Response Paper to Religious Evolution (Theories of Social and Religion )

Religious Evolution is academically very brilliant concept but it does not necessarily work for examining the reality of religion in the daily life. Bellah tried to portray the development of religion from the simple thing to the more complexity. Bellah has succeeded to identify every phase of religious development by using Geertz’ interpretation of religion as a “symbolic forms”. This interpretation drew that religious symbolization change gradually from simple thing to be complex, from particular to be universal and comprehensive. But it fails when we consider in the reality when many things have mixed and been unreadable easily. Everything changed, but it did not meant that it was a purely change.

 The evolution of religion is one of the attempts to portray the social fact change. It will give the clear explanation for every single factor in the religion’s history. Bellah identified that the religious phase has divided into five steps: primitive, archaic, historic, early modern and modern religion. The basic presupposition from this thesis is the continuity process on every phase. The problems arise when many factors on previous phase still exist in the next phase or even in the last phase. For instance, Bellah distinguished primitive religion from the using of myth. He argued in archaic religion the mythical beings are much characterized by active and willful control the world. For me, it does not make sense because many primitive tribe also believe and perceive the something good or bad from invisible power beyond them.

It is necessarily important for us to portray the strict definition of term “Religious Evolution”. If it is only the change for symbolization, it will be not work sufficiently because in the fact many religious adherents are illogical. Not all things as Bellah claimed as religious symbol now  is appropriate with modern religion he defined.