism measured only the perspectival limitations of fundamentalism whereas Biblical Foundationalism better operationalized both the limitations and the positive possibilities of a Christian ideological commitment to intratextuality.

In short, analyses of religious reflection within a Christian ideological surround yielded a more favorable evaluation of the epistemological dynamics of Christianity. Mediation results revealed that Christians can use both faith and intellect to explore issues based upon perspectives within their own tradition. Such data supported the claims of Hood et al . (2005) about the complexity of fundamentalism. They argue, for example, "Fundamentalists do, in fact, support other forms of knowledge, including science and historic criticism" (p. 25). Beliefs about these other forms of knowledge are, nevertheless, secondary and under the ideological discipline of more primary commitments to intratextuality . "No other source of knowledge shall in any way alter the true meanings of the text" (Hood et al ., 2005). Intellect, therefore, can and must operate within parameters established by faith. The mediation analysis of Intellect Oriented Reflection supported this interpretation.

Results of the mediation analysis cannot mean that the Religious Fundamentalism Scale is so ideologically biased that it is wholly invalid in efforts to understand Christianity (and other traditional religions). Religious perspectives will be like all others in having limitations and biases. As correlations of this project illustrated, the etic ideological positioning of Religious Fundamentalism seemed useful in identifying some of those limitations. Religious Fundamentalism, for example, correlated negatively with Openness to Experience. The opportunity to discover this kind of result means that non-sympathetic etic researchers will and undoubtedly should use this measure to deepen their critical analysis of religion.

Those with emic Christian commitments may also find Religious Fundamentalism data to be useful. Again, emic tendencies toward a hermeneutics of faith may make it difficult to discover new resources of self-critique that exist unactualized within the normative potentials of a community (Macln-tyre, 1990; Westphal, 1998). Data for Religious Fundamentalism could and undoubtedly should encourage emic researchers to explore the positive epistemological possibilities of Christianity. Even within an emic ideological surround, for example, "closedness" rather than openness to experience would presumably interfere with the dynamic and organic development of tradition. Biblical Foundationalism attempted to operationalize the more positive potentials of traditional Christian commitments by using the language of Religious Fundamentalism as a template. The ideological positioning of that template may, nevertheless, have been so skeptical as to preclude any envisioning of an emic Christian epistemology that could correlate positively with openness to Experience. Christian researchers might, therefore, want to explore the possibility of operationalizing a Christian Openness to Experience and a better measure of Biblical Foundationalism in the future.

Those researchers might also want to develop a better Christian Reflection Scale. This study brought Muslim and Christian perspectives into dialog; so, procedures attempted to translate the Muslim Religious Reflection Scale into Christian language. Again, models that previously described Muslim responding on this instrument failed to define an adequate fit with Christians. To further promote dialog, research should now examine whether the Christian two-factor structure might also appear with Muslim samples and, if so, whether Intellect and Faith Oriented Reflection correlate negatively. At the same time, however, the present Christian scale may not serve as the ideal operationalization of a sophisticated Christian epistemology. Adequate fit for the two factor model could be obtained only when CFA procedures specified a correlation between two Intellect Oriented items. Internal reliability of the full Christian Religious Reflection Scale was also relatively low, presumably as a reflection of the negative correlation that existed between the two factors. Future researchers may need to devise a uniquely Christian expression of religious reflection and determine if it is possible to create a more internal reliable instrument associated with Intellect and Faith Oriented Reflection factors that are capable of correlating positively.

Results of the mediation analyses also cannot mean that the Religious Fundamentalism Scale is so ideologically unbiased that it is wholly valid in efforts to understand Christianity (and other traditional religions). Average responding on Religious Fundamentalism was significantly lower than on Biblical Foundationalism. This outcome suggested that Religious Fundamentalism was relatively less sympathetic in capturing Christian commitment. Mediation analyses further highlighted possible perspectival limitations of Religious Fundamentalism. These mediation results suggested that researchers with etic commitments to a non-sympathetic "objectivity" may need to include the Biblical Foundationalism Scale in their procedures. To minimize ideological influences of an unsympathetic "subjectivity," they may need to confirm the validity of their conclusions about Christianity by examining Biblical Foundationalism after controlling for Religious Fundamentalism. An etic sensitivity to ideology would presumably need to occur in the study of other religions as well. Muslim scholars, for example, may need to create a Qur'anic Foundationalism Scale to encourage that sensitivity.

