Changes

Influential substantive theories have been proposed by [[Theories of religion#Edward_Burnett_Tylor_and_James_George_Frazer|Tylor and Frazer]] (treating explanatory value for its adherents), the [[theology|theologian]] [[Theories of religion#Rudolf_Otto|Rudolf Otto]]  (treating the importance of [[religious experience]], more specifically experiences that are both fascinating and terrifying), [[Theories of religion#Mircea_Eliade|Mircea Eliade]] (treating the longing for other-wordly perfection, quest for meaning, and seeking patterns in mythology in various religions)

Influential substantive theories have been proposed by [[Theories of religion#Edward_Burnett_Tylor_and_James_George_Frazer|Tylor and Frazer]] (treating explanatory value for its adherents), the [[theology|theologian]] [[Theories of religion#Rudolf_Otto|Rudolf Otto]]  (treating the importance of [[religious experience]], more specifically experiences that are both fascinating and terrifying), [[Theories of religion#Mircea_Eliade|Mircea Eliade]] (treating the longing for other-wordly perfection, quest for meaning, and seeking patterns in mythology in various religions)

Influential functional theories have been proposed by [[Theories_of_religion#Karl_Marx|Karl Marx]] (focusing on the economic background) , [[Theories_of_religion#Sigmund_Freud|Sigmund Freud]] (focusing on [[neurosis]] as a [[psychology|psychological]] origin of religious beliefs), and [[Theories_of_religion#Émile_Durkheim|Émile Durkheim]] (focusing on the social function of religions).

Influential functional theories have been proposed by [[Theories_of_religion#Karl_Marx|Karl Marx]] (focusing on the economic background), [[Theories_of_religion#Sigmund_Freud|Sigmund Freud]] (focusing on [[neurosis]] as a [[psychology|psychological]] origin of religious beliefs), and [[Theories_of_religion#Émile_Durkheim|Émile Durkheim]] (focusing on the social function of religions).

[[Theories_of_religion#Max_Weber|Max Weber]] did not so much a propose a general theory of religion, but focused on the interaction between society and religion. He also introduced a number of key concepts in the [[sociology of religion]].

[[Theories_of_religion#Max_Weber|Max Weber]] did not so much a propose a general theory of religion, but focused on the interaction between society and religion. He also introduced a number of key concepts in the [[sociology of religion]].

==Scope and classifications==

==Scope and classifications==

This article only treats influential [[theory|theories]]  about [[religion]] that are open for empirical verification or falsifications i.e (attempts to) scientific theories. This means that most religious views will not be treated here.  

This article only treats influential [[theory|theories]]  about [[religion]] that are open for empirical verification or falsifications i.e. (attempts to) scientific theories. This means that most religious views will not be treated here.  

Theories of religion can be classified into. <ref>Pals, page 12</ref>

Theories of religion can be classified into. <ref>Pals, page 12</ref>

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.<ref> Pals in treating Durkheim</ref>They relied heavily on reports made by missionaries, discoverers, and colonial civil servants.

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.<ref> Pals in treating Durkheim</ref>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 [[anthropology|anthropologist]] [[Theories_of_religion#E._E._Evans-Pritchard|E. E. Evans-Pritchard]].<ref>Pals, page 200</ref><ref>Pals, page 47</ref>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.<ref>Pals, page 47</ref> 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 [[Unilineal_evolution#Tylor_.26_Morgan|societies' views and practices grow more evolved over time in an uniform way]] has been criticized as unverifiable and contradicted by data from [[anthropology|anthropological]] studies, among others by the writer [[Andrew Lang]] (1844 – 1912) and [[Theories_of_religion#E._E._Evans-Pritchard|E. E. Evans-Pritchard]].<ref>[[John R. Hinnells|Hinnells, John R. (editor)]], ''The Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion'' (Routledge 2005), page 29</ref><ref>Pals, page 200M</ref><ref>Kunin, page 9</ref> 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]].<ref>Pals, chapter "Conclusion", page 273</ref>

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 [[anthropology|anthropologist]] [[Theories_of_religion#E._E._Evans-Pritchard|E. E. Evans-Pritchard]].<ref>Pals, page 200</ref><ref>Pals, page 47</ref>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.<ref>Pals, page 47</ref> 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 [[Unilineal_evolution#Tylor_.26_Morgan|societies' views and practices grow more evolved over time in a uniform way]] has been criticized as unverifiable and contradicted by data from [[anthropology|anthropological]] studies, among others by the writer [[Andrew Lang]] (1844 – 1912) and [[Theories_of_religion#E._E._Evans-Pritchard|E. E. Evans-Pritchard]].<ref>[[John R. Hinnells|Hinnells, John R. (editor)]], ''The Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion'' (Routledge 2005), page 29</ref><ref>Pals, page 200M</ref><ref>Kunin, page 9</ref> 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]].<ref>Pals, chapter "Conclusion", page 273</ref>

==Émile Durkheim==

==Émile Durkheim==

[[Max Weber]] (1864 – 1920) thought that the truth claims of religious movement were irrelevant for the scientific study of the movements.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/Theory.htm |title=Theory |accessdate=2008-03-14 |author=Nielsen, Donald A. |date=1998  |work=Encyclopedia of Religion and Society edited by William H. Swatos, Jr.|publisher=Altamira}}</ref>He portrayed each religion as rational and consistent in their respective societies. <ref>Kunin, page 38</ref>

