What kind of theology appropriate with the modern/postmodern age in Christianity? Perhaps revisionist and liberal theology are some of the answer. Revisionist theology and post liberal theology are responds for modernism in which world more globalized and human living closely related by breaking traditional boundary that has been strictly formed by religious differentiation. Revisionist theology aim is to find the ways in which Christian can explain what they believe and argue for its truth in the ways of non Christian. In short, revisionist theology is to answer how religion involved in conversation in public domain in society and own culture. While, post liberal theology is showing the view of Christian in seeing the bible teaching in which appropriate with current development of human by interpreting bible.
The idea of both revisionist and post liberal theology has been questioned because of have such problem in inner concepts. Firstly is the concept of public and tradition. David Tracy as the founding of revisionist theology likely said that Christian theology better understood as philosophical reflection upon meanings present in human common experience and the meaning in the Christian tradition. Common human reflection is common human experience or it should morally follow the scientific finding. Where is Christian doctrine and how to placing Christian tradition in the public domain? In the core of that theology seems is theological claim of truth.
In the other hand, post liberal theology in which seemly on the hand of Hans Frei absolutely reflection on biblical hermeneutic more focus to questioning the formulation of truth. He assumes that religion have to deal with truth because it will be human guidance in life. But the problem is whether all religious teaching as narrated in bible completely true. In the bible most verses are story in which is cannot be understood in the modern context. The stand point of interpreter and regard to text seem the task of Frei. He proposed understanding text trough the context of utterance, not in the modern context. However, modern context is still important, but the issue is how to find the value of truth in the text. His approach drives him to see scripture, even god, in the linguistic cultural term. The consequence he see the element of religions is not merely sacred text, but also myth, narrative, etc.
Perhaps both revisionist and post liberal has reflected modernity and democracy as challenge and trigger to construct new theology. In this ways these are starting point to reform religious doctrine that seems orthodox or fundamentalist. In the modern word there is no universal religion that available to acknowledge as the true one. All religion positioned in the same position as the element of modernity in which technology and science was more dominant. Religion although defined firstly by western, but it world phenomena that has erected and nurtured by different culture. There is no superiority religion as well because of the fact that all religions have unique logic ways to find and say the way adherent belief. Thus, every religion should be placed itself as local belief not in universality. The claim of universality of truth or the only truth one will lead to colonializatiation of belief. Other religion will be placed as minority religion in which have nothing truth beside the shadow of the universal truth.
That claim is boundary of religious dialogue of course. Whereas religious doctrine in which framed the thinking of lonely own truth is not the only religious construction of religion. Religion is also about religious experience, functionality of doctrine to shape religious adherent living, and the ability to appropriating religious doctrine teaching with the debate happened in the public domain. Public domain is plural as plurality of belief in religion. It is seemly impossible to seek the common source of various religions as done by academician. In the other hand, not all religion has an ability to show the inner teaching that is having well responsible for social manner.
The core finding of these theologies is actually to find common ground to begin the conversation and build new democratic world. Human being and its living become important factors in determining the new doctrine. Theology revisionist in simple is earth theology in which theology that has very much talk about god and his law in the scripture being turn down to the human issue and what human face in live. There are many problem of human that cannot be answer by old theology. In addition, not all verses of scripture functioned without the interpretation. Common ground is impossible begin by the god theology, because inherently the concept of theology are different.
One of the solutions is trying to understand the other by mastering the theology and its culture. But that hard to realize, not many people can do that. In fact in general conversation to speak one did not need it at all. Just begin conversation by saying hello sometimes is enough. Democracy perhaps is the condition that will help conversation in equal positioned happened. However, we need some vision that can be the issue of religious conversation in order the energy of religion can be focused to build the world. Actually, the issue as Paul Knitter I his article one earth many religions said can be trough the actual issues, like global warming, suffering, poverty. However, before that all happens the hard struggle is how all religion in order to accept the conversation and deal with the global issues. Perhaps, as Jhon Rawls (political liberalism: 2007) said, we need priority of right over true. That will guarantee people to get all the right without hesitancy.[]

Read More...

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.

Read More...

Emile Durkheim has genuine idea about the origin of religion. He states that religion equate with society. It 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.
In primitive society, religion has a symbol of worship known as totem. Totem is a material expression something else. It 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.
Consequently, humans get the impression that there are two sorts of reality: on the one hand there are profane things, and on the other, there are sacred things. Society constantly creates sacred things out of ordinary ones. Humans add sacred qualities to objects. Society consecrates men and ideas.
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.
Totemic sign 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.
Religion is a system of ideas with which individuals represent to themselves their own society, and the obscure but intimate relations which they have with it. Religion strengthens the bonds attaching the individual to the society of which he is a member.[]

Read More...

