Functions of religion

[whitecrayon]

i recently “absorbed” a good introductory college textbook titled cultural anthropology (haviland, prins, walrath, mcbride, 12th edition, 2006), in which a list of what the authors offered as some of the functions of religion appeared in the chapter titled “spirituality, religion, and the supernatural”. this scientific rendering of religion and belief in the supernatural to a list of facts and (what i considered) hypotheses piqued my interest in the great debate between scientific rationalism and faith in the unseen and unknown. thus, i have posted the list here.

if any readers would like to add to the list or argue against all or some of it or just discuss it in general, i would greatly appreciate it. personally, i thought

. “one psychological function [of religion] is to provide an orderly model of the universe, which plays a key role in establishing orderly human behavior. through special stories, or myths, people find answers to important questions…”

. “…by explaining the unknown and making it understandable, religion reduces the fears and anxieties of individuals.”

. “a social function of religion is to prompt reflection concerning conduct. in this context, religion plays a role in social control, which…does not rely on law alone. this is done through notions of right and wrong, good and evil.”

. “religion…sets guidelines for acceptable behavior.”

. “…by the models religion presents [in myths] and the morals it espouses, religion serves to justify and perpetuate a particular social order.”

. “a [religious] society’s moral code, since it is considered to be divinely ordained, lifts the burden of responsibility for conduct from the shoulders of the society’s individual members…”

. “another social function of religion is its role in the maintenance of social solidarity.”

. “one other area in which religion serves a social function is education…[which] may be served by rites of [passage] and [rites of] intensification.”

. “in addition to all of the above, people often turn to religion in the hope of reaching a specific goal, such as the healing of physical, emotional, or social ills…”

 

[Rock_Happy]

i recently “absorbed” a good introductory college textbook titled cultural anthropology (haviland, prins, walrath, mcbride, 12th edition, 2006), in which a list of what the authors offered as some of the functions of religion appeared in the chapter titled “spirituality, religion, and the supernatural”. this scientific rendering of religion and belief in the supernatural to a list of facts and (what i considered) hypotheses piqued my interest in the great debate between scientific rationalism and faith in the unseen and unknown. thus, i have posted the list here.

if any readers would like to add to the list or argue against all or some of it or just discuss it in general, i would greatly appreciate it. personally, i thought

. “one psychological function [of religion] is to provide an orderly model of the universe, which plays a key role in establishing orderly human behavior. through special stories, or myths, people find answers to important questions…”

. “…by explaining the unknown and making it understandable, religion reduces the fears and anxieties of individuals.”

. “a social function of religion is to prompt reflection concerning conduct. in this context, religion plays a role in social control, which…does not rely on law alone. this is done through notions of right and wrong, good and evil.”

. “religion…sets guidelines for acceptable behavior.”

. “…by the models religion presents [in myths] and the morals it espouses, religion serves to justify and perpetuate a particular social order.”

. “a [religious] society’s moral code, since it is considered to be divinely ordained, lifts the burden of responsibility for conduct from the shoulders of the society’s individual members…”

. “another social function of religion is its role in the maintenance of social solidarity.”

. “one other area in which religion serves a social function is education…[which] may be served by rites of [passage] and [rites of] intensification.”

. “in addition to all of the above, people often turn to religion in the hope of reaching a specific goal, such as the healing of physical, emotional, or social ills…”

I doubt that anyone would argue any of those points.

People around here might also add that a somewhat important role of religion is salvation, as well.

 

[whitecrayon]

oops!

personally, i thought the authors presented their list with some bias. their word and phrase choices were perhaps anti-religious, given the fact that they included in their list the claim about religion serving to lift in some occasions the burden of responsibility from adherents concerning their actions. also, the list did not cover all of the wonderful things religion does for things like family, hope, beating fear of death and other things, etc.

 

[whitecrayon]

come to think of it, there are countless “functions” of religion which the authors of the textbook failed to mention. it seems a little obvious that they were atheists who had an agenda of attempting to reduce religion to atheistic evolutionary terms. they didn’t even mention some of the most well-known functions of religion, such as helping people cope with sorrows or overcoming fear of physical death. and they certainly didn’t address any of the evidence for rational religious beliefs, such as belief in miracles, which catholics all believe have occurred.

whitecrayon

 

[Xntrik]

it seems a little obvious that they were atheists who had an agenda of attempting to reduce religion to atheistic evolutionary terms.

