The primary purpose of this book, “The Elementary Forms of Religious Life”, was to divulge and depict how religion came into being starting with the most primitive religion known to man. It provides an introduction to Durkheim’s ideas, intuitions and views that are formed from social unity. More than an explanation of the origins of religious belief, Durkheim is rationalizing how religious ideas were the basis for scientific belief and how prior recognition was based on social norms rather than instinct.Durkheim offered a starting point for thinking about the ethical foundation for religion. Emile Durkheim is trying to discover the enduring source of common human identity. Studying religion was Durkheim’s way of trying to understand the
…show more content…
He creates an argument with little evidence. Durkheim used his study of Totemism to clearly fit into his definition of religion. In choosing one religion to base his claims, Durkheim created a weakness in his theory. Durkheim’s weakness in defining the sociology of religion went back to ancient history and he was not a believer, so it left little room for differences of beliefs as an individual. Durkheim’s theory also excluded thorough discussion of doctrine and stressed that religion has only a social function, which is too limited a start of how religion operates. Durkheim ultimately believed that if a primitive religion was the subject for research, it was better adapted to us than any other perception of understanding religion as it relates to humanity. There was no good evidence of Durkheim’s theory of the soul. The account of how souls become spirits, and thus the objects of a cult; and that the soul was formed without borrowing elements from any prior religion, are in my opinion, weak links in this book. The claim of the most basic categories of human thought was not clearly distinguished. In addition, he leaves one to wonder about just what counts as “collective.” Durkheim 's sociology of knowledge seems vulnerable to realistic objectives, as does his sociology of
He creates an argument with little evidence. Durkheim used his study of Totemism to clearly fit into his definition of religion. In choosing one religion to base his claims, Durkheim created a weakness in his theory. Durkheim’s weakness in defining the sociology of religion went back to ancient history and he was not a believer, so it left little room for differences of beliefs as an individual. Durkheim’s theory also excluded thorough discussion of doctrine and stressed that religion has only a social function, which is too limited a start of how religion operates. Durkheim ultimately believed that if a primitive religion was the subject for research, it was better adapted to us than any other perception of understanding religion as it relates to humanity. There was no good evidence of Durkheim’s theory of the soul. The account of how souls become spirits, and thus the objects of a cult; and that the soul was formed without borrowing elements from any prior religion, are in my opinion, weak links in this book. The claim of the most basic categories of human thought was not clearly distinguished. In addition, he leaves one to wonder about just what counts as “collective.” Durkheim 's sociology of knowledge seems vulnerable to realistic objectives, as does his sociology of