Marx And Weber 's Role Religion

and subsequent reinvestment of capital, is an end that both Weber and Marx reach in their analyses of society and agree on in definition. However, while Marx tells us that phantoms of the brain i.e. morality, religion, ideology, cannot develop independently of material production or influence it, Weber argues that ideas and religion can indeed determine life and the processes of life, namely our material production. The key difference between the two is their scope of factors that can cause historical development. Marx only allows for one factor, productive forces and the economic conditions resulting from them; Weber, on the other hand, acknowledges that while ideology and religion can support the economic relations as a driving factor, they can also develop independently and become a factor, a force on its own that can alter production, economic conditions, and thus history. By accounting for the multiple ways in which a society can be altered, Weber provides a more complete and applicable understanding of historical development and the powerful concept that an idea from an individual or group of individuals can have a legitimate and significant effect on the direction of society.

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

Two names that are repeatedly mentioned in sociological theory are Karl Marx and Max Weber. In some ways these two intellectuals were similar in the way they looked at society. There are also some striking differences. In order to compare and contrast these two individuals it is necessary to look at each of their ideas. Then a comparison of their views can be illustrated followed by examples of how their perspectives differ from each other.

He chose to view religion as a negative thing unlike Durkheim who viewed it in a positive way. Marx believed that “humanity makes religion; religion does not make humanity.” (Kessler. A, 2001). Karl Marx states that opium and religion can be an effect on human suffering by removing the incentive to do whatever is necessary to overcome it. Hamilton points out that “religion offers compensation for the hardship of this life in some future life, but it makes such compensation conditional upon acceptance of the injustices of this life.” Religion, to Marx, does not have the power to lead to social change. (Kessler. A, 2001). Max Webber attempted to demonstrate that religious beliefs were not mechanically connected to the economic structure of society, it shapes individuals behavior and actions in everyday life. Overall, it can be seen that the three main sociology writers differ greatly when it comes to ideas regarding religion.

German sociologists, Karl Marx and Max Weber, each both had theories about how capitalism evolved in society aswas well as what social inequality is. In this essay, I will explain the theories of these two sociologists in these areas and show how each had merit based on what we know today. O.K introduction but no real thesis.)

For Karl Marx, the changes in religion ultimately reflect the changes happening in society, because the religious world is just a reflection of the real world. If this is the case here, the use of technology in a religious setting would make sense, as our technological world is ever expanding and will further benefit the people at the top of religious hierarchies. In terms of online for-profit churches, Marx might argue that the market is driving the religious realm to cater to technological advances. Marx states in The Communist Manifesto, “The feudal system of industry…now no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new markets”, meaning that longstanding religious traditions, such as confession and synagogue teachings before Bar/Bat

Ordinarily, religion is one of the rationales of social orientations, that in one way or another influences the society’s social stability. This is because religion is the impelling force for regulations in the society as well as a destabilizing drive for transformation. Marx Weber together with Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim were very influential personalities in the course of the 19th century, and even now. In one way or another, these persons attempted to make plain as well as comprehensible social change, particularly in the aspect of religion in the society. Their perspectives on religion differ on some aspects. Even though their views on religion are diverse, they all seem to be in accord that

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

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

In short, the methodology of Marx and Weber adopted to analysis the development of capitalist society is different. Both of them may share some similarity in the sense that they included economic condition as a factor, but the differ in the sense that Marx believe in 'historical materialism' and argue that class relation of production is the sole determinant of the society; Weber, on the opposite, reject Marx's idea of economic determinism and argued that the development of capitalist society is explain by combination of unique and contingent events, such as the religion reformation of catholic church to protestant church, also led to the change in people's economic orientation and thus the development of capitalist society. Such a division in methodology is important to our understanding of their different understanding of the theory of the stratification of 'class', an important concept in the understanding of capitalist society.

Religion, as defined by the High Court of Australia, is ‘a complex of beliefs and practices which point to a set of values and an understanding of the meaning of existence’ (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2005) and can be studied either substantively or functionally (Berger 1974:126). Substantive studies of religion fall predominantly in the realm of theology and are more concerned with defining religious beliefs; their historical accuracy; and the existence of supernatural entities (Holmes, Hughes & Julian 2007:425). Sociology however, concerns itself primarily with the relationship between religion and society, examining religion as a social construction (Van Krieken et al. 2010:350-1) and concerned only with the substance of

For Weber, the idea of rationalism rational thought based on societal efficiency and productivity, runs through his works particularly The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. In this seminal work, Weber argues that the idea of Protestantism contributes to history and economics in that piety and the chance for a better life after death cause humans to strive for economic gain in certain ways, whereas that is not always using work as an expression of self - it is work, as Marx might say, for the ends justifying the means, rather than the means justifying what work is being done. Authority, then, rather than being solely economic, does have at its

Weber's Approach to Religion and Sociology Weber's general approach to sociology is known as <'verstehen'

According to Marx, religion can be seen as the opiate of the people (Engels, Marx 1955, p.41). Here, Marx is suggesting that just like opium, religion is trying to relieve people of the pain and suffering in their lives. Marx also puts forward the idea that religion is used by its oppressors in order to make people feel better about their lives. Thus, it can be seen that Marx chooses to adopt a negative view of religion. Max Weber can be seen as the only sociologist to place so much scope and emphasis on the subject of religion (Nisbet, p.250). Biographical and textual evidence suggests that biblical religion played a part in shaping and influencing Weber's life and the context of his sociology. Weber's main concern was to attempt to demonstrate that religious ideologies were not mechanically connected to the economic structure of society, however it does shape individuals behavior and actions in everyday life (Swingewood 1984, p.152). Weber also came to several conclusions regarding the remarkable relationship between capitalism and Protestant. According to Weber, the more capitalism had a free hand to alter social distribution, the larger the relationship between capitalism and protestant (1930, p.4). Overall, it can be seen that the three main sociology theorists differ greatly when it comes to ideas regarding to religion.

Max Weber believed the religion is a deeply rooted institution that has shaped people’s image of the world, which in turn can impact their beliefs and motives. For instance, religion is used different amongst people of various class and statues. Individuals with high class and statues will use religion legitimate their circumstances and their situation in the world. On the other end of the spectrum, underprivileged individuals will lean toward religion that promise rewards for hard work and good morals (CSP). In addition, Weber believed that religion had supplied the framework that aided the development of various social institution, in particular the economy (PA).