Durkheim

I think I jumped the gun a little in answering our discussion questions on Durkheim, doing so before I really sorted through my initial reactions compared to the bare facts. Professor Pam was asking us if there really is a way to refute Durkheim’s claims that religion is the social because you cannot separate religion from the people. I had previously stated that I thought I could still practice my religion independently and thus argue against this notion, but as we discussed in class the other day, the religion I would be practicing there all by my lonesome would still have its roots in culture, in the society of other believers. Even the choice to isolate oneself would have it’s origin in something social. A Christian or a Buddhist who never comes in contact with another follower is still tied to the others in the society of believers. So how really can we argue with Durkheim? We will never be without other people, so we can’t say how religion would be without the influence of society.

That said, I still have a problem with his view on religious rituals. The idea that their sole purpose is to reinforce a commitment to the community in which they reside isn’t really taking in the whole picture. I’m still turning this over in mind and to argue my case would chip away at the stand I just took on Durkheim’s overall claims…. This is something I have to wrestle with a bit more.

James

James’ layed-back approach to religion is nice in that it allows for religious freedom and expression, but I’m concerned that it is so hands-off that it includes a little too much. Saying that “what is true is whatever is working out for you” seems like a bit of a cop-out in my opinion. True, there would be a whole lot less arguing and division among religious people if everyone could just believe in this philosophy, but I’m the type of person who likes things a little more concrete than that. And in this science-minded day and age I feel like a lot of people would take that stance as well.

On a positive note, I am glad to hear from an analyst who at least admits that religion is (or can be) a positive solution to meeting some of our needs. As if it isn’t enough that Freud and Frazer and the others take religious study and turn it into something completely different (I’m not a huge fan of the functionalist/reductionist view, if you can’t already tell) they also seem to cast it into such a negative light that one should fee like a completely stupid, ignorant or sick person. James seems to have some mixed views on religion but in the end he at least admits that it is an asset in life and can be healthy and normal.

Freud

I was really moved when reading Illusions by just the first couple pages. When Freud talks about knowing our past and our present, but also being fully where we are right now, it caught my eye because it is something that I have thought about so much in my life.

Firstly, he writes that "the less man knows about the past and the present the more insecure must prove to be his judgment of the future." but also that "people experience their present naively." It seems like in this day and age we live at such a fast pace and just go full-throttle ahead without really thinking about where we have been, or what we are racing towards, and because of the pace we don't even look at where we are now. This aspect can be applied to all sorts of various aspects of life, although Freud is obviously talking about religion here. It isn't until we can stop and look at ourselves fully as well as examine our surroundings that we can even begin to take in all that is life and growth and purpose and belief.

Without this knowledge we are living in ignorance, and you can tell when reading that Freud is pretty critical of others' ignorance. He already takes the view that religion is irrational, although he concedes that there is some use to it's practices. We have to focus on forward motion and evolution of our understanding, not just be content to sit and accept what we are told or keep believing just as we always have done.

He says that the "present must become the past" because sometimes we need that third-person standpoint in observing ourselves, otherwise we tend to be biased and not probe as deeply as we really need to. We have to ask the hard questions of ourselves and of our culture in the time we live. What do I really believe? Why do I believe that? Is what I believe the best for me? Does it even make sense? These are questions we all need to ask ourselves if we really want to grow and not remain stagnant.

Be here now. Be present now. Expand your thoughts, your knowledge....