>> >but I
>> >can't think of a single word that means the content I want.
>> >'Spirituality' alone is extremely passive, while 'religiosity' is,
>> >by definition both conventionally and in my frame, POWERLESS. It
>is
>> >necessary to avoid the aversive traits of both words. Ideas?
>'Religiosity' has the same referents as 'religiousness'. I find the
>terms equivalent, but Wade probably has more precision in this area.
>
>You may recall someone [I can't place the name this instant] who was
>extravagantly noting that if "one's belief in God could feed you, we'd
>
>call that a miracle." That explicitly demonstrates the powerlessness
>of
>'religiosity' [and most conventional religions as well!] The memes
>generate predictions that are at best untestable, and at worst
>directly
>falsifiable [requiring hypocrisy/apathy/(faith, Virian def.) to
>prevent
>loss of the host!]
>
>I insist that my beliefs in this domain actually give useful
>predictions--otherwise, they will be junked, as per scientific method
>or
>mathematics. Placebo effect vs. actual cause and effect is a more
>sophisticated question.
I think I'm clearer on what you mean now. The single quotes around
religiosity lead me to believe that you were claiming that the term
itself was powerless, and I couldn't see how this could be the case
unless it had no referent. Now, I understand you to mean that being
religious deprives the adherent of personal power. If this is what you
are saying, then I will agree that this is true in many, but not all
cases.
Take care. -KMO