Eight Theories Of Religion

Stephen Prothero’s “God Is Not One” is a survey of world religions, comprising vital information on a vast array of different sets of belief. As someone who has never studied religion before, nor belongs to a particular faith, the variability within these religions is staggering. One might be satisfied to define religion as “how a person goes about believing in God,” but soon finds that even that definition has its holes. Thankfully, “God Is Not One” does an amazing job of cluing its reader into the nuances that are sometimes forgotten about the religions it approaches.

In The Sacred Quest, University of Notre Dame professor Lawrence Cunningham attempts the search for a coherent definition of religion. While he doesn’t strive for a one-sentence interpretation of what indicates a real, organized religion, he arrives on several elements and functions to give meaning to his definition. To Cunningham, there are five elements that make up a religion: belief, feeling, action, individual and community aspects, and values. Cunningham argues that these five elements exists in order to explain what could not otherwise be explained, enable people to sustain hope in the face of difficult experiences, and provide ways of thinking that provide goals and respond to “great problems” in life (158). All of these aspects work

As I read Émile Durkheim’s classic piece, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, I experienced a whirlwind of thoughts, expressing agreement, disagreement, and complete puzzlement over the details of his logic and conclusions. As far as my essay goes, I will attempt to put these thoughts in a neat, coherent order like the one mentioned above.

In his book Future of an Illusion, Sigmund Freud utilizes his method of psychoanalysis on religion by comparing the relationship between human and religion to that of a child and his parents. Freud effectively demonstrates that religion is a product of the human mind. After exposing religion as a an illusion, Freud concludes that humanity will be better off when it has forgone religion. This paper will argue that Freud's assertion that religion is an illusion is correct because of it's blatantly traceable evolution through the history of the human civilization and psyche.

In the study of religion, one can quickly discern that there are two major differentiations between the anthropological definition of religion, and that of religion in the context of belief systems. Religion, in the context of anthropology, can often be related to social institutions. On the other hand, religion in the context of belief systems indicate faith in something or someone...such as oneself, a god, or object. As identified by scholar Clifford Geertz, the anthropological definition of religion is “a system of symbols which acts to (1) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (2) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (3) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality

At the beginning of the semester, I wrote: “Religion is the institutional manifestation of feeling and believing in something beyond yourself” (Kelley 2016). Twelve weeks later, I consider this definition incomplete and problematic; nevertheless, it reveals how religious thinkers such as James Frazer, Emile Durkheim, William James, Mircea Eliade, Jeffrey Kripal, and Bruce Lincoln infiltrate our quotidian definitions of religion. In this paper, I hope to develop a new conception of religion, recognizing the impact of such historical thinkers on personal conclusions. In other words, I hope to show that we are

The meaning of religion is something that scholars, along with society at large, have attempted to define for centuries. Although the term cannot truly have one solid meaning, it is clear that religion is much more than a set of beliefs and practices. In Religion: The Basics, author Mallory Nye discusses his approach to studying religion. In arguing that culture and religion strongly influence each other, he explains that those studying religion must make people and culture their focus, as variations even within the same religions exist and must be considered. Moreover, Nye explains how religion is, essentially, a universal concept, as it takes form in an array of shapes across the globe. With Nye’s argument, I have developed new insights

Religion emerges from the human susceptibility for protection and use it as a tool for liberation from the bitter realities and perplexities of the world. “Religious ideas are teachings and pronouncements about facts and states of external (or internal) reality that convey something one has not discovered for oneself and which assert the right to be believed” (Freud 88). We must object to religious claims because there is no proof to substantiate them and merely ideas we follow for generations. Religious ideas are beyond the control of reasoning, as if we don’t validate our beliefs and behave that our beliefs have a substantial basis of support. Religious ideas are teachings, not the thought that

Freud examined much of psychoanalysis and trends that were affected by it. Freud disagreed with religion to full extent. He believed that there needed to different tasks accomplished by the individuals that made up the society but in difference will lead to capitalism and the destruction of the social structure.

In this essay I will be looking at the theories of Edward Burnett Tylor and Émile Durkheim, and comparing them to see which theory I think gives a better explanation about what religion is, or whether religion is actually definable. On the one hand we have Tylor’s theory that tells us that religion is belief in spiritual beings and that religion is just a step on the way to reaching full evolutionary potential. Durkheim’s theory, however, says that religion is very much a social aspect of life, and something can only be religious or “sacred” if it is something public (Durkheim 1965:52). Ultimately these theories do not give us an outright explanation about what ‘religion’ is, but there are aspects of the theory that can be used to gain an understanding or idea.

Although Freud argues that these religious values should not be accepted due to the absence of proof; people find interest in the information, connection to ones beliefs and answers to otherwise indefinable questions through religion. The three claims made to support religious foundation are: beliefs practiced and shared by ancestors, possession of proofs and it is socially forbidden to raise questions regarding evidence supporting religious ideas (p. 33). Freud is quick to rebut these claims with three reasons to be suspicious. He begins by denouncing the ancestors who passed down these religious doctrines as being too ignorant to trust. He then condemns the proofs as impossible to judge for any truth as a result of being “full of contradictions, revisions and falsifications” (p. 33). He finally stated that the third claim was the most suspicious of all, pronouncing that openly reproaching the question of authenticity was a clear declaration of society’s insecurity with the religious doctrines. Freud fails to understand how religion has the ability to assume such great influence over civilization without any unequivocal evidence supporting its ideas. His rebuttal successfully casts a sense of foolishness and absurdity on the inadequate and irrational claims. The claims themselves seem to be grasping for any semi-valid idea or at least an idea which proves difficult to question. Although society thinks they are showing respect and good

Emile Durkheim and Max Weber are two prominent philosophers whose theories unequivocally differed on countless themes. The outlooks of Durkheim and Weber contrast however, their general message in which they attempt to convey are of similar ideologies. When examining Durkheim and the concept of sacred and profane, one would see how it parallels with Weber’s notion of enchantment and disenchantment. Their stances on religion correspond with each other and despite their distinct conceptual frameworks and differing perspectives, Durkheim and Weber both offer profound contributions to the concepts of religion and modernity.

Define religion in terms of its six characteristics – sacred, myth, ritual, community, morality, and religious leaders – and explain the possible relations among them.

However, there is another side to religion, one that is quite contrary to idea of unification and acceptance. When looking through the scope of history, we can also see religion as an exclusionary tool, often used to differentiate groups of people on an innate level. As many of these idealogies attempt to assert

A religion can be seen as a unified system of beliefs and practices which are relative to sacred things and beliefs (Giddens 1972, p.224). It can shape ones thoughts and feelings and gives people a sense of hope and something to believe in. All three main sociologist writers Karl Marx, Max Weber and Emile Durkheim offer different perspectives on religion and how important it is to society. Some of the theorists chose to have a positive view whilst others argue the unimportance of religion. This essay attempts to discover which theorist has the most accurate perspective of religion in modern times. This is done by firstly explaining the basic ideas regarding to religion put forward by Marx, Weber and Durkheim. Then both Marx's and