Just like a religious believer who states “god loves us” but can’t explain the contradiction of evil in the world, believers qualify their statements by explaining god’s love is not like humans love he calls this “death by a thousand qualifications”. Therefore religious language is meaningless. However religion has responded to the falsification principle. R.B Braithwaite argued that the falsification principle explains religious language as cognitive when it if in fact non cognitive and therefore cannot be falsified, religious language is therefore still meaningful. Hare also responds to the falsification principle, showing that religious statements are meaningful even though they cannot be falsified because they have a significant impact for the people using the statement.
The classical works of Marx, Weber and Durkheim are central to the formation of modern day sociological interpretations. Within the study of social life, Marx, Weber and Durkheim have their own distinctive characteristics on how they perceive the structure of society. The aim of this essay is to explore and evaluate some of the key sociological perspectives held by Marx, Weber, and Durkheim in relation to the subject of religion. In order to undertake this it is necessary to clarify a general definition of the sociology of religion. The sociology of religion endeavours to ascertain the explanations of social life in regards to religion and the diverse roles it plays within society.
For this instance, this is not the case, society must constantly correct immoral actions performed by certain individuals. These individuals originate from diverse backgrounds and religions, and where as there is no specific religion that can be solely liable. Therefore, it becomes necessary to determine how violence and religion can simultaneously exist because the nature of these two elements seems to be contradictory. To begin with, there are two particular explanations in which introduce some historical examples of religion and violence intertwining, and illustrate how those two entities (religion and violence) can coexist. One explanation states that certain individuals feel that violence is relatively harmless, and therefore feel no remorse in performing violent acts.
The view that religion is a conservative force stems from theories from Functionalists, Marxists and Feminists. Each see religion as keeping society in its current form, despite the theories coming to the same conclusion the reasons differ. For Durkheim religion acts as a vital organ in society and keeps society alive by maintaining social solidarity. Functionalists believe that religion creates a shared value consensus and acts as a social glue helping unite individuals as well as helping them cope with stress. In comparison to this view Marxists see society as promoting the interests of the ruling class and legitimating suffering and therefore preventing social change.
Durkheim believed that social order and stability only existed if people were integrated into society by value consensus. He saw religion as an important part as it provided a set of beliefs and practices which connected people together to attain this. For Durkheim the main quality of religion was not a belief in gods or the supernatural but a primary difference between the sacred and the profane which originates in all religions. The sacred are things that are regarded as special, set apart and forbidden such as the holly Qur’an which holds meaning, whilst the profane are the ordinary, everyday, non-sacred things such as going to work which holds no meaning. Durkheim underlines that the sacred does not need to have a god or other supernatural things but can be anything that people regard as sacred such as an animal which was shown in his study of the Arunta tribe, where family members come together occasionally to perform rituals which involved worshiping a sacred totem (is a sacred object having symbolic importance to a group) such as an animal which signified the clans identity.
This concept is also related to the idea of the unconscious as an important factor in determining and explaining human behavior and action. William James distinguished between two kinds of religion institutional and personal religion. William James interpretation of Institutional religion was religious groups or organizations. William James thought it played an important part in a society's culture. William James interpretation of Personal religion was that individuals can have a religious experience and can be experienced regardless of whatever culture he or she is from.
I note one weakness of his argument in regard to his observation if the inseparability of the Kung’s everyday life and their religion, compared to western societies. Katz states that for the Kung religion is an inseparable aspect of their everyday life. However even the term inseparable is inaccurate as it implies that there are two entities to be separated. There is no distinction between their spiritual beliefs and their everyday life. They are one and the same.
Emille Durkheim was as many know a functionalist and like any other functionalist he examined religion in terms of what a societies needs where. Functionalists are concerned with the way religion contributes to meeting the needs of a society. “The function of religion is the contribution it makes to meeting such functional prerequisites - for example, its contribution to social solidarity.”# Durkheim set out to establish the fact that religion was not divinely or supernaturally inspired but was in fact a product of society. He sought to identify the common things that religion placed an emphasis upon, as well as what effects those religious beliefs (the product of social life) had on the lives of all within a society. To have some insight into Durkheim’s view of religion and social solidarity, we shall firstly look at his idea of the sacred and the profane.
Define and explain the concept ‘contemporary social structures’ and the role of such structures in regulating social life and beliefs? Discuss with the use of examples to support your arguments. (1500) ------------------------------------------------- In this essay I will break down the bricks that build the term ‘Contemporary Social Structures’ into pieces and examine each word very carefully. I will mention the important roles such structures play in regulating social life and the beliefs resulting from it. Religion will be the structure that will provide all the support for my argument.
The directions religions points at aren’t all entirely spiritual, simply shown in equality matters of prosperity and freedoms for masses and states, the supportive state policies. Jung states that partaking in the “en masse” systems like religions or nations who worship any sort of divine powers cannot be terminated with logical dialogue, you simply cannot determine their issue. because mass-mindedness by interpretations disregards sensibility and train of thought in human beings and approves more of the emotional aspects in this