Religion is seen as a tradition rather than something which is applicable to everyday life. It is a set of beliefs which has association with something or someone sacred. The beliefs presented within religious cultures are often used as guidance in individuals everyday lives. However, modernised societies have adjusted religion, where old traditions are not taken into account. With this, we can see that the nation is becoming secular.
Sociologist Durkheim refers to the idea of religion as something which is somewhat sacred. The sacred object in which he describes is the human body- not a God or superior existence in which we would automatically presume. Everyone in a community, no matter what community, will always subscribe to other human beings. The term “sacred” suggests the idea of someone or something divine. This means that we should worship it in another way and this way is by being respectful and treating one another equally. One way in which humans are sacred is the fact that no one must hurt or touch it. This is shown throughout the human rights act. Each human has the right to be treated with dignity and respect, no matter what. If a human is hurt then you are hurting a sacred being and therefore going against the whole idea of religion. It could be argued that Princess Diana agreed with Durkheim’s idea of the human. Despite all rules which were given from the royal family the princess still went ahead and spent time with those humans with HIV and AIDs, she changed the worlds perspective on those with these diseases. This is just a small example as to how Princess Diana also believed that humans are sacred in their own way. Despite individuals having diseases Princess Diana oversaw this and she still treated them as human beings. It was her selfless act of treating those infected with respect which saw the improvement of how humans were treated and a modern day example of how Durkheim believed humans should be treated no matter what.
The founder of Marxism, Karl Marx was famously known for claiming that “Religion is the Opium of the people.” It was this statement which showed how Marx felt towards religion, and that he did not agree with the ideas which religious practices put forward by the religious teachings. Similarly to the bourgeoisie exploiting the proletariat, Marx believed that religion did a similar thing. The idea of religion is based on the ideas of the bourgeoisie. For example, there will always be a hierarchy within religion. God will always be at the top of that hierarchy, no matter what. In the same way as the business owners will be at the top of a hierarchy. Members of the working classes and lower classes are promised a better life if they work hard, get their qualifications they may have a better chance of becoming a member of higher class. This is the same as religion. If you are respectful and follow the rules which are set out for you then you are promised a good afterlife in Heaven, whereas if you are not good then you could potentially face the consequence of Hell.
As sociologists we are particularly interested in religion because it is no longer something which is used as a way of authority but now a way of rebellion and it is because of this that sociologists disagree with how secularisation is defined. One way secularisation is defined is, “The decline of religion.” It is this definition which is the most popular and arguably the most truthful definition. Society has become more modern, and resulting this people are no longer seeing religion an important way of identifying themselves. In Britain Christianity was the dominant religion and individuals would often refer to the Bible to help guide their way of life. The 10 commandments were in extremely important to the individuals, and individuals based their own norms and values on the Bible and its teachings. However, many of the teachings are now arguably outdated. For example, the Catholic church once refused the idea of any form of homosexuality, they only believed in heterosexual marriages and relationships. As time moved on, and the idea of homosexuality became legal, the Catholic church became more accepting and now allow gay marriages to take place. Another huge change in society is the basis of relationships. The Bible states that “No sex before marriage” must be a rule that both men and women should follow. Alongside this is women should not take any contraception as this prevents pregnancy and the Bible does not agree with this. According to religious beliefs a woman is put on the earth to reproduce and taking contraception clearly prevents this. However, in modern day society more and more woman are taking birth control in order to prevent pregnancy, not many women want to have children anymore. Sue Sharpe conducted two studies one in the early 1970’s and the other in the early 1990’s based on the attitudes of women and their priorities. In the 1970’s, when it can be argued that religion was still highly influential and was still used to guide people’s life’s the girl’s priorities were; “love, marriage, husbands and children.” All of the priorities which Sharpe found were those which the Bible encouraged. Within twenty years when Sharpe completed the study again she found that the girls priorities had completely changed to, “job, career and being able to support themselves.” (Trueman, 2015) These priorities are clearly going against the biblical teachings. Another example is Sunday is a day of “rest”. Sunday’s were once known as the day where the whole family would get together and watch films and have their Sunday lunch together. Sunday was a day for the family, and many establishments were closed. It was extremely important for family life that members spent the day together because throughout the week they would not get this opportunity due to work commitments, and the education system. Not only was Sunday known as a rest day it was also known for the day of God. It was only introduced as a rest day because again in the Biblical teachings it is claimed that God took the seventh day of and rested when he was creating the world. Therefore, we should do the same. However, this is no longer applicable. Modern day society is now too focused on the consumption and “keeping up with the Joneses.” As a result of this the businesses within society have had no choice but to open up on Sundays in order to keep their businesses running. Many years ago shops would remain closed and it would only be public houses which remained open. Despite the public houses remaining open they still had to obey by strict rules, they had to close between 3pm and 7pm. This was implemented in order to ensure individuals still had some time for their family, even though it was only a little. The only place which was acceptable to go too on a Sunday was to go to church. Whereas in modern day, most places remain open on Sundays and just close earlier than they do on any other day of the week. It is these small examples which I have used that shows how religion is no longer that important in modern day society and that individuals would rather put other things first such as going shopping, and/or going to work. Resulting this religion is slowly disappearing and therefore the first definition which sociologists have provided is correct.