:sad_yes: The blind trying to study sight.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

All of those things could well be true. The fact that religion fills other needs, of course, does not provide any evidence that it is not true. As a Good Thing, we would expect to find that. The scientific evidence that correlates belief in God with higher levels of physical and mental health (both mental and physical) and atheism with lower levels of physical health and psychological pathology (depression, suicide, etc.), would also provide evidence that religion fulfills us and can make us better people.

A new study that was discussed in the newspapers today (dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2039690/Atheism-autism-Controversial-new-study-points-link-two.html) reflects that lack of belief in God could also be linked to cognitive disorders. The idea that atheism is linked in some way to Asperger’s (often described as “high-functioning autism”) has been bandied about for some time, and is sometimes thoughtlessly used as a cudgel by Christians against atheists. If this is true, atheism could be in some cases (not always, I don’t think it’s reasonable to presume all atheists, or even a majority, have Asperger’s) proceed from a disability. This raises the issue of lessened moral culpability.

It was suggested in one earlier paper (blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2010/05/29/people-with-aspergers-less-likely-to-see-purpose-behind-the-events-in-their-lives/) that Asperger’s sufferers just see the world in a different way than others, and makes it less likely for them to offer a teleological explanation for an event. Atheists who were neurotypicals (non-Asperger’s) could see teleological explanations but rejected them. Asperger’s atheists seemed to be unable to even see a teleological explanation. (Obviously, not all those with Asperger’s are atheists, either.)

The new study 'investigates the proposal that individual differences in belief will reflect cognitive processing styles, with high functioning autism being an extreme style that will predispose towards nonbelief," and found that those with a high score on the Autism Spectrum Quotient test were more likely to be atheists, compared to neurotypicals.

Caroline Hattersley, Head of Information, Advice and Advocacy at The National Autistic Society said: 'Autism affects people from every sector of society and people with autism represent the full range of religious and non-religious beliefs. ‘It is important that people with autism have the freedom to make their own choices about their beliefs and receive the support they need,’ says Hattersley.

Again, this isn’t a crude attempt to say Atheists all have Asperger’s, nor should we treat Asperger’s sufferers with other than compassion and charity. There does appear to be a correlation between the Asperger’s style of cognition, which is associated with difficulty in “reading” other people, and with greater comfort levels in dealing with data than complex social interactions, as well as an ability to use intuition to sort out the causes for events.

There is also some good data showing a genetic component to Asperger’s.

Could these factors make atheism less morally culpable in some cases? I don’t know. If research showed that (for example) damage to the pre-frontal lobe inclined one towards atheism, would it be less of a sin, or a sin at all? It’s an interesting question.

 

[paperbackwinter]

Admittedly, it’s been a while since I was in college but my undergraduate degree was in Anthropology and, surprisingly, many of my professors were very religious. When they talked professionally about religion it sounded as cold as quote in the original post, but when asked why they still believed they said because, “they are human.” So I wouldn’t be so sure that the authors were atheists

Anthropology is the study of human culture, not the judgement of it. One hopes that the study of a culture gives insight in the human experience, but to decide that one belief is superior over another is simply wrong. That’s the beauty of anthropology.

It seems to me that the authors were trying to give a detached description of religion as a force in culture. The detachment is necessary because you don’t want to project your beliefs onto your analysis of another culture. All of those things may be true, but that doesn’t, shouldn’t detract from the belief of the individual and I don’t think it was their intent. Even then, how could one argue that a law, divinely inspired or not, which prevents us from killing one another is bad?

Generally, I find that people who claim to be atheists do so to appear to be smart. Their lack of respect of for a believer simply show them to be what they truly are, dumb bullies.

