a new way to look at things.

Today, in my Intro to Religious Studies class, we discussed different sociological schools of thought regarding religion. This is kind of my thing, so I was pretty excited. There are two major philosophers that my teacher brought up: Auguste Comte and Émile Durkheim. Both French, both positivist (which is an empirical worldview; i.e. nothing is real that cannot be perceived with the senses), both major founding figures in modern sociology.

Comte, who was raised Catholic, basically believed that all religion was false, but that it was necessary in society. He theorized that there were three stages of any society: theological, metaphysical, and scientific, in that specific order. The progression of the stages has to do with how society explains the way in which the world works (cosmology). The theological stage is best exemplified by Greco-Roman mythology; stories involving gods were created to explain why it thundered, why rain fell, what an echo was, etc. The metaphysical phase involves more complex theories still having to do with divine power; this stage is halfway between pure superstition and empiricism. The scientific stage is obviously the empirical ideal: all knowledge has basis in observation.

He believed that all religions were mired in the second stage, the metaphysical worldview, so Comte invented a new religion, which he named the Religion of the Great Being. It was like a typical religion in the sense that it included rites and prayers and worship, but the object of worship was society itself.

This I find extremely interesting. Society does take on a life of its own; the behavior of groups cannot be boiled down to the behavior of the individuals within them. I like the idea that we are all interconnected, that a religion of sorts could exist that recognized the powerful force that ties together all human experience.

Anyway. It didn't take on, obviously, and a few decades later, Émile Durkheim took Comte's theories a little further. He agreed that religion was a necessary sociological phenomenon, but did not believe that it was totally false. Don't get me wrong--Durkheim was NOT a religious believer. He came from a family of Jewish rabbis, and refused at a young age to continue in that line. However, he never severed the ties between himself and the Jewish community.

Durkheim's philosophy was that religion sets up a system of symbolic values that embody the highest aspirations and expectations of that society/community. Through what a religion holds sacred, one can see what the ultimate and most important values of that religion are. My teacher gave a wonderful example: he talked about the basis of all Christian tradition and belief, which is the story of Jesus' life, crucifixion, and resurrection from the dead. Durkheim believed that this story may not be factual, but it contains important truth. The Christian religion, in his eyes, is not about Jesus ascending to sit at the right hand of the Father, but rather values of sacrifice, forgiveness, etc.

I love this. I don't believe most of what the Bible says; it's just a book written by fallible MEN with their own opinions and agendas. A lot of it is not factual. But there is great truth in religion. I can believe that.