Monday, March 23, 2020

Dino Conti Essay Example

Dino Conti Paper Odin Contain Ice Cream Introduction Doll Contain Is a manufacturer and distributor of Ice cream In California. Its most famous product Is its chocolate Ice cream. Now, Odin Coitions profits are falling because of its prices, products, equipment, environment and outlets. Objectives To solve the companys problems and to continue to become international business, we propose an investment of $3 million . Options and Benefits The Board of Directors has agreed the following investment plan. Upgrade its equipments to improve its quality of products. Add more outlets to make its products recognized easily in the market to increase the sales. Improve products packaging to interested the customers. Make the company more green. Cost upgrade equipment Add more outlets $1 ,million $500,000 Improve products packaging $500,000 Make the company more green $800 Schedule upgrade equipment: Start on January and completed at May. Add more outlets: Begin at May and finish on middle of August. Improve product packaging: Begins development In April Make the company more green: The campaign will be start at the end of the year through online until March next year. Summary A presentation to the board on June 9th. Can managers will always control tense projects We will write a custom essay sample on Dino Conti specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Dino Conti specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Dino Conti specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer

Friday, March 6, 2020

Sociology of religion Essays

Sociology of religion Essays Sociology of religion Essay Sociology of religion Essay Critically Evaluate Stark s Theory of Religion in Light of Primary and Secondary Beginnings Rodney Stark, a modern-day mind on the Sociology of Religion, has been seen to dispute the widely accepted position that secularization is happening within modern society. By looking at his theory of faith based on Rational Choice Theory we can see how he proposes that Religion is a necessary construct for society, which is improbable to vanish. Many theoreticians have concluded that Stark s theory is unequal for a figure of grounds. Through close scrutiny of his theories, and of contemplations made by minds such as Steve Bruce, a critical rating of Stark s theory can be made. Stark s theory on faith has many facets to it, but a focal point on his impression of reason in peculiar, and its defects with respects to faith, will take to a clear thought of the worthiness of his theory. Stark s theory of faith is chiefly outlined in a figure of his Hagiographas. Most notably his remarks in The Future of Religion show a clear overview of his general premises on why spiritual beliefs are held. Although his theory has been criticised for being excessively reductive, Stark puts frontward that cut downing general phenomena to a basic theory is something all theoretician should draw a bead on to make. These ideas are similar to the thoughts of William of Ockham. [ 1 ] Stark shows his theory to be reductionist by utilizing simple premises to asseverate his place. He uses said premises to exemplify a hypothesis, based mostly on economical footings, of why faith is followed by so many and will go on to be followed. The first premiss begins to give ground for faith by proposing that humans seek what they perceive to be wagess and seek to avoid what they perceive to be costs. [ 2 ] This positivist attack to human behavior leads on to propose that faith offers wagess and compensators that co-inside with basic demands and desires. Such wagess are things that worlds want but can non be gained any other manner than through faith. The thought of a compensator is that if a wages can non be given instantly so an false IOU can be given in the average clip. Compensators give people a solution to concerns they have such as what happens when they die. Merely faith can give such compensators with the promise of life after decease, this is where Stark claims the supernatural will ever be needed and explains why faith will ever be about. As worlds we will ever seek certain things that can merely be given to us through belief in a supernatural being who offers compensators for inquiries that can non be answer ed instantly. Stark uses this trust on the supernatural to demo why Churches that have become excessively broad have falling attending Numberss where more fundamentalist Churches with higher costs and, hence, larger wagess have lifting attending Numberss. He besides uses this thought to demo that secularism is self-limiting as the more it occurs, the more necessary fundamentalist faith becomes. [ 3 ] Stark states rational histrions will prefer more demanding Churches because they offer a more favorable cost/benefit ratio. [ 4 ] It is this accent on the Rational Choice concluding behind faith that many theoretician have such an issue with. Stark supposes that all spiritual followings are believing rationally, strictly about what they will derive from following a faith. Where it might be possible to explicate people s economic penchants and passing wonts in footings of cost-effectiveness is it truly possible to cut down something every bit complex as spiritual belief to such a rigorous, rational account? In support of Stark, his theory does give a plausible account for why broad Protestantism has declined in recent old ages and periphery faiths such as the Church of jesus christ of latter-day saintss have grown. If people are believing rationally, harmonizing to Stark, they will seek a faith that gives them the highest wagess, something, which the Mormon Church appears to make. Stark has predicted that by the twelvemonth 2080, the figure of followings of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints ( Mormons ) will hold risen to something between 60,000,000 and 265,000,000. [ 5 ] If this does happen so Mormonism will be seen as one of the universe s major religions alongside Catholicism