This project supported the ISM argument that dialogical empiricism can promote greater objectivity. Again, etic social scientific research programs that use only the Religious Fundamentalism Scale to explore Christian intratextuality undoubtedly yield useful insights. The dialogical empiricism of the present project, nevertheless, revealed that those insights may be only part of the truth. The correlation between etic Religious Fundamentalism and emic Biblical Foundationalism was very high at.80. This strong covariance made it unsurprising that Biblical Foundationalism also predicted lower levels of Intellect Oriented Reflection, Quest, and Openness to Experience. Still, the linkage between these two scales left 36% of the variance in Biblical Foundationalism unexplained. Did that variance have any implications for more fully understanding Christian intratextuality? Mediation analyses demonstrated that it did. Again, Religious Fundamentalism fully explained the negative association of Biblical Foundationalism with Quest and Openness to Experience and also suppressed its potential to predict greater Intellect Oriented Reflection. Statistical procedures also demonstrated that the remaining 36% of the variance remained relevant to Christian commitments. Overall, these analyses brought etic and emic ideologies into explicit dialog. The result was a greater objectivity because formal sensitivity to ideology made it possible to have closer to 100% rather than 64% of the variance have a voice in articulating what the data might mean.

In conclusion, the ISM argues that social scientists can achieve a greater, though not absolute "objectivity" through a dialogical empiricism that brings etic and emic perspectives into "conversation." The potentials of such an approach seemed apparent in the present project, which essentially explored a dialog among Muslim, Christian, and etic social scientific "voices." As these data made clear, dialog will be important because a hermeneutics of suspicion and a hermeneutics of faith will each have perspectival strengths and weaknesses. In exploring the dialectic between faith and suspicion, Westphal (1998) emphasizes that "forgetting God's grace is really the most basic danger. If we succumb to it, it is also certain that we will succumb to ... becoming a Pharisee or a cynic" (p. 288). He also suggests, "Suspicion can be a kind of spirituality. Its goal,like every spirituality, is to hold together a deep sense of our sinfulness with an equally deep sense of the gracious love of God" (Westphal, 1998, p. 288). Elsewhere, he adds, "The way to objectivity is not to flee perspectives but to multiply them" (Westphal, 2009, p. 142). At the broadest philosophical level, the ISM argues for the "spirituality" of a gracious, non- scape-goating epistemology that invites multiple perspectives to be heard and tested in respectful dialog (Watson, 2004, 2006, in press).

Address all correspondence to P. J. Watson, Psychology Department #2803,350 Holt Hall - 615 McCallie Avenue, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Chattanooga, TN 37403.Email:[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.

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, SI, 1173-1182.

Batson, C. D., & Schoenrade, P. (1991a). Measuring religion as quest: 1) Validity concerns. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30,416-429.

Batson, C. D., & Schoenrade, P. (1991b). Measuring religion as quest: 2) Reliability concerns Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30,430447.

Batson, C. D., Schoenrade, P., & Vends, W. L. (1993). Religion and the individual New York: Oxford University Press.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. Garden City, NJ: Anchor Books.

Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. London: Routledge.

Dover, H., Miner, M., & Dowson, M. (2007). The nature and structure of Muslim religious reflection. Journal of Muslim Mental Health, 2,189-210.

Erickson, M. J. (2001). Truth or consequences. Downers Grove, IL: IntcrVarsity Press.

