The Theories Of Edward Burnett Tylor And Emile Durkheim

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

“Treat social facts as things” is an expression that epitomises the works of Emile Durkheim. This essay focuses on four main sociological concepts proposed by the functionalist Emile Durkheim; the division of labour; mechanical and organic solidarity; anomie and suicide, and examines their relevance in contemporary society.

In the article, The Meaning and End of Religion, by Wilfred Cantwell Smith writes about his idea of the concept of religion explaining it to be a universally valid category as it is theorized but is truly a European creation. Throughout the article Smith conveys his ideas of religion. In his piece, there are several interesting ideas and most important thoughts that he tries to communicate to the reader. In response, the reader can respond to some of the important questions posited by Smith.

Emile Durkheim would stand to say that we need social media, despite negative effects. He would state that, although as an American culture centered around social media can cause us to be way too focus on our “internet lives”, mass media plays a very important duty to the American people. It provides everyone, with news, entertainment, and socialization. Durkheim questioned how our societies maintain their internal stability and survive over time. And like a body’s systems all working together to create life, society and social media work together like the brain works with the heart. Societies are growing larger and mass social media is a good medium to reach out to many people at once. It keeps us informed and at the same time allows us to

There are many theories on the origin and function of religion; each one shaped by culture, education, and experience. Three prominent figures, E. B. Tylor, James Frazer and Karl Marx, each have developed their own theories pertaining to religion. While Tylor, James Frazer, and Karl Marx studied in different fields, each one has developed a point of view surrounding religion from different angles.

Russell McCutcheon urges terms like “religion” and “religious” should not be used by scholars when referring to the study of religion. McCutcheon even suggests these words should be abandoned and removed from our vocabulary all together. He claims studying social sciences like anthropology, sociology, and psychology and using appropriate terminology will lead to a more accurate understanding of why we as humans are religious and how our religion ultimately affects our behaviors. Feuerbach, Marx, and Nietzsche all suspect the study of religion is not about God at all, but rather the people who believe or do not believe in God. In this essay, I will elaborate on the similar yet completely different ideologies of Feuerbach, Marx, and Nietzsche and compare them to the argument made by McCutcheon.

The earliest précising definition of Religion can be credited to Edward Lord Herbert of Cher bury. Herbert (1988) argued that all religions are true at some level. To prove this he maintained that all religions could be boiled down to five characteristics (1) The belief that there is extreme power or deity external to this world (2) This power is to be worshipped (3) that worship consists in piety and holiness (4) that sin can be forgiven (5) that there are rewards and punishments after this earthly life. But by far the most authentic definition of Religion is constituted by the anthropologist E.B Tylor. According to Tylor, religion is a “Faith in Mystical Beings” . Tylor suggests that belief in spiritual beings was not only a marker in religious systems but it was this belief from which all the other simple entities such as myth, doctrine, ritual and ethics evolved.

In the book, The Meaning and End of Religion, W.C. Smith presents a variety of arguments for why the word “religion” should give us pause as well as having us rethink what we know about religion as a conceptual category. The reason that “religion” should be seen as being a problematic concept has to deal with the idea of the multiplicity of religious traditions.

Edward Burnett Tylor was an English anthropologist. Tylor attempted to explain human beliefs by adapting a revolutionary theory. In his book Primitive Culture (1889), Tylor presented an explanation of the origin of religions. For him, the belief in supernatural beings led to religious development. Thus, the belief in supernatural , as Tylor would argue, is the core element of religions. However, the belief in supernatural is being interpreted differently by scholars. This essay will provide an explanation of how would Tylor interpret the supernatural belief. Furthermore, this essay argues that Tylor interpretation of the belief in supernational could be seen in his theory of animism. The argument will be approached by first providing an explanation

Pascal Boyer 's article of "Why religion is natural?" is one that really gets the audience to think. It begins to raise questions like " Where does religion come from?" and "Who sets the standards for religion?". More importantly, it causes us to wonder what religion really is. In this article Boyer perfectly defined and framed his view on religion which came mostly from a psychological point of view, but he also mentioned it from an anthropology perspective and neurological perspective. Religion is a system of beliefs and practices that are found amongst all human groups and can be dated back to the beginning of human culture and interaction. He mentions that "belief in religion activates mental systems involved in a whole variety of non-religious domains." (Boyer. 2). For most of my life I have always seen religion as being associated with God as the superior being only but, after reading Boyer 's article, I have realized that it is actually more than that.

Marx, Durkheim and Weber each had different sociological views of the role and function of Religion. My preferred theorists view’s on Religion is Karl Marx’s as I feel his ideas are more relevant to what Religion actually is. And I have chosen Marx’s theory on Religion as I feel that it is the most similar to my own views on the subject. His views are more interesting to me as I don’t practise any Religion and his views expand on

Emile Durkheim’s vision of religion is based on experience. (Durkheim, 1965) There are many reasons why people do what they do and one of the biggest reasons is because of experience and their understanding of the rituals. Religion for Durkheim is an organized attempt to bridge the gap between the known and the unknown in our lives; between the profane world of our every day experience and the sacred, the extraordinary world located outside of that experience. For Durkheim, what is ultimately unknown to us is our collective being in society. (Kabamba, December 3) Society lies within each of us and also outside. Religion is both subjective and objective and it is though religion that helps us link the subjective and objective together and live in peace in our society. (Durkheim, 1965)

Where does religion come from and what is its function? This simple question has been studied, defined, and debated by a variety of individuals with differing schools of thought throughout history. Although the conjunction of different ideologies from many of these theorists would provide the most comprehensive solution to this question, Mircea Eliade’s theory as a whole most convincingly addresses this question compared other separate theories as a whole. In particular, Eliade’s emphasis of studying religion via a cross-cultural comparison method and his notion of “the sacred and the profane” results in a deeper understanding of a given religion and the function it provides to human society as a whole.

Religion is a direct descendent of philosophy and it appears that there are very few differences of their essences. The purpose of this paper is to examine religion as a philosophical construct that has aided man in his quest to understand himself and his surroundings. Before examining these relationships, it is of the most importance to define the terms and words that will be used to frame this argument in order to identify some common ground that may be translated into many understandings. The essay will then investigate the necessity of inventing God, and whether its existence is useful or not. Next the essay will address morality and evil as concepts related to religion and spirituality. Finally the essay will conclude that exposed the dogma and the tendencies for myopia for any belief system and exposes philosophy for its art and the practicality of living life in a an artful manner.

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.