Is religion "the opiate of the people"?

[Kooky]

A lot of people, especially those who are atheists or generally less keen on organized religion, are probably familiar with the above expression, coined by Karl Marx in 1843, in his Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right.

Fewer people probably know about the context in which he wrote those words, and it is that context which I want to talk about. Here is the full paragraph:


Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

This is, I feel, a far more nuanced take on religion, by an avowed atheist no less: Religion is an expression of real world suffering; spiritual need is an extension of material need; it exists, in a way, to alleviate a kind of suffering or desire that is the direct result of people's real world problems and real world economic and social issues.

As a non-religious person, I find it obviously a neat idea because it allows me to engage with religion and religious debate in a way that doesn't make it appear immediately ridiculous to my sensibilities.

What I'm wondering especially is what religious people make of this. Do you believe (your) religion is an expression of material desire? Can we even draw such a neat line, or do your spiritual needs run parallel to any supposed material ones?

 

[metis]

Do you believe (your) religion is an expression of material desire?

No.

Can we even draw such a neat line, or do your spiritual needs run parallel to any supposed material ones?

No-- quite the reverse.

"Material" can be a means to an end but is not an end in and of itself. For example, we all need food to live, thus there's nothing intrinsically wrong with wanting to help people have access to it. Matter of fact, not helping them when we can is morally wrong in my denomination.

 

[Kooky]

But where does that "moral wrong" come from?
Does it arise directly from material conditions? Did it originate elsewhere?

 

[metis]

But where does that "moral wrong" come from?
Does it arise directly from material conditions? Did it originate elsewhere?

I'll have to wait until Monday to get into that as I gotta go.

 

[sun rise]

I would replace "is" with "can be for some people" because to me the absolutist "is" does not account for the range of religious motivation.

 

[Kooky]

I'll have to wait until Monday to get into that as I gotta go.

No problem, take your time.

I would replace "is" with "can be for some people" because to me the absolutist "is" does not account for the range of religious motivation.

That's fair.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Praying, while clearly doing no good to alleviate any kind of suffering or rendering any objective help outside the person praying, nevertheless comforts that person in many way i.e. they believe that by praying they are causing God to help those in need, praying calms their troubled soul, gives them peace, etc. Thus it does act like an opiate in that it quiets a religious person's anxiety and numbs them to the pain around them. So the answer is basically yes, it is an opiate, albeit a psychological one.

 

[George-ananda]

Do you believe (your) religion is an expression of material desire?

My spiritual beliefs are what they are from the evidence I have been given. I believe on the basis of evidence and not desire.

 

[PureX]

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.?

This is only one aspect of religion's significance to humanity. The other is as a mechanism of internal change and self-improvement. Religions help people to identify and actualize higher ideals for themselves by giving them the clarity, desire, and means to attain them. Yes, religions comfort the damaged and broken and neglected among us. But they also offer them a means of spiritual redemption that their oppressors and abusers cannot deny or take away from them.

 

[SomeRandom]

A lot of people, especially those who are atheists or generally less keen on organized religion, are probably familiar with the above expression, coined by Karl Marx in 1843, in his Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right.

Fewer people probably know about the context in which he wrote those words, and it is that context which I want to talk about. Here is the full paragraph:


Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

This is, I feel, a far more nuanced take on religion, by an avowed atheist no less: Religion is an expression of real world suffering; spiritual need is an extension of material need; it exists, in a way, to alleviate a kind of suffering or desire that is the direct result of people's real world problems and real world economic and social issues.

As a non-religious person, I find it obviously a neat idea because it allows me to engage with religion and religious debate in a way that doesn't make it appear immediately ridiculous to my sensibilities.

What I'm wondering especially is what religious people make of this. Do you believe (your) religion is an expression of material desire? Can we even draw such a neat line, or do your spiritual needs run parallel to any supposed material ones?

I’ve always sympathised with this idea.
A lot of religions seem to be fixated upon the idea of suffering and some sort of alleviation.
Some outright encourage suffering in the name of said religion.
But I would not call my spiritual practice an expression of material desire, if only because the tradition explicitly discourages it in all forms. Though I suppose it also says to engage with desires directly to be rid of them. So maybe

 

[ADigitalArtist]

A lot of people, especially those who are atheists or generally less keen on organized religion, are probably familiar with the above expression, coined by Karl Marx in 1843, in his Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right.

