Atıf Sayısı
1
Görüntüleme
75
İndirme
26
Sosyolojiyle Tanrı’nın birlikte veya yanyana zikredilmesi yahut birbiriyle bağlantılandırılması, ilk bakışta oldukça şaşırtıcı gelebilir. Hatta “sosyolojide Tanrı tasavvuru” gibi bir ifadelendirme, paradoksal da görülebilir. Lakin sosyologların din ve toplum yaklaşımlarına yakından bakıldığında, sosyolojinin Tanrı ile ne kadar içili dışlı kılındığı ne kadar yakından ilişkili hale getirildiği görülebilir. Bu şekilde yaklaşıldığında, sosyolojinin “Tanrı”ya nasıl baktığı, sosyolojinin tanrısının olup olmadığı, varsa nasıl olduğu, sosyolojinin atesit olup olmadığı gibi hususlar, önemli hale gelmektedir. Sosyologların Tanrı tasavvuru veya inançlarının neler olduğu, sosyologların inançlarından bağımsız bir biçimde sosyolojinin tanrı veya tanrılarla ilişkisi, tanrılara bakışı ele alındığında, nasıl bir bilimin ortaya çıkacağı, sosyolojide tanrı yoksa ne olacağı, varsa ne olacağı, bir bilim dalı olarak sosyolojinin diğer birçok bilim dalı gibi bilim olmasının bir gereği olarak zaten tanrısının olmaması gerekip gerekmediği, nesnel olmanın tanrısız olmayı gerektirip gerektirmediği soruları da aynı şekilde anlamlı ve önemlidir. Yine tanrısız veya tanrılı bir bilim dalının mümkün olup olmadığı, sosyolojinin tanrısız veya tanrıtanımaz olması, sosyologların da tanrıtanımaz olmasını gerektirip gerektirmeyeceği, sosyolojinin tanrısı varsa, bunun monoteistik tanrı anlayışı mı yoksa politeistik tanrı anlayışı mı olduğu sorularına cevap arayışları, sosyolojinin önemli bir boyutunun anlaşılması ve vuzuha kavuşturulmasına katkı sunabilir. Bu makalede bu soru ve konular etrafında sosyolojinin “Tanrı”ya yaklaşımı nispeten dar sınırlar içinde ele alınmaya çalışılmaktadır. Bu çalışmada klasik “Batı Sosyolojisi”nin; ilkel dinler, kilise, Reformasyon, Protestanlık, pozitivizm, modernlik ve modernleşme, sekülerleşme, rasyonelleşme gibi kurum, olay ve süreçlerle bağlantılı olarak Tanrı konusunda hiçbir konuda olmadığı ölçüde sosyolojist ve antropomorfist bir bakışaçısıyla hareket ettiği varsayılmaktadır. Bu bağlamda denilebilir ki, klasik Batı sosyolojisinin ana çizgisi, toplumu dinin ve Tanrı’nın/tanrıların anarahmi olarak görmüş, toplumun bazı yapısal özellikleriyle ve çeşitli süreçlerle kendini tanrılaştırdığını, dolayısıyla toplumun tanrı ile aynı şey olduğunu ileri sürmüştür. Modern bir bilim olarak sosyoloji, Auguste Comte (1798-1857) ve özellikle Durkheim’ın (1858-1917) din sosyolojilerine bakılırsa, bazen toplumla din ve tanrıyı (tanrıları) aynılaştırır. Bu aynılaştırmanın arkaplanında toplumun mu tanrıyı (tanrıları) ürettiği yoksa tanrının (tanrıların) mı toplumu ürettiği çok net anlaşılmaz; fakat toplum biraz daha baskın görünmektedir. Comte, Marx (1818-1883), Freud (1856-1839) ve Durkheim’ın din ve toplum görüşlerinde bu görülmektedir. Anlaşılmaktadır ki klasik sosyologların kimi pozitivizm, kimi modernleşme ve sekülerleşme, kimi rasyonelleşme, kimi de bunların hepsi temelinde bazen din, bazen de tanrı veya tanrıları toplum, toplumu da tanrı yapmışlardır. Klasik sosyologlar, muhtemelen kendi Tanrı tasavvur ve