and Islam. This will back up Stark s belief that as secularization begins to happen new, more utmost, faiths with a higher accent on the occult will originate in order to give people the wagess and compensators that they desire. Although the addition in Mormonism holds up Stark s theory it is non sufficient plenty to state that it was rational pick and the demand for wagess and compensators that led to the rise. There may be many other grounds for the rise of Mormonism such as spiritual learning in American schools or merely the fact that it is an appealing faith, which makes sense to people irrespective of what they will derive in the manner of wagess. Further to this, Steve Bruce finds Stark s back uping grounds to be invalid. He says that Stark makes much of the diminution of Liberal Protestant Churches to back up his claims but pursues some instead Byzantine concluding to convey this into compatibility with his theory. [ 6 ] He besides claims that a considerable organic structure of grounds on church rank and attending shows that major British denominations are merely a coevals off from unsnarling. [ 7 ] Bruce argues that there is no mark of any spiritual phenomenon to make full the infinite. Britain is so going layman [ 8 ] this along with him saying that the growth of Mormons is non plenty to turn out Stark s theory [ 9 ] refutes Stark s belief that faith will ever be necessary and evident in society. Bruce is able to utilize Church history to demo how Stark s supply side position of faiths as viing for followings, like market economic systems, is non an bing and necessary characteristic. Stark suggests that secularization will neer happen if Churches continue to vie by utilizing wagess to lure rational minds. He says that competition consequences in eager and efficient providers of faith merely as it does among providers of secular trade goods, and with the same consequences: far higher degrees of overall ingestion. [ 10 ] However, Bruce shows that before the reformation there was one Church, organised on a national parish construction, which glorified God on behalf of, and provided spiritual offices for, the full people [ 11 ] connoting that faiths do non necessitate to vie in order to avoid secularization. Callum Brown supports Bruce s findings by proposing that a transition that occurred in 1970/80s constituted a recrafting of what being spiritual and faith consisted of. [ 12 ] This displacement gave people more pick to travel out and pick faiths or take godlessness, it was non the outgrowth of competing faiths which led to more assortment but an outgrowth of new societal activity and individuality. And it was this new epoch of faith that left a immense sum of room for evangelism. Through this we begin to see that although Stark gives justification and grounds for his theory, such grounds may be inaccurate or merely non applicable. Bruce advises that Stark s rational attack would merely work in a thoroughly secular society since faith is non a trade good so should non be seen as one. He believes that such economic based theoretical accounts of faith fail to present what they promise and obscure more than they illuminate. [ 13 ] It is besides extremely improbable that spiritual establishments would partake in such competition in the same manner that concerns would alter their merchandise to accommodate the consumer. Another unfavorable judgment made by Bruce is that the theory contains unneeded premises, which stem from its reductionism, cut downing spiritual beliefs to this-worldly considerations and from the interpretative distance between Stark-Bainbridge and the histrions whose beliefs and behavior they seek to explicate. [ 14 ] From this sentence Bruce is seting frontward that Stark is pretermiting the fact that many spiritual beliefs and desires lie beyond rational differentiation. Stark s theory is besides really American and his generalizations appear to disregard the obvious cultural differences that can be seen between and within faiths. Such major cultural differences show how Stark s theory can non be applicable to all people, since if his theory were right every individual would want to be a member of the same, one, faith that offered the highest wagess at the least cost. However, there are many faiths that offer small wagess at great costs but still have many followings. Another cardinal mind, Stephen Sharot, supports Bruce s claims that Rational Choice theory can non be generalised as a ground for why all spiritual people hold a belief. He looks at this Rational Choice theoretical account of faith from a Weberian position and finds farther troubles to back up Bruce s concerns. He demonstrates that Weber wrote that a big portion of human behavior fell into a traditional or accustomed class, which, as routinized and unthinking, implied that small or non pick was involved. [ 15 ] Sharot besides shows that Weber put forward a differentiation between different types of rational actions, which Stark fails to make. These points illustrate that Stark s theory does non let for differences as it tries to cut down human behavior to a grade that appears to be excessively utmost. His premise that all people seem to follow a rational pick theoretical account when taking a faith seems erroneous when conveying in the thought of cultural relativism. It is more than evident that different civilizations hold spiritual beliefs for changing grounds and therefore it is impossible to generalize that all spiritual belief stems from the same demand for wagess and compensators. For case, western spiritual civilizations are far more concerned with wagess for the present such as fiscal stableness and material goods. Whereas, Indian spiritual followings will be focused more on wagess that they will gain for the following life due to their belief in reincarn ation. Here we see that Stark s theory lacks credibleness, as it can non be applied universally. Besides, his theory does non let for the fact that there are, and ever have been, atheists. He