The Regensburg symposia were held in German. The German debate cannot be adequately translated into English because there are two terms for the German term "Religiosität" in English

The history of credition research began in the late 1990s at the University of Regensburg. The first crystallisation point was a series of conferences (1998/1999 - 2003) at which Catholic and Protestant religious educators from Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Hungary met at regular intervals. The conferences - known as the Regensburg Symposia - focussed on the fundamental question: What is religiosity? This perspective was intended to counterbalance the predominant orientation towards religion in religious education. The guiding hypothesis of the congresses was: In order to understand religious experiences, three parameters are required: (1) concepts of religion, (2) concepts of religiosity and (3) concepts of the relationship between religion and religiosity . This relationship is usually characterised by using the adjective religious . The use of the adjective religious has an invaluable advantage: there is no need to think about how the relationship between religion and religiosity should be characterised. The fact that this allows us to avoid defining the relationship more precisely is possibly the reason why the word religious is used in a highly inflationary way. "Religious" is the favourite word when it comes to questions of religion! However, the repressed definition of the relationship conceals another problem: when the adjective religious (or inter-religious) is used in general and academic language, it is primarily associated with religion . The adjective religious therefore has a problematic tendency towards religion , with "inter-religious dialogue", for example, being understood as the dialogue between different religions. Religious discrimination refers to discrimination on the basis of religious affiliation. The religious orientationof the adjective religious is still noticeable today. This can be recognised, for example, when "religious extremism" is used to refer primarily to religions.

This was the problem horizon in which the Regensburg congress series was located. In order to be able to clarify the relationship between religion and religiosity , it is essential to pay attention to the phenomenon of religiosity in the first place. The linguistic counterbalance to the terms religion and religious had to be explicitly demanded, because at that time religion and religious were standard terms in theology and religious education, whereas the term religiosity was hardly ever used. It was particularly problematic that the linguistic marginalisation of the term religiosity also meant that there was virtually no theorisation of religiosity . So how should religiosity be understood? Since then, numerous publications have sought to raise awareness of this problem. The article "Bildungsauftrag und Bildungsaufgabe der Kirche" (2004) is particularly suitable as a first introduction to the topic of religiosity.

The Regensburg symposia were held in German. The German debate cannot be adequately translated into English because there are two terms for the German term "Religiosität" in English. See also: "Language- and translation barriers".

focussed on the gap between an exuberant religious orientation and an underexposed understanding of religiosity. The results were published in 2006 by Kohlhammer Verlag as a book entitled "Religiosität. Anthropological, theological and sociological clarifications".

One of Angel's contributions is entitled "Religiosity as human potential" (pp. 69-91). In this analysis of potential, the term credition is brought into play for the first time as a neologism (new word creation):

"Could it be conceivable that the cause of the seemingly irreconcilable positions must be sought in unarticulated implications of the underlying basic assumptions? And could it be useful to scrutinise precisely these basic assumptions of a psychological anthropology? Would it be helpful to place a third variable alongside 'cognitions' and 'emotions', which - I would like to suggest - could be called 'creditions'?" (S. 71).

Note: The book exists only in German. The translation is AI-generated for this website.

Why did these questions arise? The background was an interesting observation: surprisingly, neuroscience also deals with religious experiences. It was clear to us from the outset that the desired path of a "neurotheology" is an aberration. Neuroscience can contribute nothing to an understanding of religion(s). But can it provide explanations that contribute to an understanding of religiosity? Religiosity - unlike religion - is an anthropological phenomenon, i.e. it is people who develop religiosity and have their own individual and subjective experiences of religion. So what can neuroscience say about religiosity?

Now, however, a completely unexpected hurdle has emerged. The neurophysiological analyses of religious experiences had obviously led to the formation of a kind of camp: Based on empirical findings, one side had come to the conclusion that religious experiences are generated in the limbic system and are therefore based on emotions(limbic marker theory). The other side had also established the involvement of cortical areas and had thus come to the conclusion that religious experiences are also cognitively generated. This formation of camps is what is meant by "seemingly irreconcilable positions" in the above quote.

But we did not want to accept this. A closer look revealed that the neurophysiological analyses of religious experiences are unspokenly based on a decision. Two parameters are taken as the starting point: emotion and cognition. The phrase "implications of the underlying basic assumptions" refers to this. However, the assumption was that recourse to emotion and cognition is too short-sighted and cannot be sufficient for an understanding of religiosity. Rather, it would also be necessary to bring "belief" or "belief processes" into play. That was the decisive point. It was clear from the outset that whatever insights neuroscience would contribute - they would have nothing to do with religion. But they could presumably provide impetus for a better theoretical understanding of what religiosity is. Understanding religiosity better - that was precisely the aim of the Regensburg symposia! This would ultimately even have an impact on religious education in schools.

It should be noted: It initially began with a question: "Would it be helpful to place a third variable alongside 'cognitions and "emotions' that could - I would like to suggest - be called 'creditions'?" However, only a postulate (a scientific demand) could be derived from the question: In order to understand religiosity, a quantity credition must be demanded! But does credition actually exist? And if so, can neuroscience contribute to an understanding of creditions? A second postulate was derived from this second question: If neuroscience can contribute anything, then it will definitely have to be about the intertwining of cognitions, emotions and creditions! The theoretical framework had now been formulated from which credition research ultimately emerged.

You can find a brief review in English in the article: Pathways and crossroads to creditions: Insights from a retroperspective view (Frontiers in Psychology - section: Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology. 2022). The exciting but largely unknown early phase of the research project is described in more detail in the book Credition - Fluid Belief (Chapter 8: A look behind the curtain of research history, pp. 488-527). Note: The book exists only in German. The translation is AI-generated for this website.