inançlarından da etkilenerek toplumu, toplumun kültürünü, eğitim ve bilgi düzeyini merkeze alan, toplumun genel değişimine paralel olarak değişen bir Tanrı anlayışı geliştirmişlerdir. Buna göre sosyologların “Tanrı tasavvurunun veya “Tanrı’ya imanın sosyolojisi” üzerine kafa yordukları söylenebilir. Bunu yaparken sosyolojinin araştırma konusu olmayan Tanrı’yı sosyolojikleştirmeye kadar gidebildiklerini de söylemek gerek. Son tahlilde modern bir bilim olarak sosyolojinin oluşup gelişmesinde öncelikli rolü olan Comte, Marx ve Durkheim gibi başlangıç ve klasik sosyologların önemli bir kısmının tanrı yerine insanı, insanlığı ve toplumu koydukları söylenebilir. Sosyologlardan birçoğu, evrimci ilerlemeci tarih, din ve toplum anlayışlarına uygun olarak evrimci tanrı tasavvuruyla hareket etmişlerdir. Bu tasavvurda toplumlar, çok tanrılı inançlardan tektanrılı inanca doğru evrim geçirmiş ve nihayet tektanrılı bir inanca erişmişlerdir. Modern zamanlarda ise toplumlar, Tanrı’ya karşı daha mesafeli hale gelmiş, Tanrı toplumsal veya kamusal alanlardaki gücünü kaybetmiştir. Şu da belirtilmelidir ki, ilk “sosyolog”, Umran âlimi İbn Haldun, ‘Ilmu’l-‘Umrân ismiyle icat ettiği sosyoloji ilmini Allah inancını gizlemeden, ötelemeden, hatta Allah’ın toplumsal kural ve yasaları (Sünnetullah) temelinde, fakat nesnel olmaya azami özen göstererek icra etmiştir. İbn Haldun, Mukaddime’sinde geliştirdiği sosyolojisindeki birçok kavramı ve tezini Kur’an ayetlerine dayandırır. Anlaşıldığı kadarıyla İbn Haldun, birçok kavramını oluşturmada Kur’an’a dayanmakta ve tabii ki Kur’an inancının temelinde de Allah inancı yer almaktadır. İbn Haldun, Allah inancına sahip bir sosyoloğun, olaylara objektif ve tarafsız bir yaklaşımla bakılabileceğinin örneğini ortaya koymaktadır. Sosyolojinin Tanrı’sı, anlaşıldığı kadarıyla antropomorfistik ve sosyolojistik bir tanrıdır. Klasik sosyologlar başta olmak üzere birçok sosyolog, sosyolojinin konusu olmadığını belirttikleri halde Tanrı konusuna girmiş, Tanrı’yı toplumun bir ürünü olarak anlamışlardır. Aslında Tanrı ile ilgilenmelerinin en önemli boyutu da belki dinin nasıl ortaya çıktığını açıklamaya yardımcı olan bu “toplumun ürünü olarak tanrı” fikridir. Son tahlilde denilebilir ki, sosyolojik araştırma ve incelemelerinde sosyolojinin konusu olmadığını belirtmelerine rağmen “Tanrı’yı işin içine katanlar”, Tanrı’yı toplumu temsil eden kolektif bir varlık, toplumun gölgesi veya yansıması olarak görmekte, tanrı veya tanrılar ile toplumu veya grubu bir/aynı telakki etmekte yahut etmeye yakın durmaktadırlar. Bütün bu ifade edilen hususlardan, klasik Batı sosyolojisinin ve bu sosyolojinin etkisinde kalanların toplumu tanrı olarak öne çıkardığı, toplumu tanrı olarak algıladığı anlaşılabilir. Belirtmek gerekir ki, gelinen noktada artık sosyolojinin, “Tanrı”ya, orijin dönemi ve klasik aşamasının bir bölümündeki gibi baktığı söylenemez; bir bilim olarak nispeten oturmuş bir sosyoloji olma özelliğiyle, teolojik ve metafizik alanı araştırma alanının dışında tutsa da mutlak surette o alanlara giren konuları red ve inkâr tutumuna sahip bulunmamaktadır.
