TürkçeReligiosity, Morality and Values:
A Social Psychological Analysis
Asım Yapıcı*
Can Religiosity and Morality be Distinguished?
What is the relationship between religiosity and morality (virtuousness)? Does religiosity bring along being moral? How can this situation be explained if a person does not take morality into account in his/her behaviours despite appearing religious in terms of belief and worship? We often encounter such questions when the relationship between religion and morality is discussed.
First of all, it is important to emphasise the following point: In the pre-modern traditional world, religion and morality were indistinguishable from each other. Since the source of both religion and morality is the divine will (revelation), religious rules are inherently moral. In other words, morality is basically the reflection of the demands of the divine will in daily life. Thus, in the traditional world, religion and religiosity is not only a phenomenon that manifests itself in the relationship with the divine. When the term religion is discussed, both beliefs and worships and moral virtues that shape the perspective of religion on the world, that is, the worldly reflections of the relationship with the divine, come to the foreground. Because each religion desires to educate its followers according to the model it has determined and to build the social structure it aims from this point of view. This desire cannot be achieved only through belief and worship. Essentially, beliefs and worships aim to create the human and social model determined by religion by keeping the consciousness of the God alive. For instance, in Islam, the verse ‘‘Prayer restrains one from sexual misconduct and debauchery’’ (Al-‘Ankabut, 29/45) is noteworthy in this regard. As can be understood, religions aim to establish a virtuous world with their commandments and prohibitions. In this context, religions shape the relationships of the individual with himself/herself, with other people in his/her close and distant environment, with nature and with the being he/she believes in on a moral basis. However, with the Enlightenment Philosophy, especially in the Western scientific world, religion and morality began to be regarded as two different phenomena and it has been believed that there is not a direct but a close relationship between them. This is directly related to the fact that Enlightenment thought, inspired by Cartesian philosophy, made a clear distinction between mind and heart, physics and metaphysics, form and essence, matter and meaning, and finally religion and morality. The worldview of the Enlightenment made itself felt at different levels in many sociocultural geographies, initially in the West, but also in the Islamic world in the subsequent process.
Each religion encourages its members to live a moral life in individual and social sense through the criteria it has determined. However, when religion meets the individual, it becomes subjective and a new phenomenon called religiosity emerges. In this sense, religiosity is not religion but rather the reflection of religion on the individual and society. This means that: The world perspective of religion, which derives from the commandments, prohibitions and recommendations imposed by religion in order to build an ideal individual and society, interacts with the state of mind (interests, needs, expectations, fears) of the people who believe in that religion, their level of identification with their religious beliefs and identities, their sociocultural and economic status, and finally the spirit of the era in which they live. Within this process, how the individual perceives and makes sense of the requirements of religion becomes more important than what religion commands and what it expects from its members. Here, different images of religious life emerge. The relationship between different types of religiosity and moral behaviour among people gains a different structure and content. However, the following point needs to be underlined: faith, worship and morality constitute an inseparable whole in the phenomenon of religiosity. However, religiosity is also different from religionism. Here, too, the results of the attempt of Enlightenment thought to separate religion and morality from each other can be traced. This is because religiosity is associated with practising religion through belief and worship and even taking on a ritualistic and formal structure, while morality and spirituality are relegated to the background. The contemporary debates on the direction and intensity of the relationship between religiosity and morality can be evaluated within this framework.
Religiosity and Moral Values from Theoretical Perspective
Each human being acquires the beliefs, values and norms that exist in his/her social environment, especially in his/her family, in a slow process in parallel with his/her cognitive and psychosocial development. This means that human beings are not passive beings who only absorb what happens in the outside world like a sponge. The individual perceives and makes sense of the effects/stimuli (knowledge) reaching him/her through different channels based on his/her own personality characteristics and mental structure. Because in order to be able to decide whether an action is moral or not and to act in accordance with moral values, the person must firstly mature in cognitive, affective and social terms. As the cognitive awareness of the individual increases, as he/she evaluates the information, knowledge and stimuli coming from the outside world through conscientious accounting, as he/she is able to think empathetically and flexibly, as he/she controls negative emotions, especially anger, as self-centredness decreases and selflessness increases, and as positive virtues such as compassion, love and forgiveness develop, it means that moral development is heading towards reaching to the perfection.
Born incomplete and inadequate, human beings are in constant need of development and maturation in order to survive and sustain their lives. For this reason, the individual, in parallel with his cognitive and emotional development, develops a unique personality structure by blending all these with his own psychological structure through the processes of ‘‘externalisation’’, ‘‘objectification’’ and ‘‘internalisation’’, on the one hand by assimilating the values of the society in which he/she grows up and becoming a product of his own culture (Berger,1993: 29-30). Through the process of social learning, the individual constructs a spiritual and mental world for oneself, based on sociocultural and religious values, but also reflecting the uniqueness of oneself.