I really appreciate to Freud thought about genealogical human beings on psychological term. He find that human is ambivalent, both he have feeling love and aggression, conscious and unconscious, who directed to some object.
The existential human is not a finish process, no one better all time. There is three aspect of human being which always in conflict, that is id, ego, and super ego. Id is very bases of human that is wishes to eat, to kill, and to engage the sex. Superego is social construction, cultural, above of personal man. Ego is mid position between id and superego; it can be influenced by the id or superego. Actually the id impulse is very strong, but human pusses it down because it associated with bad impulse. Therefore, human become painful people, because he pressed by superego to be normal people, whereas he want to follow the id impulse, like for sexuality.
Freud develops many theory of religion, such as Oedipus complex, totem and taboo, illusion-delusion, and Moses and monotheism. Generally, as atheist, he says that no reason to believe in God, and therefore no value or purpose on the ritual and religious life. Religion is obsessional neurotics. In the Oedipus complex Freud theorized that the emergence of religion is from Oedipus myth. That is the concept of the sacred, totem and taboo arise as a result of father’s murder, because the desire of child to married with his mother.
In seven theories book, Daniel L. Pass, remarks that there are many appreciates to Freud theories, but, also there are many critics give to his theories. For instance, many people argues that Freud theories is inhuman, unsupported by data, amoral, and destructive. Now, I really want to give feed back to Freud thought, but I don’t have strong argumentation to dispute him. I just have a little note in Pak Mark classes, and I think is in some aspect is different from Freud.
I think everybody, primarily, wishes to be admitted by other people. It corresponds with psychological process and fantasy. Feeling to be appreciated and being part of the society will give him secure feeling. Thus, almost all human activity directing to get the security from what they do and they have. If all human can keep their secure feeling, they will not need other person. Thus, social relationship never exists.
The feeling of secure is, actually to survive in the world and keep their desire. Therefore, human make some strategy to protect his desire. That is by defensive strategy, associative strategy, and offensive strategy.
Associative strategy can be described as obedient behavior, tend to receive regulation, but actually may be he is not truly accepts it. However his motivation is to gain and accomplish his desire.
Then, offensive strategy uses if his people have an authority to compel his desire to another peoples or if he has not other alternative strategy to survive beside attack other people.
I think there is three basic of human necessities, that is; Need to eat, Need to power, and Need of sexuality. I see, need to eat is very personal. Feeling of hungry, psychologically, is based on morality and another destructive feeling. This necessity is very fundamental, because we just can survive only we have sufficient food. Human will have different manner according to this factor. One people is possible become bad guy, and the other hand become good guy. The bad guy may become thief, because he needs money to ensure that he can eat and continue his life. The good guy may become philanthropist, because he has sufficient food to give other. The motive may religious or just to secure his property and get feeling of securebecause he has done kindness to other.
Second is power, I reflect that power, psychologically, is very important. The internal conflict in human beings, as Freud illustrates in id, ego, superego concept, is take control each other is based on power theory. That one of them tries to dominate and to express the inner one. In wider concept it can be to other humans or groups, where somebody will feel more secure if he can conquer his enemy. Other example is in marriage, I see, in one view that can be conquering material to confine his spouse to give his secure feeling. The feeling can be secure, because socially he is called gentlemen or because he feels that he will have descent to continue his family.
Third sexuality, I think sex is very important, but I doubt if all human activities is to gain sexual satisfaction. The growth of sexual feeling, roughly, feels in mature age. I difficult to understand if infant or little child has sexual desire, even making love with his mother. Crying and sucking infant for his mother breast is to seek eat, to ensure him got food or milk to continue his live, not for sexual need.
In this view I see religion can be product of anxious. Today, I always find that religion as something which has existed in society as cultural construction. Thus, religion is cultural system. The emergences of religions are not personal achievements without social and cultural factors. But religion always have a prominent leaders, they can be prophet or human superior. Therefore, the emergence of religion is to answer the human anxieties. Religion used by good, or by human superior to give an assurance in other to human can be regulate and can not destroy to another as aftermath from his anxiety.[]

Read More...

