Marx Response Paper

Although Marx presents an interesting argument against religion, he fails to offer any concrete alternative while disregarding the positives of religion. Marx claims that religion “is the opium of the people,” suggesting it is used solely for narcotic purposes; to heal pain without having to overcome it. Religion is not just a way to deal with pain. With it comes a community and people to relate to, a foundation of morals and answers to life on earth. It gives people a purpose who may have otherwise felt lost in the world. Although many wars have been fought over religion, many good deeds are done based on the morals that come with religion. For example, many charitable organizations are founded because of religion and many churches and temples offer ways to do community service. Things that we would not normally think about, such as feeding a hungry person, are also done because of the moral codes of certain religions. Religion has also been the inspiration for marvelous art, incredible architecture and music. Marxism has not.
Marx offers history and philosophy to “establish the truth of this world.” However, the role of religion in history has been so extremely influential in shaping the world today, that disregarding everything that related to religion to “establish the truth of this world,” would leave Marx with a scarce amount of material to establish anything with. Merriam-Webster defines philosophy as “a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means.” In many ways that is what religion is. Much of philosophy is theories that can be debated and leave people asking the same questions that religion has already answered.
Essentially Marx wants us to live under his “religion.” Because no one is legitimately sure of what “reality” we’re living in, it is not fair for Marx to say he is right and religion is wrong, nor is it fair to say that Marx is entirely wrong. We may never find the actual truth. Ultimately, Marx’s idea against religion is just another idea, like the religions that he criticizes, that tells us what we should do.

Marx Response Paper

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.

Marx Response Paper

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. He 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.