One would be the conflict thesis also known as the warfare thesis which was introduced by Draper and White but which is no longer seen as an accurate model by contemporary consensus. Karl Marx also contributed to the conflict analysis with his oft-repeated 'Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes' or religion is the opiate of the masses. He also stated in 1848 that 'man makes religion, religion does not make man' and well as concluding that religion is always the tool of the dominant class in any society, today that would be secularization in some European societies, and that a society without any class division religion would simply be a matter of superstition. On his opiate of the masses phrase there are several ways in which we believe that he was referring to opium since it was seen differently then than it is now.
Emile Durkheim, a pioneer in functional analysis, took an interest in the study of religion from a sociological aspect during an era where many of his contemporaries considered religion nothing more than superstition that had long lived past its usefulness and forecast that it would eventually be phased out. Durkheim though recognized religion as a cultural universal which every society has in some form or another. Functionalism explains how social institutions fulfills sociological needs and promote stability and this goes beyond religion. Durkheim's works went way beyond religion and he 'placed himself in the positivist tradition, meaning that he thought of his study of society as dispassionate and scientific. He was deeply interested in the problem of what held complex modern societies together. Religion, he argued, was an expression of social cohesion. His underlying interest was to understand the existence of religion in the absence of belief in any religion's actual tenets. Durkheim saw totemism as the most basic form of religion.'
QUOTE
Durkheim thought that the model for relationships between people and the supernatural was the relationship between individuals and the community. He is famous for suggesting that "God is society, writ large." Durkheim believed that people ordered the physical world, the supernatural world, and the social world according to similar principles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durkheim#Religion
I wanted to jump in with a portion from an old textbook I have that discusses secularization but instead will offer another portion that discusses the sociological approach and if it does for you what is has done for me so long ago then perhaps some will be able to gain further insight into religion and new ways of thinking, broader ways of thinking, about our world and the people in it. Maybe it is just me but as some might notice my thinking is strongly influenced by these concepts.
The Sociological Approach to Religion
QUOTE
Mr. Thwackum, a character in Henry Fielding's novel Tom Jones, declares: "When I mention religion, I mean the Christian religion; and not only the Christian religion, but the Protestant religion; and not only the Protestant religion, but the Church of England." Most people are like Mr. Thwackum: when they mention religion, they have their own in mind.
Whatever our religious beliefs may be, we usually learn them from other people through socialization into a particular faith (or through resocialization, if we convert from one faith to another). The religious convictions that anyone holds are thus influenced by the historical and social context in which that person happens to live. Someone born in ancient Rome would probably have believed Jupiter is a father of the Gods; at any rate, he or she would certainly not have been a Jehovah's Witness or a Hindu. Similarly, if your parents are Catholic, you are probably Catholic; if they are Mormons, you too are probably a Mormon. We are not the passive prisoners of our upbringing, of course, but even people who decide to convert from one religion to another must almost inevitably select their new faith from the unique range of options that their particular society happens to offer.
The fact that a religious doctrine is culturally learned does not tell us anything about whether it is "true" or not: it might be the case, for example, that the learning process is inspired by some divine plan or purpose. What this cultural variety does mean, however, is that there are a large number of religions, many of whose members are convinced that theirs is the one true faith and that all others are misguided, superstitious, or ungodly. Where does this leave sociologist who study religion? Can and should they make judgments in these matters?
The answer is that sociology cannot be concerned with the truth of falsity of any religion: like other empirical sciences, such as economics or chemistry, sociology is simply not competent to investigate the supernatural or to play umpire between competing faiths. Individual sociologist may be personally committed to a religious viewpoint-as indeed many of the leading contemporary sociologist of religion are (Berger, 1969; Bellah, 1970; Greeley, 1972; B. Johnson, 1977). But sociological research is necessarily directed at the social rather than the theological aspects of religion. Regardless of whether or not God exists, religion, like any other institution, has social characteristics that can be studied by the methods of social science.
