The Definition Of Religion In The Sacred Canopy, By Peter Berger

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.

Martin uses a functionalistic approach to understand the role religion plays in society, exploring each object with hermeneutical suspicion, believing, for the sake of this study, that any supernatural claims are false. By exploring such concepts as classification, structured society, and habitus, Martin explains how “we, as humans, are a product of society”. He focuses on answering questions such as “what’s going on” and “whose interests are served” by skeptically looking at the way in which people use legitimation, authority, and authenticity to push their own agendas.

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 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

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

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.

We all have some experience with religion. Whether our parents are religious, our own religious views, or others who try and convert you to a religion, we have all come in contact with a religion. But what do sociology and religion have to do with each other? The answer to this question is that religion meets sociology in the affects that it has on an individual or society (Schaefer, Richard T, 2009, pg 323).

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

It is only through socialization where any individual is integrated to the meaning of societal structure. As argued by Berger (2011), there is a need for a life to have a meaning. As an initiation process into the society, religion is an absolute hinge of socialization. For this instance,

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 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

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.