 

[whitecrayon]

theories of religion

theories of religion can be divided into substantive theories (focusing on what religion is) and functional or reductionist theories (focusing on what it does). influential substantive theories have been proposed by tylor and frazer (focusing on the explanatory value of religion for its adherents), by the theologian rudolf otto (focusing on the importance of religious experience, more specifically experiences that are both fascinating and terrifying), mircea eliade (focusing on the longing for otherworldly perfection, the quest for meaning, and the search for patterns in mythology in various religions). influential functional theories have been proposed by karl marx (focusing on the economic background), sigmund freud (focusing on neurosis as a psychological origin of religious beliefs), and emile durkheim (focusing on the social function of religions). max weber did not so much propose a general theory of religion as he focused on the interaction between society and religion. he also introduced a number of key concepts to the sociology of religion. in contrast to earlier theorists, the anthropologists e e evans-pritchard and clifford geertz performed detailed ethnographical studies of “primitive” cultures, and came to the conclusion that earlier theories had been one-sided at best. geertz denied that it would ever be possible to propose a general theory of religion. the rational choice theory has been applied to religions, among others by the sociologists rodney stark and william sims bainbridge. they asserted that religion is able to function as a compensator for unobtained rewards.

…

it is difficult for cults and sects to maintain their initial enthusiasm for more than about a generation. as children are born into the cult or sect, members begin to demand a more stable life. when this happens, cults tend to lose or de-emphasize many of their more radical beliefs, and become more open to the surrounding society; they then become denominations.

the theory of religious economy sees different religious organizations competing for followers in a religious economy, much like the way businesses compete for consumers in a commercial economy. theorists assert that a true religious economy is the result of religious pluralism, giving the population a wider variety of choices in religion. according to the theory, the more religions there are, the more likely the population is to be religious and hereby contradicting the secularization thesis.

evolutionary theories

evolutionary theories view religion as either an adaptation or a byproduct. adaptationist theories view religion as being of adaptive value to the survival of pleistocene humans. byproduct theories view religion as spandrels.

the real end of this article, adapted by me from wikipedia online

jonathan “whitecrayon”

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/misc_khaki/progress.gif​

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/misc_khaki/progress.gif[/RIGHT]

 

[whitecrayon]

…continued from previous page…

edward burnett tylor and james george frazer

the anthropologist edward burnett tylor (1832-1917) defined religion as belief in supernatural beings and stated that this belief originated as explanations to the world. belief in supernatural being grew out of attempts to explain life and death. primitive people used human dreams in which spirits seemed to appear as an indication that the human mind could exist independent of a body. they used this by extension to explain life and death, and belief in the after life. myths and deities to explain natural phenomena originated out of an analogy and an extension of these explanations. his theory assumed that the psyche of all peoples of all times are more or less the same and that explanations in cultures and religions tend to grow more sophisticated via monotheist religions, like christianity and eventually to science. tylor saw backwards practices and beliefs in modern societies as survivals, but he did not explain why they survived.

james george frazer (1854-1941) followed tylor’s theories to a great extent in his book the golden bough, but he distinguished between magic and religion. magic is used to influence the natural world in the primitive man’s struggle for survival. he asserted that magic relied on an uncritical belief of primitive people in contact and imitation. for example, precipitation may be invoked by the primitive man by sprinkling water on the ground. he asserted that according to them magic worked through laws. in contrast religion is faith that the natural world is ruled by one of more deities with personal characteristics with whom can be pleaded, not by laws.

the method that tylor and frazer used was seeking similar beliefs and practices in all societies, especially the more primitive ones, more or less regardless of time and place. they relied heavily on reports made by missionaries, discoverers, and colonial civil servants. their theory has been criticized as one-sided for focusing on mere intellectual aspects of religions, while neglecting social aspects of religion, among others by the anthropologist e e evans-pritchard. tylor’s anthropological method has been criticized as out-of-context comparisons of practices in different cultures and times. tylor’s and frazer’s view on the origin of religion has been classified as unverifiable speculation. the view that monotheism is a more evolved than polytheism has been disconfirmed by evidence: monotheism is more prevalent in hunter societies than in agricultural societies. the view that societies’ views and practices grow more evolved over time in a uniform way has been criticized as unverifiable and contradicted by data from anthropological studies, among others by the writer andrew lang (1844-1912) and e e evans-pritchard. the individualist, intellectual view of religion, as proposed by tylor and frazer, is still considered worthwhile by many contemporary experts of the field, among others by the anthropologist robin horton.

