Some things that have interested me is that four different guys all have different aspects of religion. Which in reality you wouldn’t think that religion could have that many definitions.
First, Frazer thinks that religion is the rejection of magic, if magic doesn’t work then try religion, if that doesn’t work then use science. I highly disagree about his definition of religion because science is not the answer to everything. Sometimes, there are unanswered questions and there is no way to ever find the answer.
Next, Durkheim says that religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to “sacred things” that is to say, things set apart and forbidden. These practices “unite into one moral community, “community” and “church”.” I would have to say that i agree with Durkheim the most because his explaination is the closest to what we do today. I also agree because he says that it “unites a moral community” and when I go to church I feel connected with everyone around me.
Freud, what a strange man. His definition and belief of religion is the craziest, most opposite of what I was thinking. He thinks religion is superstitions, that there is no God or Gods, and that everything always leads back to the truth. Oh, and the fact that all men want to kill their fathers and marry their mothers, and that all women have penis envy is a hint that Freud had to be a little messed up in the head.
Last but not least is Marx. Marx defintion of religion was the sign of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. I disagree with this because religion is a choice for people so saying that rich people make the poorer people go to church and do things related to religion is their choice.