One of the great people who give tremendous contribution in developing theories of religion is Evan-Pritchad. Different from previous theory of religion he offers new perspective for understanding of religion. That is religion as construct of hart in Daniel Fals view. He tries to build theory of religions is not merely from analytical method in library, but engaged inward object of research. Therefore, he make long period of research before publish his theory. His book “Theories of primitive religion” (1965), “Wictcraf among Azande” (1973), “Noer religion” (1956) become incumbent book for the student of religious studies.
His approach influences by three streams that is Victorian anthropology, French sociology, and fieldwork anthropology. Fieldwork anthropology emphasizes direct research of a single culture, observing not just religion but also its laws, economic etc. he reject method “if I were a horse” an used method “if I were so and so”. Pritchad approach influenced by Levy-Bruhl and almost similar with eliade, but he have no similar conclusion.
His make observation in Azande and noer people in Sudan. This work became very interesting, because he found some interesting point to build theory that different from previous theories. He chooses Azande and Noer because their society still holds and practices primitive religions. They belief to God, gods, spirit, ghost, and system social and politic based on the magic or myth.
In his observation, he found that although they are live in primitive condition, they cannot accuse as irrational and childish people like Tylor and Frazer assumed. As such, there is nothing wrong, primitive people are normal. They are rational, logical, curious, inquiring, also sophisticated, intelligent, and progressive. Although they believe to magic and mythical ideas, which not meant that they are childish, because they make a sense in act and behavior.
Different religion causes by different cultures. One kind of belief maybe becomes very central in one culture, and contrary that it ordinary for others. it is like different belief from Azande and Noer because they have different social and cultural system. Magic is important for Azande, but not for Noer. Like different respond to ill, perhaps Azande people will say that because of the wictraft, in the other hand Noer will say that is because of human actions.
One plus-value Pritchard is he can make a comprehensive observation. Not all scholars can do that except Eliade. If Eliade arranges huge research in many culture unfolding from India, Asia, and Europe. Pritchard more choose to deepness. Thus, he can interpret difficult doctrine that before seem nothing for western scholars. Appreciating to other cultures as own culture I think is sophisticated. Perhaps he did not bring new ideas about religion, but he has changes opinion many people become more sympathetic to primitive religion, and the other side opens new understanding approach as alternative to the reductionalist approach.[]

Read More...

According to Anthony Gidden, religion exists in all societies, although religious beliefs and practices vary from culture to culture. All religions involve a set of symbols, involving feelings of reverence, linked to rituals practiced by community of believer.
The first person who proposes to intensively study religion is Mark Muller. He named that study science of religion. The classical scholar use ethnography and anthropology approaches to study religion. Muller observes Hindu’s scripture and interpret it’s by ethnography method; other scholar, like E.B. Taylor uses anthropology method to understand prehistory religion.
The classical theories of religion are influenced by evolution doctrine. There are two principles, these it psychic unity, within the human race, and the pattern of intellectual evolution, or improvement, over time. Prehistory societies defend to nature strength to survive or to keep their families. Thus they try to understand nature and all phenomena.
Two famous classic theory of religion are animism and magic. Taylor say that the origin of religion is animism (from Latin, meaning anima or spirit) that is the belief living, personal power behind all thing. The decline of animism and progress of thought growth the religion. In the other hand Frazer concedes that the origin of religion is magic. Magic theory is assumption that nature work by sympathetic magic, he argue that savage in prehistory always suppose that when 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.
Magic and religion play in key of role, like ritual prostitution etc.
Gidden,--sociologist-- sees that totemism --a species of animal or plant is perceived as possessing supernatural powers-- and animism are common type of religion in smaller cultures. In some religion, like Confucian, there is no God or supernatural God. In the other hand he asserts in huge culture three monotheistic religions are--Islam, Christianity and Judaism-- most influential in the world.
Sociological approaches to religion have been most influenced by Karl Marx (religion as alienation), Emile Durkheim (society as the sacred), and mark Weber (ethic and capitalism).
Lately many scholars propose to new methods to understand religion, one of them is Padden who propose phenomenology of religion approach to understand phenomena which cannot understand by ethnography, anthropology and sociology, however, religion must be understood as a subject --not object—which exist and spoke itself without justification true or false. Padden (Religious as a subject matter: 39) concedes that there are four aspect of the modern comparative approach: (1) respect for all religious fact as “phenomena” rather than item as intrinsically true or false; (2) the need to synthesize these fact trough the analysis of pattern; (3) the need to understand religious experience in term in their context; and (4) underlying the whole enterprise, the need to identify what it is about religious fact that make them religious. Religion as subject constitutes of phenomena, a special kind of experience, system, representation it positioning in the world. Religions cannot be reducible because it have own content and meaning. The language of religion also different with science’s language, some of that language is myth and ritual, that inherent almost in all religion as religious expression.
Religion is everything, its part of our life, societies, cultures, system of doctrine, and system of doctrine whose construct our attitudes, its lies near from body and soul, so we need to find it as a part of our awareness to human existence.[]

Read More...