emile durkheim and functionalism

different from most other scholars, emile durkheim (1858-1917) saw the concept of the sacred as the defining characteristic of religion, not faith in the supernatural. he saw religion as a reflection of the concern for society. he based his view on recent research regarding totemism among the australian aboriginals. with totemism he meant that each of the many clans had a different object, plant, or animal that they held sacred and that symbolizes the clan. durkheim saw totemism as the original and simplest form of religion. according to durkheim, the analysis of this simple form of religion could provide the building blocks for more complex religions. he asserted that moralism cannot be separated from religion. the sacred reinforces group interest that clash very often with individual interests. durkheim held the view that the function of religion is group cohesion often performed by collectively attended rituals. he asserted that these group meetings provided a special kind of energy, which he called effervescence, that made group members lose their individuality and to feel united with the gods and thus with the group. differing from tylor and frazer, he saw magic not as religious, but as an individual instrument to achieve something.

durkheim’s proposed method for progress and refinement is first to carefully study religion in its simplest form in one contemporary society and then the same in another society and compare the religions then and only between societies that are the same. the empirical basis for durkheim’s view has been severely criticized when more detailed studies of the australian aboriginals surfaced. more specifically, the definition of religion as dealing with the sacred only, regardless of the supernatural, is not supported by studies of these aboriginals. the view that religion has a social aspect, at the very least, introduced in a generalized very strong form by durkheim has become influential and uncontested.

durkheim’s approach gave rise to functionalist school in sociology and anthropology. functionalism is a sociological paradigm that originally attempted to explain social institutions as collective means to fill individual biological needs, focusing on the ways in which social institutions fill social needs, especially social stability.

the anthropologist bronisław malinowski (1884-1942) was strongly influenced by the functionalist school and argued that religion originated from coping with death. he saw science as practical knowledge that every society needs abundantly to survive and magic as related to this practical knowledge, but generally dealing with phenomena that humans cannot control.

…continued on next page…

 

[whitecrayon]

…continued from previous page…

max weber

max weber (1864-1920) thought that the truth claims of religious movement were irrelevant for the scientific study of the movements. he portrayed each religion as rational and consistent in their respective societies. weber acknowledged that religion had a strong social component, but diverged from durkheim by arguing, for example, in his book *the protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism *that religion can be a force of change in society. in the book weber wrote that modern capitalism spread quickly partially due to the protestant worldly ascetic morale. weber’s main focus was not on developing a theory of religion but on the interaction between society and religion, while introducing concepts that are still widely used in the sociology of religion.

weber distinguished between sects and churches by stating that membership of a sect is a personal choice and church membership is determined by birth. the typology later developed more extensively by his friend ernst troeltsch and others. according to the typology, churches, ecclesia, denominations, and sects form a continuum with decreasing influence on society. sects are protest break away groups and tend to be in tension with society.

weber saw charisma as a volatile form or authority that depends on the acceptance of unique quality of a person by this person’s followers. charisma can be a revolutionary force and the authority can either be routinized (change into other forms of authority) or disappear upon the death of the charismatic person. somewhat differing from marx, weber dealt with status groups, not with class. in status groups the primary motivation is prestige and social cohesion. status groups have differing levels of access to power and prestige and indirectly to economic resources. in his 1920 treatment of the religion in china he saw confucianism as helping a certain status group, the educated elite to maintain access to prestige and power. he asserted that confucianism opposition against both extravagance and thrift made it unlikely that capitalism could have originated in china.

he used the concept of *verstehen *(german for “understanding”) to describe his method of interpretation of the intention and context of human action.

