National commitment is an attachment to full responsibility to be loyal and grow self-awareness as an Indonesian nation. Without a consistent national commitment from citizens, the state cannot stand upright and achieve the aspirations and hopes of its people. National commitment is related to the attitude of young people towards the symbols of the state and the basic consensus, that is, the agreement of the entire Indonesian nation. Youth’s national commitment can be seen in Figure 1.

In Figure 1, the aspect of national commitment from students from the western, central, and eastern parts of Indonesia is relatively the same, but the differences are not too significant. However, there are some aspects to this finding. All young people do not agree with the caliphate (khilafah) state because it contradicts the state ideology, namely Pancasila. Khilafah is one of the most massive and crucial issues in Indonesia. One of the mass organisations carrying the caliphate issue is Hizb ut-Tahrir, which claims that they are here to fight what they claim is a secular-capitalist-nationalist system and considers Muslims who believe in democracy to be kufr, infidels or even apostates, and those who have embraced democracy deviate from the faith (Valentine, 2010). The government dissolved HTI (Hisbut Tahrir Indonesia, an Indonesian Islamic organisation based on Government Regulation in Law Number (Perppu) 2 of 2017, namely Law Number 17 of 2013 concerning civil society organisations (CSO). Through this Perppu, the government has the authority to prohibit organisations that ‘spread ideological or philosophical doctrines that violate Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution’. Previous findings corroborate that as many as 81.5% of millennial youth support and commit to the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (IDN Research Institute 2019). Meanwhile, all youth informants (100%) also considered Pancasila to follow Islamic teachings, and all informants recognised Pancasila as the state ideology.

Antiviolence is one of the pillars of religious moderation that young people must possess. Even now, nonviolent education is developing, which can also be called peaceful education, and is conducted wholeheartedly to educate, not teach. In Figure 2, young people’s attitudes towards nonviolence are shown.

In Figure 2, young people from western, central and eastern Indonesia generally show an antiviolence attitude. They will not mediate conflict (4%) if it is on a scale that the local government can handle. If the conflict is widespread, 20% of youth informants from eastern Indonesia will become mediators in the event of a conflict. Two percent of informants are willing to commit acts of violence. They will do so if the religion they believe in is disturbed from the outside. All the informants indicated that they would not do any damage even though there are illegal places of worship and would leave it to the government to deal with the authority about its legal issue. While attitudes towards violent behaviour are often associated with religion, they disagree. Religion does not teach violence against followers of other religions or houses of worship.

The data explain that young Indonesians have shown a positive attitude towards fighting violence in the name of religion. Violence deviates from behavioural norms, passion, intensity or attitude polarity (Kruglanski & Orehek 2012). In this case, violent extremism can be explained as firmness of belief, willingness to defend a position, firmness of opinion and using violent means. They tend to refuse and position themselves as mediators in every conflict.

Local cultural diversity is a social phenomenon that can shape each region’s cultural character and image. Every society has a local culture inherent in the community, including young people. Local culture arises when residents of an area already have the same mindset and social life, so it becomes a habit that distinguishes them from other residents.

In Figure 3, young people’s answers to the culture generally show the same character. There are indicators of a strengthened attitude of respect for local culture, which is the fundamental value of their lives. Young people from eastern Indonesia showed a more positive attitude towards houses of worship with cultural themes (20%). Furthermore, regarding tolerance of various cultures that grow in their environment, young people from eastern Indonesia also show a higher attitude, as much as 24.44%. This is because, in eastern Indonesia, various local cultures are still relatively well preserved and live in a pluralistic socioreligious situation. Likewise, concerning culture, young people from eastern Indonesia appreciate the various culture in their surroundings with 22.22%.

Local culture, in several studies, can be used as a glue for differences between religions and become unique in Indonesia (Pajarianto et al. 2022). Moderate people tend to be more accepting of local traditions and culture in their religious behaviour, as long as they do not conflict with the central teachings of religion. Indonesian society is rich in local culture that adapts and manages resources for mutual prosperity (Pesurnay 2018), often associated with myths even though it grows dynamically following human innovation and creativity (Effendi 2019). It is essential to revitalise local culture by strengthening tolerance for various Indonesian treasures.

