I. Durkheim's Theory of Religion:

Emile Durkheim was the founder of the science of society or "sociology". Unlike his contemporary Freud, Durkheim believed that one could not understand a person in isolation, but only in the context of his or her larger society. He went so far a to say that "social facts are more fundamental than individual ones (p. 88-9, Pal)." He taught that at the core of any society was its religious belief. If you could understand the religion, you could understand the society, and therefore understand the people. He disagreed with his predecessors, Taylor and Frazer, in their view that fundamental to religion was a bifurcation of the world into natural and supernatural, into mortals and gods. Durkheim defined religious persons as those who divide the world into the sacred and profane. "Sacred things are always set apart as superior, powerful, forbidden to normal contact, and deserving of great reverence. Profane things are the opposite; they belong to the ordinary, uneventful and practical routine of everyday life (p. 99, Pal)." Durkheim claimed this to be the central structure of this religious theory and that all religions could be understood by this division of sacred from profane. Durkheim goes on to say that sacred does not necessarily equate to "good" nor profane to "bad". Sacred things may sometimes be evil, but they can never be profane.

According to Durkheim, the most "elementary form of religious life" is totemism, as practiced by the aborigines of Australia. Totemism is the root from which all other religions evolved. Durkheim claims that "totem beliefs are so fundamental to the life of these simple societies that everything of importance is ultimately shaped by them (p. 102, Pal)."

Durkheim distinguishes between religious belief from religious ritual. He teaches that belief is secondary, changing from time to time and place to place. Belief is the intellectualizing of religion. Ritual is central. Rituals are the most important glue that holds societies together. Rituals that mark birth, marriage, coming of age, death, first rain, and harvest, are what define the society. These rites which separate the sacred from the profane promote a consciousness of the clan and make participants feel a part of it. Durkheim marks three forms of the cultic ceremonies in totem clans: negative (taboo), positive (worshiping), and piacular (atonement). These religious beliefs and rituals are in the last analysis "symbolic expressions of social realities. Worship of the totem is really a statement of loyalty to the clan. Eating the totem is really an affirmation and reinforcement of the group. (p.108, Pal)". Religion is important because it serves society by providing from infancy onward the ideas, rituals and sentiments that guide the life of every person with it.

Like Freud and Marx, Durkheim was not a religious practitioner. But unlike them, he was not hostile to religion. He contended that religion (or something very like it) will endure because society cannot exist without ceremony. Religious ceremony is the true source of social unity. In the words of the old hymn "Blest be the ties that bind".

Religion as a Piece of the Larger Sociology Pie:

Emile Durkheim was a sociologist first and foremost. Although he noted the central importance of religion to any society, he viewed religion through his sociologically-tinted glasses. Just as Freud viewed religion as a psychological construction and Marx viewed religion as a political construction, so Durkheim viewed religion as a sociological construction. "Durkheim felt that his sociological perspective offered special insight into the nature of political systems, education, morals, and especially religion (p. 97, Pal).

Durkheim's distinction between magic and religion was insightful. He suggested that magic be viewed as a private undertaking to make the supernatural effect the natural. Magicians work on behalf one person. Religion must always be social. According to Durkheim, there is no such thing as private religion.

A Critical Evaluation of Durkheim's Theory of Religion

Among Durkheim, Freud, and Marx, I found Durkheim's theory of religion to be the most compelling. I liked much of what he had to say. I believe that Durkheim had many things right. Religion has been the source of much social unity. Religious rituals do tend to bind individuals to the whole. I also appreciated his sacred/profane structure. I can see this distinction working out in many "primitive" religions.

My main problem with Durkheim lies in his unspoken presupposition that religion is a human invention. My primary question to all philosophers of religion is this: "Which statement is more accurate? (1) God created man in his own image, or (2) Man created God in his own image". If a person's theory excludes God, then the first statement is impossible and the second must be supported. I see Freud, Marx and Durkheim all struggling to create a god/theory of religion in their own image. Durkheim is an agnostic sociologist and his god/theory of religion must therefore demonstrate that religion is a human invention and primarily serves a sociological purpose. [Why am I not surprised that Durkheim arrives at this pre-ordained conclusion?]

Maybe there is an ontological problem here. Durkheim believes that "social facts are more fundamental than individual ones - that they are, in their way as real as physical objects (p.89, Pal)". It appears that Durkheim is setting up some kind of ontological hierarchy, in which some things are more real that other things. Durkheim's religion appears to be "sociology" because social constructs are the most real. I also have such a hierarchy and in my hierarchy, God is the most real of all.

This takes us to the circular reasoning that Pal points out on pages 115: "The sacred is the social, he writes, and the religious is the sacred; therefore, the religious is the social". In other words, if one defines "sacred" as a social invention and then says that "religion" is based on the sacred, then of course one concludes that "religion" is a social invention. But let us suppose, that a sense of the sacred has been placed in the human heart by the God who created us. Then what? Then religion is an attempt to recover the divine.

Pal also points out the reductionist extreme to which Durkheim goes in reaching his theory of religion (p. 117-8). Why is it that religion is always the appearance while social structure is always the reality? How can Durkheim be so positive about what is the cause and what is the effect? Furthermore, why does Durkheim insist that religion serves ONLY a social function. Why does he "reduce" completely religion to social? I am convinced that religion does serve a social function, but might it not also serve a spiritual function, one that cannot be reduced to social?

My conclusion is not that much different from Durkheim's own conclusion in regard to religious ritual. Durkheim's final analysis is that "religious ritual is the symbolic expression of a social reality". I would re-state this analysis as "Christian ritual (as the Lord's Supper and Baptism) is the symbolic expression of ultimate reality".