neglects the fact that some people see abstaining from spiritual belief as far more rational than believing, even if they were to derive wagess. In order to antagonize the statement made by his coevalss that Rational Choice is subjective and can non be assumed to use to all worlds, particularly with respects to faith, Stark puts frontward a new premiss. Within the bounds of their information and apprehension, restricted by available options, guided by their penchants and gustatory sensations, worlds attempt to do rational picks. [ 16 ] Through this Stark shows a new thought of reason where he accepts that persons have limited information and varying penchants. This definition of human behavior more than allows for cultural fluctuations in spiritual belief. He besides states that persons such as Mother Tersesa violate the rule of reason merely if we adopt a really narrow, mercenary and wholly egoistic definition of wagess. [ 17 ] These comments appear to queer remarks made by people such as Bruce who thought Stark s theory ignored the fact that possibly non all worlds desired this-worldly things. However, his theory still ap pears to miss room for the predication that possibly people truly have strong beliefs based on religion entirely and non formulated through rational thought about what wagess or compensators they will derive. Or as Bruce puts it they assume that the promises of faith can non be desired for their ain interest, but merely as a replacement for something else. [ 18 ] To measure Stark s theory in visible radiation of Bruce s remarks it is necessary to look at the chief points behind Bruce s statements. Bruce notes three chief failings in Stark s theory ; his conceptualization of wagess and compensators, his underlying attack to account and the reading of the grounds presented for the theory. [ 19 ] He sees the thought of wagess and compensators as a tautology as although they appear to be separate things, they are besides shown to be reliant on each other. With this defect in the really rudimentss of his theory, even if the grounds to endorse it up were dependable, it does non stand much land in Bruce s sentiment. Bruce farther refutes Stark s thought that we all make rational picks with respects to religion by proposing that no 1, in fact, knows what the rational pick would be so can non do it. [ 20 ] Bruce believes that Stark s usage of rationalism is a weak statement as a theory for faith. Yes it can, and should be assumed that people act rat ionally. It should besides be held that in most cases people will move to derive wagess at the lowest cost, but neither of these points lead straight to the premise that this is the cause for faith. Bruce so asserts from this that Stark s theory is not a theory of faith, merely a theory about what faith is or does for some people at some times. [ 21 ] Emphasis should be given to Bruce s usage of some people and sometimes. If Stark s theory is merely applicable to what faith is in some state of affairss so it is non able to be universalised and Bruce shows why this is a job. Stark brings frontward his thoughts in such a manner that suggests they can be generalised across all people and civilizations but Bruce illuminates the jobs with Stark s theory to show how this is wrong. Such defects in Stark s statement once more, conveying into the inquiry the pertinence of his theory to spiritual attitudes. From the aforesaid points we can see that, although Stark s theory appears to be logical, it lacks sufficient concrete grounds. Stark s usage of reason is tenuous since it is unlogical to use the same theory for something every bit rigorous as economic sciences to something as complex and irrational as faith. Stark does set frontward grounds to heighten his theory but Bruce shows how this is deficient. Through Bruce s review of Stark s theory we can do a clear rating of the worthiness of Stark s theory. Although the theory itself is interesting and obliging it is non equal plenty to be used as a cosmopolitan theory for why all people follow faiths. Bibliography Callum G. Brown, The Death of Christian Briatin ( Routledge 2002 ) Steve Bruce, Choice and Relgion: a Critique of Rational Choice Theory ( Oxford University Press 1999 ) Stephen Sharot, Critique of Rational Choice Theory from a Weberian and Comparative Religions Perspective ( hypertext transfer protocol: //findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0SOR/is_4_63/ai_96254890/ ? tag=content ; col1- accessed on 01DEC09 ) Rodney Stark and William Sims Bainbridge, The Future of Religion ( University of California Press 1985 ) Rodney Stark and William Sims Bainbridge, A Theory of Religion ( Rutgers University Press 1996 ) Roy Wallis and Steve Bruce, The Stark-Bainbridge Theory of Religion: A Critical Analysis and Counter Proposals ( hypertext transfer protocol: //www.jstor.org/pss/3711319 accessed on 11DEC09 ) Rodney Stark Rationality in, Willi Braun and Russell T McCutcheon, Guide to The Study of Religion ( Contium International Publishing Group Ltd 1999 ) Rodney Stark and Roger Finke, Acts of Faith ( University of California Press 2000 ) Steve Bruce, God is Dead: Secularization in the West ( Blackwell 2002 ) Claudia Bushman, Contemporary Mormonism: Latter Day Saints in Modern America ( Preager Publishers 2006 ) Stark, A Theory of Religion, p26 Stark, The Future of Religion, p5 Stark, The Future of Religion, p6ff Stark, Acts of Faith, p22 Claudia Bushman, Contemporary Mormonism, p1 Bruce, Choice and Religion, p38 Bruce, God is Dead, p60 Bruce, God is Dead, p60 Bruce, God is Dead, p71 Stark, Guide to The Study of Religion, p257 Bruce, God is Dead, p61 Brown, Death of Christian Britain, p37 Bruce, Religion and Rational Choice, p194 Bruce, The Stark Bainbridge Theory of Religion, p11 Sharot, Critique of Rational Choice Stark, Guide to Study of Religion, p248 Stark, Guide to Study of Religion, p249 Bruce, Choice and Religion, p33 Bruce, Choice and Religion, p32 Bruce, Choice and Religion, p129 Bruce, Choice and Religion, p37