It is not sufficient for us when talking theory of religions without discussing Eliade’s thoughts. Eliade has big merit in spreading comparative religion study in US that make today the study of comparative religion become popular. Number of professor who interest to study of religion from US’s universities increases every time, which than encourage them to develop study of religion by making research about religious and its consequence in the world. Without him, may be US have not scholar like Clifford Gertz today. The most important thing from Eliade is his thesis about the sacred and symbol of myth of archaic religion which become very important things to understand religions.
Many scholars believe that Eliade is genius peoples. He can speak many languages, like Hindi, German, France, and English fluently, which help him in studying of religion from different cultures. This point diverge Eliade from Durkheim, Mark, and Freud, because they did not support their theories with wealth data from different culture. I the other hand, Eliade believe that religion cannot be understood by reductionist approach. Religion is complex phenomena, it told about past and know, also not only physiological and social construction. However, basically religion have similar pattern that is relationship between the sacred and profane. On the contrary, the sacred and profane concepts here are not similar with Durkheim theory. Eliade saw the sacred/supernatural is not result, but he cause of all existence. In the other hand, Durkheim states that the sacred is product of human mind and purpose for social interests. For Eliade, the sacred appears for human life as manifestation of God. God manifest himself for all human cultures in history stages. That makes almost all culture have system of believe close together, if we find differentiation of the sacred that just because of the different experience of recipients. Root of religion is worship to the sacred, human is profane being. So, human needs to nearer his/her live to the sacred for perfect his life.
Eliade also saw that symbol is very important. Human can understand the sacred when it manifest in the world. Thus, symbol of the sacred is close to human life, such as stone, tree, animal, desert, forest and so forth. It becomes the sacred because of supernatural power or God appear in that thing. Eliade calls that phenomenon as “theophany”, from theo=God, phany=appear. He saw that in archaic eras, the sacred is vital for their societies. The sacred is center for religious and cultural activities. It center for worship, ritual, sacrifice, and human interaction. In many cultures, this sacred center is marked with a pole, pillar or some other vertical object that plunge into the ground and rises up to the sky to join the great regions of universe: heaven, earth, and the underworld. Signs and myth is the main structure of symbolism in religion. Until now, symbol is used by mayor religious, like Islam has ka’bah as symbol of the sacred, or Jews has wailing stone as symbol of the sacred, etc.
What Eliade done is not only add new perspective for us in understanding religion comprehensively, but also give an alternative of thinking. Reductionist theory from Freud, Marx, and Durkheim were not sufficient to apprehend religion as complex phenomena. Perhaps many cultures have same root, but we need facts of that. Actually, Eliade also fall to the reductionist approach, but he concludes his theory after making comparative study to different religions.[]

Read More...

Freud and mark have a similar conclusion about religion although they depart from different analyses. Both of them assert that religion is product from religious ideas; do not come from God or gods. Human who make religion, and religion cannot make human.
For them, religion arose not from revelation process, but from conflict in human life or human history. Freud calls as result from conflict between id, ego, and superego. Religion is superego which control ego and repress id. In his analyses, id is deep of human dimension. It drives to sexual activities. Religion demands repression in selfness, control for ego instinct. Thus, just as sexual repression result in and individual obsessional neurosis. So, religious behaviors always resemble illness. The origin of emergence of religion according to Freud can find in the myth of Oedipus complex. That story explain killing story of child to his father because he want to get his mother’s love. Freud uses that analogy Oedipus to assert that the emergence of religion is to accomplish id, or sexual desire.
The center thought of human taught according to Mark are: (1), The conviction that economic realities determine human behavior and (2) the thesis that human history is the story of clash struggle, the scene of perpetual conflict in every society between those own things, usually the reach, and those who must work to survive, usually the poor. Mark argues that religion arouse from the conflict of classes, the wealth and the poor, powerful and powerless, oppressor and oppressed. . History is a great scene of conflict, for Hegel the core of it is alienation. Religion, he says is pure illusion and determined by economic. It begins when human become unauthentic, because he cannot express his unique and talent. In capitalist production human understand as and object apart, other than the natural human expression of my personality for the benefit of community. Religion no more than classes of fail people on material wealth. They not really exist, because their existence grasp to the mode of production, to serve bourgeoisie and capital. They, run to religious life to find their existence, happiness etc. that they cannot reach in their chain of life.
What is the function of conflict? Form argues that the emergence conflict in human being motivated to survive. Everyone needs foods, sex, etc, to fulfill that demand and desire. To fulfill that that desire, everybody must challenges his superego in Freud terms, or superstructure in mark term. Superego and superstructure take a control for human life to fulfill his desire. In Freud, superego is alike structuralized culture or religion, in mark superstructure is sate, ideology, which have power to control human.
Superego and superstructure not only confine, but also give standard of moral and value, whereas it bias because product by bourgeoisie and cultural power. The fact that necessities and end comfort of life in some way must be produced. Everyone connect what call than as relation of production. In this development arise conflict classes, because capitalism produce wealth, for bourgeoisie, and proletariat are always nothing.
If religion is illness for Freud, it means it will lose when human was health. Alike Freud, Mark asserts that religion changes and follows to the development of economic life. Religion, like state, art, moral discourse and certain other intellectual endeavor, it belongs to superstructure of society, and defends on fundamental way on economic base.[]

Read More...