Marx Response Paper

Marx presents an ignorant point of view while criticizing religion. He truly has no evidence to support his theory and he avoids proving his point by not providing definitions to what he believes is the answer if religion is not. Given the way our brains, and thoughts have developed over the thousands of years we have existed, given Marx’s theories, we most likely would have realized that “man is no abstract being squatting outside the world.” Marx fails to see the spiritual aspect and how people benefit from it in their every day life. He describes religion as the “opium of the people” expressing that religion has beneficial yet false manifestation for the sensation is merely just a temporary “high” that people try to obtain in order to give them purpose for living.
He says, “Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again.” This is, indeed, a negative sentence in the eyes of Marx, and to me, a very ignorant one. If a man is trying to win through himself or once lost, trying to find himself again, what is he to do, Marx? A soulless man may not find issue with such a situation; however, humans are spiritual beings for they have thoughts and emotions. This, in turn, promotes them to seek refuge in times of need. If “man makes religion” and benefits from that, so that they can attempt to get something out of this dead-end of a life, is that wrong? Marx thinks so. I feel that he is wrong to fail to see what exactly it is that fuels this highly important topic.

Marx Response Paper

Marx argued that religion anesthetized people because it hindered people from discovering their own identity. However, I disagree with this statement, for many people often find religion helpful to discover more about themselves and relation to society as a way to respond the unanswered of the world.
Marx’s idea has become too extreme when he concluded religion with such a negative impact like drug on people’s lives and judgments. It is true that people often rely a lot on religion and find comfort in it to explain what they cannot answer by themselves. The abstract guidance of religion seems to lead human beings to an extent where everyone develops the same attitude toward any circumstance in life. Based on Marx’s opinion, this idea not only prevented people from thinking independently, it also caused the illusion of the world, which became faultless in religious sense.
Marx also stated that religious suffering is “the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering.” People suffer through religious rituals to be punished for their sin; on the other hand, they also give the responsibility of the pain they suffer in life to some kind of spirit, or to their religions. These are all true statements, but Marx failed to realize that there is nothing wrong for people to find comfort through religion while in difficulties or in pain. If religion can make people feel better about themselves and enables them to move on with a more positive thinking, it will also improve the development of the society, for people don’t struggle with the same idea repeatedly. While Marx suggested that one should “move around himself as his own true Sun,” this would cause the problem of having too many opinions within a society. If that was the truth, there will never be any agreement between people, which would not help establish a stable and healthy society while there are endless conflicts

Marx Response Paper

As Marx said, “It is the opium of the people.” He did not clearly declare whether or not the religion has a completely negative influence on the society. “Religion is the opium of the people” seems a little bit extreme to describe religion because many people might just link opium as the problematic drug addiction from the history text. However, it is interesting that Marx’s chose Opium to describe religion, Opium is not a completely a bad thing, and it can actually be useful in some medical use. I feel like Marx was trying to suggest that whether or not religion is positive or negative effects have to depend on how a person views and practices the religion. One person can misappropriate religion, like over relying on opium, but a person can use religion as a way to find his/her own self-esteem, like using opium to relief from pain.
Quoted from Marx, “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.” The religion can be seems as the fulfillment of the world’s imperfections, and as the mental supports of people. It is truth that religion might led human to a wrong direction, for example, the religion conflicts between different Christianity branches, however, the starting point of any religion is to have faith and hope in this imperfect world.

Marx Response Paper (RP1)

Marx sees religion as more of a negative force than a positive one, and its downfall will lead to a new clarity in the world. He sees religion as an “illusory happiness”, and when religion is finally disproven there will be “real happiness”. However, Marx does not define “real happiness” nor has he proven religion is false, so how would he know what would happen if religion were disproven? Religion, real or not, has given people in the world a purpose in life. In this sense Marx argues that once religion was revealed as a false hope that everything would need to be reevaluated including law and politics. If Marx is right then religion has been the opiate of the whole world, not just the people. Religion has influenced almost every part of our lives, and disproving religion would leave the world to rethink everything since religion began. The people of the world would have to invent something new to deal with events previously explained by religion. The world would be in chaos.

Marx also believed that once religion was gone that man would find himself and then be able to truly enjoy life. If religion is the opiate of the people, then the people are already content with religion because that is all they have been exposed to. They would not necessarily be happier because most people are happier staying the way they are and not having to change. Although people today do sometimes question religion, most people accept it in some form. In the modern world more people are questioning religion than ever before with science. Religion has almost arrived at a pivotal moment in history where it will be proved or exposed as Marx said it should be, and the world should be ready to pick up the pieces if religion does shatter.

Discussion Topic: One Aspect of Marx's Theory on Religion

One aspect of the religion/opium comparison that I did not address in my paragraphs is that opium causes people to be ineffectual and less prone to resistance. Given that Marx is, at his heart, a political activist and social reformer, the similie would then imply that those under the spell of religion must cast it off in order to see society for the awfulness of what it really is and begin to move towards a social revolution. Thus it was important for Marx's political agenda that he decry religion.

My questions are: Is this interpretation valid? Is Marx to be criticized for this aspect of the comparison (whether because it is unrealistic or would not accomplish his goals, etc.)?

If you have time, reply.

Marx Response Paper

Religion = Opiate ?

Marx suggests that religion can have both positive and negative effects on society. By comparing religion to the “opiate of the people,” Marx is trying to bring in the healthful and harmful aspects of opium to explain religion. The word “opium” usually has negative connotation since there has been some conflicts regarding opium, such as Opium War, and since opium is an addictive drug. Just like opium, religion may cause many conflicts and criticisms. Also, some radical religious practices may result in loss of clear thoughts with unreasonable illusions like opium. Moreover, this “opiate of the people,” or religion, is developed out of “an inverted consciousness of the world.” Marx suggests that religion is created from already a distorted society, so it would hardly be perfect.

Marx, however, is not entirely negative about religion. Opium may rouse some negative impression automatically, but opium can also be beneficial when used correctly. It is a very effective medicine and can be used to treat many conditions unless one is out of control (a.k.a. addicted). And because “man makes religion,” society should be able to maintain control over religion, rather than overtaken by it. Marx implies that society can extract healthful effects from religion. In addition to Marx’s usage of opium to describe potentially positive aspect of religion, his description of religion hints that religion can offer a place to depend on. Although religion may be inherently negative since its creation, it is “the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.” Religion can be a refuge for some people in need of help.

Marx’s ideas regarding religion are very reasonable for his times, but concluding religions as illusions can be slightly problematic. For the modern world, all religions should be viewed rational, rather than illusive.