SOCIOLOGISTS' DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ON RELIGION

EMİLE DURKHEİM

In the sociology of religion, the functional definition of religion, that is, its contributions to the individual and society, is mentioned. According to the functional definition, it has meaning if it has a function. According to Durkheim, religion is an indispensable condition of social integration. If religion and religious values lose their influence, society is doomed to lose its most important power. Although Durkheim says his religion is atheist or agnostic, "It doesn't matter whether the religion is true or not. An institution with a function will survive. If it cannot protect it, it will perish or a different institution will take its place." used the phrase.

Durkheim laid the foundations of the sociology of knowledge in his book "Primitive Forms of Religious Life" (Les Formes Elementaires de la Vie Religieuse 1912) and revealed the close relationship between the sociology of knowledge and the sociology of religion. Within this approach, according to Durkheim, the form and content of our thoughts are actually social, therefore religious. Religion plays a role in the development of concepts such as time, space and causality, which are the categories it uses to understand our thoughts. Because, according to Durheim, religion is the source of people's first thoughts about themselves and the world. There is no religion that does not contain world and human views. Religion is also the source of all social institutions. In this sense, law, economy, morality, art, etc. Institutions like these take their source from religion. Religion has not only contributed to the formation of human thought, but has enriched it with some ideas.

KARL MARX

Karl Marx thinks that religion divides rather than unites it within a system of values. Marx thinks that religion and god are imaginary concepts created by humans. Marx said, “Religion is an imaginary reality produced by man. Because human existence is not a genuine reality.” “The basis of non-religious criticism is this: Man builds religion, religion does not build man. Religion is man's self-consciousness and emotion, which has either not been formed yet or has been lost immediately. But man is not a concrete, extraterrestrial being. Man is the world of man, the state is society (Sozietaet). This state, this society produces religion, an inverted world consciousness, because they are an inverted world. Religion is a general theory of this world, its encyclopedic summary, its logic in its popular form, its spiritual “Point d'honneur”, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its sacred (celebratory) additions, its general cause of consolation and justification.” (Marx and Engels, 2014, p.9. Marx-Engels-Werke, 1976, p.378). Marx argues that religious sadness arises to some extent as an expression and protest of real sadness. That's why he said that religion is the opium of the people.

Marx saw religion as a weakened competitor to socialism. “Socialism as socialism needs no such negation. Socialism no longer brought about through the abolition of religion, positive self-consciousness: and likewise real life is man's positive reality, which does not occur through the abolition of private property. Communism is position as the negation of negation, and hence the next step in historical development in the process of human emancipation and healing. It is the actual stage which is necessary for the stage of the human race, but communism as communism is not the goal of human development, the structure of human society [the end of history]” (1986: 122-3). Marx believed that religion would disappear on its own.

MAX WEBER

Max Weber argued that a religious group or existent is told by all kinds of effects but if they claim to be acting in the name of religion, we should essay to understand their perspective on religious grounds first. He gives religion credit for shaping a person's image of the world, and this image of the world can affect their view of their interests, and eventually how they decide to take action. According to Weber, religion refers to both personal practices related to social belief and group rituals and communication arising from shared belief. Weber attributed religion to the spread of capitalism.

Comparison of Emile Durkheim with Max Weber

Durkheim does not consider religion to be an illusion. He thinks that religion symbolically reflects society. According to Durkheim's religious research, religion has been the function and integrating aspect of society. Weber, on the other hand, mostly dealt with the economic benefits of religion and the reasons for the formation of religions. Weber identified status groups and examined the attitudes of these groups towards religious beliefs. These status groups are; consists of knights, peasants, political powers and citizens.

Unlike Weber, Durkheim investigated the social impact of religion on society. Durkheim, in his work on Buddhism and Christianity, about Buddhists, 'does not care where this world of being that he suffers comes from, he accepts it as a fact and his struggle is to get rid of it, and he has no god to call for help in his struggle, to thank. 'he said. He said that for Christianity, it is very different from Buddhism and that Jesus has always existed. Weber, on the other hand, worked from an economic point of view while defining Christianity and Buddhism.

In short, Durkheim emphasized the sociality of religion and said that the source of religion is society. For Weber, religion is intertwined with economy. They interact with each other.

Comparison of Emile Durkheim with Karl Marx

Marx argues that inequality is at the core of society and that this inequality must be eliminated. Marx thinks that religion and religious institutions have a great share in the formation of this inequality, that religion deceives people and prevents them from seeing the truth. He expressed that religion was used by the bourgeois to exploit the people, with the phrase "religion is the opium of the people". In short, for Marx, religion functioned as a misleading ideology that prevented the emergence of social reality.

Durkheim, on the other hand, thinks very differently from Marx about religion. Durkheim approached religion from a cultural perspective. He did not deal with religion directly, but studied religion from the perspective of moral and social benefits. Because these concepts are the principles that make it possible for people to live together in a society, but with the emergence of modern society, cracks have started to appear in this social structure. Durkheim tried to reveal the possibility of religion to provide social unity and solidarity again in modern society.

Although Marx stated that religion was used by people of social status to oppress the people, Durkheim saw religion as a unifying position for society. This is the biggest distinction between the two sociologists about religion.

Comparison of Karl Marx with Max Weber

Marx stated that the basic structures and institutions of society are the conditions of production and the forces of production. In his view, law, political constructs, ethics, metaphysics and religion were formed on this basis. In Marx's theory, the superstructure is related to the infrastructure and defines it from the economic base. Thus, debt is only one aspect of this superstructure subject to changes in production. In other words, Marx pointed out that religion, as a superstructure, whose beliefs and appearances are determined by the economic infrastructure. In this context, Marx argued, the relations of production determine the prevailing religious beliefs and the content of religion itself. Marx regarded religion as a dependent variable and linked the nature and content of religion to the economic and social relations on which social institutions are based. According to him, from the point of view of the economic system, there is nothing that can be fixed except the relationship between workers and employers and the ownership of the means of production. Marx's view of religion, as we understand it, has the guise of determinism. In this context, Marx believed that religion is a reflection of the outside world and a product of external factors.

Weber rejects this mechanistic view of Marx, which sees it as a reflection of the religious background, and sees Marx's theory as a "simplification" theory. According to Weber, Marx cited only one of the factors that had a share in influencing as the cause, while showing the others as "dependent on him."

Weber stated that Marx overemphasized a certain causal chain from the economic infrastructure to the cultural superstructure. Weber notes that Marx presents an oversimplified scheme by not sufficiently taking into account the complex network of causal factors that he establishes in relating the relations of production to cultural products and human actions. Instead of seeing religion as a simple reflection of material infrastructure like Marx, Weber argues that developments in the scientific, intellectual, political and religious fields can mutually affect one another and have relative autonomy. In this context, according to Weber, it should be taken into account that the economic structure stated by Marx in his theory of religion can determine religion, and that religious beliefs and ideas can also have effects on economic structure. According to him, any one of these has a stronger effect on the other than can be revealed as a result of research. Because throughout history economic relationships/structures have developed religiously and religious beliefs and ideas also influence economic structures.

CONSEQUENCES

Religion has a great influence on society. Sociologists have interpreted these effects from their own perspectives. Society still has not been able to answer the question of whether religion is a necessary institution or the opium of the masses. To me, religion is a safe haven for people who are afraid. Knowing that you are protected by a spiritual force when dealing with problems beyond our control is an institution that helps people get out of their situation. Therefore, religion is necessary and should be in every society.