Religion: invented to control the masses?

[moorobot]

There are two views contrary to this that I have some affinity for, but I haven't really considered to what degree each is the source of religion, or questioned and discussed these views. One is the view of Marx, and one is the view of Feurbach. There are two parts to this which can be read independently if you would like, one explaining each person's view.

Marx

As G.A. Cohen put it, "In a common but natural misunderstanding of what Marx meant when he said that religion was the opium of the people, he is misrepresented as saying that priests devise religion to keep the suffering and, therefore, the potentially rebellious masses quiet. And the misinterpretation of the opium sentence is compounded when its misinterpreter adds that priests are appointed by the ruling class to carry out the stated analgesic mission." ( If you're an Egalitarian, How Come You're So Rich? , pg. 79, Harvard University Press, 2001).

In contrast, what Marx meant there, as Cohen goes on to illustrate, is that the people need religion. They need it because of the unjust and inhumane conditons/ 'vale of woe' that exist(s) in the world. It is the people themselves who create religion, and although it may be good for the ruling class that they have relgion, or that priests play a significant role in the continuation of religous belief, the main reason religion exists is the creation of it by the people. As Marx later put it, "Religion is the sigh of the opressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, justs as it is the spirit of the spiritless situation". In Marx's view, while religion is "the enemy of emanicipation, it is also the route through which emanicpation must run. Emancipation comes not by proving that religion is false but by revealing the source of religion in a spiritless world that needs to have its spirit returned to it, a world that needs to be humanized." (Cohen, pg. 81, emphasis added). You should teach people that man is the highest being for man, and "overthrow all relations in which man is a debased, enslaved, abandoned, despicable being". Religion is in fact a dream of a perfectly just and better world, and if you want to convince people that religion is false, you must convince people of the necessity and possibility of trying to bring about a better world. Religion creates merely an illusory happiness, and "The demand to give up the illusions about its condition is a demand to give up a condition which needs illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the criticism of the vale of woe, the halo of which is religion." (Marx).

Feurebach

A somewhat similar but distinct view, also mentioned and explained in the above cited outstanding book by Cohen, is that of Ludwig Feurebach (pronounced Foyer-bach, to impress your friends and teachers). In Hegel, and in Christianity, man is created by god, in god's image. But Feuerbach said the opposite was in fact true: God is created by man, in man's image. (This is not to imply, of course, that, for Feurebach, god is anything more than an idea, or part of humanity)

How so? People create god by concentrating the very best aspects/features/components of humanity, "glorifying them, and projecting them into a beyond" (Cohen, pg. 93). People do not realize that the features they are giving to god are in fact their own features: power, wisdom, goodness, decency, etc. only exist within human beings. And there is no principled limit to the power of and goodness and knowledge of human beings, considered collectively: "if anything is infinitely good and knowledgeable and powerful, it is, potentially, humanity itself" (Cohen pg. 93). So the very features which most religious people claim god has are simply the features of human beings. People then incorrectly think that they were granted imperfect or partial copies of these things by a deity which has perfect, whole copies.

Feurebach denied that he was an atheist, or that there was anything wrong with humans worshiping themselves. What he said instead is that we should realize that these traits are within humans, and worship them as they really are and not give them away or project them on to some imaginary being. To do otherwise would be to alienate ourselves, subject ourselves to an alien limitation on our own possibilities; alienation occurs when "something issues forth from men which they do not recognize as their own, and which consequently dominates them" (Cohen pg. 95). Liberation can potentially occur if we realize that man creates god in his own image and not the other way around. According to Feurebach, the best way to worship these traits is to create a free and equal socialistic society in which all of the good traits of humanity would no longer be limited.

[TomCollins]

tl;dr

[BCPVP]

You're wrong, moorobot.

[theweatherman]

REligion was clearly createrd to explian things that are/were beyond the comprehension of primative peoples.

Things like earthquakes, landslides, floods, tsunamis are all beyond the comprehension of primative man. B/c of this primative man created Gods in order to explain such happenings. Modern relgion is a form of social control.

It did not start out this way, however certain people quicklly learned that it is an easy way to cement control over the masses. they used it as such

PS: I am already drunk so please excuse my sentances. I ma sure that the flow is off but I am too drunk to fix it.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
In Hegel, and in Christianity, man is created by god, in god's image. But Feuerbach said the opposite was in fact true: God is created by man, in man's image.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you consider either Hegel or Feuerbach to have proven his case?

[moorobot]

Surely that is part of it. But these can easily be part of it to, and the fear of death.

[moorobot]

No, not exactly. I'm just bringing up some possibilities

[NobodysFreak]

I sincerely hope the irony of this thread isn't lost on you.

[pilliwinks]

Given how accurate Marx's other predictions have been so far, I'm a tiny bit sceptical about his claim that convincing people of the possibility of a better world will free them from religion. Apologies in advance to all you Marxists out there.

Thanks for pointing our the opiate misconception, which is pretty widespread. I find the most helpful modern comparison to be 'the antibiotics of the people', though I accept that 'anaesthetic' is what Marx meant. The point being that at that time there were no cures, only painkillers. I happen to think that from the same source as the 'opiate' there are cures for this vale of tears.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Given how accurate Marx's other predictions have been so far, I'm a tiny bit sceptical about his claim that convincing people of the possibility of a better world will free them from religion. Apologies in advance to all you Marxists out there.

Thanks for pointing our the opiate misconception, which is pretty widespread. I find the most helpful modern comparison to be 'the antibiotics of the people', though I accept that 'anaesthetic' is what Marx meant. The point being that at that time there were no cures, only painkillers. I happen to think that from the same source as the 'opiate' there are cures for this vale of tears.

[/ QUOTE ]

Different topic I guess, but except for bacterial infections, there still arent cures for very many diseases..there are vaccines to prevent, pharma to delay progress or alleviate symptoms, but darn few cures.