In Figure 4, the findings of the informants’ answers on the tolerance attitude of young people show that there are different perceptions and responses about tolerance. Western Indonesian informants show that; they believe that people from different streams or mazhabs can be good citizens (9.80%) while unsure of values (9.80%). Do not believe that people of other religions are good citizens (7.84%); believe that people of different religions are good citizens (11.76%). It does not support the construction of places of worship (1.96%) but supports the construction of places of worship (17.65%). They were not feeling comfortable with other streams and organisations (1.96%), feeling comfortable with other streams and organisations (17.65%). Do not feel comfortable with other groups (0%) and feel comfortable with other religious groups (21.57%).

The middle part of the Indonesian informant shows that; they do not believe that people from different streams or mazhabs can be good citizens (12.24%) and believe in values (18.16%). Do not believe that people of other religions are good citizens (10.20%); believe that people of different religions are good citizens (10.20%). It does not support the construction of places of worship (6.12%) but supports the construction of places of worship (14.24%). Don’t feel comfortable with other streams and organisations (4.08%), feel comfortable with other streams and organisations (16.33%). Do not feel comfortable with other groups (4%) and feel comfortable with other religious groups (14.29%).

Eastern Indonesian informants show that; they do not believe that people from different streams or mazhabs can be good citizens (4.08%) and believe in values (16.33%). Do not believe that people of other religions are good citizens (0%); believe that people of different religions are good citizens (20.41%). It does not support the construction of places of worship (4.08%) but supports the construction of places of worship (14.29%). They were not feeling comfortable with other streams and organisations (14.29%), feeling comfortable with other streams and organisations (16.33%). Do not feel comfortable with other groups (12.24%) and feel comfortable with other religious groups (8.16%).

The attitude of not believing that people of different religions do not make good citizens because there are schools of thought or certain groups that are not in line with the Indonesian government system. Hence, the views of these groups are limited and only look at it from one religious lens even though the world’s religions have the resources to respect religious freedom (Kärkkäinen, 2017) and have universal views whose values can be accepted by all adherents of religions.

Intellectual humility (intellectually) is often considered one factor in how someone learns something new, because humility involves acknowledging one’s limitations, including ignorance of something. Young people must have this attitude, as social skills are needed in the field of work or to stem the flow of radicalism that can arise from an attitude of self-righteousness and claiming that others are wrong. Thus, this attitude is very relevant as a mainstream viewpoint among young people.

In Figure 5, Muslim youth informants have several variants of attitudes towards different views. Western Indonesian informants are motivated to learn if they do not understand (20%), do not mind being taught (20%), welcome new views (20%) and are open to revising their views (20%); some are offended when someone disagrees (4%), and others are not offended by people who disagree (16%). In this aspect, all informants do not mind being given information, taught and learning from others, as well as welcoming new views even though they are different. It can also be seen in the readiness of all informants to revise their views if they are wrong, which indicates that young people’s intellectual humility is high and stable. These views are not much different from those of the informants in the central and eastern parts.

These results are relevant to several findings on humility and religiosity regarding religious tolerance (Hook et al. 2017; Krumrei-Mancuso 2018; Leary et al. 2017; Rodriguez et al. 2017; Zhang et al. 2018). From these results, it can be concluded that there is a successful application of the concept of religious moderation (Muhtifah et al. 2021). Thus, intellectual humility is easier to form and strengthens tolerance (Church & Samuelson 2016; Leary et al. 2017). It is what can be offered because, from the research results, the potential for young people to be exposed to radicalism is also quite high (Nafi’a et al. 2022). Nowadays, intellectual humility in religion is difficult to find, so what happens is that one feels self-righteous, which makes it easy to disbelieve in others and makes it challenging to dialogue with other religions. In the end, it is social learning.

The preparation of the model takes into account the stages in the PLS-SEM (Partial Least squares–Structural Equation) analysis (Ringle, 2015) as follows; the first step is with CFA analysis (Confirmatory Factor Analysis) with the Smart PLS program, consisting of several stages: Convergent Validity, Discriminant Validity, and Composite Reliability. The results of the PLS analysis can be used to test the research hypothesis if all indicators in the PLS model have met the requirements of convergent validity, discriminant validity, and composite reliability. The estimation results of the PLS model with algorithmic techniques can be seen in the following figure.