The worldview that human beings construct for themselves is social as well as individual. It is precisely here that the fundamental bond between society and the individual comes into play. As much as the individual has demands from society, society also has demands from the individual. In fact, both the individual and society need moral values in order to exist and sustain their existence. Moral values, which form common actions based on common sense in society, resemble the veins that nourish the heart. When there is a problem in the moral values, problems of culture, identity and personality emerge, just as a heart attack occurs when there is a problem in the arteries (Yapıcı, 2007: 57). Because moral values are frames of reference that determine how we understand the behaviours of ourselves and others, how we evaluate events, how we comprehend the behaviour of society and, as a result of all these, where and how the individuals are supposed to behave. If this frame of reference loses its ability to shape the behaviour of the individual, anomie (anarchy) emerges. When anomie emerges and becomes dominant, it means that the connection of the individual with religious and moral values is weakened or even severed.
Religion plays a central role in the formation of moral values. To paraphrase Clark (1998: 2-3), religions, which can be defined as shared beliefs, thoughts, values and common actions, provide their believers with moral rules that regulate their individual and social lives. In this regard, religions establish a link between the beliefs and practices that they require from their followers and positive and desirable behaviours. This situation stems from the fact that religions seek to educate and train their followers according to the model they have determined with the beliefs and practices they have introduced and the moral attitudes and behaviours they have stipulated. In fact, this attitude is aimed at ensuring that people experiencing a positive socialisation are at peace with themselves and their environment. Since, as Hökelekli (2005: 118-119) suggests, religions, which serve to preserve moral values in the social structure, have a significant function in securing the social harmony of the individual. Having said that, it would be meaningful to ask the following two questions: The first of these questions is, although religions wish to develop the virtues of their followers and create a moral society, do religious people develop attitudes and behaviours in accordance with the world perspective of the religion they believe in? The second question is, if the demands of religions do not find a response in their followers, what could be the reasons for this? We can seek answers to these questions primarily through field research.
What Do Research Results Tell Us?
As a result of the studies, it has been revealed that religion and religiosity assume very important functions in terms of protecting moral values, ensuring social peace, developing a healthy dialogue with the society in which the individual lives. Within this context, it has also been determined that generally religious people tend to be more obedient and more adaptable to the social order (Argyle & Beit-Hallahmi, 1975; Kötehne, 1999). In fact, it is quite natural for religion to have this kind of influence on believers. Because, as Clouzeau and Roy (2004: 65) state, "Believers have the belief that moral values are shaped in accordance with the desire of the divine will." This means that a religious individual tends to embrace moral values to a greater extent. Studies conducted both in Europe and the USA as well as in Turkey have found a positive relationship between religious orientation and ‘‘traditionalism’’, ‘‘security’’ and ‘‘conformity/obedience’’, and a negative relationship between ‘‘self-orientation’’, ‘‘stimulation’’ and ‘‘hedonism’’ (Schwartz and Huismans, 1995; Mehmedoğlu, 2006). Accordingly, it has been determined that religious people are more compatible and more responsible than non-religious people, there are significant positive relationships between the practical dimensions of religious life (prayer, fasting, praying and repentance) and sociability and responsibility, students who receive religious education have higher levels of self-control, harmony and perseverance, and that the relationships between some dimensions of religiosity and conscience, self-sacrifice and altruism have reached the level of significance. The impact of religion on moral behaviour and social cohesion largely stems from the fact that it produces a conservative structure and mentality and requires its followers to obey it.
Traditionalism, benevolence, conformity and obedience may result in anger control and avoidance of aggressive behaviours. As a matter of fact, one of the important indicators of moral values is the ability to manage aggressive feelings and behaviours. Studies have shown that as the level of religiosity increases, there is a decrease in fighting and violent acts between individuals (Yapıcı, 2007). This finding means that religion can have a significant role in the rehabilitation of criminals. Because religious people tend to exhibit more behaviours that society regards as normal, while they tend to abstain from antisocial behaviours. This issue can be explained by the spiritual power and social support that religion brings to the achievement of individual and social harmony.