Ghorbani, N., Watson, P. J., & Khan, Z. (2007). Theoretical, empirical, and potential ideological dimensions of using Western conceptualizations to measure Muslim religious commitments. Journal of Muslim Mental Health, 2,113-131

Ghorbani, N., Watson, P. J., Rezazadeh, Z., & Cunningham, C.J. L. (In press). Dialogical validity of religious measures in Iran: Relationships with integrative self-knowledge and self-control of the "perfect man" (ensinek-amel). Archives for the Psychology of Religion,

Ghorbani, N., Watson, P. J., Shamohammadi, K., & Cunningham, C.J. L. (2009). Postcritical beliefs in Iran: Predicting religious and psychological functioning. In M. M. Leach (Guest Editor, Special issue: Islam and Mental Health). Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 20,151-194.

Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C, Cloninger, C R., & Gough, H. C. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40,84-96.

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.

Headland, T. N., Pike, K. L., & Harris, M. (Eds.). (1990). Ernies and etics. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Hood, R. W., Jr., Hill, P. C, & Williamson, W. P. (2005). The psychology of religious fundamentalism. New York: Guilford Press.

Hu, L.-T., & Bender, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6,1-55.

Hunsberger, B. (1996). Religious fundamentalism, right-wing authoritarianism, and hostility toward homosexuals in non-Christian religious groups. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 6,3949.

Hunsberger, B., Pratt, M., & Pancer, S. M. (1994). Religious fundamentalism and integrative complexity of thought: A relationship for existential content only? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 33,335-346.

Khan, Z. H., & Watson, P. J. (2010). Ramadan experience and behavior: Relationships with religious orientation among Pakistani Muslims. Archive for the Psychology of Religion, 32, 147-167.

Maclntyre, A. (1978). Against the self-images of the age. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Maclntyre, A. (1990). Three rival versions of moral enquiry. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Nietzsche, F. (2000). On the genealogy of morals. In W. Kauf-mann (Ed.) Basic Writings of Nietzsche (pp. 451-599). New York: Random House. (Original work published in 1887)

Watson, P.J. (1993). Apologetics and ethnocentrism: Psychology and religion within an ideological surround. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 3,1-20.

Watson, P.J. (2004). After postmodernism: Perspectivism, a Christian epistemology of love, and the ideological surround. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 32,248-261

Watson, P. J. (2006). Friends of the Truth, violence, and the ideological surround: Social science as meetings for clearness. Archive for the Psychology of Religion, 28,123-132.

Watson, P. J., (2008a). Faithful translation, ideological perspectives, and dimensions of Christian psychology beyond postmodernism. Edification: Journal of the Society for Christian Psychology, 2(1), 51-62.

Watson, P. J., (2008b). Faithful translation and postmodernism: Norms and linguistic relativity within a Christian ideological surround. Edification: Journal of the Society for Christian Psychology, 2(1), 5-18.

Watson, P. J. (In press). Whose psychology? Which rationality? Christian Psychology within an ideological surround after postmodernism. Journal of Psychology and Christianity.

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.

Westman, A. S., WillinkJ., & McHoskey, J. W. (2000). On perceived conflicts between religion and science: The role of fundamentalism and right-wing authoritarianism. Psychological Reports, 86,379-385.

Westphal, M. (1998). Suspicion and faith. New York: Fordham University Press.

Westphal, M. (2009). Whose community? Which interpretation? Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

P.J. Watson, Zhuo Chen, and Ralph W. Hood, Jr. University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

Authors

WATSON, P. J. Address: Psychology/Department #2803, 350 Holt Hall - 615 McCallie Avenue, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Chattanooga, TN 37403. Title. U. C.Foundation Professor of Psychology. Degree: Ph.D., University of Texas at Arlington. Areas of Interest: Psychology of Religion, Personality Theory.

CHEN, ZHUO. Address: Psychology/Department #2803, 350 Holt Hall - 615 McCallie Avenue, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Chattanooga, TN 37403. Title. U. C. Foundation Professor of Psychology. Degree: M.S., University of Tennessee at Chattanoga. Areas of Interest: Psychology of Religion, Personality Theory.

HOOD, RALPH W., JR. Address: Psychology/Department #2803, 350 Holt Hall - 615 McCallie Avenue, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Chattanooga, TN 37403. Title. Professor of Psychology. Degree: Ph.D., University of Nevada at Reno. Areas of Interest: Psychology of Religion.