The second definition which are provided with is that religion is now privatised, and no longer used in public spaces. This definition was a result of the rise in liberal democracy. As Britain has become more of a democratic society the monarchy has not played a significant role in individual’s life as many people rely on the government rather than the monarchy. In order for society to be democratic this means the development of freedom of speech, and individual rights are recognised in an official way. These rights and the freedom must remain protected at all costs and political power is limited by the law. In order for religion to remain “private” it requires the state and religion to remain separate. By this, it means that the state can no longer have a say where religion is concerned. The government must remain neutral when they are making laws and must not favour one religion over another as this will be against the human rights and would not comply with what liberal democracy stands for. However, this definition of secularisation which is provided creates many criticisms. One being the term “private” contradicts what religion is. “Private” suggests that no one shares their religious beliefs publicly, and they all do their praying in the space of their own home which is arguably a false representation of what religion is. Arguably, the idea of religion is to come together and celebrate with one another the faith that you believe in, whether this is Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism etc.. This is shown when people attend mass on a Sunday morning, it about coming together and learning the Biblical teachings. By claiming that it is private suggests that this no longer applies today.
On the other hand, it can be argued that this definition is also somewhat true. Many people, especially where the younger generation are concerned they tend to hide their religious beliefs from other people. If someone was to ask a young person their religious tendency they may decline that they are religious or get embarrassed. This is due to the fact that many young people are no longer socialised with religion being a priority, and parents believing that other things are more important than having a religion in their children’s life. It can also be argued that a lot of older people no longer identify themselves publicly as a religion follower. It has been reported that more than half of Britain’s population are no longer followers of any religion (53%). This has seen an increase of 19% since 1983. In 1983 only 3 in 10 people referred to themselves as non-religious (Bulman, 2017) These statistics show how insignificant religion now is in comparison to previous years. Consequently, this has given more reason for the state to step aside from religion. Members of the public would rather the government spend its money on something more important and not the church. Religion no longer plays a public role which also emphasises the definition of it now being a private matter rather than a public one. As the Bible has set guidelines, also known as the 10 commandments, communities used to obey by these rules and try not to break them. Communities did not want to break the 10 commandments out of the “fear” of going to hell. Throughout religious teachings, even though some may be myths, it is argued that if someone breaks a rule then they will be going to hell rather than heaven. It was this that scared people, and “forced” them to obey by the rules. The 10 commandments were made public so everyone was made aware of what was expected of them, and if these rules were not followed then there were potential consequences. By this is shows that Christianity has previously had some impact on the legal system and the laws which we should follow and therefore religious practices are made public so people are aware of them. For example one of the 10 commandments which is still clear today is “Thou Shall Not Kill.” Clearly this is a law which is still relevant today, and this must be obeyed. Subsequently, the idea of religion becoming more privatised is both true and untrue, as there are explanations which agree with this definition where as others may disagree.
Sociologists offer a third definition, which is the differentiation of religious and secular sphere. This definition seems to be a complex way of defining secularisation, and as a result of this is the least popular definition of secularisation. By referring to secularisation as “differentiation of religious and secular sphere” sociologists mean that religion is completely separate from other aspects of an individual’s life. Focus may be on other things such as politics, scientific knowledge and economics. There is an ongoing debate about how the world was created, and people question whether it was a God that created the world or whether it was science. The argument which scientists argue for is Evolution and it was Charles Darwin which proposed the idea of an evolution. Natural selection is the theory was Darwin proposed and it was this theory which scientists believe is the best explanation for the beginning of the world in comparison to what the scriptures claim, and scientists still use this explanation today. “On the Origin of Species” was a book which was published in 1859 by Darwin, and this created huge debates within the religious community. As religion was a significant thing in the 1800’s the Church of England believed this book was very blasphemous. The book contained information which went against the scriptures and this was highly frowned upon, and resulting this Darwin came under scrutiny. Furthermore, Darwin introduced the idea of humans descending from apes rather than from Adam and Eve which again was suggested in the Old Testament (Lotzaf, 2018). Again, the arguments which Darwin introduced created people to question whether the Biblical teachings were truthful or not. However, many philosophers would argue against Darwin’s idea of the creation, and to prove that God does exist philosophers introduced the teleological argument (also known as the argument from design). Many philosophers from the 18th century argue that in order for the world to be created something or someone must have designed it. St Thomas Aquinas introduced the five ways and it is this which “proves” the existence of God. The first three arguments are argued to be the most successful and the most important. It is the first three ways which consist of motion, causation and contingency (Stefon, 2016). Each one of these ways present us with truths, and possible explanations as to who created the world. According to Aquinas it must have been a God which did this because He has divine attributes and without these attributes it would not be possible. It could be argued that science now has a stronger influence over religion and resulting in this we are now a secular nation because people believe that science is more correct than something which is written in the Bible.
Grace Davie argues that “believing without belonging” is more common in modernised society. It is argued that many people do in fact have some sort of belief, even if this belief is no longer a traditional one, such as spirituality and astrology. Davie argues that you do not need to attend a church for you to believe, this statement coincides with the second definition which is provided- religion is now private rather than public. Despite Christianity no longer being the dominating religion our values are still derived from it. People will often refer to Christian beliefs despite not belonging to a church. People are more likely to go to a church for an occasion, instead of going to every Sunday. For example, many people will still attend church at Easter and Christmas. More important occasions such as weddings and baptisms are still celebrated within the church (Davie, 2007).
A secular nation is unable to provide us with things which we rely on in order to remain “sane”. The idea of religion, no matter what the definition is it provides us with a sense of meaning. If we cannot rely on a ‘God’ then we have nothing to rely on and the sense of meaning is lost. Often when there is times of crisis people will turn to God, even if we are not a strong believer in Him.
To conclude, sociologists may never agree on the definition of secularisation. All three definitions which sociologists have provided are relevant to the society we live in today. It is arguable that religion is still relevant, however it is in a different light in comparison to previous years.