Marx agreed with Durkheim in that Religion inhibits social change but for very different reasons. Marx's view is that religion is a form of idealogical control. It provides people with a sense of 'False Class Consciousness' with such religious ideas as "Blessed are the meek for they will inherit the Earth", it gives the working class the idea that they will be rewarded in Heaven therefore they never become fully class conscious which means they never question their status which means they never form a revolution against Capitalism. Religion is the means by which it ensures that Capitalism continues to strive. "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature...it is the opiate of the masses". Some evidence to support Marx's view are for example; The Indian caste system which is fully justified in Hindu beliefs and in Medieval Europe Kings and Queens ruled by Divine right. However despite this evidence it can still be argued that Religion is much more than a set of beliefs and practices which develop in a Capitalist society. For example, whilst Russia was still the USSR the number of Baptisms which occurred remained high. Surely this acts as evidence that religion is not just a means to support Capitalism.
Max Weber disagreed entirely with the idea that Religion is a conservative force. Unlike Sociologists such as Durkheim and Marx, Weber thought that religion can act as a radical force for social change and he used the idea of the 'Protestant ethic' as an example. What he meant by this term were the main aspects and beliefs of this religion such as; wasting time/food/resources is considered to be a sin, extravagance is wrong, living a frugal and God fearing life is good.etc. These aspects were according to Weber a major catalyst in the creation of Industrialisation and if that is true then it would also be true that religion can play a part in social change. Weber also considered Calvinism, this idea is that people are either born among the "elect" or not and only they would be allowed into heaven. However wealth was considered a sign of being one of the elect and therefore people would endeavour to acquire wealth. Weber thought that the sanctions and discipline of the Protestant ethic encouraged men rationally to achieve wealth. Also Weber studied non-western societies and found that other pre-industrial societies had the preconditions to begin Capitalism but lacked the motives to abandon traditional ways.
What makes Weber's ideas different from the structuralist ones of Durkheim and Marx is that although Weber acknowledges that the individuals behaviour can be influenced by social forces but believes that the forces are socially produced. He describes it as being a two way process. eg. The individual can shape society as well as be influenced by it. Unlike Marx who thought that change is brought about by such things as technology and distribution of wealth, Weber thought that individual's ideas could bring about change. The problem with this is that it is impossible to study people's ideas by the use of Positivist methods, this is why Weber is often considered the founder of Intepretivism.
Phenomenologists Berger and Luckmann say that Religion does not cause social change but rather the 'Universe of Meaning' will change and adapt to meet any new social conditions which may occur. For example, British society has become very multi-cultural and this has led to a decline in traditional Christian beliefs causing people to create a new Universe of Meaning for themselves. Unlike Weber this view states that it is social structure which initiates change in Religion and beliefs.etc. Not the other way around as Weber argued. Not unlike Functionalism Berger and Luckmann make the assumption that Religion only has a positive effect on society such as maintaining social stability, overlooking the examples of where Religion has caused conflict. Eg. Northern Ireland, where the differing views of Protestantism and Catholicism has caused division, conflict and violence.etc. What makes Phenomenology different from other structural theories such as Functionalism is that rather than looking at the role and functions of such things as Religion, it considers the actual individuals in society and what things such as Religion means to them. One example of this kind of view is Eileen Barker's Participant Observation study of the Moonies. The individuals within the Cult shared meanings such as; a sense of belonging, clear direction in terms of how they thought, answers to spiritual questions.etc.
In conclusion, although the likes of Durkheim and Marx provide very good evidence of how Religion may act as a Conservative force, once you consider modern examples such as Islamic Fundamentalism, the state of Israel and Ireland and the apparent process of Secularisation it seems that Religion is maintaining nothing like the two Sociologists described. If Religion is maintaining anything then it seems to be conflict, surely that cannot be viewed as part of the conservative force.