Intrinsic and Extrinsic Religiousness. Review and Meta-Analysis
Presents a meta-analytic literature review of the concepts of intrinsic (I) and extrinsic (E) religiousness in the empirical psychology of religion,
focusing on I–E relationships. This review suggests that respondents with conservative theological orientations are more likely than others to
display a negative correlation between intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness. In general, extrinsic religiousness is positively correlated with
negatively evaluated characteristics and uncorrelated with measures of religious belief and commitment. Intrinsic religiousness is uncorrelated with
negatively evaluated characteristics and positively correlated with measures of religiousness. A four-fold typology based on median splits of the 2
scales is of little use when the dependent variable is religious in nature, but with various nonreligious variables, it produces results that may
correspond to findings of curvilinearity observed with other measures of religiousness. (31 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights
Discover the world's research
Why do you believe in Jesus: a research about intrinsic-extrinsic motivation of religious belief
October 20, 2016
“Faith is assurance of [things] hope for, a conviction of things not seen” according to Bible. Why people would deeply believe in something they
haven’t seen, heard or touched? This study is focused on the religious orientation of Christian in order to get a clearer understanding on their
reason of believing in God.
Extrinsic-intrinsic religious orientation is the most widely studied topic in the field of religious psychology. To get an insightful understanding on
this topic, we can first have a look at extrinsic-intrinsic motivation. To be motivated means to be moved to do something (Ryan and Deci, 2000). We
usually have motivation to do something. The orientation of motivation means the type of motivation within which there are two kinds of motivation:
intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. According to Self-Determination Theory (Deci and Ryan, 1985) that distinguishes these two types based
on the different reasons or goals that lead to an action, the most fundamental difference is that intrinsic motivation refers to doing something
because it is inherently interesting or enjoyable while extrinsic motivation refers to doing something because it leads to a separable outcome. It
could be considerate as extrinsic motivation even though it is volitional and valued by the self. For example, you are hardworking on the final paper
because you want to get the degree so that you can get a job in the future. Only when you do something because you feel interested, happy, satisfied
and etc. can be considered as intrinsic motivation.
Sure you can call it mental illness. That doesn't mean you understand it. You just labeld it.
If it makes you feel better. It doesn't get you closer to the source, the root of a problem.
The agony and stress those individuals go through to end up putting all their eggs in basket A just so they can cope, find meaning.
Back in the day when "the gay" was an illness, they looked into aggression too. Disaibling people completely.
I think people on the edge of the norm are necessary. In the essence of what they're all showing is still we have to work harder to truly understand
who we are, how we work. WTF is consciousness?
That's the domain of religion, spirituality, everything psy-.
Because nobody can deny there's some bug.
On the other hand allah etc is just what people fall on to, because that's what they were "taught", brainwashed, because we don't got a working rival
theory that could explain everything and give us meaning, or a purpose.
We accept that as strategy, to lie to our toddlers to ease the pain. If there's a higher power, or at least some other intelligence playing on us,
installs a control loop the first thing would be to interrupt every attempt of us finding it's lair, which either way and always
All roads lead to
If all and everybody have to be declared mentally ill just so we might want to start figuring out what's going on and what our consciousness is...
Humans will always be more or less spiritual depending on their ability to break thru the veil between the levels of awareness. People will go thru
the energetic body awakening (anointment) because of what they are at their core. Synchronicity thru entanglement is a real measurable occurrence for
those that have awareness to seek understanding.
Duality (us vs them) is a tool that is used to do violence against those not following their own death cult.
Hitler, Muhammed, Abraham and Paul the apostle was very good at using duality to control the masses. Divide and conquer.
Nanak, Buddha, Krishna, Rumi talked about non duality. And understanding of non duality (The Oneness) increases possibility of connecting to other
people in symbiotic (Mutualistic) behavior.
Belief in religion as we know it today is based on milleniaof indoctrination. Can we say people who have been indoctrinated their entire lives to
believe something; or, people who are captivated by a religion at any time in life are mentally ill? No, I dont believe we can.
Humans have always searched for something greater than ourselves; and they've found "it" over and over again for a wide array of reasons.
Spirituality, or maybe a sense of feeling small, is deeply ingrained in all of us.
I'm an atheist, and while I personally dont believe a religion, I still have a sense of spirituality. Maybe because there's no way we can truly ever
know everything there is to know, and it's nice to think that something, somewhere, does know it all. It's certainly a reassuring thought, even if
it's not true.
Mental illness is rampant, but maybe more encompassing and secular. I don't think we can say any religious thoughts are a mental illness, as any
mental illness would be "deeper": a brain function, an imbalance, etc., these are the illnesses, and what we see on the outside as strange are merely
FYI: You left out the word "be" in your title, and god should be God. You have 2 hours to make adjustments, should you choose to do so.
Have you ever noticed non-believers always use "g" instead of "G" when addressing God? IMO it is to belittle those of faith and blasphemy to
I think it's because non-believers don't believe, so they don't think to capitalize it. You can't blaspheme something you don't believe in. God
probably doesn't really care if people capitalize or don't capitalize the English translation of the name humans decided on.