The fact that God is associated with sociology, or that it is referred to or connected with each other, may seem quite surprising at first glance. Even an expression like "the image of God in sociology" can be seen as paradoxical. But when sociologists look closely on the religious and social approaches, it can be seen how closely sociology is made connected with God. When approached in this way, the aspects such as how sociology looks at "God", whether it is the god of sociology, how it is, whether it is the atheist of sociology, become important. What is the philosophy of the sociologists of God or their beliefs, the relationship of sociology with the gods or gods, independently of the beliefs of the sociologists, when the view of the gods is addressed, the question of how a science will arise, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, what will be, Again, seeking answers to the questions whether a divine or divine branch of science is possible, whether the sociology is divine or divine, whether the sociologists must be divine or not, whether the sociology is divine, whether it is a monoteistic understanding of God or a politeistic understanding of God, can contribute to the understanding of a significant dimension of the sociology and to the achievement of the vuzuha. In this article, the approach of sociology to "God" around these questions and subjects is attempted to be addressed within relatively narrow limits. In this study, it is assured that the classical “Western Sociology” has acted with a sociologist and anthropomorphist perspective in relation to the institutions, events and processes such as primitive religions, church, Reformation, Protestantism, positivism, modernity and modernization, secularization, rationalization, and so far as it is not a matter of God. In this context, it can be said that the main line of the classical Western sociology has seen society as the anarchy of religion and of God/God, that society has divined itself with some structural characteristics and various processes, and therefore the society is the same thing as God. As a modern science, sociology, with regard to Auguste Comte (1798-1857) and especially Durkheim's (1858-1917) religious sociologies, sometimes identifies religion and gods (the gods) with society. It is very unclear in the background of this equalization whether the society produces God (the gods) or whether God (the gods) produces the society; but the society seems a little more dominant. This is seen in Comte, Marx (1818-1883), Freud (1856-1839) and Durkheim's religious and social opinions. It is understood that some of the classical sociologists have made positivism, some modernization and secularization, some rationalization, some all of them on the basis of some religion, some gods, some gods, some gods, some gods, some gods. The classical sociologists have probably developed a understanding of God, which, influenced by their own God’s design and beliefs, focuses on society, the culture of society, the education and the level of knowledge, and changes parallel to the general change of society. According to this, it can be said that sociologists think about "the image of God or "the sociology of faith in God". In doing so, it is also to say that sociology can go to sociologizing God without the subject of research. In the end, it can be said that a significant portion of early and classical sociologists such as Comte, Marx and Durkheim, which have played a priority in the formation and development of sociology as a modern science, have placed man, humanity and society in the place of God. Many of the sociologists have acted by the design of the evolutionary god in accordance with evolutionary progressive history, religion and society concepts. In this image, the societies evolved from the multi-God faith to the tectanic faith and eventually gained a tectanic faith. In modern times, societies have become more distant from God, God has lost his power in the social or public spaces. It should also be noted that the first "socialist", the Umran alimi Ibn Haldun, the sociological science he invented under the name of 'Islam'l-'Umrân, without hiding the faith of Allah, without distorting, even on the basis of the social rules and laws of Allah (Sünnetullah), but with maximum care to be objective. Ibn al-Haldun has found many concepts and theses in his sociology in the Qur’an. As far as it is clear, Ibn Haldun is based on the Qur’an in creating many concepts, and of course the basis of the Qur’an is also the faith of Allah. Ibn Haldun reveals an example of a sociologist who believes in God that the events can be viewed in an objective and neutral approach. The God of sociology is an anthropomorphic and sociological god. Many sociologists, including the classical sociologists, have entered the subject of God, but not the subject of sociology, and have understood God as a product of society. In fact, the most important dimension of their interest in God is the idea of “God as the product of this society” which may help explain how the religion emerged. In the final assessment, it can be said that, although they point out that in their sociological research and studies there is no subject of sociology, “those who add God to the work” see God as a collective being representing society, as a shadow or reflection of society, and they stand close to or relate to God or the gods and the society or the group. From all these expressed aspects, it can be clear that the classical Western sociology and those who remain under the influence of this sociology present the society as a god, perceive the society as a god. It must be noted that at this point it can no longer be said that sociology looks at "God" as part of the period of origin and the classical phase; with the characteristic of being a relatively seated sociology as a science, the theological and metaphysical fields hold out of the field of research, but absolutely the subjects that enter those fields do not have a red and denial attitude.
