|
|
 |
Essay on One Of The Most Popular Social Groups Of The Last Three Thousand Years Is Religion. Although It Has Existed From Seemingly The
| Date: |
03-31-01 9:22am |
| Subject: |
Miscellaneous |
| Word Count: |
2100 |
| Page Count: |
8.4 |
One of the most popular social groups of the last three thousand years is religion. Although it has existed from seemingly the beginning of man, it is not yet clear why this organized practice has continued. Religion, as it seems, began to explain several different phenomenon. However, with updates in technology to explain these phenomenon, why do numbers of religious followers seem to be increasing? It can be said that hardly anyone currently believes that god or a series of gods are the cause of rain, fire, and other sorts of everyday occurrences. However, the following of a god or gods is still very much at large, and actually appears to be increasing. This begs the question why. Why has religion continued to be so popular throughout the entire history of mankind? Many people are defining themselves by religious attributes rather than the conventional ethnic or social attributes (Jacobson 239). These views stray from ideals of nationality and toward identification by religious grouping. Are these ideas healthy for the people themselves, and furthermore are these ideals healthy for society as a whole?
To understand why religion has prospered so well, one has to understand how religion has developed. The earlier forms of religion can, for the most part, be characterized by the lack of understanding of the people who existed in those times. However sometime around the sixteenth century, when the world was becoming increasingly understandable, religion seemed to take on a new role, it is that role that is in question here. Why, if the workings of the world are coming into light, do we need religion anymore? It appears that religion in the sixteenth century began to form around ethics (Heilke 493). While most of Europe was under the conventional political system of religion, some European followers lived under systems of ethics (Heilke 493). The seventeenth century saw a dramatic change in the way religion was practiced. The political system of religion declined, and many rulers, including King Charles of England, used desperate measures, attempting to insure its future (Barbour 771). His efforts to build a "New Jerusalem" failed and like most other systems this political dictatorship died (Barbour 771). This change in religious belief can be described by a "toggle switch" where one small input can translate into an enormous output (Blau 1160). This new wave of religious practice gave birth to the modern wave of religion. Modern religions are seemingly based on ethical codes, and identity to a specific church. Is this the lure of religion for most people?
The question of why religion is popular can be mostly answered by describing the benefits of becoming involved in a religious institution. Actually religion still serves the purpose of explaining the things we do not understand. Most modern religions provide for some sort of explanation of the beginning of the universe, life, the earth, and other incomprehensible circumstances. There is also the obvious benefit of having a close circle of friends who share similar beliefs as you. Religion gives its subscribers a sense of identity, but it also creates social boundaries from those who do not subscribe to these beliefs (Weber 607-610). In an article about religion in Great Britain Jessica Jacobson asked a Muslim the distinction between religion and culture (242). The response was, "Culture is a way of living in a society. Religion is living on your own…"(Jacobson 242). The benefits that are not directly realized, however, are the ones, which may be of the greatest help. Religion through its subjectivism provides an escape from the very disenchantment that rationalization and science produces (Weber 607-610). This sort of an escape from the harsh reality of life, is one of the most accepted views of religion's prosperity. Perhaps one of the most widely recognized quotations of this century comes from Karl Marx who said, "Religion is opiate for the masses." In the book On Religion Marx and Engels describe religion as a tool for society to alleviate the harsh reality, and burdens that are commonly dealt with on a day to day basis (1-30).
Billions of people currently subscribe to some form of organized religion, but is it helpful to these people? Does religion serve a meaningful purpose in the everyday lives of the people it effects? Although the "good" religions may be worthwhile, what about the bad ones (i.e. David Koresh, Satanism, etc.) that continually hurt people? Religion helps individuals realize their own social identity, and become part of a group of their fellow peers. The question of whether or not this is good for the individuals must be broken into two parts:
· Are the boundaries created by religious differences harmful to common subscribers?
· How strong and influential are the benefits received, and do they outweigh the boundaries that religion creates?
Addressing the first question, the boundaries for religion appear to be much sharper than normal ethnic boundaries (Jacobson 242). In example, when Muslims practice vis-à-vis by fasting and praying for five days it is noticed by all non-Muslims with whom they have social contact (Jacobson 249-250). The boundaries created help to give the individual his sense of individuality and being different from those whom he is not affiliated with. This is a very good thing for most people. So, in essence these boundaries are good for the individual, however, are they good for society as a whole? The benefits of religion are seemingly indefinable as each different religion will hold different beliefs and henceforth have different benefits. The benefits that are for the most part common to all religions are a sense of identity, a sense of hope, a sense of self-worth, and a way of lessening pain during dramatic and painful events. These benefits by far outweigh any boundaries created by such practices for each individual of that group. Despite religions that do nothing but hurt there are so many more that can do so much good. Religions that hurt are not often subscribed to and are most often short-lived or minute in number of followers. David Koresh and his band could only muster enough strength to last a mere three years, which in the greater scheme of things is a very short time. So is religion good? For an individual, yes, but how good something is cannot be measured by each specific person's overall rewards. To truly determine how good religion is we must look at its effects on society as a whole.
