Corrections where necessary

1. What is the “sociological perspective” and how does it impact the way we study religion? How is it different from non-social scientific (philosophical, theological) approaches to the study of religion? From other social scientific (psychological, anthropological) approaches?

The sociological perspective is a way of looking at religion that focuses on the human especially social aspects of religious belief and practice. It has two characteristics that separate it from non-scientific approaches to religion. It is empirical and objective. Sociologists usually try as much as possible to base their interpretations on empirical evidence. “They verify their images and explanations of social reality by experimental or experienced evidence. The objectivity in the sense that they do not attempt to evaluate accept or reject the content of religious beliefs .In the sociological perspective there is no religion that is superior to the other. One religion is not superior to another. Indeed the perspective does not presume the merits of religious over non-religious approaches. But if a religion has ideas on these subjects, it examines them and tries to understand them.

There are two central sociological perspectives which are: substantative and functional. Substantative tries to establish what religion is. It attempts to establish categories of religious content that qualify as religion and other categories specific as non-religion. Functional describes what religion does. It emphasizes what religion does for individual and social group. Accordingly religion is defined by the social functions it fulfills in the society

It emphasizes on the provision of meaning because the establishing of shared meaning is an essentially social event.

The sociological perspective impacts on the way we study religion in various ways. The aspects of the sociological perspective on religion may create elude a bad feeling to students who find their cherished beliefs and practices dispassionately treated as object of study as stipulated in (http://fasnafan.tripod.com/religion.pdf).Normal human beings due to their nature tend to feel bad when they find their religion becoming the subject of discussion and study. They feel that those people are abusing and disregarding their religion. It may be disturbing to have one’s own religion treated as comparable to other religions and not as superior or uniquely true.maybe maybe not---you need proof to make this claim--not just ideas

Also true, but awkward writingwhat the sociologist and the believer hold about a certain religion may be contradicting. What is central to the sociologist may be irrelevant and uninteresting to the religious believer. Hence,the sociologist does not disprove what the believers have and vice versa.

The sociological perspective does not have the key quality of faith which the believer uses to accept certain beliefs and meanings. It implies that people belong to religious groups for reason other than true value of the belief system.

This limits the study of religion by virtue of lacking one important dimension of religion. Important dimensions of religion are not being accessible to sociological perspective. This makes us not to be able to evaluate and understand the dimensions which are not accessible when religion is studying using…we study religion using this perspective. Also the causality that believers attribute to supernatural sources, the less their interpretation cannot be reconciled with sociological perspectives. By the fact that most people who study religion are believers they may find it difficult to agree with the sociological perspective which does not go in line with what they believe in hence lack of motivation in the study of religion.

Anthropology is the study of humanity. It has its origins in the natural sciences, the humanities and the social sciences. Anthropology is tied to sources of religion in that the anthropological study of religion challenges traditional categories and assumptions, arguing that too many of them reflect ethnocentric perspectives long discarded in contemporary anthropology.

Sociology is the study of the society. Sociology is related to sources of religion in the sense that it considers gender which is part of sociology. In the past few years the notion of power in the sociology of religion has shown signs of emerging from an eclipse which began to place in the 1960s. The notion of power is related to sociology and is becoming apparent in everyday practice of religion in most western countries and in sociologists interpretations of that practice.

Psychology is the study of the mind. Religion remains a potent force in the lives of many. If not most “That religion is closely related to pivotal periods in life should not be starting. Hardship, suffering and conflict have been centers of concern for the major religions of the world” (Pargament, 1984)

“Thus, religions of the world have a deep appreciation for the often painful nature of human condition. Psychological offers important insights into the footprints left by religion. Anthropology is the study of humanity. It has its origins in the natural sciences, the humanities and the social sciences. Anthropology is tied to sources of religion in that the anthropological study of religion challenges traditional categories and assumptions, arguing that too many of them reflect ethnocentric perspectives long discarded in contemporary anthropology.

2. What is religion and where does it come from? Discuss the relative merits of theories proposed by Durkheim, Marx, and the Rational Choice theorists

From the dawn of civilization, religion had played a major role in the individual and collective behavior of human society. On one hand, religion had promoted the songs of peace and harmony, and on the other hand, religion had been responsible for many atrocious wars. Being a pivotal part of human life, religion is a very popular topic among researchers, thinkers and philosophers. Many a theory had been proposed by various intellectuals worldwide about the origin and requirement of religion.

Karl Marx is one of the most influential people of the 19th 8th century. He had been both idolized and criticized for his theories all over the world. According to Marx, “Religion … is the opium of the people (Die Religion … ist das Opium des Volkes)” (Karl Marx and “Religion is the Opium of the People”, 2012) According to the theory of Marx, social oppressions and inequality had created the myth of religion, and common people try to find their salvation by using it as a shield to avoid reality. (Thompson, 2011) Marx had described about religion in the following manner, he said it is the "sigh of the oppressed creature in a hostile world, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions." (Marx, 1844) This particular description is critical to religion as well as it is critical to the human nature.

