Religion Is Very Much Intertwined With The Construction Of Our World

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

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

Ideas do not prove their value until they withstand the challenge of being questioned. On the surface, professor Craig Martin and anthropologist Clifford Geertz approach analyzing religion with opposing views. Martin dismisses definitions of religion claiming that no definition can encompass the practical use of the word and instead provides a step by step approach to explaining beliefs and actions in the perspective of a methodological atheist. Geertz, however, provides a working definition broken into a five-part model to make it a useful tool. Upon further analysis of these two methods, the once contradicting ideas begin to work in unison with each other. Martin’s functionalist approach and the definition

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.

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

William James’s Varieties of Religion Experiences details his belief in the individuality of religion and religious life, standing in contrast to Emile Durkheim’s view of religion as both created by and the creator of society as stated in his Elementary Forms of Religious Life. James, a psychologist and pragmaticism, and Durkheim, a sociologist and functionalist, form opposing theories on religion based off of their definitions of and beliefs on the very nature of religion and their differing fields of study. The most salient aspect of each scholar’s methodology is their devotion to their respective disciples and thus, the men’s conclusions and fundamental understandings of religion cannot be reconciled, creating two entirely separate theologies from two men who were not theologists.

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

“Religion is a ritualized system of beliefs and practices related to things defined as sacred by an organized community of believers.” (Basirico et.al. 379). Religion is an important element in the society because it influences the way individuals act and think. It has shaped the relationship and bonding among families as well as influenced the decision made in economics and politics. Religion in general has contributed to shape a society and a government structure which will influence the way the individuals under certain governmental structure behave. Sociologists are interested in religion mainly because religious belief is heavily rooted in individuals’ lives and it helps sociologists to interpret human’s actions, expression, and

To understand the religion as a social control tool, it is necessary to understand the term socialization. Many sociologists have placed more focus on defining the term socialization. Ward (2011) defined the term socialization as the process through which an individual acquires the ways of a social group or a society so as he or she can fit in it. In his invitation to sociology, Koenig (2013) defined the term ‘socialization’ as the process through which acquires knowledge of how to become a member of the society. It is only through socializing that an individual is able to learn normative values, skills, beliefs, languages as well as other essential arrangements of action as well as thoughts significant for any given social life.

The functionalist analysis of religion is concerned with the contribution religion makes to meeting society's needs such as social solidarity, value consensus and harmony and integration between its parts. Durkheim = == ==

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

In this essay we will discuss the importance of religion in society. We will attempt to explain why societies have religions and what functions their belief system has for them. We will also ask if these functions are now out-dated and if religions have any meaningful function in today's world or are they just stained glass windows into a bygone era? 'Religion' can be defined by two main groupings. 'The inclusive definition' covers all topics and subjects of a persons life including, not only, their belief in a deity but also their belief and belongingness to music, sport and any other interests the person may hold. 'The exclusive definition' refers to just their belief system regarding a 'supra-human' (Browne 2005, p. 311). It is mainly