In Marx’s attempts to account for the world and its workings, he often encountered the subject of religion, as would any theorist. Generally, religion is primarily analyzed with a purely theological and religious aim and process, leaving it isolated from the general world; kept as a sort of parallel universe. Marx’s more naturalistic approach to the world left him with a greater, more comprehensive understanding and interpretation of the world. One of his major legacies is the phrase: “religion is the opiate of the people”. Instead of vilifying this phrase as many have done in the past and continue to do today, marking it as an inappropriate and Satanic remark, it is more useful to look at this objectively, as was Marx’s outlook on the world.
To Marx, religion is an embodiment of peoples’ experience in economic and social injustice, as well as an expression of their realities as different as they may be. Opium/opiate is an addictive drug with morphine-like effects, constituted to attenuate the harsh every day realities. People often bury themselves in religion to escape the reality that they would otherwise need to face without any support.
Another interpretation is also available. Religion is not the disease, society is. According to Marx, religion is brought to existence by the economic and material situations of a society. Ultimately, religion is, again as Marx states: “the reflex of the real world”. Without the real world, religion has no purpose nor meaning and therefore is irrelevant to our world and experiences. It is only by understanding the sum of peoples’ experiences of reality that one can understand the purpose or the means that people enact to acquire religion.
In Marx’s opinion, there are three main reasons to regard religion with distrust. The first is that it is irrational, bringing us back to the question “are faith and reason incompatible” (which is debatable in itself, but nonetheless..). Religion is a sort of parallel haven, where one loses touch with the troubles and toils of reality. This seems ideal, but it means that religion is a buffer against reality, turning it into a sort of circling delusion. The second reason is that religion acting as a shield against real life makes people more inclined to accept the toils and state of the world as it is instead of leading them to better themselves and their surroundings. Marx believes religion becomes the focal point of a life instead of making people more accepting and creating a moral code; which is rendered useless by religion because religion becomes the purpose of a good act whereas the good act should be done for the purpose of one’s morals with religion only as a medium. This defies the purpose of a moral code as ‘said person’ is now acting upon a selfish basis rather than a selfless one. The third reason is that religion is a hypocritical entity as it is more inclined towards the principle than the act. In practice, this theory has been proven to be true in throughout the ages, where the Church has taken part in the enslavement and the exploitation of those they are supposed to protect.
I have conflicting thoughts on Marx’s outlook on religion. Although I do believe that religion is an effect of our social and economic toils, and that religion does (to a certain extent) act as a buffer against reality, I also find that the positive/negative results (or just results in general) of the aforementioned suggestions on our human world is subject to interpretation and is relative to situations. Although many may disagree, I think that religion was created as a suggested (and highly recommended (to different degrees)) interpretation of the world. Now, the effects of the buffer is more controversial in my opinion. I do not think that the shield/opium effect of religion is terrible, neither do I think it is a valid reason to excuse oneself of reality’s obligations. Religion is an aid/buffer to life; helping people skirt reality, but for different people, this could be good or bad. What I do not condone is the use of religion to oppress or to completely retire from reality. In terms of his phrase : “religion is the opiate of the masses/people” , I do agree. Religion is used to skirt economic injustice and material and social structures of our realities. It is an ongoing illusion (no offense or negative connotation intended) that provides a reason and a manner to allow society to keep operating as it is and distances us from this reality. It is true that religion has often been used as an excuse to oppress and exploit the masses (whom religion is supposed to support), but I believe that religion also has a lighter side, aiming to make a person better and more selfless.
I also have conflicting feelings about religion itself. Although I believe that some stipulations of the different religions come from a different time and thus may not entirely be relevant to our world today, the ideals of religion are still valid to me. Being a better person, religion or no religion, is the most important. I think that the moral standards set by religion are a positive influence on the world and its virtues are as well. Although these should be carried out regardless of religion, they aren’t and since religion is a means and unfortunately also a purpose for them, religion is an overall positive influence on the world. However, I still do think that religion is a barrier of protection against reality, which isn’t necessarily a good or bad thing.. it just is what it is, and it is important to keep that in mind to avoid being blinded and one-sided.
-I thought this idea was particularly interesting. I hope you do too!
No comments:
Post a Comment