W5.2 April 5 (Fri) Assignment - Lee Sihoon

 1. Summarize

This article looks at religion from a sociological perspective, which differs from theology in that it does not evaluate things like the validity or reliability of religious claims and denies the supernatural nature of religion.

Classical sociologists explored and theorized about the relationship between religion and society,

Karl Marx argued that religion is essentially a major obstacle that obscures the truth and misleads people, and even from a capitalist perspective, religion functions as a tool to justify the alienation that exists between capitalists and workers.

Émile Durkheim explains that religion can be perceived as a collective symbolism that binds individuals into society, so the more complex the society, the more complex the religious system. Religion is also defined by the distinction between the sacred and the secular.

Max Weber explains that religion can answer human questions about the world, and because of this, it provides a basis for human desires and motivations. In contrast to Karl Marx, he explains how religion interferes with human motivation by giving the example of the religious practice that a successful human being in capitalism is one who is approved by God.

There are also arguments about religion from the perspective of sociological theories, rather than individual scholars,

Symbolic anthropology and phenomenology argue that religion fulfills the human need to be safe (an ontological need) by explaining things that scientific knowledge cannot explain.

From a functionalist perspective, religion provides nonscientific explanations that science cannot, contributing to social stability, organizing social interactions, and resulting mental and material benefits.

The rationalist perspective opposes the functionalist and phenomenological approaches, which argue that religion provides non-scientific explanations for social stability. They argue that the lack of rationality of pre-modern people in the 19th century led to erroneous belief systems, and that the 20th century lacked the necessary conditions for rational thought processes. 

Sociologists have also systematically categorized religious organizations,

Churches are generally safe faiths that coexist peacefully with the secular world, and when this coexistence intensifies, disaffected members form sects and break away from the mainstream, with the potential to one day become the new mainstream. Cults are generally hostile to established religions and churches. In fact, all religions started as cults.

As modernization has progressed, there has been a strong trend away from religion and toward rationality and science, a trend known as secularization. While the modern era predicted the decline of religion, the modern era claims that religion is here to stay. Examples include the globalization of Islam and the steady increase in church attendance in the United States. Secularization does not necessarily lead to the decline of religion.

Rodney Stark, a proponent of the theory of religious economy, challenged David Martin's rejection of secularization theory. He argued that societies with more religions are likely to have higher religiosity and criticized the idea that liberal religious communities lead to reduced religious observance. This sparked a debate among sociologists about the applicability of market models in understanding religious behavior and whether this model is specific to the United States.

Peter Berger noted the persistence of religion in the modern world, contradicting the secularization theory. He observed that while secularization may have taken hold in Europe, regions like the United States remain religious, possibly due to differences in educational systems and cultural influences. America has also seen the rise of Evangelical Protestantism.

Bryan R. Wilson is a writer focused on secularization and the impact of scientific knowledge on society, following in the tradition of Max Weber. He argues that non-scientific and religious systems have experienced an irreversible decline in influence, engaging in debates with those who oppose this view. While acknowledging the presence of diverse forms of meaning and knowledge outside of science, he sees it as evidence of religion's diminishing centrality in modern times.

Ernest Gellner acknowledges the drawbacks of a world based on knowledge confined to facts that offer no guidelines for living. However, he emphasizes the benefits of technological advances resulting from scientific knowledge. Gellner recognizes the continued presence of non-scientific beliefs but rejects their equal validity to scientific knowledge, considering them technically impotent in comparison. He views modern preoccupations with meaning as a luxury made possible by scientific progress.

Michel Foucault viewed human existence as dependent on forms of knowledge that function like languages. These discourses define our reality and shape who we are, what we believe to be true, and how we think. History for Foucault is the ebb and flow of these discourses, with social change driven by shifts in prevailing knowledge systems. Unlike rationalists, he saw no progress in this process; instead, modernity marked a shift towards body-centered discourses tied to the rise of scientific control over social life through medical science. This led to a reduction in religious influence and an increased focus on health and illness rather than good or evil definitions of normality and deviance.

The sociological perspective on religion has advanced the debate on the globalization of religion, which is actually an extension of the Marxist and functionalist perspectives introduced above. The theories are divided by whether capitalism is positive or negative, but the argument is the same: modernization and capitalism undermine the influence of religion.

Religion also exerts its influence across elements of society, such as family and gender.

Children receive a religious heritage from their parents, and this religious heritage has a strong influence on the formation of their identity and beliefs, which can vary from person to person.

2. interesting point

I found it fascinating that the sociological approaches to capitalism and religion could be so different. If you look at it from the perspective of religious asceticism, unlike capitalists, workers are understood to be exhausted, hardworking ascetics who are rewarded in heaven, not in this life. So, in my opinion, this is a kind of corruption of religion, a collusion between the church and capitalists to increase the efficiency of production. If you think about it from a religious reward perspective, this is a completely capitalist-friendly position, where gaining social prestige is proof of being chosen by God. However, some capitalists may resist the idea of their efforts being labeled as divinely chosen. 

3. some question

What did capitalists of the era think about religious beliefs and practices?

이시훈, Lee Sihoon