Davie 3, 4

We've discussed two primary theories of religion in modern society: secularization and rational choice theory. Do you think these two theories adequately explain modern forms of religion (both belief and belonging)? What are their shortcomings? Is one or the other better for accounting for contemporary American religions?

This forum will be open for credit until M 2/12.

I believe these two theories do not explain the forms of religion. Religion is not something that you can pick apart and say "this is why he/she does this". Religion, for the people who are enaged, is much more then logic or theory. It's about faith and understanding that the next life is where one will find eternal glory. I believe the shortcomings of these two theories is that trying to put logic and reasoning into why people follow religion is unreasonable. People do not just follow religion for the benefits. Religion shapes you as a person and keeps your morals at high standards. It makes you put others before yourself, and pushes you to constantly be a better person than you were yesterday.

Though I agree that logic is not inherently something that defines religious belief, still, every religious person makes choices about their religion. A person, when confronted by the many different religions in the world probably has to consider why they think their religion is more suitable than another, or whether religion is correct at all. Like you say, most will push aside these questions as unanswerable, and a matter of faith (The early brainwashing of children into a specific religious sect usually gives them a strong preference for that religion) however there is enough religion-switching in the world to indicate that some people are engaged in these sorts of questions that raise questions about what the purpose of religion is, and if one religion is more suited than another to meeting an individual's needs. Logic and reasoning can be used to observe the behaviors and choices of religious folk to see if any sort of pattern emerges that may indicate a sort of rationality guiding those choices.

I agree, even in the perspective of when people switch their religion before marrying someone in a different religion. There was a choice, a decision made based on that persons rational of do I agree or believe in what this religion says, does this religion make more sense to me than my religion. They use their logic and reasoning of both religions to decide which religion is more suitable for them and, if they should switch their beliefs/traditions for their marriage. For this to happen, someone to choose to switch or follow a religion they make a logical decision. Therefore, their logic and reasoning used to decide which religion was best suitable for them validates that one can use logic and reasoning of a person to observe the behavior and choices of religious people.

Although I agree that neither secularization nor rational choice theory perfectly explain modern forms of religion, I do think there's a little contradiction when you say that religious people don't utilize logic. You stated that "Religion shapes you as a person and keeps your morals at high standards. It makes you put others before yourself, and pushes you to constantly be a better person than you were yesterday". Based off this, your logic in being religiously engaged is rooted in morality. You used a moral logic to explain why people follow religions. Also, all religions practically preach the same type of moral standards, which means that people do engage is some form of logic/reason that goes beyond the aspect of morality when assessing which religion to follow/believe or whether to believe at all (of course, this only applies to people who have had choice). You also said that people do not only follow a religion for the benefits they provide, but the benefit in being moral would present itself in the "next life" according to majority of religions. The benefit is never usually immediate, but requires individuals to follow particular rules in order to reap the benefits, otherwise no one would necessarily care to follow these rules.

I have to disagree with your response, though I may reflect some of the other comments on this post, I can't help but think what part of religion is not logic. Because if religion was just about the benefits and personal faith, then what what would the point be to congregate with others of the same faith? Even when you look at it from the perspective of putting others before yourself, there is a mental/emotional/moral benefit to doing so. I believe that holding oneself to moral high standards is a logistical way to benefit in a religious way.

I believe that it relates a good explanation on both topics. I also believe that secularization is not one of the best theories practiced because it is building a wedge away from those that are rooted in their religion. Those that practice routine prayer are forced to reorganize how they express themselves in prayer. They are condensed and marginalized when it comes to performing their religious rituals. On the other hand I believe that each individual has the right to make a decision about the nature of their faith. Many churches are suffering from secularism however it is up to the members to partake in the service. The rational theory coincides with secularism because naturally people often want to make sure that core values are covered but struggle to balance both. I believe eventually things will become unbalanced unless the determination for both is consistent. Religion is not always rational for some and logic is calculated in different forms. In any religion you practice you have to be dedicated to reap the benefits. I out of these two theories none is better than the other.

