Sacred objects differ from religion to religion, but they all serve the same primary function and that is to unite the believers into a collective and give them a sense of belonging, and to also create social harmony. However, Postmodernists such as Stjepan Mestrovic argue that Durkheim’s theory cannot be applied to modern society due to the increasing diversity that has split the collective consciousness, so now there is no longer one shared value system for religion to reinforce, and so it cannot create social harmony. Bronislaw Malinowski, another functionalist, agrees with Durkheim’s theory that religion promotes social solidarity and social harmony. But, he believes that it does so by performing psychological functions for individuals, like helping them cope with mental stress that may undermine social solidarity. Malinowski identifies two situations where religion performs this role, one of them being times of a life crisis.
Functionalist view on religion This essay is to assess the functionalist theory and view that religion benefits both societies as a whole and its individual members and also to take in consideration their criticism, but to mainly focus on two sociologist Durkheim and Parsons. Religion for sociologist is defined in three ways which are substantive, functional and social constructionist. The substantive definition of religion is focusing on the content or religious belief in god or the supernatural. The functional definition is its social or psychological functions it performs for society and individual. The last definition of religion for sociologist is social construction of it which is that there is no single universal definition of religion since so many exist and there is no consensus term of religion among any of them.
This is often thought to involve a belief in a god or gods, but this is not the case in all religious beliefs. The central meaning of ‘religion’ is, in fact, simply the way in which shared beliefs establish regulations, rules or bonds of obligation among the members of a community. This essay is going to highlight some of the ways in which religion serves in the interests of the powerful in society. Durkheim argues that the main function of religion is to promote social stability because when people have the same beliefs, they often have the same norms and values. However, Karl Marx argues that religion the opiate of the masses therefore it distracts the attention from the possibility of taking action to improve the social world by making false promises about the happy and satisfying life after death in the next world, which in turn gives the rich and powerful the ability to oppress the working class without guilt.
So when we say ’God is good’, we need to know that we are using ’good’ in that sentence. In univocal terms this would be claiming that God is good in some way that humans are, Aquinas rejected this as he believed God to be perfect. Because of this, imperfect humans can’t be good in the same way that God is. In equivocal terms, this would mean that God is good in a totally different way to humans, Aquinas rejected that too. He argued that if people speak equivocally about God, then it cannot profess to know anything about him as it is saying that the language we use to describe humans or the experienced world around us, doesn’t apply to God.
Christianity, Mormonism and Islamic faith all convey different perspectives toward polygamy in terms of their beliefs. These three religions also show different attitudes toward a woman’s right to marriage and her individual power after union. In addition, medical ethics within these three religions show different degrees of significance and importance as well. The Christian, Mormon and Islam faiths demonstrate different perspectives on the historical, medical and feminine aspects of polygamy. Although polygamy is an accepted part of all three religions’ past practice, their modern views on the controversial issue differ, and thus generating much debate among people.
Richard Swinburne uses his Principle of Credulity and his Principle of Testimony, both of these a posteriori arguments, to enforce the idea that what people believe they have experienced and what they go onto tell us should be believed and taken as truth. However it is clear that although these principles seem somewhat logical from the explanations Swinburne uses to propose them the conclusions he reaches are open to a wide range of criticism and so fail to validate experiences as religious thus making them redundant in being used as evidence for the existence of God. Firstly Swinburne proposes his Principle of Credulity, ‘credulity’ meaning ‘willingness to believe’. The principle states that we should trust what our senses tell us about the world because this is what we do so often every day. If I place my hand on an iron when it is still hot I will get burnt and then know not to do it again, I trust in my experience because it is right in a majority of cases and the only time I should not is if I have good reason not to.
This means that natural law offers a universal moral code that is for the best of the whole society that can be accessed by everyone. On the other hand some people may say that because natural law is based on religious convictions, it is not open for everyone. A scholar, Grotius, argues against this and says natural law is open to the secular as they can base it on the power of nature rather than God. Another problem is that natural law is quiet general and is difficult to relate to complex situations. In the case of abortion, there are many different and complex reasons for abortion that can’t all be placed under one rule.
It would seem that both Diana Eck and John Stott are correct to a point. All religions cannot be truly be equal because then there would be no point, as the authority of the religious doctrine and its rites would be lost to some neutral all-purpose pseudo faith. But, pluralism as practiced in institutions such as the U.S. military and the U.S. legal system is not some neutral all-encompassing attempt at a single faith. Nor is it the suggestion that all faith paths lead to the same source. Rather, pluralism is really the commitment to and execution of religious tolerance.
A number of sociologists argue that religion is a conservative force in society and it reinforces the shared needs and values of society. Some sociologists see this as positive, while others such as Marxists and feminists see this as negative. Durkheim supports the view religion is a conservative force in society which reinforces the needs of society. He argued that religion should be explained in terms of shared social needs. Durkheim saw religion as a positive force within society as it has essential and beneficial effects for the society.
The first of these dangers is susceptibility of Americans to extreme individualism, and isolation from the community. Secondly Tocqueville fears that American’s would develop an excessive desire for material things. Moreover, he believes democracy would cause American’s to lose the ability to think for themselves and, instead conform to society. Tocqueville’s final concern of Democracy was that an intense aspiration for total equality would in turn create a society who sacrifices many rights. Tocqueville argues that the only thing which will keep Americans away from these dangers, which would undoubtedly lead to despotism is religion as source of moral education.