What Religions Do
Whatever one thinks a religion is, this much remains certain: a religion does. This fact is closely related to the challenge of defining religion. Some theorists have emphasized this functional side of religion in their explanations.
In some cases, this results in explaining away or reducing religion to being an effect or result of other forces. Underlying Durkheim’s definition, for example, is a theory that reduces religion to being an effect of societal forces, a mechanism that, having been produced in the first place by societal needs, functions in turn to promote social unity. Here is a clear case in point that definitions reveal as much about the intentions of the theorist as they do about the nature of religion. As Durkheim is a founder of sociology, it is not surprising that he emphasizes the social aspects of religion. Consider also this assertion from psychologist Sigmund Freud (1856-1939):Religion would thus be the universal obsessional neurosis of humanity; like the obsessional neurosis of children, it arose out of the Oedipus complex, out of the relation to the father.9
Freud was an atheist whose psychological theory held religion to be undesirable. Political philosopher Karl Marx (1818-1883), likewise an atheist, offers an even more antagonistic assessment:
Man makes religion, religion does not make man. In other words, religion is the self-consciousness and self-feeling of man who has either not yet found himself or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man, the state, society.... Religion is the sigh 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.—
Marx, affected by what he perceived as the economic disparities of the Industrial Revolution, was a materialist who dismissed all forms of ideology as obstacles to the pursuit of true wellbeing.
Freud similarly regarded religion as an effect of other forces, viewing it as a by-product of psychological influences. According to Freud, religion functions as an unhealthy but soothing buffer against the inner terrors of the psyche. For Marx, religion functions in a similarly unhealthy manner, as an opiate that deters the suffering individual from attending to the true cause of affliction.
At sites like this Confucian temple in Beijing, China, Confucius (Master K’ung) is honored for his enduring contributions to Chinese culture. Sound definitions of “religion’' are flexible enough to include Confucianism as a religious tradition.
Contemporary scholars largely regard these functionalist explanations as severely limited. Perhaps religions do function in these ways at certain times in certain situations; but surely religions do much more. In fact, neither Freud nor Marx ever actually tried to define religion; rather, they tried to explain it away. This does not diminish, however, the enduring relevance of these theorists for purposes of striving to understand the big picture of the role religion plays in the lives of individuals and in societies.
We can widen our vantage point on the functions of religion and produce a fairer and more accurate depiction by considering the variety of life’s challenges that these traditions help people to face and to overcome.