Secularization and Rational choice theory both make the incorrect assumption that people act foremost on logic and rationality, and that is a major reason why they fail to predict reality.
There is nothing rational about religion. Neither is there logic. there is no existing evidence that any god exists, or that any religion accurately represents what that entity desires of us. The fact that religions have cropped up all over the world in the entirety of written history shows that advances in logic and technology have not caused Religion to become extinct. In fact, religious institutions are still some of the most powerful political, social, and economic institutions in many parts of the world, and though these structures differ from the ones that reigned supreme during the middle ages, the changes are more a question of anachronism, rather than scale.
Secularization, which initially predicted that religion would be eradicated, or decline in power, has failed spectacularly to predict the continued dominance of religion in economic and political superpowers such as the United States. Likewise, Rational Choice Theory fails because, if humans acted on logic, then the world's entire population would be agnostics or atheists, since logic dictates that evidence must exist before a claim can be made that god exists.
However, if I must choose the theory that comes closer to explaining the current situation of religion, i would lean toward Secularization, only because logic has always been removed from religion, and never been the motivating factor for its members, so that even applying the word "rational" to the topic of religion must be an effort in futility.

I believe that two theories are good at explaining the world of religion around us but both have certainly limits of explanations. Pertaining to secularization theory i think that it is valid in certain parts of the world more than others. As societies modernize they become less religious and its valid because separation of institutions leads to secularization, since now science and religion are two different entities unlike long time ago where they were one. therefore people have a choice to believe or not to believe. As science progresses religion definitely looses traction but it does not disappear fully, i think it causes people to reform their opinions of religion, of what it means to them, from collective we go to individualistic where a persons might stop attending formal religious institutions but form their own version of religion that brings peace and love for the reality we live in. Rational choice theory also has some validity, mainly because our society becomes more rationalized as technology and science pervade and progress, parents might not socialize a child into religion because of rational choice they might have that a child has to choose his own way. Our society as well looks at most professionals as rational and nonreligious (as it seems to be). It does not look professional being too religious in a workplace, therefore we have to confront our beliefs. Rationality and science are intertwined and science seem to progress much quicker than religion does, certainly some questions will never be answered and human mind is likely to speculate the answers to those questions, although mysteries of life are inevitable. Overall i think two theories have their own shortcomings and in the end as we see through history, religion splits into many different roots and in the end we become more and more individualistic where we have to choose our own way of life and find a reason to live, life stays a great mystery and religion should spread unity and love not segregate people and lead us astray into different ways and different heavens.

I agree with you on the fact that secularization is valid in certain parts of the world more than others, and also on the fact that religion splits into many different roots. To add on to those, I believe that you can't only say that there are only two ends of the spectrum: there is always an area for overlap with the two. I find your argument about rationality and science being intertwined with religion and its progress in terms of the workplace very intriguing, and I strongly agree with that. Very unique, touching on
technology and science, and historical segregation, in the presence of Black History Month.

I agree with you on the fact that secularization is valid in certain parts of the world more than others, and also on the fact that religion splits into many different roots. To add on to those, I believe that you can't only say that there are only two ends of the spectrum: there is always an area for overlap with the two. I find your argument about rationality and science being intertwined with religion and its progress in terms of the workplace very intriguing, and I strongly agree with that. Very unique, touching on
technology and science, and historical segregation, in the presence of Black History Month.

Secularization is the meaning which religion may lose social and cultural significance. Religion becomes hollow advancing in modernity that moves away from religion as a guiding tool. Rational choice theory states how individuals make logical decisions giving opportunities of rational choosing. I agree with you that these concepts help explain the world of religion that have certain limitations. Society is constantly changing, giving a choice to believe in religion while allowing many opinions. People are becoming more individualistic on their beliefs on religion.

Rational choice theory is a better account for contemporary American religions rather than Europe because in Europe at the time of industrialization, the people had less choices they could make about which religion to follow, while Americans had more choices (pluralism). In contemporary American religions, they had many different choices they can make on what church or religion they can follow. Which allowed them to choose which religion helped satisfy their needs, their questions and had a greater reward for them. Religion before meant more about belonging but now with pluralism, it is more about belief, what tradition do you choose to believe, sounds more rational to you.

I agree with this comment because it is a good view on this topic, as religion did comfort people in their brightest and darkest times. People did choose religions based on fufilling their needs. That is what religion is supposed to offer, after all. A sense of belonging, even when you have nobody to turn to. Another reason that since now there are a vast amount of religions one can choose from, their is much more diversity.