sigmund freud

sigmund freud (1856-1939) saw religion as an illusion. by illusion freud means a belief that people want very much to be true. unlike tylor and frazer, freud attempted to explain why religion persists in spite of the lack of evidence for its tenets. freud asserted that religion is a largely unconscious neurotic response to repression. by repression freud meant that civilized society demands that we cannot fulfill all our desires immediately, but that they have to be repressed. rational arguments to a person holding a religious conviction will not change the neurotic response of a person. this is in contrast to tylor and frazer who saw religion as a rational and conscious, though primitive and mistaken, attempt to explain the natural world.

freud’s theory of psychoanalysis was developed by studying patients who were left free to talk while lying on a sofa. freud not only tries to explain the origin and persistence of faith in individuals but in his 1913 book totem and taboo he even developed a speculative story about how all monotheist religions originated and developed. in the book he asserted that monotheistic religions grew out of a homicide in a clan of a father by his sons. this incident was subconsciously remembered in human societies.

in his 1939 book moses and monotheism, freud proposed that moses’ monotheism derived from akhenaten. this view is not supported by biblical accounts and differs from scholarly theories.

freud’s view on religion was embedded in his larger theory of psychoanalysis which has been criticized as unscientific. apart from theorizing, freud’s theories were developed by studying patients who were left free to talk while lying on a sofa. though freud’s attempt to the historical origins of religions have not been accepted, his generalized view that all religions originate from unfulfilled psychological needs are still seen as offering a credible explanation in some cases.

rudolf otto

the theologian rudolf otto (1869-1937) focused on religious experience, more specifically moments that he called numinous which means “wholly other”. he described it as mysterium tremendum (terrifying mystery) and mysterium fascinans (awe inspiring, fascinating mystery). he saw religion as emerging from these experiences.

he asserted that these experiences arise from a special, non-rational faculty of the human mind, largely unrelated to other faculties, so religion cannot be reduced to culture or society. some of his views, among others that the experience of the numinous was caused by a transcendental reality, are untestable and hence unscientific.

his ideas strongly influenced phenomenologists and mircea eliade.

…continued on next page…

 

[whitecrayon]

…continued from previous page…

e e evans-pritchard

the anthropologist edward evan evans-pritchard (1902-1973) did extensive ethonographic studies among the azande and nuer peoples who were considered “primitive” by society and earlier scholars. evans-pritchard saw these people as different, but not primitive.

unlike the previous scholars, evans-pritchard did not propose a grand universal theory and he did extensive long-term fieldwork among “primitive” peoples, studying their culture and religion, among other among the azande. not just passing contact, like eliade.

he argued that the religion of the azande (witchcraft and oracles) can not be understood without the social context and its social function. witchcraft and oracles played a great role in solving disputes among the azande. in this respect he agreed with durkheim, though he acknowledged that frazer and tylor were right that their religion also had an intellectual explanatory aspect. the azande’s faith in witchcraft and oracles was quite logical and consistent once some fundamental tenets were accepted. loss of faith in the fundamental tenets could not be endured because of its social importance and hence they had an elaborate system of explanations (or excuses) against disproving evidence. besides an alternative system of terms or school of thought did not exist.

he was heavily critical about earlier theorists of primitive religion with the exception of lucien lévy-bruhl, asserting that they made statements about primitive people without having enough inside knowledge to make more than a guess. in spite of his praise of bruhl’s works, evans-pritchard disagreed with bruhl’s statement that a member of a “primitive” tribe saying “i am the moon” is prelogical, but that this statement makes perfect sense within their culture if understood metaphorically.

apart from the azande, evans-pritchard, also studied the neighbouring, but very different nuer people. the nuer had had an abstract monotheistic faith, somewhat similar to christianity and judaism, though it included lesser spirits. they had also totemism, but this was a minor aspect of their religion and hence a corrective to durkheim’s generalizations should be made. evans-pritchard did not propose a theory of religions, but only a theory of the nuer religion.