Sociologist of religion focus on such issues as the relationship between society and religion. The sociologist can show, for example, that all religions reflect the cultural concerns of the societies in which they arise: war-prone societies tend to have gods of war; agricultural societies gods of fertility. Strongly patriarchal societies, such as those of the Middle East, tend to have masculine gods (it was within this context that both Islam and Christianity derived the concept of God as "He" rather than "She). Societies that accord much greater power and prestige to men likewise tend to have religions dominated by male officials; it is therefore not surprising that priests, rabbis, and other clergy have been exclusively male in the past, or that this situation is gradually changing as sex roles in general become more flexible. Another example is is that most Western Christians, being white, tend to think of both God and Jesus as white. The idea of a black God is almost unimaginable to them, and portraits of Jesus frequently present him as a blond Caucasian rather than as the person of Semitic features he no doubt was. In many African churches, on the other hand, statues and portraits of Jesus show him with dark, Negroid features.
Whatever our religious beliefs may be, we usually learn them from other people through socialization into a particular faith (or through resocialization, if we convert from one faith to another). The religious convictions that anyone holds are thus influenced by the historical and social context in which that person happens to live. Someone born in ancient Rome would probably have believed Jupiter is a father of the Gods; at any rate, he or she would certainly not have been a Jehovah's Witness or a Hindu. Similarly, if your parents are Catholic, you are probably Catholic; if they are Mormons, you too are probably a Mormon. We are not the passive prisoners of our upbringing, of course, but even people who decide to convert from one religion to another must almost inevitably select their new faith from the unique range of options that their particular society happens to offer.
The fact that a religious doctrine is culturally learned does not tell us anything about whether it is "true" or not: it might be the case, for example, that the learning process is inspired by some divine plan or purpose. What this cultural variety does mean, however, is that there are a large number of religions, many of whose members are convinced that theirs is the one true faith and that all others are misguided, superstitious, or ungodly. Where does this leave sociologist who study religion? Can and should they make judgments in these matters?
The answer is that sociology cannot be concerned with the truth of falsity of any religion: like other empirical sciences, such as economics or chemistry, sociology is simply not competent to investigate the supernatural or to play umpire between competing faiths. Individual sociologist may be personally committed to a religious viewpoint-as indeed many of the leading contemporary sociologist of religion are (Berger, 1969; Bellah, 1970; Greeley, 1972; B. Johnson, 1977). But sociological research is necessarily directed at the social rather than the theological aspects of religion. Regardless of whether or not God exists, religion, like any other institution, has social characteristics that can be studied by the methods of social science.
Sociologist of religion focus on such issues as the relationship between society and religion. The sociologist can show, for example, that all religions reflect the cultural concerns of the societies in which they arise: war-prone societies tend to have gods of war; agricultural societies gods of fertility. Strongly patriarchal societies, such as those of the Middle East, tend to have masculine gods (it was within this context that both Islam and Christianity derived the concept of God as "He" rather than "She). Societies that accord much greater power and prestige to men likewise tend to have religions dominated by male officials; it is therefore not surprising that priests, rabbis, and other clergy have been exclusively male in the past, or that this situation is gradually changing as sex roles in general become more flexible. Another example is is that most Western Christians, being white, tend to think of both God and Jesus as white. The idea of a black God is almost unimaginable to them, and portraits of Jesus frequently present him as a blond Caucasian rather than as the person of Semitic features he no doubt was. In many African churches, on the other hand, statues and portraits of Jesus show him with dark, Negroid features.
Robertson, Ian. "Sociology" Worth Publishers, 1981. p 403
Some questions to consider:
1. Do you ever think about other religions from other cultures be they across the world or just across town? You know that building or storefront you see and ever wonder what goes on inside?
2. Do you ever consider religion as being just a social construct? Depending on the culture and moment in history and how it would differ than our own frame of space and time?
3. What do you consider will be the future of religion with the inevitable change that occurs in society? Will the old religions change? Will new ones be developed? Will some change form and lose their bureaucratic and organizational aspects?
), however changes in the religio-political scene as well as other cultural changes can cause the demise of religious methodologies. This does not negate the self-preservation aspect of a religion, just means it was not effective.