Karl Marx, Max Weber and Emile Durkheim offered differing perspectives on the role of religion. Choose the theorist whose insights you prefer and theorists views over the others.

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

his religion. Marx writes, "The more man puts into God the less he retains in

Following the Industrial Revolution in 19th century Europe, change was in full swing and religion began to have different meanings for different people. The upper-class citizens used Religion, namely Christianity, and the power that it possessed in an attempt to keep their high status in society, while the lower class turned to faith so that their lives could possibly improve. Instead of religion being the cornerstone of faith and worship amongst all people, it was being used for power and money by the upper class. Even worse, religious leaders were using the upper class people as well, gaining money and authority from their endorsement. A man by the name of Karl Marx saw

This paper examines the works of Sigmund Freud and Emile Durkheim on religion, looking at how both theorists essentially viewed religion as serving an integral role in human culture. In particular, this essay considers how both theorists consider religious believers to be mistaken in their ontological beliefs, and the rational causes for this.

Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx, and Max Weber are all important characters to be studied in the field of Sociology. Each one of these Sociological theorists, help in the separation of Sociology into its own field of study. The works of these three theorists is very complex and can be considered hard to understand but their intentions were not. They have their similarities along with just as many of their differences.

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

Durkheim and Weber both had distinct theories as they expressed and conceptualized religion and it’s impact to society in quite different ways however, they somehow overall parallel each others theories. Durkheim observed religion in the context of the integrated society and recognized its place in affecting the reasoning and conduct of society.Max Weber saw religion as how it fortifies other social organizations. Weber suspected that the religious belief setup contributed a social system that SUPPORTED the improvement of other social organizations, like the economy. Weber is also addressing the shrinking hold of religion in modern society.”(Veugelers) This notionally theorizes that both philosophers acknowledge the importance of religion as influencing and supporting society. As indicated by Durkheim, people consider religion to be adding to the wellbeing

For Weber, religion can be seen as a factor which pushes for social change, while for Marx it is essentially used as a conservation, keeping the wealthy, wealthy and suppressing the poor

Karl Marx’s view of society was based around the economy. All other social structures according to Marx, such as religion, family values, and politics stem from the base, the economy. Religion played no part at all in Marx’s sociological views. He is known as an atheist. He believed that religion was nothing more than a burden on society. “The

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

I strongly agree with Marx on the fact that there is “blind faith” involved in many religions, for instance, individuals unthinkingly practice religions in order to cope with detriments occurring in their lives. I believe this due to the fact that individuals instantly use religion as a crutch whenever something bad happens in their life. Religion is something commonly practiced in order to see the good in life, it contains the set of guidelines and rules (10 commandments) that are set in place in order to assure that an individual will enter heaven so long as they abide by these rules. The majority of individuals in our society strive in order to to get to heaven and they perform several deeds in order to get there, however, individuals

Similarly to Weber, Durkheim believed that religion plays an integral part in society. He defined religion as a “unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things… beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a church...” (Durkheim EF: 47). This functional definition describes what Durkheim believes what role religion plays in contemporary society: it unities it. He analyzed religion within the context of the entire society and recognized its influence on people’s thoughts and behaviors. Durkheim was interested in the communal bonds forged by participating in religious activities and stressed the importance of the communal aspect of religion.

The two theorists i’ve decided to compare and contrast are Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim. Firstly i’ll compare them to one another. From all the readings I did and past education on these individuals I found they have a lot of the same views in regards to religion. Both Emlie Durkheim and Karl Marx believe that religion is a projection of mans hopes and desires. They both also agree that religion plays a powerful role in influencing the members of a society. While coming up with these theories they were both more concerned with the human rather than the religion. Both of them did not believe in a god or gods. It’s been said that Marx saw god as idealization of human nature while Durkheim believed the idea of a god was society itself. They were not religious people so it’s interesting that they did have some of the same views and theories regarding religion in the society.

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