The ability to keep aggressive feelings and thoughts under control is closely related to a decrease in criminal behaviour. Within this context, researches have revealed that the level of religiosity may be a protective factor against committing crime to a certain extent (Yapıcı, 2007: 59-61). However, the following point should also be emphasised: Religiosity is not a preventive measure against committing crime, but a protective measure against committing crime. This protectiveness is fulfilled both directly through the influence of religious beliefs and worship and indirectly through the preferences of friends. The findings gathered from the studies that have been conducted in Turkey are also in this direction. At this point, the following issue needs to be underlined: Merely accepting the principles of belief but failing to engage in worship is not protective enough for the individual against criminal behaviour. This is because the effects of religion on the individual and social life are largely based on the dimension of worship (Güneş, 2003). Furthermore, in some cases, it is not enough for an individual to be both a believer and religious, being religious individually and living a religious life in the environment in which one lives support each other. It can be explained by the concept of the effect of social norms on individual life. These results can be interpreted as religion assuming an important function in the development of positive personality traits. In my opinion, the influence of religion on moral behaviour and social cohesion largely arises from the fact that it creates a conservative structure and mentality and requires its followers to comply with it.
Religiosity does not only have an adverse relationship with committing crimes and exhibiting abnormal behaviours. In addition to these, religiosity has also a positive relationship with moral behaviours, which basically express the tendency to be a good person, especially helping others and friendship. Many studies which have been conducted have confirmed that the frequency of prayer and worship both reduces the risk of committing negative behaviours and increases the likelihood of being a good person with the desired and expected characteristics within the sociocultural framework (Yapıcı, 2007). Nevertheless, the relationship between religiosity and prosocial behaviours is neither unidirectional nor unidimensional. Within this framework, both the level of integration of the individual with his/her own religious beliefs and sociocultural values and the quality of the relationship established with the social environment of that individual have a significant impact on the shaping of the behaviours of that individual. For instance, it has been confirmed through the studies conducted so far that as the level of feeling the influence of religion increases in the individual, the tendency to protect what is entrusted and honesty and righteousness increases (Güleç, 2018) and that religiousness indicators such as feeling close to Allah, taking religious orders as reference in solving social problems, fulfilling prayers such as fasting and prayer, reading the Qur'an and having religious knowledge level strengthen moral behaviours (Ayten, 2009). Moreover, moral attitudes and behaviours can be more evident when faith in Allah, continuity in the performance of prayers and feeling the influence of religion are combined. Especially the practice of prayers in mosques plays a functional role in both the development and continuity of virtues in the believers. Because people who attend the mosque for the fulfilment of prayers are also becoming a part of a particular community. Therefore, both their psychosocial harmony and their behaviours such as righteousness, honesty, solidarity, compassion and forgiveness are strengthened. Based on this, it can be asserted that the level of religiosity in fostering moral values is strengthened by the presence of favourable environmental conditions. Furthermore, it has been determined that especially internally motivated religious people internalise moral values to a higher extent than externally motivated ones, and in this context, their levels of righteousness, honesty, accountability, forgiveness, tolerance and humbleness are higher. (Exline and Hill, 2012; Krause, 2015; Şentepe, 2016).
It also bears importance to answer the question of whether religious maturity leads to moral maturity. According to the researches, as the level of religiosity of individuals increases, their emotional and moral maturity levels also increase (Koçak and Kayıklık, 2022). The level of moral maturity is higher especially among those who perform prayers regularly and those who think that religious commands and prohibitions do not constrain their lives (Aktaş and Kartopu, 2016). It can also be said here that internally motivated religious people exhibit a more morally mature stance compared to externally motivated religious people.
Religiosity and Moral Weaknesses
Under normal circumstances, it is expected that a mentally healthy person with a strong personality will have a unity between his/her beliefs and life, and words and actions. For such people, being virtuous supports peace and feeling peaceful supports being virtuous.
“You who believe, why do you preach something you are not practising?” (As-Saf, 61/2) as expressed in the verse, from time to time, inconsistency between the heart of a person and his/her behaviour may arise. Especially in people with a neurotic personality structure, a contradiction can be observed between their desires, which are suppressed and pushed out of consciousness, and their outwardly expressed words and actions. At this point, it needs to be emphasised that morality is not a discourse but an action and representation.
Would knowing that an action is wrong and evil prevent one from doing that wrong and evil action? The answer to this question is that there is no direct relationship between knowledge and action. What is important here is not what knowledge is known, but rather how we attribute meaning and value to that knowledge.
In Islam, there is no distinction between form and substance, matter and meaning. In other words, form and substance, matter and meaning are just like ‘‘H2O=WATER’’, that is, different elements form a more beautiful and meaningful whole by coming together. If worship remains only in the physical dimension and does not penetrate into the inner world of the individual, and if beliefs remain in the tongue and do not penetrate into the soul, it means that form and essence are fragmented and thus meaningful integrity has been lost. It is precisely at this point that we encounter the phenomenon called religionism, not religiosity. Undoubtedly, this situation is based on many different factors such as the personality structure of the individual, his/her experiences in the family environment, his/her education and the spirit of the time.