Fewer people probably know about the context in which he wrote those words, and it is that context which I want to talk about. Here is the full paragraph:


Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

This is, I feel, a far more nuanced take on religion, by an avowed atheist no less: Religion is an expression of real world suffering; spiritual need is an extension of material need; it exists, in a way, to alleviate a kind of suffering or desire that is the direct result of people's real world problems and real world economic and social issues.

As a non-religious person, I find it obviously a neat idea because it allows me to engage with religion and religious debate in a way that doesn't make it appear immediately ridiculous to my sensibilities.

What I'm wondering especially is what religious people make of this. Do you believe (your) religion is an expression of material desire? Can we even draw such a neat line, or do your spiritual needs run parallel to any supposed material ones?

The paragraphs leading up to the full quote:

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. 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. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

And after the full quote:

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Marx saw religion as something man makes himself to comfort himself when times are hard. And has a functional purpose like a pain killer. But that pain killers only mask pain and provide an illusion of health. An illusion that, if relied upon, blinds people to the suffering of others in a system they're not working to fix, just working to mirror their illusory no-pain world. In that way he saw religion as both functional and destructive. And that investment into religion was understandable, but ultimately becomes weaponized in class warfare against out groups. E.g. women, gays, POC, migrants, and in his case socialists which were the 'godless heathen' outgroup which society wanted to control, and used religion as a tool to do it.

 

[Sunstone]

If one might take Marx's characterization of religion as essentially a reference to escapism, then I think it makes a telling point about how religion in particular, and any thought or belief in general, can serve as a means of providing an emotional escape from reality.

That's very useful in moderation for maintaining ones morale, well-being, etc. It becomes deeply problematic when it leads to dysfunctional behaviors.

The other side of the coin here is that thoughts, beliefs, etc can also be used to create useful guides to reality. That is, something close to maps in how the ideas can be used to navigate reality.

This whole 'thinking thingy' has always baffled me, and I shun the confusion it always produces in me whenever I can via a judicious and measured use of Balinese fishnet donkey porn.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

It's only true if you believe that once you had all your material needs fulfilled , you would not want for something more

 

[Valjean]

Yes.
Religion, for many, is an opiate.

 

[Twilight Hue]

A lot of people, especially those who are atheists or generally less keen on organized religion, are probably familiar with the above expression, coined by Karl Marx in 1843, in his Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right.

Fewer people probably know about the context in which he wrote those words, and it is that context which I want to talk about. Here is the full paragraph:


Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

This is, I feel, a far more nuanced take on religion, by an avowed atheist no less: Religion is an expression of real world suffering; spiritual need is an extension of material need; it exists, in a way, to alleviate a kind of suffering or desire that is the direct result of people's real world problems and real world economic and social issues.

As a non-religious person, I find it obviously a neat idea because it allows me to engage with religion and religious debate in a way that doesn't make it appear immediately ridiculous to my sensibilities.

What I'm wondering especially is what religious people make of this. Do you believe (your) religion is an expression of material desire? Can we even draw such a neat line, or do your spiritual needs run parallel to any supposed material ones?

Its probably the only thing from Marx that I agree with.

Religion is a mental drug revolving around material desire. Opium is a good metaphor aside from religions that engage directly with mind altering chemistry. The result ends up basically the same way. Developing a sense of practicality through delusion.

Some religions acknowledge that while others do not. In my case, its the issue by which we cling to material desire.

 

[1213]

...What I'm wondering especially is what religious people make of this. Do you believe (your) religion is an expression of material desire? Can we even draw such a neat line, or do your spiritual needs run parallel to any supposed material ones?

How would you define religion? For example, I believe what the Bible tells, because it is convincing to me. I want to live according to the teachings of Jesus, because I think they are good. If I do so, is it religion? Is doing right opium? Is using opium, right?

 

[Valjean]

How would you define religion? For example, I believe what the Bible tells, because it is convincing to me. I want to live according to the teachings of Jesus, because I think they are good. If I do so, is it religion? Is doing right opium? Is using opium, right?

"...I think they are good."
If this be true, then it's no opiate for you. You've critically checked and analyzed the relevant facts, and drawn a hard, dispassionate, rational, ontological conclusion.
But this is not how most people choose a religion, and for most, religion is not a rational metaphysical position, but an emotional investment and social support network, a narcotic.

 

[Thief]

As a non-religious person, I find it obviously a neat idea because it allows me to engage with religion and religious debate in a way that doesn't make it appear immediately ridiculous to my sensibilities.

so far?....so good?

 

[Thief]

answering the title directly........yes

as politics would be cocaine

as music is marijuana

as war is heroine

 

[Thief]

Youtube is beer

and nuts