A note to religious friends and family: I mean everything I say in this essay. It is written solely from my perspective with no attempt to criticize the choices made by anyone else. I welcome any intellectual or analytical debate on the subject. I won't even read any criticisms founded in purely ethereal concepts.
The Sigh of the Oppressed
The World's Need for Religion
The often misquoted line from Marx says: "Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people." Marx's sentiment on religion is often misinterpreted, as is the sentiment of many atheist philosophers throughout history. Marx, in his examination of the world, declared that the purpose of religion was many fold. It is not merely the "opiate of the masses" (the only part of the quotation that is commonly repeated) but an expression and protest against the real distress and pain of life. It is an attempt to find a
beautiful something in the midst of a tragic nothing. I would like to examine two things here. First, what has brought about religion in today's world? Second, what is the goal of religion in today's world - and perhaps most importantly, how much is religion succeeding in meetings its goal?
The Origins of Religion
A long time ago there was a God who impregnated a woman of great beauty and wisdom. This woman was a virgin, but was betrothed to a mortal man. She gave birth to a demi-God. This demi-God proved extraordinary through amazing feats in his youth. As he grew older he faced greater trials, eventually accomplishing feats that were truly miraculous.
Of course, by now you've likely either assumed that I am talking about Jesus of Nazareth or Hercules. Both are correct answers. There are differences in the two stories, but from their divine beginnings, their trials, and even their deaths, the two stories parallel each other quite deeply. Other stories of heroic journeys, demi-Gods, and amazing sacrifice run through common veins in the mythology of many different ages and continents. Yet somehow, most modern Christians look at the mythology of antiquity as silly and unrealistic. It is impossible, of course, that Zeus would have descended as a bird or a ring or a ray of light and impregnated women. There is no old deity being punished for all eternity for defying a God. And yet the immaculate conception remains unquestioned and Lucifer being cast from heaven is not seen as so problematic.
Why is it that most people stand in such firm denial of old mythology while clinging so strongly to their own mythology (whether it be Pagan, Christian, Hindu, or any of the other brands that exist today)? Why is it that, after the dethroning of an old mythology, a new mythology so quickly comes to take its place? In fact, isn't it true that in most history it is only new mythology that dethrones an old mythology at all? The old Titans and Pagan Gods of the Barbarians held Rome until Zeus conquered them. Zeus reigned in Rome until the Christian mythology was taught. Old deities remained prominent in Japan and China until Buddhism migrated from India and Chinese Confucianism and Taoism surfaced. Norse Gods were removed by Roman. This replacement of mythologies occurs throughout history and the further back we go the more we will see the sedimentary construction of all religion.
These religions are not so separate, either. In their similarities we can see what we "chose to retain." As the cultural transmigration continued it is undeniable that each religion impacted those around it and even those that replaced it. Many of the values, and even some of the stories, continued on into the next religion. The Christian mythology of the New Testament shows a combination of Buddhist and Judaic values against of backdrop of familiar Roman mythology. Historically, we know that Buddhist missionaries had gone to the Middle East two hundred years before Christ and had continued in their presence there up through the time of Christ and beyond. Rome had conquered much of the Middle East, lending its influence as well. There are certainly many differences between the faiths that influence each other, however, so we should then ask why exactly that is.
We do not just see an expression of values in what we "choose to retain" in religion as it transmigrates. We also see an expression of value based on what was rejected. The story of Hercules and Christ differ in many areas. The story of Christ places certain "virtues" on a pedestal. These include humility, kindness, and doing good regardless of the actions of others. The differences in the story of Hercules exemplify very different virtues: strength, ambition, and courage. Each of these sets of virtues is a reflection of cultural values.
Now we finally reach the important questions. Where do these cultural values originate? Why are they so important to the culture that they would prove to be the founding principles of the cultural mythology? Not merely cultural mythology, either, but cultural mythology which would overtake nations again and again. Cultural mythology for which people would fight and die.
Let's examine a few of the mythologies and cultures that surrounded them. The Roman deities, valuing strength, wisdom, ambition, and courage. Roman culture was one that faced the ruthless barbaric cultures that surrounded it on a constant basis. There was war and bloodshed that occurred on a consistent basis, and being good in battle was mandatory for the survival of any culture. The value of courage - in this case very frequently meaning a willingness to sacrifice yourself for the benefit of the group on the whole - may not have aided individuals who exemplified it, but it aided the culture on the whole. Making it a heroic trait increased its frequency, therefore its occurrence, therefore the benefit to the group. Strength and tactfulness were needed to maintain ground against the enemy. It is simple to see here that the
cultural values were a means to the survival of the culture.
Now let's examine Christianity. How could it be that virtues such as humility, kindness, and mercy helped the culture survive? The Christian religion sprang from the midst of the Judaic culture under the rule of Rome. The Roman rule created a suppression of the people which the Judaic culture was unable to resist. Judaic law, perhaps once necessary, had become self-destructive in its harshness. Using "God's law" to punish and even destroy so many of its own people while in the midst of foreign invasion was simply counter-productive. To survive, the culture needed a break from old values - to something that unified the people rather than dividing them in the face of an enemy. Humility and mercy in this case are both virtues which exemplify a willingness to disregard other values in favor of unity. Through this greater unity the culture could survive the rule of a foreign empire, and in fact, would prove the conqueror in time. Is it any wonder that, in this break from both its Judaic origins and its Roman rule that Christianity should vilify both? Pontias Pilot and the Jewish courts both condemned the demi-God. Their overthrow was necessary, after all, to establish this new and stronger set of cultural values.
