Marx is able to see some valid negative effects of religion although he fails to see clearly any positive benefits of religion. Marx’s sees religion as an illusion that man uses to cover up their sufferings and create false reason. Instead of society facing and overcoming their suffering they turn to their religion to cover it up or dull the feeling of it. This is where he brings in the comparison to opium, like drugs, societies use religion to keep from feeling pain that exists by focusing on what is to come. Many religions help people accept their status and hard lives because they feel they can look forward to an after life, therefore they do not focus on the hardships that they must deal with. But if people were to “pluck the imaginary flowers on the chain…so that [they] shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flowers” (Marx paper) suffering may be conquered instead of numbed. If people believed that this life is the only life, they may work more to change and improve it for themselves. Simply thinking of themselves first and not the gods could improve life. For example, people would not sacrifice for the gods, but in order to feed them selves and possibly feed more hungry. Marx’s view can be seen as optimistic in the way that he believed man has more potential that could be achieved by changing our worldly religious state of mind.
Marx understands that what he is asking of the people is a major request, wanting them to abandon their way of life and thinking. Though he truly believes that man would be better off without religion, he is unable to see the positive things that religion does for the people. Marx fails to understand that religion gives people a sense of purpose, hope, security, a moral code and many other comforts. I believe that Marx saw what man was capable of if man’s state of being was changed by eliminating religion, but because he was unable to see what religion gives to the people he was unable to give a convincing and unbiased argument.
Hey Crystal;
ReplyDeleteThis sounds like a fair assessment of what Marx was getting at: that without religion, society would be more progressive. But Marx also mentioned that religion also causes some problems: "The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion." In other words, it's society's fault that we need religion. But then again comes the chicken or the egg problem: did a problematic society exist first and religion was created to help that, or did a society have religion at its inception and is therefore flawed?
I'm not sure Marx has an answer to this question (at least in the document we were given). Anthropology seems to lean in one direction; which, do you think?
"Marx fails to understand that religion gives people a sense of purpose, hope, security, a moral code and many other comforts."
ReplyDeleteI really like the way you worded this sentence because you make it clear what you are trying to say -- and I agree with it. I think you did a good job throughout your piece in making your points clear and I just think you are great. Lalala.
Ok, Sarah, I know you are making a positive comment on Crystal's work, but try to keep it about her ideas!!! I think she's great, too, but we're all just interested in what you think about what she wrote. Stick to the topic.
ReplyDelete