2.

The social philosopher Karl Marx (18181883) held a strictly materialist world view and saw economics, including class distinctions, as the determining factor of society. He saw the human mind and human consciousness as part of matter.[13] According to Marx, the dynamics of society was fueled by economics, according to the Hegelian concept of theses, anti-theses, and synthese[14] False consciousness is a term used by Marx' collaborator Friedrich Engels (1820 1895), not by Marx.[15] He saw religion originating from alienation and aiding the persistence of alienation.[13] He saw religion as supportive as the status quo, in correspondence with his famous saying that religion is opium of the people. This view is however contradicted by the existence of certain religious groups, like the liberation theology.[13][13] Marx saw religion as a source of happiness, though illusory and temporary, or at least a source of comfort.[13] Marx saw religion not as a necessary part of human culture.[13] Marxist views strongly influenced thinking about society, among others the anthropological school of cultural materialism. Marx' explanations for all religions, always, in all forms, and everywhere have never been taken seriously by many experts in the field, though a substantial fraction accept that Marx' views explain some aspects of some religions.

3. The anthropologist Edward Evan Evans-Pritchard (19021973) did extensive ethonographic studies among the Azande and Nuer peoples who were considered "primitive" by society and earlier scholars. Evans-Pritchard saw these people as different, but not primitive. Unlike the previous scholars, Evans-Pritchard did not propose a grand universal theory and he did extensive long-term fieldwork among "primitive" peoples, studying their culture and religion, among other among the Azande.[51] Not just passing contact, like Eliade. He argued that the religion of the Azande (witchcraft and oracles) can not be understood without the social context and its social function. Witchcraft and oracles played a great role in solving disputes among the Azande. In this respect he agreed with Durkheim, though he acknowledged that Frazer and Tylor were right that their religion also had an intellectual explanatory aspect. The Azande's faith in witchcraft and oracles was quite logical and consistent once some fundamental tenets were accepted. Loss of faith in the fundamental tenets could not be endured because of its social importance and hence they had an elaborate system of explanations (or excuses) against disproving evidence. Besides an alternative system of terms or school of thought did not exist.[52] He was heavily critical about earlier theorists of primitive religion with the exception of Lucien Lvy-Bruhl, asserting that they made statements about primitive people without having enough inside knowledge to make more than a guess. In spite of his praise of Bruhl's works, Evans-

Pritchard disagreed with Bruhl's statement that a member of a "primitive" tribe saying "I am the moon" is prelogical, but that this statement makes perfect sense within their culture if understood metaphorically.[53][54] Apart from the Azande, Evans-Pritchard, also studied the neighbouring, but very different Nuer people.The Nuer had had an abstract monotheistic faith, somewhat similar to Christianity and Judaism, though it included lesser spirits. They had also totemism, but this was a minor aspect of their religion and hence a corrective to Durkheim's generalizations should be made. EvansPritchard did not propose a theory of religions, but only a theory of the Nuer religion.

7. Explain the meaning of the various forms of religion: polytheism, henotheism, pantheism, monotheism, and dualism. Poly-more than one GOD Heno- worship of one god, without saying others do not exisit PANTHEISM- All is god in some mysterious way. Monotheism-One transcent god Dualism- there are two gods

8.

In what way has the human race progressed? In what way not?

4..

Give and explain Clifford Geertzs definition of religion.

) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic

Explain- Tell what this means

Developing a Theory of Religion as a Cultural System In developing a theory of religion as a cultural system, Geertz starts right out by first providing the definition of religion at the onset. Religion is defined as (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic (p. 90). He then goes on to expound more fully on each of the five parts of the definition in some detail. Here I will note of key ideas from each of these 5 parts. (1) The first important characteristic of the system of symbols, or in another word the cultural patterns, is that they are the extrinsic source of information. By "extrinsic" it is meant that this source of information results out of cultural constructs, and not innate or genetic characteristics of human beings. The other important point is that this system of symbols is the "model" for empirical reality, in a dual sense. That is, it has the aspects of being "model of" and "model for" reality - model of, in the sense that it helps people apprehend what is the nature of true reality by providing the graspable depiction of that reality, and model for, in the sense that the model also has the function of actually determining people's actions by providing for the blueprints of how things are ought to be conducted. This point is particularly important, for it touches on the same issue of the dialect between structure and actions mentioned in my point #2. Geertz says: "Unlike genes, and other nonsymbolic information sources, which are only models for, not models of, culture patterns have an intrinsic double aspect: they give meaning, that is, objective conceptual form, to social and psychological reality both by shaping themselves to it and by shaping it to themselves" (p. 93). (2) Religion establishes certain dispositions in people, that is, they do not cause certain activities or occurrences to take place directly, but increases the probability of certain activities or occurrences taking place. The distinction between moods and motivations are made in the pages 96 and 97. Briefly, the difference is that whereas motivations have certain ends in conception and are defined according to that ends they conduce, moods go nowhere and are rendered meaningful only according to the source of that "mood" but not ends they pursue. (3) Religion, if it is not to be a mere jumbled collection of moralisms, must affirm something; and it must affirm that life we live in is comprehensible, that we are not living in total chaos in which everything is incomprehensible. There are three spheres of life that this threshold of

comprehensibility may be broken, and life may come to be seen as incomprehensible: in terms of analytic capacities, in terms of endurance, and in terms of moral insight - which religious systems in turn have to make sure that this threshold is not broken and the life is made meaningful. Or, in another word, the analytic capacity problem may be seen as accounting for the events seen as odd, strange or uncanny; endurance problems may be seen as accounting for the problem of suffering, and moral insight problems may be seen as accounting for the problem of evil. In all of them, the key idea is that religion does not try to directly deny the existence or the reality of undeniable problems, but rather that religion merely tries to deny the notion that there is not any way that these problems may be accounted for in some way. (4) But how do people come to accept, believe in, this denial of the notion that nothing can be accounted for, in another word, how do people come to accept the world view presented by religion? Geertz' basic answer seems to be that people come to accept this by doing - acting out and participating in religious rituals. In another word, for the participants in religious rituals, religious rituals are not merely the model of reality but also the model for reality. That is, not only religion depicts what they already believe, but it also sets example in what to believe and is therefore the enactments, materializations, and the realizations of certain belief systems. (5) The power of religion largely stems from its ability to act upon and transform people's conceptions of the everyday, common-sense world. That is, the moods and motivations induced by religion seem so powerful to believers that only they seem to be the sensible version of what things "really are" - and thus when people move out of the world of religious rituals and back into the common sense world it is the latter that is altered. Further, another important point Geertz makes here is that just how each different religious systems act upon the everyday world is entirely particularistic and there is no one single functional assessment of religions that can tell whether religion is good or bad, or whether it is functional to the society or not.

5.

Describe the various aspects of a human being and how they relate to the four ways of religion.

Body Chart

Draw the little guy to get the answers.

9.

What is the difference between religion and magic? Give examples

The difference is magic is done to make something happen, and religion does not put it in other hands, you are not able to control this.

We can summarize the difference between religion and magic like this:

Religion asks "How can I conform to the will of God and the Universe?" Magic asks "How can I get God and the Universe to conform to my will?"

10. Describe one of the major critiques of religion. How do religious people respond to this critique? SECULARISM SKEPTICISM HUMANISM NIHILISM