Talk:Religiosity/Archive 1

Archive 1

Adding multiple tags

This article is largely unreferenced and is problematically POV. I have added templates: {{TotallyDisputed}}, {{cleanup-rewrite}}, {{expert}}, and {{Unreferenced|article|date=February 2007}}. Joie de Vivre 18:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Religiosity of women

It might be a good idea to propose the creation of an article on the religiosity of women. Studies on the matter have consistently shown that women tend to be more religious than men, and this is noticeable within various religious groups, where women tend to form the backbone of spiritual gatherings and assemblies. ADM (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

An excellent topic suggestion, but I would instead suggest adding it as a section within this present article, and someone can balance it with a section on the "Religiosity of men", or instead have one section called "Gender differences" covering both women and men and their interactions. And a section on "Cultural differences" too. And comparisons between the different faith traditions - the current article appears to only refer to one, so a world-view is needed, per WP:POV and WP:NPOV#Religion. All need to be well-referenced of course, as religiosity itself, and gender differences and cultural differences within it, are potentially controversial. I agree the religiosity of women is notable - a world-wide, cross-cultural and long-standing phenomenon. This present article is brief enough as it is without splitting it yet. I further suggest you include mention of the related topic of womens' spirituality - I know for a fact there are books on that. (There may even already be WP articles on that - if only I had time.) — Bricaniwi (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this map reliable?

I question if it is reliable because we don't have the link of the Gallup source. Plus, is Gallup a reliable source for gathering world information? It is an American resource that typically gathers American information. With all due respect, I get the vibe that the message they are trying to portray is the more industrialized, the less religious. For example, just because Latin American countries having less money than the US does not make them more religious. The rates of church attendance are either lower or equal to the US. There are many polls which show as much as 65% of Americans saying religion plays an integral part of their lifestyle. The phrasing of the question will determine the answer. In the US, Protestants are more religious than Catholics. The only predominantly Catholic parts of the south (southern Texas, New Orleans area, Cajun country) are not considered apart of the Bible Belt. So Catholics are less religious than American average. But this map is insisting that groups such as Brazilians which are mostly Catholic are more religious than Americans?

Look at Europe for example. The reality is predominantly Catholic countries like Italy, Portugal, Spain and Ireland are less likely to say they are Atheist or Agnostic than predominantly/traditionally Protestant countries in Europe like Germany and England. But both of them generally have low rates of religiosity and church going. In other words, the rate of religiosity and church attendance tends to expand higher for Protestants, but it also can drop to opting to Atheism quicker too. It is because Catholicism is ingrained into predominantly Catholic countries as a cultural element more than it is about religiosity. It is more flexible. That is why it is no surprise that the Catholic church accepts and embraces evolutionary biology which many Protestant sects don't. Tom72.185.162.37 (talk) 05:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Plus, The shades on the map aren't that easy for even someone with good vision (like myself) to see. Does this map seriously list Portugal and Italy as average for religiosity and the US as less than average? Is this map designed to be comedial to Europeans? Look on Gallup polls that say the percentage of Americans who say religion is important is 65%. And for Canada is 30%. Yet they are the same shade on this map? What distinction can be made between this? Is this just playing pick and choose on what polling information you want to choose? Someone has an agenda behind this map. Tom72.185.162.37 (talk) 05:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is awful

Citations needed abound, the prose is verbose and confusing, and effectively substance-free. I found a summary of religiosity on a Bible website (that seems to come from a perspective of the very thing it describes), and this article is less-informative. From what I can find, the claim that it's a "comprehensive sociological term" is a lie outright. There are 6 dimensions listed in the "Components" section, which are never explained, and immediately followed by "Other researchers have found different dimensions, ranging generally from four to twelve components." Uhh? The links to other pages are sparse and only further the confusion. Also, the entire section following "For example [original research?]" makes reference to a very specific type of Christian movement, but the entire article doesn't mention that non-Christian religions even exist? But it links to factor analysis? I strongly feel that this article was written by someone with more zeal than honesty. 108.233.194.117 (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Islamic dimension

This is a topic of study by Moslem scholars, as well, which ought to be reflected in the article. See, for example:

• Talip Küçükcan: CAN RELİGİOSİTY BE MEASURED? DİMENSİONS OF RELİGİOUS COMMİTMENT: Theories Revisited
• Yasemin El-Menouar: The Five Dimensions of Muslim Religiosity. Results of an Empirical Study
• Sâlih Ibrâhîm al-Sanî: Measuring the 'Religiosity' of Muslims

User:HopsonRoad 22:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)