Emile Durkheim was a French thinker; he tried to view religion as, “a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things,” According to him, the concept of religion only emerges when the society tries to create an extraordinary spiritual world out of the ordinary. (Coser, 1977) Durkheim was interested in studying the transformation, where an ordinary person/thing/ritual becomes a part of the extraordinary spiritual world. According to his theory, religion is not a thing that the society had knowingly created. But it is a mere reflection of the society. Thus, according to Coser, the commemoration of religion (i.e. engaging in various festivals and activities) is basically the celebration of the societal bonding, “…This power so transcends their own existence that they have to give it sacred significance in order to visualize it.” (Coser, 1977)

The Rational Choice tTheory is mainly an economic concept, but it is widely used to explain various social phenomena. Rational choice theory mainly states that any individual or society will go for that particular option which will ensure maximum gain and minimum loss. (Young, 1997) Rational Choice theory tells us that the concept of religion is created by society to achieve the necessary compensation. The society will try to engage the concept of divinity and supernatural to achieve a desired result, which could not be achieved by any other means. (Young, 1997)

The three theories try in their own unique way to explain the origin of religion. It is one common point that knowingly or unknowingly the society as a collective had created the concept of religion. Marx is certainly right that individuals often try to seek shelter on the beliefs of religion to assure them that everything will be all right at the end of the day by some divine intervention. The theory proposed by Durkheim and the rational choice theory rightly explains the interrelation between religion and society where a lot of economic/political/social decisions of a state/country is determined by the dictation or under the disguise of religion.

4. Why is religiosity difficult to measure? What are some of the ways in which sociologists measure religiosity and which do you feel is most accurate? Make sure to offer support for your position.

A major problem faced by all scientists is trying to measure concepts that have no clear ruler to measure them and also tangible in that they can be counted literary, claimed Scheilte, (1996). The challenge is faced when trying to measure how ‘religious’ an individual is. Religiosity is no tangible therefore it is difficult to measure. For instance a person who believes in God may not attend religious services. The question we are left to ask is how religious are they? Religion is a multi-dimensional concept consisting of behaviors, experiences, beliefs and social or cultural tradition. Religiosity is measured by two methods: direct and indirect. In the direct method the researcher follows the standardized procedure of directly asking the respondent to indicate degree of religiousness. The importance of religion in one's day-to-day life and feeling towards religion are the two main questions in this respect. In such questions the researcher sensitizes the respondent to the religious area and asks for a direct answer pertaining thereto. The other is the indirect method of getting at religiosity is to utilize a research instrument which permits the respondent voluntarily to produce his own measure. One such instrument is the "Twenty Statements Test”( a long-standing psychological and social psychological "test" for use in regards to one's "sense of self") . It should be emphasized that neither of these two techniques for eliciting information is "naturally" and absolutely superior to the other. The specific kind of information sought is the determinant of which is more usable. This research has at least provided enough evidence to indicate the desirability of further research on the association between "public" and "private" religiosity, or between direct and indirect methods of measuring religiosity.To be more explicit it was broken down into these categories;

Direct Effect of Organizational Religiosity on Outcomes .This set of conceptual models hypothesizes that aspects of organizational religiosity, including doctrine, practices and beliefs, have direct positive effects on outcomes by encouraging the practice of healthy behaviors (Hill, Ellison, Burdette, & Musick, 2006). Under this framework, the fact that an individual ascribes to a certain set of religious beliefs or adheres to religious doctrine and practices may directly influence behavior. In practice, the empirical literature generally tests these hypotheses using religious denomination and affiliation as measures of organizational religiosity.

Direct Effect of Individual Religiosity on Outcomes .This set of conceptual models hypothesizes that the way an individual practices religion in daily life may directly affect outcomes. Under this framework, religious practices, such as prayer, holidays or rituals, directly influence outcomes. An example would be an individual who finds emotional and/or physical healing through prayer.

Indirect (or Mediating) Effect of Individual Religiosity on Outcomes .Mediator vawkwardariables help answer “why” a particular relationship exists between an explanatory and an outcome variable (Baron & Kenny, 1986). These models hypothesize that certain aspects of individual religiosity influence outcomes indirectly. In other words, the relationship between individual religiosity and outcomes is mediated by another factor (or set of factors). In these models, religiosity is hypothesized to produce a change in a mediating factor, which, in turn, influences behavior. For example, practicing prayer and meditation at the individual level and salience of religious beliefs in people’s lives can offer positive psychological benefits, such as greater self-esteem, more hope and optimism, greater willingness to change, more positive coping, and higher self-control (McCullough & Willoughby, 2009). These positive benefits are hypothesized to lead to positive behaviors. Mediators can be specifically religious or generalized. For example, prayer can improve coping skills by offering generalized psychological benefits (e.g., the meditative nature of prayer offers a strategy for managing stress) or through specifically religious channels (e.g., through prayer a person turns his or her problems over to a higher power, thus decreasing perceived levels of stress). Prayer could also lead to negative coping if there is overreliance on religion to resolve every problem (Paragament, 2008).