In the second step, the researcher conducted a convergent validity test by looking at the loading factor value of each indicator on the construct. Because this is confirmatory, the limit for the loading factor used is 0.7. The loading factor value can be seen in Table 1.

Based on the analysis in Table 1, the results show that all indicators have a loading factor value > 0.7, which means that all indicators can be used to measure the construct; no indicators must be excluded because all indicators have met the validity criteria required. In addition to looking at the loading factor value of each indicator, convergent validity must also be assessed from the average variance extracted (AVE) value of each construct; all constructs in the PLS model are declared to have met convergent validity if the AVE value of each construct is > 0.5. The complete AVE value of each construct can be seen in Table 2.

Based on the results of the PLS analysis in Table 2, after invalid indicators were removed from the model, all indicators were valid in measuring the construct. Then, assessed from the AVE value, all constructs also had an AVE value exceeding 0.5, which means that all construct indicators have met the required convergent validity criteria. The analysis stage is continued at the discriminant validity test stage.

The third step, discriminant validity, is carried out to ensure that each concept of each latent variable is different from the other variables. The model has good discriminant validity if the AVE square value of each exogenous construct exceeds the correlation between the construct and other constructs. The results of the discriminant validity test are obtained as follows:

Based on the results of the discriminant validity test in the Table 3, it was found that the square root value of the AVE of all constructs consistently exceeded the correlation coefficient of the construct with other constructs. So it can be concluded that all constructs in this PLS model have met the required discriminant validity.

In addition to using the Fornell–Larcker method, discriminant validity can be seen from the cross-loading value of each indicator to the construct. The indicator is declared to meet the discriminant validity criteria if the cross-loading indicator to the construct is higher than the cross-loading indicator value to other constructs.

The results of the two discriminant validity tests showed that the outer PLS model has met the required discriminant validity criteria. Based on the results of the discriminant validity test in Table 4, it can be seen that all indicators had the highest indicators in their constructs, not in other constructs, so it can be stated that all indicators have met the requirements of discriminant validity. For example, the TL5 indicator had a cross-loading of 0.874 to the construct (TL), while for the other constructs, the cross-loading of TL5 was lower than 0.874, which was 0.785 for the ABL construct, 0.718 for the AK, 0.849 for the IH and 0.668 for the KK, so that it can be stated that the discriminant validity of the TL5 was fulfilled.

The fourth step was to carry out construct reliability, which can be assessed from Cronbach’s alpha value and the composite reliability value of each construct. The recommended value of composite reliability and Cronbach’s alpha is more than 0.7. However, in development research, because the limit of the loading factor used is low (0.5), the value of composite reliability and low Cronbach’s alpha are still acceptable as long as the requirements for convergent validity and validity are met. Discriminant validity has been met.

Based on the analysis results in Table 5, the composite reliability value of all constructs also exceeded 0.7. This indicates that all constructs have met the required reliability, so it can be concluded that all constructs were reliable, while based on Cronbach’s alpha value, the performance was still below 0.7. It can be ignored. The performance construct can still be considered reliable because the reliability measurement using the composite reliability value is considered better than the reliability measurement using Cronbach’s alpha. With steps taken systematically, the preparation of the model has met the requirements so that it can be continued with model testing.

Relying on this research model, preparing religious moderation education for young people is essential by combining various approaches, including strengthening intellectual humility, which will impact tolerance. The alternative is an integrative religious moderation intervention, namely by combining psychological and counter-ideological support programmes, increasing critical, open and reflective thinking skills (Milla, Putra & Umam 2019; Milla & Umam 2019), open-mindedness as one of the intellectual humility abilities (Kruglanski et al. 2018), psychological support through identity strengthening and counselling (Bouzar & Martin 2016) and an emphasis on cognitive complexity In other research, young Indonesians agree with tolerance as much as 93%; they view intolerance as a terrible value (Pandey 2020). In future research, these aspects will be considered to test the model of religious moderation in youth.