Natural Religion and Science Theory of Religions
Introduction
Science theory of religion is name given to the new approach in religious studies that try to find theory and meaning religions outside of the revelation process. This theory supposes to understand religion as natural phenomena (called as natural religion) by using science approach. Voltaire, David Hume, etc believe that natural theory or science theory will help them to solve the problem of religion as well. Religious approach is not sufficient to understand religions comprehensively. It more bias doctrines, great tendency to false other beliefs. Whereas, objects study of religions are voluminous. Religion appears in many cultures, unlimited to geographical areas. Religion could find whenever, many people believe and practice it until now with different views. In this way, natural theory emerges as an effort to find religion and it correlation with others, also idea, basic, deepest meaning, originality, genesis, motif behind religion, and so forth.
According to the Daniel L. Pals books “Seven theories of religion”, first person who propose the name of science religion is Fredrich Max Muller, in his book “introduction to science of religion”. For first glance, this approach affect by Darwin’s book, the origin of species (1856) and its startling theory to the evolution by natural selection. Moreover, Max Muller promoted his idea “science of religion” after Darwin published his book. Muller for the outset of his publication has many reactions, because the phrase of science religion is dazzling. It is impossible to combine two different things, religion as fixed doctrine and science truth which can change every time.
However, Muller believes that science approach will help the theologians, or scholar of religions to apprehend religion more comprehensive. Science also can be solution from the boundary of religious approach. Science approach will more flexible to define varieties of religious phenomena. In the other hand, science has many methodologies that can used to see the religion from different facets. Appropriate with the contexts of religion in human life. They believe that it was possible to explain not just aspect of religion but all of religion. It because of the great advances that hade been made in the study of anthropology, philology, language, mythology, history, archeology, etc.
Muller background study is philology. He assumes that words which the Goethe once wrote about human language also can be applied to religion: “He who knows one, know none”. That statement contends pluralism and intellectual spirits. To proof his statement, he begins to analyze the doctrine and myth of ancient India. He writes knowledge of ancient India, which he becomes popular by that. Muller also preside over his colleague in translation project of east religion scripture, such as Hindu, Buddha, Zoroaster, Confucian, etc. By this project, He found that between some religions had similar sources; that are Aryan, for Hindu, Buddha, Zoroaster; and Semitic language for Islam, Christianity and Jew. For his merit Muller called as “father of comparative religion”. What Muller got is like ancient Greek found, that there is similarity between Zeus (Egypt God) with Apollo (Greek God) indeed.
I see, this natural religion is inspired by enlightenment spirit in Europe. It tries to become more rational to know religions. With open the door to a new of explaining the many form of religion as they presented themselves to missionaries, theologians, explorer, and other in all their conflict and confusions. Whatever the different belief of the various Christian sects, all of these could be traced back into natural religion of the first human beings, and transformation into modern form of it distortions. This natural religion came from reason, because religion cannot be explained by the authority of religion as they declared. Natural theologies both believe and un-believe to God. Theory of natural religion tries to answer why religion existed, and why many people believe it. This all indicate the enlightenment which drive Europe people become rational societies, in the other hand reject irrational doctrine, or domination interpretation of church accordance with the truth.
In Seven Theories of Religion Daniel L. Pals introduces the reader to seven "classic" theories of religion. He examines the arguments presented by each thinker. Who explains earliest researchers who tried to develop theories of the nature of religion and everyone who has come since owes them a debt. He then compares each approach and offers a critical evaluation of the status of theories of religion. Pals explores the controversial "reductionist" explanations of religion espoused by Sigmund Freud, Emile Durkeim, Karl Marx, Tylor, and Frazer. Pals then discusses the work of Mircea Eliade, he concludes with two of the twentieth century's most celebrated anthropologists, E.E. Evans-Pritchard and Clifford Geertz, whose approaches lead toward an appreciation of religion's distinctively human dimension and the ideas, attitudes, and purposes that inspire it. Now, I will explain general theory of Tylor, Frazer, Freud and Marx below:
EB. Tylor and James Frazer
EB. Tylor and James Frazer tried to develop theories of nature of religion. They defined religion as spiritual beings. For Tylor Religion is thus systematized animism, and it exists to help people explain events which would otherwise be incomprehensible if it weren't for invisible spirits behind everything. Frazer is often associated with what is sometimes called as magic theory of religion, rather than animism, but in fact he was disciple of Tylor, who readily took over his mentor’s main idea and method while adding certain new touch in his own theory.
Tylor is evolutionist. There are two doctrine usually evolutionist beliefs, that is psychic unity, within the human race, and the pattern of intellectual evolution over time. In fact, he argues that our religion today is improvement from prehistory religions. Religion develops from simple form to complext forms. The development of religion is influenced by intellectual improvement and by the way they got foods. Tylor, in the book primitive ofculture, argues that in prehistory society, savage philosopher tried to find answer some question, like what is live, death and meaning of dream. This problem arise an awareness, live not solely human. There is another existence behind bodies; they called it spirit or anima. In his views, prehistory religion--who believe to anima behind all thing--, arise from misunderstanding or confusion between dreams and reality, and the associated problem of death. It suggests that the soul is the primary constituent of religion, and that exist. The soul is extended into inamenate processes, which are also understood to possess souls and thus be conscious agents.