Religion as it pertains to society has both its good sides and its bad sides. One must look at both sides and see which side should dominate. Once again we must look at this issue in two parts:
· Do the boundaries created by such acts hinder society's movement toward unification?
· Does religion serve as a "drug" for the people, something to believe in?
· Can religious preservation hinder the scientific search for truth?
As in the individual's case we examine the effect of boundaries. In an industrialized nation where work is being done to remove these boundaries this can hinder movements dramatically. When so much work is being done to remove ethnic boundaries, these religious boundaries, which are much more clear-cut, can only set back the work of many. The boundaries are then good and bad, to see overall, it must be decided which is more important, the individual or the society as a whole. To see the good side of religion for the society, one must look once again to Karl Marx. The famous quote, "Religion is opiate for the masses" perhaps sums up the effect of religion on society. Religion provides the masses of people something to believe in, something that they can hold onto in times of despair (Marx and Engels 1-30). It is a benefit that no government can provide. When the economy is failing, when the government is faltering, there is always religion for the masses to turn to (Marx and Engels 1-30). Hence, religion hurts the goals of any nation striving for unification, but it helps the masses of people. By this we hurt the government's goals, but we help ourselves. Over the past thousand years religion has hindered and sometimes halted technological advancement. Two common examples include Galileo's near-death experience in disproving the Catholic church, and the inability of American schools to teach evolution, although it is almost completely proven, simply because it cannot be completely proven. At what point, if one exists, do we say that religion has hindered mankind's quest for truth to such an extent that followers of religion and science must be completely divided for the betterment of mankind. So while religion may be good for each individual, it can be said that religion hinders the efforts of any organized government and any societies' quest for truth. This is not to say that science IS the truth, but religion certainly hinders efforts to look for it.
Religion was established to explain the things that are not understood. Back then, it was fire and rain; however not much has changed since then, religion no longer explains the sun and stars, but intends to explain death and the workings of mankind, things that we today, do not understand. This then poses the next obvious question, "What form will religion take if these things are scientifically explained (i.e. love can be attained by eating large amounts of chocolate)? Mankind seeks religion because it nurtures, and helps them comprehend what they otherwise would have never been able to. It allows people their own sense of identity and their role for life. It is a "drug" for people who need to relieve their pain. And it is something that its subscribers can believe in when all else is lost. This is why religion is so popular. Even with its profound popularity, this institution is helpful to all of its subscribers and to society as a whole. It may hinder them along the way but in the overall picture it is productive, and helps more than it hurts. To say whether religion is good or bad is something that can really only be decided by each individual. This decision lies in how important each person thinks the benefits received are and how important he/she thinks the negatives are. But, in the general scheme of things, religion appears to be something that is good for society, and definitely good for those who choose to believe in it. Perhaps Benjamin Franklin put it best when he said, "When a religion is good, I conceive it I will support itself, and when it does not do so, and God chooses not to do so, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, it's a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one (quoted from Doerr 37)."
A brief comment from the author:
This enormous gap between the believers and those who refuse to believe grows, and as its gap widens society finds itself with more hatred and resentment than ever before. This gap grows through every book that is written, every study that is conducted, every church that appears on TV. These things and so many others have made it near impossible for people of differing beliefs to coexist. Perhaps mankind's ultimate battle will be to transcend religious denomination and seek nothing but the truth, wherever it may lie. At any rate, for the time being we are separated along very fine lines. Lines that cannot be crossed. Lines that divide the Muslims from the Jews, the "right" from the "wrong". Mankind has not been able to transcend these lines over the last three thousand years so it hardly seems likely now, and not knowing the truth, not much can be said for any religion (or lack thereof). However, today, there appear to be two incontrovertible facts:
· These differences are irreconcilable
· The truth will only be know upon death
Bibliography :
Bibliography
Barbour, Freid. "The Caroline Church: the reconstruction of epic religion in three
seventeenth-century communities". Renaissance Quarterly. Autumn 1997: 97.
Blau, Judith R.. "The toggle switch of institutions: religion and art in the U.S. in the
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries". Social Forces. June 1996: 1159.
Doerr, Edd. "Private: Keep Out". The Humanist. May-June 1996: 36
Heilke, Thomas. "On being ethical without moral sadism: two readings of Augustine and
the beginnings of the Anabaptist revolution". Political Theory. August 1996: 493.
Jacobson, Jessica. "Religion and ethnicity: dual and alternative sources of identify
among young British Pakastanis". Ethnic and Racial Studies. April 1997: 238.
Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. On religion. Scholars Press. November 1982.
Weber, Max. "Economy and Society: Volume 2". Gesmmelte Aufsatze zur
Religionssoziologie. University of California Press. Edited by Guenther Roth
and Claus Wittich. 1968.
Complete List:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
|