Indirect (or Mediating) Effect of Organizational Religiosity on Outcomes .In these models, organizational religiosity is hypothesized to offer social benefits and/or to influence norms and values in ways that positively affect behavior. Under this framework, organizational religiosity indirectly affects outcomes through connections to institutions that provide emergency assistance and counseling; social networks that can help during crises or life changes; peers that help reinforce healthy behaviors and social norms; connections to higher status circles; and educational activities, such as youth groups or bible study.

In addition to these pathways, organizational religiosity can influence outcomes through religiously specific pathways. For example, involvement with a religious community can provide a meaning system that “imbues family relationships with spiritual, enduring significance that includes divine accountability for the discharge of parental obligations” (Bartkowski 2008, p. 19). In this way, organizational religiosity is hypothesized to indirectly influence outcomes through a family’s “meaning system”; in this case, the pathway is religiously specific.

Like I mentioned early, that neither of these two techniques for eliciting information is naturally and absolutely superior to the other.Hence, I cannot take side I cannoty take side on any of these medthods.

Class .M 1995, Ordered Universes: Approaches to the Anthropology of Religion, 1995, West Vita Press.

Demerath N, J and Straight. K, 1992.Religion, Politics and State: Cross Cultural Observations Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

http://fasnafan.tripod.com/religion.pdf

International Journal of Middle East studies, 2006 38.360-393

Lee .R.L.M and Ackeman S.E, 1997 Sacred Tensions, Columbia: University of South Carolina Press

Antoun R.T (2006) Negotiating state and Society in Jordan. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Amoateng, A., & Bahr, S. (1986). Religion, family, and adolescent drug abuse. Sociological Perspective, 29, 53-76.

Bachman, J., Johnston, L., & O'Malley, P. (2001). Monitoring the future: Questionnaire responses from the nation's high school seniors: 2000. Ann Arbor, MI: Univ. of Michigan.

Bao, W. N., Whitebeck, L. B., Hoyt, D. R., & Conger, R. D. (1999). Perceived parental acceptance as a moderator of religious transmission among adolescent boys and girls. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 362-374.

Bearman, P., & Bruckner, H. (2001). Promising the future: Virginity pledges and first intercourse. American Journal of Sociology, 4, 233-239.

Becker, P., & Dinhgra, P. (2001). Religious involvement and volunteering: implications for civil society. Sociology of Religion, 62, 315-335.

Indirect method involves using a research to measure the religiosity.Indirect method is better because it utilizes explicit studies and bringing out all the facts about the subject of study. For instance, Talcott Parsons (“Social Structure and Personality”, 1970), for example, has argued that, while religious institutions no-longer have a direct influence over things like education and politics, their indirect influence is still relatively strong (in terms of such things as norms, values, moral guidelines for behavior and so

forth).Thus, in the past, because the Church was so intimately involved in political life, it tended to neglect its overtly religious role. Aldous Huxley ( “The Devils of Loudun”,1952) for example, argues that, on an institutional level, the Church does not seem to have been well-respected (mainly because of their corruption, greed, cruelty and sexual misconduct). Huxley also suggests that the relationship between the Church and the State in France was one that reflected an uneasy power balance. That is, the government actually encouraged religious corruption, greed and sexual misconduct as a means of limiting the power of the Church.Parsons argues that modern religious institutions, having been stripped of their political function, are forced to address themselves to a far greater extent to spiritual matters. In “Social Structure and Personality”, Parsons’ basic argument involves a similar form of reasoning about the role of religion as he applied to the family in industrial societies. Thus: As societies industrialise, they become increasingly differentiated - that is, different institutions arise to cater for changing structural needs (the education of the masses, for example, is so essential to modern industrial production that it can nolonger be left in the hands of the Church, voluntary organisations and worthy individuals). In this respect, the Church as an institution becomes more specialised in its functions. An important aspect of this increasing specialisation is that the Church’s role becomes less overtly political and more ideological in form - rather than through direct involvement in the affairs of the State, religious institutions exert influence through the norms and values they put forward.

Direct method does not use research.In the direct method the researcher follows the standardized procedure of directly asking the respondent to indicate degree of religiousness. The importance of religion in one's day-to-day life and feeling towards religion are the two main questions in this respect. In such questions the researcher sensitizes the respondent to the religious area and asks for a direct answer pertaining thereto

References

Class .M 1995, Ordered Universes: Approaches to the Anthropology of Religion, 1995, West Vita Press.

Demerath N, J and Straight. K, 1992.Religion, Politics and State: Cross Cultural Observations Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

http://fasnafan.tripod.com/religion.pdf

International Journal of Middle East studies, 2006 38.360-393

Lee .R.L.M and Ackeman S.E, 1997 Sacred Tensions, Columbia: University of South Carolina Press

Antoun R.T (2006) Negotiating state and Society in Jordan. Oxford: Oxford University Press

The association of Religion Data Archives.

Winter (1999) Sociology of Religion, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.