[[Max Weber]] (1864 – 1920) thought that the truth claims of religious movement were irrelevant for the scientific study of the movements.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/Theory.htm |title=Theory |accessdate=2008-03-14 |author=Nielsen, Donald A. |date=1998  |work=Encyclopedia of Religion and Society edited by William H. Swatos, Jr.|publisher=Altamira}}</ref>He portrayed each religion as rational and consistent in their respective societies. <ref>Kunin, page 38</ref>

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 wordly ascetic morale. <ref>(Kunin)</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/Theory.htm |title=Theory |accessdate=2008-03-14 |author=Nielsen, Donald A. |date=1998  |work=Encyclopedia of Religion and Society edited by William H. Swatos, Jr.|publisher=Altamira}}</ref> 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]]. These concept include

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 wordly ascetic morale. <ref>(Kunin)</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/Theory.htm |title=Theory |accessdate=2008-03-14 |author=Nielsen, Donald A. |date=1998  |work=Encyclopedia of Religion and Society edited by William H. Swatos, Jr.|publisher=Altamira}}</ref> 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]]. These concept include

*[[Church sect typology]], <ref>http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/cstheory.htm</ref> Weber distinguished between [[sect]]s and churches by stating that membership of the former is a choice while the latter is determined by birth. The typology later developed more extensively by his friend [[Ernst Troeltsch]] and others. <ref name="Bendix49-50">{{cite book |last=Bendix |title=Max Weber |url=http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0520031946&id=63sC9uaYqQsC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&sig=5_6_YcPUQvbgsE5Qo2--jiKG13s  

*[[Church sect typology]], <ref>http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/cstheory.htm</ref> Weber distinguished between [[sect]]s and churches by stating that membership of the former is a choice while the latter is determined by birth. The typology later developed more extensively by his friend [[Ernst Troeltsch]] and others. <ref name="Bendix49-50">{{cite book |last=Bendix |title=Max Weber |url=http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0520031946&id=63sC9uaYqQsC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&sig=5_6_YcPUQvbgsE5Qo2--jiKG13s  

|pages=pp. 49-50}}</ref>According to the typology, churches, [[Ecclesia (sociology of religion)|ecclesia]], [[denomination]], and [[sect]]s form a continuum with decreasing influence on society. Sects are protest break away groups and tend to be in tension with society.  

|pages=pp. 49-50}}</ref>According to the typology, churches, [[Ecclesia (sociology of religion)|ecclesia]], [[denomination]], and [[sect]]s form a continuum with decreasing influence on society. Sects are protest break away groups and tend to be in tension with society.  

{{Main|Clifford_Geertz#Thought_and_works|Thick description}}

{{Main|Clifford_Geertz#Thought_and_works|Thick description}}

The [[anthropology|anthropologist]] [[Clifford Geertz]] (1926 – 2006) made several detailed [[ethnography|ethnographic]] studies, but in a [[Java|Javanese]] town, 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]].<ref>Pals, page 239</ref>Parsons' adaptation Weber's consisted of distinguished all human groups on three levels i.e. ''1.'' an individual level that is controlled by ''2.'' a [[social system]] that is in turn controlled by ''3.'' a [[cultural system]]. <ref>Pals, page 239</ref>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.  <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/01/obituaries/01geertz.html?_r=1&oref=slogin |title=Clifford Geertz, Cultural Anthropologist, Is Dead at 80 |accessdate=2008-03-14 |author=Andrew L. Yarrow |date=November 1, 2006 |work= |publisher=New York Times}}</ref> Mere explanations to describe religions and cultures are not sufficient. Interpretations are needed too. <ref>(Pals)</ref>He advocated what he called ''[[thick description]]s'' to interpret symbols by observing them in use. Therefore the anthropologist must be both empirically rigorous and a savvy interpreter, akin to a psychoanalyst. 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.”

The [[anthropology|anthropologist]] [[Clifford Geertz]] (1926 – 2006) made several detailed [[ethnography|ethnographic]] studies, but in a [[Java|Javanese]] town, 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]].<ref>Pals, page 239</ref>Parsons' adaptation Weber's consisted of distinguished all human groups on three levels i.e. ''1.'' an individual level that is controlled by ''2.'' a [[social system]] that is in turn controlled by ''3.'' a [[cultural system]]. <ref>Pals, page 239</ref>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.  <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/01/obituaries/01geertz.html?_r=1&oref=slogin |title=Clifford Geertz, Cultural Anthropologist, Is Dead at 80 |accessdate=2008-03-14 |author=Andrew L. Yarrow |date=November 1, 2006 |work= |publisher=New York Times}}</ref> Mere explanations to describe religions and cultures are not sufficient. Interpretations are needed too. <ref>(Pals)</ref>He advocated what he called ''[[thick description]]s'' to interpret symbols by observing them in use. Therefore, the anthropologist must be both empirically rigorous and a savvy interpreter, akin to a psychoanalyst. 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.”

<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/01/obituaries/01geertz.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Clifford Geertz, Cultural Anthropologist, Is Dead at 80] by Andrew L. Yarrow published on November 1, 2006 in the [[New York Times]]</ref>

<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/01/obituaries/01geertz.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Clifford Geertz, Cultural Anthropologist, Is Dead at 80] by Andrew L. Yarrow published on November 1, 2006 in the [[New York Times]]</ref>