clifford geertz

the anthropologist clifford geertz (1926-2006) made several detailed ethnography studies in javanese villages, a more complex and multi-religious society than evans-pritchard had studied. he avoided the subjective and vague concept of group attitude as used by ruth benedict by using the analysis of society as proposed by talcott parsons who in turn had adapted it from max weber. parsons’ adaptation distinguished all human groups on three levels: 1. an individual level that is controlled by, 2. a social system that is in turn controlled by, 3. a cultural system. geertz followed weber when he wrote that “man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun and the analysis of it to be therefore not an experimental science in search of law but an interpretive one in search of meaning”. geertz held the view that mere explanations to describe religions and cultures are not sufficient: interpretations are needed too. he advocated what he called “thick descriptions” to interpret symbols by observing them in use. he therefore held the view that the anthropologist must be both empirically rigorous and a good interpreter. in 1972 he wrote that “cultural analysis is (or should be) guessing at meanings, assessing the guesses and drawing explanatory conclusions from the better guesses.”

geertz saw religion as one of the cultural systems of a society. he defined religion as: (1) a system of symbols, (2) which acts to establish powerful, pervasive and long-lasting moods and motivations in men, (3) by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and, (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that, (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic. with symbols geertz meant a carrier that embodies a conception, because he saw religion and culture as systems of communication.

this definition emphasizes the mutual reinforcement between world view and ethics.

though he used more or less the same methodology as evans-pritchard, he did not share evans-pritchard’s hope that a theory of religion could ever be found. geertz proposed methodology was not the scientific method of the natural science, but the method of historians studying history.

end of article adapted from wikipedia.

 

[whitecrayon]

…continued from previous page…

rational choice theory

the rational choice theory has been applied to religions, among others by the sociologists rodney stark (1934 - ) and william sims bainbridge. they see religions as systems of “compensators”. compensators are a body of language and practices that compensate for some physical lack or frustrated goal. they can be divided into specific compensators (compensators for the failure to achieve specific goals), and general compensators (compensators for failure to achieve any goal). they define religion as a system of compensator that relies on the supernatural. they assert that only a supernatural compensator can explain death or the meaning of life.

it has been observed that social or political movements that fail to achieve their goals will often transform into religions. as it becomes clear that the goals of the movement will not be achieved by natural means (at least within their lifetimes), members of the movement will look to the supernatural to achieve what cannot be achieved naturally. the new religious beliefs are compensators for the failure to achieve the original goals. examples of this include the counterculture movement in america: the early counterculture movement was intent on changing society and removing its injustice and boredom; but as members of the movement proved unable to achieve these goals they turned to eastern and new religions as compensators.

most religions start out their lives as cults or sects, i.e. groups in high tension with the surrounding society. over time, they tend to either die out, or become more established, mainstream and in less tension with society. cults are new groups with a new novel theology, while sects are attempts to return mainstream religions to (what the sect views as) their original purity. mainstream established groups are called denominations. the comments below about cult formation apply equally well to sect formation.

there are four models of cult formation: the psychopathological model, the entrepreneurial model, the social model and the normal revelations model.

psychopathological model: religions are founded during a period of severe stress in the life of the founder. the founder suffers from psychological problems, which they resolve through the founding of the religion. (the development of the religion is for them a form of self-therapy, or self-medication.)

entrepreneurial model: founders of religions act like entrepreneurs, developing new products (religions) to sell to consumers (to convert people to). according to this model, most founders of new religions already have experience in several religious groups before they begin their own. they take ideas from the pre-existing religions, and try to improve on them to make them more popular.

social model: religions are founded by means of social implosions. members of the religious group spend less and less time with people outside the group, and more and more time with each other within it. the level of affection and emotional bonding between members of a group increases, and their emotional bonds to members outside the group diminish. according to the social model, when a social implosion occurs, the group will naturally develop a new theology and rituals to accompany it.

normal revelations: religions are founded when the founder interprets ordinary natural phenomena as supernatural; for instance, ascribing his or her own creativity in inventing the religion to that of the deity. some religions are better described by one model than another, though all apply to differing degrees to all religions.

once a cult or sect has been founded, the next problem for the founder is to convert new members to it. prime candidates for religious conversion are those with an openness to religion, but who do not belong or fit well in any existing religious group. those with no religion or no interest in religion are difficult to convert, especially since the cult and sect beliefs are so extreme by the standards of the surrounding society. but those already happy members of a religious group are difficult to convert as well, since they have strong social links to their preexisting religion and are unlikely to want to sever them in order to join a new one. the best candidates for religious conversion are those who are members of or have been associated with religious groups (thereby showing an interest or openness to religion), yet exist on the fringe of these groups, without strong social ties to prevent them from joining a new group.

