Yes, every culture had formed these Animistic views to find comfort and rationality, but now that modern science was becoming more prevalent, Tylor and Frazer felt religion should be left in the past. Tylor thought of it as a device mankind was still clinging on to, like an old toy from childhood that society should be done with now that we as a species have matured. Frazer agreed that religion should be something of a past stage. An improvement of primitive magic, but a step below modern science. Both of them grew up in devout Christian environments that they ended up consequently rejecting to pursue these theories. To them, religion needed to disappear for society to advance to the next level: modern …show more content…
It was simply a primitive and anthropologically explainable way we asserted good and bad in separate cultures.
This is a much less accusatory way than the Enlightenment criticized religion, which rebelled violently as they felt it was toxic and threatening to society. Those of the Enlightenment believed religion to be the end of morality and the perfect tool for the powerful to use against the masses. Tylor and Frazer did not find this same conclusion in their studies, as they only felt religion to be an obvious outcome of society. In terms of method, E.B. Tylor and James Frazer were the first to use sociology and anthropology in their theory of religion. They were pioneers for the two fields, and explorers in the greatest sense. They felt religion was simply outdated, considering the rise of modern science, and that it would soon completely disappear. This is not to say that Tylor and Frazer felt religion was the product of stupidity. In fact, they saw it as a very logical answer to the questions all societies inevitably