Some light at the end of the tunnel…
09-04-08 — Contrary to what Freud believed, his disciple disagreed with him about religion. Jung believed religion was needed for the fulfillment of individuation and a healthy use of religion was proper to understand ones place in the universe and ultimately a way to prepare for death. James was of the pragmatic school of thought that true is whatever is expedient in the way of ones thinking, and if it works for the individual then it is considered useful. Durkheim explained that religion is social and it is the glue that holds a society together.
09-23-08 — Here are a group of thinkers that seemed to look at religion in a different manner and examined its uses. The question for today is how is Durkheim wrong? It is difficult to say that religion is not social. It makes sense to say that religion functions as a social item yet it is meant to instruct individuals to reach a different state of being here on earth or a different place of existing in the future for the resurrected soul so the idea of the social does not really apply to the state of being of the mind like nirvana or heaven in the hereafter because the idea of the social is negated in the ultimate goal of religion. If the idea of reincarnation is true where some souls have been migrating to different forms of life for thousands of years in different societies and only to try to overcome the weights of the world and forsake the society and transcend this life it seems thatthe social is actually negated and ultimately the idea is not to be born anymore in this society — it is likewise for Christianity where on is born again, not in society but in the kingdom of heaven only to become a citizen of heaven. Durkeheim takes God out of the picture which is also a mistake because that is part of the supposed societal tradition, can’t have your cake and eat it too!!