Though I do think that both theories adequately explain modern forms of religion everywhere, I do have to agree that one theory is more prevalent in American society. Because just as you mentioned, Americans, as opposed to Europeans, had the option to choose which religion they chose to follow, which is pluralism and that leads to Rational Choice theory. If there is a benefit to them staying in a certain religion, thats fine, and if the benefit is not there anymore then changing religion is fine too because it is only rational to consider your options and take the best "route". For Europeans, the option of choice is much more difficult, not necessarily today since our societies have modernized quite a bit, but in terms of history and the foundation of religious ways of living. Where a whole village would be one religion, you would either be a follower of it or not because there are no options for you to weigh the benefits and the costs, so that would promote more secularization. I think it can be applied to America as well, but secularization theory isn't as strong nor a dominant way of thinking like how Rational Choice theory is.

In his 1981 issue of peer-reviewed journal Current Sociology, Karel Dobbelacre addresses three dimensions of secularization that operate at different levels of society: societal, organizational, and individual. Dobbelacre, and Jose Casanova, support the belief that the paradigm of secularization has been the main frame that the field of social sciences have viewed the relationship between religion and modernity. The case that modernity necessarily implies either a reduction in the level of religious belief or practice, or that religion is necessarily relegated to the sphere of privacy is entirely false, according to Jose Casanova. This theory has the dominant tendency to assert implications, making it extremely challenging to account for the facts.

Rational Choice Theory (RCT) has a prime focus on recognizing the positive connections between religious pluralism and religious activity. Pluralism in religion poses a challenge to the "sacred canopy" ideology, which deals with constructions that involve the meaning that individuals give to their lives and the resources required to establish necessary frameworks of their lives. Under this theory, individuals have the ability to make choices about what religion they want to follow. This theory brings out the analysis of costs versus benefits, which says that one should maximize benefits and lower costs, thus it is more supply-driven.

The secularization theory is more about belonging, while the RCT is more about belief. With secularization, there is the dominant force of authority over people and religion which changed from the church to the state. With RCT, there is more free will about individuality in which religion a person chooses to follow. I think that it is very hard to say that one or the other is better for contemporary American religions because although these two ends of the religious spectrum exist, I think that there is still room for possible overlaps between the two.

To me the two theories on the progress of religion are both founded on strong logical principles, but vary because of the context in which they were created.

The Secularization theory maps really well onto societies that once had large religious influence in not just cultural but political and bureaucratic circles. This was a theory built on the idea of religion being based on the act of belonging to a collective faith and that faith being able to exert its power over its parishioners through codified rules and norms. The decline of influence of organized church power from these spaces are quite accurate, but the decline of this influence from the public sphere does not translate to an equal retreat of religion from a private sphere, where religion becomes much more a personal choice.

This change is better examined in the Rational Choice theory, where the assumption of belief being the overriding feature of religion is made more prevalent because it was created in a place where religious diversity and the explicit division of church and state is a historical constant to a certain degree. The shortcomings of Rational Choice is again its bias towards the U.S. context and its assumption that survey responses translate into actual religious participation.

Secularization religion refers to a religion which loses social and cultural significance. Religious figures lose their authority based on what is influenced over society. Society becomes modernized, beginning to move away from religion authorities. Rational choice speaks on individuals whom determine their religion based on what is beneficial in order to determine whether a particular group is right for them. Individuals choose the most efficient means that best fits for the attainment of their goals. I believe religion defines you as a person. No one should be forced on what or whom to believe in. Choosing to follow a particular religion is a choice that should not be enforced by anyone. Pursing this route may make one a spiritual and better person.

Secularization religion refers to a religion which loses social and cultural significance. Religious figures lose their authority based on what is influenced over society. Society becomes modernized, beginning to move away from religion authorities. Rational choice speaks on individuals whom determine their religion based on what is beneficial in order to determine whether a particular group is right for them. Secularization forces people to abandon what is meaningful to them such as their values and historical events due to progress of structural changes.Additionally, as secularization results in the decline of the social significance that religion plays in the lives of many. The shift from a sacred way of life has been drained away by larger external forces and obstacles. One that note, secularization is constructed a figure in public life, generally speaking religious occasions are reduced thus losing their content. It is a phenomena that declines religiosity while on the other hand it demonstrates that becoming secular change begins to develop within a society, a response that allows events to display a systematic procedure for other people to follow. This example, it is evident that religious values, practices and beliefs become affected because of secularization thus placing major implications towards religion which is an important social institution. Rather than secularizing, instead we should turn our attention given to religious aspects, as well as its historical elements this is because religion is a key figure within most cultures and history no one should be forced to change their beliefs.