Eliade and Weber on Religion

            Religion is a pervasive and significant cultural phenomenon. From the psychological traditions of Freud to the sociological traditions of Durkheim and Marx, these theorists' conclusions explain away religion. However, Eliade and Weber reject such reductions and offers different insights that improve the understanding of religious phenomena, which we'll observe through their theories.
             Eliade contends, with his notion of the sacred, that there is something unique and special about the religious experience. He rejects the conclusions drawn by the reductionist because he believes that "religious activity must be grasped 'at its own level,' not explained as a mere by-product of social, psychological, or other conditions. Such thinking misreads religion fundamentally by missing 'the one unique and irreducible element in it – the element of the sacred' (272). Eliade "recognized that much of the study of religion is simply the study of history – inquiry into past human events, ideas, and achievements. But he stressed also that history needs a complement in phenomenology, which is the effort to place these human activities within certain general forms, or fixed patterns, that can be discerned by the trained observer [since] it can be applied to the actions, institutions, or ideas of any culture or tradition, enabling us to compare, contrast, connect, or distinguish them across all times and places" (272). This methodology allows Eliade to utilize the concept of the sacred and profane to analyze religion. Eliade isn't concerned about "the relation between the rational and the non-rational elements of religion but the sacred in its entirety" (275). .
             Both Weber and Eliade's theories are distinct from those of Freud, Durkheim, and Marx. According to Freud, religion is a mass neurosis and exists as a response to deep emotional conflicts and weaknesses.