Tylor theory in brief is: (1) The essence of religion is animism; its a spirit behind all things; (2) Every human being is animated by soul, or spiritual principle; (3) Natural movement influence by power of that spirit who exist behind natural phenomena and personified as gods and goddesses; (4) They belief that god and goddesses have similar system with human governs, than arise belief of structure power of gods and goddesses; 4) The structure of power gods and goddesses arose awareness that actually gods and goddesses come from one god, than emerge monotheism.
In one hand Frazer (1854–1941) thesis is that old religions were fertility cults that revolved around the worship of, and periodic sacrifice of, a sacred king. This king was the incarnation of a dying and reviving god, a solar deity who underwent a mystic marriage to a goddess of the earth, who died at the harvest, and was reincarnated in the spring. Frazer claims that this legend is central to almost all of the world's mythologies. The germ for Frazer's thesis was the pre-Roman priest-king at the fane of Nemi, who was ritually murdered by his successor.
Frazer theory well-know as magic theory; that is an assumption that nature works by sympathetic magic. He argue that savage people in prehistory periods think two things can some way be mentally associated they must also physically associated in the outside world. Mental connections mirror physical one. Magic more systematic, he says as pseudo scientific. The magic work by two principles: (1). Imitative, the magic connect by principle of similarity; and contagious. (2). Contagious, the magic of contact, which connect with principle of attachment.
At least in part, this analysis suffers from not adequately addressing the social aspect of religion because according to Tylor and Frazer, religion and animism are purely intellectual moves with the social aspects being simply secondary. Although they reveal the intellectual component of religion as an attempt to explain things, it is clear that religion involves much more.
Freud
Sigmund Freud is a name familiar to anyone who has studied cultural, intellectual and scientific history. According to him, religion is a form of mass neurosis. Thus, religion is illusion. It exists only as a response to deep emotional conflicts and weaknesses. Since it is nothing more but a by-produce of psychological distress, it should be possible to eliminate the illusion of religion by alleviating that distress.
Ilussion is to describe unconsious condition, or something nothing that people believe. Because neurosis is anomaly, sympton of illness. he reduct this term to religion, because originally emergence of religion same with the neuroses. He describeb this identical problem by presented Oidipus complex myth. this complex tells a man who kills his father, marries his mather and in guilt tears out his eyes. For freud that is origin of religion, because a man has broke prohibition to married with his clan or incest. The man than feel guilty, he became confiuse
Unfortunately, psychoanalysis, upon which Freud's ideas about religion rests, is not as scientific as people have assumed. Feud's arguments from analogy are furthermore rather weak and too often his position is circular. Although he was successful in getting people to recognize that there can be hidden psychological motives behind religion and religious beliefs, it is clear that religion involves much more.
Durkheim
Emile Durkheim is singularly responsible for the development of sociology as an academic discipline, championing the importance of society - social structures, social relationships, and social institutions - in understanding human nature. Darwin is evolutionist followers, but he rejects the normative evolutionary assumption that a later form is better than an earlier form. He argues that there is no false or better religion. All religions are response to as specific societal forms and thus all true representation.
Difference with Frazer, he sees religion arise not from misunderstanding in apprehend from dream and realty. But, from reflection of society; it is also key to build societies. He argues that religion is a system of ideas with which the individuals represent to themselves the society of which they are members. Religion is social affairs and the product of collective thought --it is a product of history. Thus, the entire characteristic attributed to religion and human nature come from society itself. In the other hand, society exists and lives only in and through individuals.
Durkheim defined “religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and sounded by prohibition.” This definition brings together the primary element of the sacred/profane and its relevance to the welfare of the entire community. He states that religion eminently collective.
The sacred and profane as the essential aspect of religion should be seen as interrelated. It must be understood in relation to group identity. The individual cannot penetrate the sacred without entering into relations with extraordinary powers. Hence, in the midst of this effervescence, Durkheim contends, the religious idea seems to be born. By concentrating itself almost entirely on in specific moments, collective life has been able to attain its greatest intensity and efficacy, as well as give men a more active sentiment of the double existence they lead.
Like Freud, Durkheim sees that totemism as the most elementary form of religion. It is a symbol of worship in primitive society. Totem is a material expression something else. Totem not only symbolizes God, but also the society which worship it. In fact, the god of the clan is personified under the visible form of the totem --generally animal or vegetable. The totem's comes from its psychical power over its worshippers as well as its moral authority over the society.
Totemic signs is like the visible body of god; its religious force. Religious forces are moral powers because they translate to the way in which the collective conscious acts on individual consciousnesses. Totems have a dual purpose: they animate and discipline minds, but they also believe that it makes plants grow and animals reproduce.
If they believe that totem represents the sacred, and the sacred is their societies itself, the sacred is representation the group as well as divine. The profane, in opposition to the sacred is outside or not member of the group. The society, the sacred object, and the divine must all represent same thing, that is, society itself. He suggests, this analogy can be extended in all religion.
