‘Religion’ is a volatile word with an almost subjective meaning. The problem with attempting to define ‘Religion’ is that how can a single word be used to cover so many different types of cultures and means of prayer, worship and rituals? It is, however, useful as a word to describe the type of thing we are aiming to examine, without specifying what it really is. There have been many different attempts at defining religion and these come from a range of philosophical and anthropological fields such as cultural relativism, absolutism and reductionism.
One reason as to why it is particularly difficult to define ‘Religion’ is due to cultural differences between the Western scholars of Christianity and the indigenous religions such as those worshipped …show more content…
This is addresses in three different books ‘Totem and Taboo(1913)’, ‘The Future of an Illusion (1927), Moses and Monotheism (1939); where Freud expresses his beliefs on the origin of religion and why he beliefs religion to be false and therefore indefinable.
Generally however Totem and Taboo and Moses and Monotheism are regarded as two of the senseless books every written by modern day scholars. They make historical claims that would shift the way society views religion. Despite this Freud offers little evidence to back up his substantial claims such as in Moses and Monotheism, in which Feud claims Moses was instead killed by his followers and it was only in later years with the second profits including Amos, Isaiah as well as others, who demand that the tribe must worship the one universal God.
If Freud’s beliefs were true this would certainly discredit and possibly lead to this disbandment of at least all Abrahamic religions. But as I previously mentioned there is little to no evidence to suggest this alteration of history is true. Therefore this book must be …show more content…
Religion itself, as we can see from Freud’s reductionist account, cannot even be said to be objectively true. This immediately shakes the reality of the attempting to define ‘Religion’, as in this case we are trying to define something that is not true. This is made further difficult with the acceptance of a clear cultural divide on the definition of religion; making giving ‘Religion’ a strict objective definition impossible. Simply because of the strong differences between what is seen as religious between indigenous people and western Christian scholars, it would be like trying to define two distinct and separate objects under one label. Finally it is clear that the absolutist definition of God carries little credit. The only evidence that ‘Religion’ is based on moral obligations to the creator, is the scriptures in the bible such as exodus. Therefore ‘Religion’ seems to be a mainly subjective experience, which is why it is indefinable, it is instead user
One reason as to why it is particularly difficult to define ‘Religion’ is due to cultural differences between the Western scholars of Christianity and the indigenous religions such as those worshipped …show more content…
This is addresses in three different books ‘Totem and Taboo(1913)’, ‘The Future of an Illusion (1927), Moses and Monotheism (1939); where Freud expresses his beliefs on the origin of religion and why he beliefs religion to be false and therefore indefinable.
Generally however Totem and Taboo and Moses and Monotheism are regarded as two of the senseless books every written by modern day scholars. They make historical claims that would shift the way society views religion. Despite this Freud offers little evidence to back up his substantial claims such as in Moses and Monotheism, in which Feud claims Moses was instead killed by his followers and it was only in later years with the second profits including Amos, Isaiah as well as others, who demand that the tribe must worship the one universal God.
If Freud’s beliefs were true this would certainly discredit and possibly lead to this disbandment of at least all Abrahamic religions. But as I previously mentioned there is little to no evidence to suggest this alteration of history is true. Therefore this book must be …show more content…
Religion itself, as we can see from Freud’s reductionist account, cannot even be said to be objectively true. This immediately shakes the reality of the attempting to define ‘Religion’, as in this case we are trying to define something that is not true. This is made further difficult with the acceptance of a clear cultural divide on the definition of religion; making giving ‘Religion’ a strict objective definition impossible. Simply because of the strong differences between what is seen as religious between indigenous people and western Christian scholars, it would be like trying to define two distinct and separate objects under one label. Finally it is clear that the absolutist definition of God carries little credit. The only evidence that ‘Religion’ is based on moral obligations to the creator, is the scriptures in the bible such as exodus. Therefore ‘Religion’ seems to be a mainly subjective experience, which is why it is indefinable, it is instead user