Religiosity and Neopagans: Testing the Use of FAITHS on Alternative Spirituality

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

There is no getting past the Abstract. 

"America is an overwhelmingly Christian nation..." The use of the word "overwhelming" means that the nation is overwhelmed - overcome - overrun - taken over by - subsumed by - Christianity. It may statistically be the highest percentage of what people say they relate to, but the nation is not "overwhelmed" by it. This is your lead sentence! This is your opener - that the nation is overwhelmed. 

This first sentence goes on to say, "...yet the assumed structure of Christianity and other mainstream religions is not reflected in alternative spiritualities like Neopaganism." Well, of course not. First of all, what does "assumed structure" mean? That we are assuming a certain structure, that everyone assumes a structure, that Christians assume a structure, who assumes what structure, and are you really talking about an assumption here? Then, you throw in "other mainstream religions", meaning what religions, and what assumptions do they have? Why do you bring in other religions - define "mainstream", which you assume everyone is on board with - and what is your criteria for including a "religion" and what makes it "mainstream"? You are entirely dismissive here of one of the primary concerns of dealing with "religions" of any kind - what are they, how do you choose them, how do you define them, etc. Is your definition world religions? US religions? World religions as practiced in the US? Differently in the US? Expert Huston Smith went to great lengths to determine what were world religions - "wisdom traditions" - and to decide what to categorize as a world religion. You just anchor your paper opening in Christianity and then throw in "other mainstream religions". What mainstream, whose mainstream? You throw in notions that you have made assumptions about, but do not define your terms or anchor you concepts in any academic understandings of them, and you also assume that your readers understand and agree with your assumptions. 

Continuing in just this first sentence, you end it by saying "...the assumed structure of Christianity and other mainstream religions is not reflected in alternative spiritualities like Neopaganism." Of course "mainstream" anything is "not reflected" in "alternative" anything. That is why it is an "alternative", because it is not the "mainstream", it is an "alternative" to the mainstream. What are you saying? And, you are also conflating religion and spirituality as you finish this sentence, which is a complete mistake. And, are you saying that Neopaganism is not a religion? Are you saying that Christianity and "other mainstream religions" do not have spiritual components or dimensions or experiences? Are only "mainstream religions" religions, and "alternative spiritualities" not religions? You do not set forth religious definitions or boundaries, and you continue, still in the first sentence of the abstract, to force comparison of things you imply are incomparable. What are you saying, and what are you doing? 

Paganism predates not only Christianity but also Judaism from which Christianity emerged. You do not draw a line from Paganism to Neopaganism, which runs through Judaism and Christianity. What makes Neopaganism "Neo"? And how do - or may - "other mainstream religions" - whatever they may be - relate to this timeline or to these developments? If you are going to talk about Neopaganism and Christianity these are essential components of your discussion. 

From this first sentence of the abstract you continue on to talk about applying and evaluating a measure called FAITHS. Why? What is it you intend to measure, and why? What is your thesis? What is your theory? What are you intending to examine? First you have to decide and declare what you intend to examine, then select the methodology you will use to do your examination, and then defend measures you decide to use and steps you intend to take. And, in line 8, you segue into "measur[ing] religiosity in the home." Now all of a sudden you assert that "in the home" it is different from outside the home? Domestically vs. socially? What are you saying and what are you doing?

The abstract shows no foundation, no definitions, no selection criteria, lack of understanding of religion and spirituality, no thesis, no methodological plan, no project organization, and without a firm basis for your project no results of any kind can be meaningful. In line 11 you arbitrarily advocate removing parts of the one measure you have apparently randomly selected to evaluate something you have yet to name, which you cannot do if you are going to use a measure of something. Did you use it first and then edit out what you didn't like? 

This abstract is problematic from start to finish, and no project description that follows this can have any merit, based in nothing. Even if this weren't supposed to be an academic or scientific paper, it still has no merit, making no sense. 

Where I rated Not Applicable, I do not mean that it does not apply to your paper, I mean that it is not present in your paper to evaluate. It is lacking. 

Author Response

I thank Reviewer #1 for their thorough and detailed analysis of my abstract.  Many of their comments are addressed in the body of the paper, but I agree that the abstract needs revision.  I have significantly rewritten the abstract with the guidance of these comments, as discussed below.

Comment 1:  "America is an overwhelmingly Christian nation..." The use of the word "overwhelming" means that the nation is overwhelmed - overcome - overrun - taken over by - subsumed by - Christianity. It may statistically be the highest percentage of what people say they relate to, but the nation is not "overwhelmed" by it. This is your lead sentence! This is your opener - that the nation is overwhelmed.

 I agree that the word choice is hyperbolic, and have edited it in the version that appears below.

Comment 2:  This first sentence goes on to say, "...yet the assumed structure of Christianity and other mainstream religions is not reflected in alternative spiritualities like Neopaganism."