Even though we may say that these values are needed for the survival of each culture or people, does that truly provide a sufficient foundation for the creation of a founding mythology for which people would fight and die? I would say that there is far more to it than that. In order to establish these cultural values, the values needed to be attached to something more
immortal than values normally are - less
malleable than the human mind, less
changeable than a story.
What in this world could ever qualify for these standards? Quite simply, nothing in this world can. Something immortal had to be created from the mortal and insubstantial. It had to be something that people would hold to. It had to be something
significant.
But where does this significance come from? How can something ethereal be presented as real and be so widely accepted, on trust (or faith) alone? The conclusion we must draw here is simple. There is such a
need for the significance that is provided that people are willing to grasp at anything that seems to fill that void at all. Here I will return to Marx's statement: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation." Let's delve further.
What is the heartless world? What is the spiritless situation? According to Marx, it is the situation of the proletariat. I will tweak his view ever so slightly to fit my own. I will say that it is the situation of the common man. An average person (whether because of the class situation or something entirely different) is faced with a world that is harsh and cruel. He is faced with his own mortality and fragility. He must fight against a world that has stacked the deck against him. Here in this country, in the United States of America, we are rich and we are privileged. Nonetheless, unemployment is high and forty-million are below the poverty line. Our culture has us working longer with less reward. Our family structure is falling apart. Three out of ten are obese. One in three will be diagnosed with a psychological disorder in their lifetime. One in five will have some kind of depression or anxiety disorder. One in seven has attempted suicide. In brief, we are
not happy. The oppression of our culture against ourselves is real and significant. We move faster and accomplish less of real significance. Here, in our country, 75% of the population is Christian.
Mexico is even more in poverty, even worse off, and 88% of the population is Christian. In Islam nations, impoverished and uneducated people sacrifice their lives for their mythology. It is the very
suffering which creates the void which religion attaches itself to. First comes the misery, then the sweet relief of the music of religion. Through religion, those who are in a state of suffering find an "opiate." They find a way out of the pain which has plagued them. A life of suffering if lived well will result in an
eternal life of . A world which grants ill reward will be replaced by a world with
immeasurable reward. Our fragility, the source of so much fear, will be removed and replaced with
immortality. In some views, even Godhood.
By providing this relief, the mythology of a culture gains as much immortality as the suffering which plagues the people who claim that mythology. Mythology is not merely a set of cultural values but the very reason for living
precisely because it provides the ability to continue to live. If the world were a world of pain without relief, merely a world of suffering, with no eternal reward coming after, we may as well just lay it down. Religion gives the frightened and the weak the reasons to fight on and live their life.
As we examine the non-religious, the atheists, the agnostics - those who have not purchased their mythology - we can see some very strong common strains. Economically, atheists tend to be better off. Academically, atheists tend to be better educated. Born into a "higher class" in society, a lack of wealth or education does not create the need for faith. I would argue
not that atheists are atheist because they are "smart enough" to realize the foolishness of religion, but because they have found appropriate alternate solutions in their lives which remove the
need for religion.
Purpose of Religion
As already should be implied at this point, religion finds its purpose in fulfilling a need of the people. The people require a relief from their suffering. Disempowered, they flock to a holy power. Miserable, they latch onto a divine joy. Distressed, they crave a peace that religion can give. There is nothing here that is foolish or unreasonable. In fact, it is pure logic which creates the desire for what religion provides.
The objectives of religion can be broad, but the source of religion's power in today's world stems from its ability to relieve pain and provide at least the semblance of meaning. Religion does so in, we hope, the name of joy. It hopes to create a better world by fulfilling these needs. We must ask additional questions here if we are to truly examine religion. Is the relief of pain a good thing? Is the semblance of meaning a good thing? Is religion, when all is said and done, a good thing?
The "opiate of the masses" seems like quite a fair description to me, here. Religion undeniably provides a relief of the harsh situation of reality for so many who are trampled by that reality. Should be condone this opiate? Should we condemn it? In and of itself, is there truly anything positive or negative? I would claim that, as all medicines should be viewed, we can say that the use of this opiate is appropriate in some situations and not in others.
In what situations is the opiate a good idea? Let me provide a few scenarios. If one cannot live or tolerate life without the opiate, it is appropriate. If one is going to die before the pain can be resolved and the opiate provides relief until the end of that time, it is appropriate. If the pain is completely unavoidable - the injury permanent, the treatment impossible - it is appropriate.
We must ask, then, is the pain of the common man so unavoidable - treatment so impossible - our current lot so intolerable - that we
should use this opiate? In fact, I will say outright that if
any of these things are so, we not only
should but
must use this opiate. It is the moral choice in these scenarios.