potential converts vary in their level of social connection. new religions best spread through pre-existing friendship networks. converts who are marginal with few friends are easy to convert, but having few friends to convert they cannot add much to the further growth of the organization. converts with a large social network are harder to convert, since they tend to have more invested in mainstream society; but once converted they yield many new followers through their friendship network.

cults initially can have quite high growth rates; but as the social networks that initially feed them are exhausted, their growth rate falls quickly. on the other hand, the rate of growth is exponential (ignoring the limited supply of potential converts): the more converts you have, the more missionaries you can have out looking for new converts. but nonetheless it can take a very long time for religions to grow to a large size by natural growth. this often leads to cult leaders giving up after several decades, and withdrawing the cult from the world.

…continued on next page…

 

[whitecrayon]

…continued from previous page…

it is difficult for cults and sects to maintain their initial enthusiasm for more than about a generation. as children are born into the cult or sect, members begin to demand a more stable life. when this happens, cults tend to lose or de-emphasize many of their more radical beliefs, and become more open to the surrounding society; they then become denominations.

the theory of religious economy sees different religious organizations competing for followers in a religious economy, much like the way businesses compete for consumers in a commercial economy. theorists assert that a true religious economy is the result of religious pluralism, giving the population a wider variety of choices in religion. according to the theory, the more religions there are, the more likely the population is to be religious and hereby contradicting the secularization thesis.

evolutionary theories

evolutionary theories view religion as either an adaptation or a byproduct. adaptationist theories view religion as being of adaptive value to the survival of pleistocene humans. byproduct theories view religion as spandrels.

the real end of this article, adapted by me from wikipedia online

jonathan “whitecrayon”

 

[John21652]

…continued from previous page…

it is difficult for cults and sects to maintain their initial enthusiasm for more than about a generation. as children are born into the cult or sect, members begin to demand a more stable life. when this happens, cults tend to lose or de-emphasize many of their more radical beliefs, and become more open to the surrounding society; they then become denominations.

the theory of religious economy sees different religious organizations competing for followers in a religious economy, much like the way businesses compete for consumers in a commercial economy. theorists assert that a true religious economy is the result of religious pluralism, giving the population a wider variety of choices in religion. according to the theory, the more religions there are, the more likely the population is to be religious and hereby contradicting the secularization thesis.

evolutionary theories

evolutionary theories view religion as either an adaptation or a byproduct. adaptationist theories view religion as being of adaptive value to the survival of pleistocene humans. byproduct theories view religion as spandrels.

the real end of this article, adapted by me from wikipedia online

jonathan “whitecrayon”

I wouldn’t get too excited about what you have quoted from Wikipedia and you could have saved us all a lot of time with just a link to the page from which you quoted.

Let me explain why you needen’t get too carried away by that Wiki article.

Firstly, it glosses over the true “father” of both Anthropology as we know it today and of Functionalism, Bronislaw Malinowski. His 1948 book Magic, Science and Religion is still one of the best and most famous explanations of the role of religion we have. Malinowski gave insights into the psychology of religion as much as he did into its role in bringing about social cohesion. Again, however, it should be noted that his study was not one which questioned religious belief, but was one of examining its effects within a society. In other words, he studied its function.

The article you quoted from also leaves out a very influential author, the Sociologist Peter Berger and his book The Sacred Canopy. Interestingly, Berger was a Lutheran Theologan as well as a Sociologist. He therefore can infuse theology into his sociological anaylisis of religion. In a nutshell, he says religion is a basic need mankind has. It is also a social organising influence, similar to the way Malinowski explains it. He, as does malinowski, points out the role religion plays at moments of ‘crises’ in our lives. Birth, death, etc, are made sense of and given order to by the role of religion. Berger analyses all the world’s major religions in a very eye opening manner and basically, it makes one wonder if we really do have a ‘God gene’ built into us.