Emile Durkheim 's The Elementary Forms Of The Religious Life

I have chosen the article, Does Science Threaten Religion? (p. 497) as my focus for this tutorial. I strongly believe the article uses the structural-functionalism approach as well as scientific sociology.

Conversely, according to (Turner 23-109), Durkheim points out that religion is part and parcel of the society and that each society has religion. Emile Durkheim’s purpose was to assess the connection between particular religions in various cultures, and finding a common cause. Basically, he wanted to comprehend the three major aspects of religion; that is the empirical together with the social and the spirituality components. His definition of religion is that; it is a joining arrangement of beliefs together with practices in relation to sacred things. According to him, it is religion that establishes the contemporary society as

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.

Since the dawn of mankind religion has been one of the most significant elements of a society’s social and cultural beliefs and actions. However, this trend has declined due to the general increase in knowledge regarding our the natural sciences. Where we had previously attributed something that we didn’t understand to the working of a higher power, is now replaced by a simple explanation offered by natural sciences. While advocates of Religion may question Natural Sciences by stating that they are based on assumptions, it is important to note the Natural Sciences are based on theories and principles which can be proven using mathematical equations and formulas. Faith however contrasts from the easily visible feasibility of data

When reading Hick one could see that he used more of a comparative, phenomenological approach to religion. Hick compared religions to one another and also looked at religious experiences from a phenomenological approach, trying to understand them rather than compare them. Stahl et. al. used a functional approach to science and religion. A functional approach looks at how science and religion function within a society. The authors used this approach to examine science and religion and offered that they are not all that different. The two function in very similar manners.

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.

Moreover, Durkheim compares religion to society. He says that society is the cause of the unique sensations of the religious experiences, so called “sui generis” (Ritzer, 84). This concept

The crux of Emile Durkheim’s The Elementary Forms of Religious Life lies in the concept of collective effervescence, or the feelings of mutually shared emotions. Through a hermeneutical approach, Durkheim investigates the reflexiveness of social organization, the balance between form and content, and the immense cooperation in collective representations. In his work, society is the framework of humanity and gives it meaning, whereas religion acts as the tool to explain it. Since society existed prior to the individual, the collective mind must be understood before the concept of the individual can be grasped. However, one component seems missing from his social theory – what underlies society in terms of rituals and rites? Only when this

When dwelling into the explorations about science and religion, one can find it quite amusing. "If science and religion are to continue to coexist it seems opposed to the conditions of modern thought to admit that this result can be brought about by the so-called

"That which science refuses to grant to religion is not its right to exist, but its right to dogmatize upon the nature of things and the special competence which it claims for itself for knowing man and the world. As a matter of fact, it does not know itself. It does not even know what it is made of, nor to what need it answers." (Durkheim,

Emile Durkheim was French sociologist. He was born on April 15, 1858 in Epinal, France. Epinal is located in the Eastern French Province, Lorraine. His father, Moise was the Chief Rabbi of Epinal, Vosges, and Haute-Marne, while his mother, Melanie, worked as an embroiderer. Durkheim was the youngest of their four surviving children.

Emile Durkheim is a sociologist, born 1858 in northeastern France. As a young boy he was also, strongly affected by a schoolteacher who was Romance Catholic. The influence by the school teacher may have contributed something to his general interest in religious endeavors but they did not make him a believer (86). Durkheim spent much of his academic career studying religions, especially those of small societies. The toteism, or primitive kinship system of Australian aborigines, primarily interested him (98). This research formed the basis of Durkheim 's 1921 book, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, a well know book on the sociology of religion. Durkheim viewed religion with the context of the entire society and acknowledged societies influences of thinking and behaviors by the members

In order to truly assess the legitimacy of Durkheim 's functionalist definition of religion, his notion of Social facts, (upon which his theory is constructed) must be examined. Durkheim advocated that amongst the reputable fields of biology, psychology and history, Sociology also warranted a specific focus. It was, for him: a 'sui generis ' "something that had to be explained on its own terms". Sociology was not, for Durkheim, a field that should be susceptible to overlapping subject matter: he believed that there existed concrete social facts recognisable "by the power of eternal coercion" which they are "capable of exercising over individuals". This claim is an imperative one because it is the platform on which his functionalist

　　The relationship between science and religion will be analyzed in the following three aspects: conflict, compartmentalization and complementariness.

Durkheim’s analysis of religion was developed using principles of positivism and organicism (Hamilton 2014, p. 104). Positivism and methodological individualism were both consequences of liberal extremism, with their roots in the political philosophy of the Enlightenment. During this period philosophy began to associate with science and rationality, leading to the creation of the social sciences (Hamilton 2014, pp. 103-104). In contrast, organicism was largely conservative and influenced by theology. This view explains that society is a divine creation; a transcendent and unwavering phenomenon (Hamilton 2014, p. 104). Durkheim combined these two traditions to develop his theory of knowledge and religion. By treating religion as a collective social experience, Durkheim positioned his analysis of human thought within the social environment (Hamilton 2014, p. 103; Repstad & Furseth 2013, p. 32; Turner 2010, p. 54). Essentially, Durkheim regarded religion as a secondary form of scientific knowledge; a mental process linking human activity to the natural environment (Hamilton 2014, p. 103). He maintained that religion permeates into all areas of human life. Further, it divides society into sacred and profane areas that guide an individual (Hamilton 2014, p. 105). Durkheim’s use of the term sacred signifies religious articles and actions, and the participation in religious rituals. On the other hand, profane denotes all other areas of life outside of religion known as