Is our pain intolerable? This I would contend. I do not claim to be so extraordinarily knowledgeable and experienced that I have even a general idea of the limits of pain. What I do know, however, is that I have been astonished in my own life by what I can tolerate. I have had many times where I have experienced things that I honestly believed I couldn't survive, and yet I did. I have faced down fears so overwhelming that I thought for certain they would consume. I won. I have experience immense physical pain, overwhelming stress, a broken heart, and have journeyed into the debts of nihilism. I have surprised myself repeatedly. The pain if
fearsome. The pain of our life and our existence breeds an overwhelming amount of fear in us, and
not for no reason.
This fear is only conquered when faced, however. In this scenario, the opiate becomes a crutch which so often does nothing more than cripple us against pain which we could defeat, but instead, never face.
Are we condemned to have no relief from this pain within our lifetime? Is it hopeless that we might find some other relief from that pain and sorrow with the tools we have before us and time we have remaining? I would also disagree with that sentiment. The opiate provides a relief from a very real pain, and if we are not attempting to remove that pain, like a cancerous growth, it will spread. Each person has their own meaning which must be found and pursued with tenacity. It is this pursuit of meaning and purpose which provides the relief - the real relief - for each person. It is not a "God's purpose" we are to fulfill, which would write us into the roles of other characters, but the awakening of the consciousness both to itself and the world around it, and its decision as a creator to fulfill its decided purpose. The opiate does not interfere directly, but it does dissuade. It removes the reality of urgency from our minds. It weakens us.
But what if this relief of pain, even this real relief of pain, is insufficient? What if the world we have created, the world which oppresses us, the world in which one in seven attempts to suicide, is unavoidable? I can't answer this one directly, because I don't the answer. History has shown that mankind is the bane of mankind. We have committed the most treasonous acts possible against our own species. We have committed genocide. We have created the nuclear weapon. We have found many forms of slavery. We are, as a race, more cruel and more vicious than any other creature we know of. Can this be mended? Can we find a way to live that is not pure struggle and suffering?
If the answer here is really "no," then the opiate is the only appropriate solution. If the answer is "yes," or what it actually is, "I don't know," then we must fight on. This opiate on which we are dependent has filled a void that must be left open to force us to see our world. Without the relief of a world to come, we must stare our own world in the eyes. We must face down the demons that we have made. We must
own our fragile existence and do all that we can with the urgent tasks at hand. If our lives are truly limited, we must
fight now.
So I would decline the opiate. I would say that, for most, the opiate is a counterproductive instrument by which we suppress our own urge to change the world.
So, if this opiate of religion is counterproductive, does this mean that religion is entirely useless? Does this mean that it should be eliminated?
I am privileged to have an LDS Bishop for a father. In his role as Bishop I have seen him tend to emotional, economic, and other needs of members of his "ward." I have an immense amount of respect for the work he does and the work done by the entire LDS community. Many other religious communities do similar, beautiful work to help their fellow humans in their struggle.
The work they do is
good work. It is work which helps people in a substantial and real way. Are people motivated merely by God and the consequences in thereafter to do these good deeds? Is morality dependent on the mythology?
I would say
no. Morality finds its truest form in humanism and the true respect and desire to help other people
because of other people. Not for God. Not for Heaven. Due to the respect and recognition of oneness with the human race.
Still, religion should not be condemned outright. It does many good things and helps both those inside and outside its religion in many circumstances. It is their actions, like all actions, that should be judged - not merely the body of what they are. In a world where religion is so deeply rooted, the violent casting out of religion would be more than dangerous - it would be deadly.
Beyond Religion
Marx concludes that "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." Here I will part paths somewhat with Marx. Each individual must make their own determinations about what is right, good, and best.
The belief in a religious system does not necessarily preclude an individual from trying to make this world a better place. The practice of religion does not make it improvements and a fulfillment of personal desire impossible. In fact, the structures and organization of religion, for some, provide the very opportunity for true fulfillment of desire.
This is the world we are in now. This is the world we have created through our actions. The opiate is to be condemned only when it demotivates the people from seeking treatment. The sigh of the oppressed is nothing but logical in its construction, so people grasping to it should not be condemned.
Now is the time when we must turn and recognize the real enemies of fulfillment and happiness. We must, as a collective whole, looking beyond religious, cultural, or other differences, unite as a people in order to take ownership of our world. These enemies come in many forms. They come in the form of corruption and greed - of exploitation and war - of violence and deceit. It is our responsibility to change the world into what we want it to be. We are not the pawns of some greater beings. We are the artists painting the Universe. Our choices create the world around us, and we, no matter how convinced we are of our own weakness, will always be powerful in ways we cannot even imagine. "What we do in this life echoes in eternity," but a very real eternity. The eternity of our own world, of the future of our race, and our chosen destiny as a people. The ripples of our actions now will cascade out over an infinity. It is time to wake up to the world we live in and recognize that there may never be a second coming to redeem us - that we must instead redeem ourselves. It is time to stop retreating to other worlds, and instead become conscious creators of our own reality.
.jpg)