I think you're confused with the belief in evolutionary ideas/philosophies, myths and storylines, including the one referred to as "the chemical
evolution theory of life" (which speaks about the origin of life by means of chance and chemical evolution, i.e. 'Nature did it', arguing that it is a
result of coincidence and a mindless process rather than purposeful design; quoting from the Wikipedia page for "abiogenesis", which was quoting
Haldane and Oparin).
Writing for The American Spectator, Jay Homnick has observed:
It is not enough to say that design is a more likely scenario to explain a world full of well-designed things. Once you allow the intellect to
consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident… you have essentially “lost your
Alice, in the tale Through the Looking-Glass, incredulous at the strange logic of the White Queen, could only laugh. “There’s no use
trying,” she said. “One can’t believe impossible things.” The queen responded: “I dare say you haven’t had much practice. When I was your
age I did it for half an hour a day. Why sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
Evolutionists are the White Queens of today. They have had infinite practice in believing impossible things.
Some of the justifications for referring to the idea/philosophy and myth of the chemical evolution of life from things that are not alive by chance,
as "impossible", can be found in my commentary in the thread on the Origins&Creationism forum called:
The human brain has been described as “the most marvelous and mysterious object in the whole universe.” No amount of knowledge in the fields of
physics and chemistry can in itself produce adequate explanations for the human capacity for abstract thought and our widespread search for purpose in
Either the human mind, with its quest for understanding, was put in place by a superior intelligence, or it arose randomly. Which of these two
possibilities seems more reasonable to you?
The human brain leaves many scientists in awe. A product of DNA, the brain has been described as “the most complicated object in the universe.”
Even the most advanced supercomputer looks positively primitive next to this approximately three-pound pinkish-gray mass of neurons and other
structures. In the opinion of one neuroscientist, the more that scientists learn about the brain and the mind, “the more magnificent and unknowable
Consider: The brain enables us to breathe, laugh, cry, solve puzzles, build computers, ride a bicycle, write poetry, and look up at the night sky with
a sense of reverential awe. Is it reasonable—indeed, consistent—to attribute these abilities and capacities to blind evolutionary forces?
Belief Based on Evidence
In order to understand ourselves, should we look down, as it were, to apes and other animals, as evolutionists do? Or should we look up to God for
answers? Granted, we have certain things in common with animals. We have to eat, drink, and sleep, for example, and we are able to reproduce. Still,
we are unique in many ways. Reason suggests that our distinct human traits stem from a Being higher than ourselves—that is, from God. The Bible
put that thought succinctly, stating that God formed mankind “in his image” morally and spiritually speaking. (Genesis 1:27)
Our Creator has given us the “intellectual capacity” to investigate the world around us and to find satisfying answers to our questions. (1 John
5:20) In this regard, physicist and Nobel laureate William D. Phillips wrote: “When I examine the orderliness, understandability, and beauty of the
universe, I am led to the conclusion that a higher intelligence designed what I see. My scientific appreciation of the coherence, and the delightful
simplicity of physics strengthens my belief in God.”*
Some two thousand years ago, a discerning observer of the natural world wrote: “[God’s] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s
creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship.” (Romans 1:20) The writer—the Christian
apostle Paul—was an intelligent man and highly educated in the Mosaic Law. His reason-based faith made God a reality to him, while his acute
sense of justice moved him to give due credit to God for his creative works.
*: I guess some people just can't resist labelling this physicist and Nobel laureate and many scientists with similar views, as "insane". For their
ease of mind or something (easier to dismiss and ignore the evidence for God's existence that way).
edit on 11-1-2020 by whereislogic because:
(no reason given)
Religions were just simple know it all attempts at explaining why things are the way they are. Then eventually as society advanced an monotheism came
into play, they then claimed those old believes to be savagery or insane, and have no basis. Then society advances again, due to trail an error to
constant conflicts of interests and those explanations get tossed down the drain. Then they become the new savages where science/atheism is the new
standard for civility, or godliness, an the cycle repeats when it can come to theories.
Next thing you know, one day, you get to see what crazy really is.
edit on 11-1-2020 by Specimen88 because: (no reason given)
It more or less denial an the idea of wasted effort on most people...then next thing you know, your the savage.
edit on 11-1-2020 by Specimen88
because: (no reason given)
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power
and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain
in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
Is it a mental illness to believe through common sense evidence? People put so much importance on science, much of which is unproven theory. Is that
a mental illness?
As per Romans 1 (quoted above), the evidence of God's existence is all around you. It's self-evident. It's in the complexity of this world. The
capabilities of the human eye. The complexity of the body. The harmony of nature. The balance of all things. Not even trillions of years can
account for the things in nature that came into perfect harmony.
In my mind, it's mental illness to believe that the universe settled into perfect harmony over billions of years of evolution. All complexity taken
into account, the lottery numbers are truly astronomical and beyond comprehension.
God speaks to you through your very existence, from the law of God written in your heart. Through nature, from the complexity and order of the
Take a look at some pictures of snowflakes in a microscope and tell me there's no God speaking to you through His handiwork.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.