Marx holds an entirely contemptuous view of religion, seeing it as a means by which the common man accepts his suffering. His view of religion in society is thus limited to the one in which he lived, and what he saw as necessary for drastic change. With his bold criticism of religion Marx sought to “disillusion man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality.” His goal is to incite action to remove the sources of discomfort in society for which religion is the salve, not just take away the comfort that religion can provide. Marx uses the analogy of opium because of its negative connotations such as addiction, and the shock value of using such strong language in furthering his purpose: societal change.
Marx’s critique is fashioned more for achieving his goals, but can still be examined as a definition. Taken out of the context that Marx provides, the assessment of religion as “logic in popular form” and as the “universal basis of consolation and justification” holds truth. Outside of law, religion can provide a foundation of ideas common to the group with which people can use to interact with each other and within themselves. Arguing against this place of religion in society Marx states, “man makes religion, religion does not make man.” Even so, religion may yet be an intrinsic part of man or the human experience. If man makes religion, then man can make a religion that is more than “the sigh of the oppressed creature” as Marx sees it. Man makes society as well, and every religion and society are not the same. Although religion often fills similar roles within societies, that does not mean it carries the same significance or weight in each one. Something Marx did not mention is the way in which religion can encourage secular knowledge and learning, such as through the establishment of schools and preservation of documents. Marx’s critique of religion also insinuates that those in positions of authority within religion wish to oppress or control the masses, which is certainly not true in every case.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI really like the point you make about how religion "can encourage secular knowledge and learning" My question though is that whether such establishments (schools and hospitals) can be considered a way of "advertising" the faith? Be it keychains, bracelets or concerts--the means through religious organizations spread their message have grown and it seems that religious organizations have become increasingly aware of marketing techniques. I think it would be safe to think that there could be unintended religious motives in establishing such public oriented institutions (with all due respect to their good intentions). Or perhaps it is just me being cynical.
ReplyDeleteAsma, I think your cynicism is not unfounded. It's my personal opinion that anything created with a religious foundation will find it difficult to be objective without breaking away from that religion.
ReplyDeleteKayla, as I've said before, good going realizing that religion is a spectrum rather than an on/off switch. Do you think that man can make a religion that is wholly beneficial? Cf. Baha'i (also, the last chapter of the book).
But isn't a good deed a good deed regardless of its motivation? A Catholic hospital saves as many lives as any other. . .
ReplyDeleteAnd Lei, keep in mind that it is the way man uses/interprets/applies religion that determines weather it is beneficial or not. All the major world religions are intended to be wholly beneficial. That is the point. History just gets in the way.