Reducing religion to a purely otherworldly dimension and not involving it in worldly life and social relations has led to the emergence of a new type of person. While this type of person does not break away from religion, he/she tends to ignore the moral side of religion. For this reason, characterisations such as ‘‘faithful but selfish’’, ‘‘religious but not moral’’, ‘‘worshipping but hedonistic’’ are frequently being heard. This is where the main problem arises. Since the believer cannot fortify the world of religion with values, a transition from value-producing religiosity to value-consuming religiosities has emerged. According to the findings of the studies, it is meaningful in this regard that in this new type of person, along with religiosity, there is an increase in behaviours such as hedonism, stimulation, selfishness, adultery, avoiding responsibility and committing crimes (Yapıcı, 2018). At this very point, it would be correct to refer to people who are believers but appear morally weak as religionists rather than religious. Because religiosity is a phenomenon that emerges when the trinity of faith, worship and morality form an inseparable unity. When morality is removed from this triple combination, what emerges is religionism.
Bibliography
Aktaş, H. & Kartopu, S. (2016). Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Dindarlık Eğilimlerine Göre Ahlaki Olgunluk Düzeylerinin İncelenmesi: Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Örneği. ASOS Journal: Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 4 (35), 34-42
Argyle, M. & Beit-Hallahmi, B. (1975). The Social Psychology of Religion. London & Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Ayten, A. (2009). Affedicilik ve Din: Affetme Eğilimi ve Dindarlıkla İlişkisi Üzerine Ampirik Bir Araştırma. M.Ü. İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi 37 (2), 111-128.
Berger, P. L. (1993). Dinin Sosyal Gerçekliği (Çev. A. Coşkun). İstanbul: İnsan Yayınları.
Clark, W. (1998). Pratique Religieuse, Mariage et Famille. Tendances Sociales Canadiennes, 50, 2-7.
Clouzeau, F. & Roy, F. (2004). Une Remise En Cause Des Principes Fondateurs de la Lutte Contre Le Sida. Transcriptates, 118 (10), 64-65.
Exline, J. J. ve Peter, C. Hill (2012). Humility: A Consistent and Robust Predictor of Generosity. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7 (3), 208-218.
Güleç, Y. (2018). Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Dindarlık Düzeyleri ve Adil Davranış Gösterme Arasındaki İlişki, Çukurova Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 18 (1), 329-359
Güneş, T. (2003). The Relationship Between Religiosity and Crime: A Case Study on University Students in Turkey (PhD Dissertation), Ankara: Middle East Technical University, Institute of Social Sciences.
Hökelekli, H. (2005). Din Psikolojisi. Ankara: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Yayınları.
Koçak, A. & Kayıklık, H. (2022). Doğruyla Sevabın Yanlışla Günahın Kesiştiği Noktada Ahlâkî Olgunluk-Dindarlık İlişkisi. İnönü Üniversitesi Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11 (1) , 95-114 .
Kötehne, G. (1999). Religious Oriantation and Personality (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
Krause, N. (2015). Assessing the Relationships Among Race, Religion, Humility, and Self-Forgiveness: A Longitudinal Investigation. Adevances in Life Course Research, 24, 66-74
Mehmedoğlu, A. U. (2006). İlâhiyat Fakültesi Öğrencilerinin Değer Yönelimleri ve Dindarlık-Değer İlişkisi: M.Ü. İlâhiyat Fakültesi Örneği. M.Ü. İlâhiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 30 (1), 133-167.
Schwartz, S. H. & Huismans, S. (1995). Value Priorities and Religiosity in Four Western Religions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58 (2), 88-107.
Şentepe, A. (2016). Ruh Sağlığı Belirtilerinin Yordayıcısı Olarak Affetme ve Dindarlık İlişkisi. Yayınlanmamış PhD Dissertation. Sakarya University, Institute of Social Sciences, Sakarya.
Yapıcı, A. (2007). Ruh Sağlığı ve Din: Psikososyal Uyum ve Dindarlık. Adana: Karahan Yayınları.
Yapıcı, A. (2018). Değerler ve Dindarlık Algısında Değişim ve Süreklilik: Değerlerin Bireyselleşmesinden Bireysel Değerlere. M. Ergün, N. Karabacak, İ Korkmaz, M. Küçük (Ed). Öğretmenliğin Mesleki Değerleri ve Etik içinde (ss. 57-90). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
*Prof. Dr. Ankara University of Social Sciences