Dealing with the concept of god in philosophy, theology, kalām etc. is necessary, aside being surprising, since it is among one of the most essential topics of these disciplines. But when it comes to deal with the concept of god in Sociology or when “the concept of god in Sociology” is talked about, it is considered at first glance that the two things which should not be together are used together in a paradoxical way and with a meaningless force. However, if the issue is seen a little more closely, it will be understandable that the situation is not so. Because researching social dimensions of religion or reverse that society’s religious dimensions, Sociology has directly or indirectly been interested with the concept or subject of god; by carrying the subject on further aspects, some sociologists have even argued that society generates a god or gods, the society and God are the same thing, and god or gods are the reflections of society or groups. Thus, in Sociology, especially in the classic “Western Sociology”, society is god (God, god or gods), and god is society or group. In this viewpoint, society deifies or makes itself god. This can also be expressed as follows: God makes Himself society or socializes Himself that is, reflects himself into society. In a sense that God has become sociology/sociological, and sociology has become god/divine. In this study, the concept of god in sociology is considered based on the ideas of some sociologists and some sociological sources at the level of introduction. Summary:That sociology and god are mentioned together or side or made interconnected can be quite surprising at first glance. Even the expressions such as the “the concept of God in sociology” can be seen paradoxical. However, when it looked at sociologists’ approaches to religion and society closely, it can be seen that how much sociology has been internalized and related to God or intimately connected with God. When the issue approached in this way, matters such as how sociology looks at “God”, whether sociology has a god, and if it has, what kind of god is and whether sociology is atheist, become important. In this context, the questions such as what sociologists’ conception or beliefs of God are; what kind of science will emerge when it is looked at the relationship of sociology with “God” or gods and its approach to gods regardless of the beliefs of sociologists; what will happen if there is or isn’t god conception in sociology; whether sociology must not have a god conception as a requirement of being a science like many other sciences; and whether being objective requires being godless are equally meaningful and important. Also, seeking answers to questions like whether a godless or godly scientific discipline is possible or not; whether godless sociology or atheist sociology requires godless/atheist sociologists; if there is a god concept’ on in sociology, whether this is a monotheistic or a polytheistic god understanding, can contribute to the understanding and clarification of an important dimension of sociology. In this article, the approach of sociology to the “God” is tried to be covered around these questions and issues within relatively narrow limits. In this study, it is assumed that “Western Sociology” has acted from a sociologistical and anthropomorphist point of view about God in relation to institutions, events and processes such as primitive religions, church, Reformation, Protestantism, positivism, modernity and modernization, secularization, rationalization. In this context, it can be said that the main line of classical Western sociology has seen society as a venter of religion and God/gods and argued that the society deified itself with certain structural features and various processes, and therefore that society is the same thing as God. Sociology as a modern science, especially in the context of Auguste Comte’s (1798-1857) and Durkheim’s (1858-1917) sociologies of religion, sometimes identify society with religion and God (gods). In the background of this identifying, it is not very clear whether society produces God (gods) or whether God (gods) produce society; but it seems that society is slightly more dominant. This is seen in Comte, Marx (1818-1883), Freud (1856-1839) and Durkheim’s views of religion and society. It is understood that some of classical sociologists sometimes have made religion, sometimes gods or gods society and also made society god on the basis of positivism, and some on the basis of modernization and secularization, some on the basis of rationalization, some also on the basis of all of these. Classical sociologists have developed a conception of God that changes in parallel with the general change of society and centered on the society and the culture, education and knowledge level of society and also probably being influenced by their own imaginations and beliefs of god. Accordingly, it can be said that sociologists have contemplated on the “sociology of God’s imagination” or “the sociology of faith in God”. In doing so, it must be said that sociology can go as far as sociologicalization of God, which is not its subject of research. In the final analysis, it can be mentioned that a great number of the early and classical sociologists such as Comte, Marx and Durkheim, who played a primary role in the formation and development of sociology as a modern science, replaced man, humanity and society with God. Many sociologists have acted with an evolutionist concept of god in accordance with evolutionist progressive understanding of history, religion and society. In this view, societies evolved from polytheistic beliefs to monotheistic faith, and finally reached a monotheistic faith. In modern times, societies have become more distant to God, and God has lost power in social or public spaces. It should be noted that Ibn Khaldun, the first “sociologist”, the scholar of Umran, performed the science of sociology which he invented under the name of ‘Ilm al-‘Umrān without concealing and removing the belief in Allah, even on the basis of Allah’s social rules and laws (Sunnatullāh), but by paying utmost attention to be objective. Ibn Khaldun, bases many of his concepts and theses in his sociology which is developed in Mukaddimeon the Qur’anic verses. It is understood that Ibn Khaldun forming many of his concepts on the basis of the Qur’an and of course, his Qur’anic belief is the belief in Allah. Ibn Khaldun sets forth an example of the fact that a sociologist with a belief in Allah can look at things objectively and impartially. In this context, the god of sociology is an anthropomorphistic and a sociologitical god. Although many sociologists, especially classical sociologists, stated that God was not the subject of sociology, they have dealt with the subject of God and understood god as a product of society. In fact, perhaps the most important aspect of their involvement with God is “the idea of God as the product of society” which helps explain how religion emerged. In the final analysis, it can be said that although “those who involve God” state that god is not the subject of sociology in their sociological researches and investigations, they see god as a collective entity representing the society, the shadow or reflection of society, and they considers or are close to considering society or group one/the same with the god or gods. From all these issues, it is understandable that classical Western sociology and those who influenced by this sociology put society as a god and perceive society as a god. It should be noted that, at this point, no longer be regarded that sociology perceives “God” as it done in a part of the period of origin and the classical phase; although sociology as a relatively established science, it excludes the theological and metaphysical issues, it does not have the absolute attitude of rejecting and denying the subjects that fall within these fields.
Alan : İlahiyat; Sosyal, Beşeri ve İdari Bilimler
Dergi Türü : Ulusal
Makale Detay 
Atıf Yapanlar
Benzer Makaleler
PDF Görüntüle
Dergi Bilgisi
Eseri Dinleyin
Bu Sayfayı Yazdırın
Paylaş
Mendeley