In the paper, I draw comparisons between the assumptions made by researchers (and the general population) about what religion “looks like” and what Neopagan religion looks like. The juxtaposition of “religion” and “spirituality” is problematic without more context than can be provided in the abstract.  I have edited the abstract to address both of these. 

Comment 3:  Continuing in just this first sentence, you end it by saying "...the assumed structure of Christianity and other mainstream religions is not reflected in alternative spiritualities like Neopaganism."

I also edited to address this.

Comment 4:  Paganism predates not only Christianity but also Judaism from which Christianity emerged. You do not draw a line from Paganism to Neopaganism, which runs through Judaism and Christianity. What makes Neopaganism "Neo"? And how do - or may - "other mainstream religions" - whatever they may be - relate to this timeline or to these developments? If you are going to talk about Neopaganism and Christianity these are essential components of your discussion.

There is a detailed description of modern Paganism (Neopaganism) in the text that develops the definition in abstract more fully. I have also re-inserted a footnote (and citation) about the “Neo” prefix that I had initially removed. While the development of Neopaganism and its relationships to other religions is fascinating and important, I believe it is beyond the scope of this paper.

Comment 5: From this first sentence of the abstract you continue on to talk about applying and evaluating a measure called FAITHS. Why? What is it you intend to measure, and why? What is your thesis? What is your theory? What are you intending to examine? First you have to decide and declare what you intend to examine, then select the methodology you will use to do your examination, and then defend measures you decide to use and steps you intend to take.

And, in line 8, you segue into "measur[ing] religiosity in the home." Now all of a sudden you assert that "in the home" it is different from outside the home? Domestically vs. socially? What are you saying and what are you doing?

I found FAITHS during my liturgy  review on a broader project of family religious socialization for Neopagans.  I immediately emailed Dr. Dollahite to talk about applying it to my project and he was (and is) very supportive.  I liked it due to its flexible measurements of religious behavior (not limited to “how often do you go to church”).  It became apparent that even this flexibility made assumptions about religiosity from a Christian context that would make it difficult to apply to Neopagan.  I have edited the abstract to address this.

It is true there is no theory, as that is not the purpose of this research. This research should be seen as descriptive and exploratory.

 

Comment  6:  The abstract shows no foundation, no definitions, no selection criteria, lack of understanding of religion and spirituality, no thesis, no methodological plan, no project organization, and without a firm basis for your project no results of any kind can be meaningful. In line 11 you arbitrarily advocate removing parts of the one measure you have apparently randomly selected to evaluate something you have yet to name, which you cannot do if you are going to use a measure of something. Did you use it first and then edit out what you didn't like?

I clarify these items in the rewrite below.  Lambert and Dollahite’s initial presentation of FAITHS used the same procedure:  18 core items, and then analysis of the items to remove those that do not scale.  I use the same procedure, and come up with different items in my analysis.

My rewritten abstract is below. Again, the reviewer's comments were very helpful.

Christianity’s customs, calendar, and behaviors  are often taken as a template for what religion looks like in scholarship.  Is this template useful for studying other religions, such as Neopaganism?  Neopaganism is a set of earth-based, often polytheistic or animistic religions that lack a central authority, organized structure, or accepted texts, and often accepts diverse relationships as “families,” beyond heteronormative monogamy.   In this research I explore whether measures of religiosity developed on a Christian template can be applied to Neopagans.  I apply a measure developed by Lambert and Dollahite (2010), Faith Activities In the Home Scale (FAITHS).  I apply FAITHS in self-administered questionnaires to a sample of Neopagans from attendees at gatherings called “festivals,” asking about both individual and family experiences.   My results indicate that FAITHS can be useful, however, the principle components analysis reveals different items scaling for Neopagans than in Lambert and Dollahite’s (2010) analysis.   My results also support the individualistic nature of Neopaganism when comparing both individual and family setting results.

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The main question addressed by the research is the exploration of the experience of the religious socialization in Neopaganism.

2. I consider the topic of research relevant in the field by the approach mode (the use of a scale that measures the religiosity of the family that does not concentrate only around the presence at religious services).The specific gap addressed by research are Neopaganism beliefs view by the perspective of the alternative spiritualities.

3. In the subject area the approach add new information about of the specific spirituality of the Neopaganism.

4. Regarding the methodology of the research I consider it suficiente  and adequate of the topic of the approach

5. The conclusions of the approach are consistent with the evidence an arguments presented. In addition the conclusions present the limits and suggest new research directions.

6. The references ussed are appropriate and enough of the current.

7. The study tables are enough relevant for the proposed purpose.

8. Line 356: ,,...upon behaviors that  one may expect...,, in the place of ,,...upon behaviors that that one may expect...

9.  A brave and novelty approach.

10. The work is well documented theoretically

11. The work contributes to the integration of information about Neopagans culture.

Author Response

I thank the reviewer for the time to review and comment on my manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Suggestion:  Line 356: ,,...upon behaviors that  one may expect...,, in the place of ,,...upon behaviors that that one may expect..

