It is the Institution of Religion that has the power to impede change – separate individuals, by themselves, do not. To me that makes sense anyway 🙂

I’m sorry – but Sociology lists, as one of religions dysfunctions, its ability to impede social change – that is Sociology talking, not me.

Religion, as an institution, is made up of people – but I think its fairer to say not all religious people impede social change, but religion, AS AN INSTITUTION, does – I think that is what Sociology is trying to get at – that’s not negating Religions many FUNCTIONS, according to Sociology either

Those same people consider psychology to be a “soft science” as well. I am in the natural sciences and I used to do that too, but I don’t anymore. I think there are a great many merits to sociology and psychology.

Every sociologist I’ve ever met has BEEN religious – I think you are misunderstanding them – no one is trying to DISCREDIT religion – no sociologist in their right mind would say that because that isn’t within their field of study or scope – These sociologists that have talked about the dysfunction of religion, also talk about its functions – it is both good AND bad – and we’ve already seen this throughout history, so they aren’t telling us things we don’t already know

It will be interesting to see what sociology books are saying 10-15 years down the line. I know there are people in the science field that look at sociology as a soft science and therefore do not give a lot of credit to what has been printed. I am one of those. I believe many researchers in sociology have been trying to discredit the benifits of religion for many years and I think this is one of the problems I have with it.