I have removed the first "that" from the sentence in Line 356

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall, I find this research to be very interesting. "Religiosity and Neopagans: Testing the Use of FAITHS on Alternative Spirituality" to the American population seems to be something that is not very well studied. I commend the researchers for looking at this thopic.

 In sum, I found this paper to be an enjoyable, informative, and important review.

 

I would suggest the following:

A few more words could be added to the keywords. Three are for me too few for such an extensive manuscript

Before the title Neopagan religion I would put the number 2, so that one knows that it does not belong to the introduction, which would have to stand separately, unless the authors think otherwise.

Author Response

I am grateful to Reviewer 3 for their helpful review of my paper. 

Comment 1: Before the title Neopagan religion I would put the number 2, so that one knows that it does not belong to the introduction, which would have to stand separately, unless the authors think otherwise.

I was not certain of how to deal with the numbering in this format.  If I move "Neopagan Religion" to 2, then would that make "Religiosity" 3, I am assuming? I have re-numbered the sections in the paper to reflect this change. 

Comment 2:  A few more words could be added to the keywords. Three are for me too few for such an extensive manuscript

I have edited and added to the keywords. I welcome other suggestions should they be warranted.

Religiosity, Religious Behaviors, Spiritual Life, Neopaganism, New Age movements, FAITHS, Measurement Issues 

Reviewer 4 Report

This is an important article that adds to the field, the research question is innovative and explores new avenues. The sample size coupled with the research method (FAITHS) serves creates an important addition to the study of this movement in North America. 

I believe the article would improve if certain points that were made by the author would be developed. The article makes mention of the individualistic elements in Neo Paganism. This point should be developed, what is the meaning of this observation that is supported by the results. 

This connects to the finding regarding participation in the festivals. The author mentions this is part of a larger project that will discuss how devout are members. It is worthwhile exploring the idea that Neo Paganism is to be understood in the context of New Ageism. If this is the case the question of how devout the members are is insignificant and will explain the individualistic elements. 

 

Author Response

I am grateful to this reviewer for their time and attention to my manuscript.  

Comment 1: The article makes mention of the individualistic elements in Neo Paganism. This point should be developed, what is the meaning of this observation that is supported by the results. 

I have added the following to the discussion of Neopaganism, in the last paragraph:

The solitary phenomenon is a result of the lack of a universal liturgical calendar, common sacred texts, and emphasis on individual experiences, all contributing to a setting where Neopagans need not interact with anyone for guidance or validation. Neopaganism exemplifies the what Dollahite, Marks, and Goodman (2004) predict as increasing "religions of one," as a New Age spirituality.

I have also addressed this in the discussion section when comparing individual and family results:

The lack of uniformity in the structure of Neopaganism, and Berger’s (2019) estimate that nearly half of all Neopagans are solitary, not joining a group or organization suggest that Neopagan practices largely take place alone, or at least outside of group context, and does not always involve children and other family members. My results also support this conclusion, as there was on average less family practice than individual practice, even among respondents that indicated a family practice.  

Comment 2: The author mentions this is part of a larger project that will discuss how devout are members. It is worthwhile exploring the idea that Neo Paganism is to be understood in the context of New Ageism. If this is the case the question of how devout the members are is insignificant and will explain the individualistic elements. 

I think the question centers on the definition of "devout." Is it only group participation that satisfies this definition? Can the Buddhist who meditates every day alone be considered devout? Can the Christian who has left the neighborhood church (or had the church close) but reads Scripture and prays every day be considered "devout?" I would argue both can be, so the individual nature of Neopaganism should not preclude Neopagans from consideration as "devout."

It is possible I am misunderstanding the comment, and would be happy to have further conversation about it. To address those issues as I understand them, I have added the following to the text in the discussion section:

Even in a solitary environment, devotion that appears absent may not be. Like the Buddhist who meditates alone daily, or the Christian who no longer attends a church, but reads scripture and prays daily, solitary Neopagans (as individuals or in a family) express their devotion.  

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Christianity cannot be used as - or even considered to be - a template for all religions. The first sentence of the abstract knocks this paper out of the box.  This paper must be reconsidered and completely rewritten. 

 

Author Response

I agree with the reviewer, that Christianity should not be used a template for what religion is; that is essentially the point of the article.  For example, in many an introductory textbook, that is exactly what happens when characteristics of religions are discussed.  In reviewing the literature for the larger project, all scholarship reviews involved asking questions about church attendance and Bible or scripture-reading as their measure of religiosity. FAITHS was one of the very few that expanded the measure to other activities that were more in line with Neopaganism, even though it had been developed with a Christian perspective.  I specifically interrogate whether this is useful or appropriate with a non-Christian sample.  If there are specific places in the manuscript where I can clarify this, I am glad to receive them.