Marx's theory on religion is generally that it is something that man created to make his world more bearable, that man created religion to function as an escape from a daily life filled with hardships. Marx believed that if man became strong enough to see the world for what it was he would be able to throw away the crutch of religion and "fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses". Marx also argues that men have become so dependent on religion and the illusions it provides that without it they become weak. It seems that Marx also believes that if man were to throw of the burden of religion he would be able to change the world that had been the cause of the need for religion. What Marx fails to see is that even if people begin to change the world and fight for a time when all of the fundamental questions of life may be answered without religion; there will still be sorrow, pain, death, and things that could not possibly be explained. Though Marx has a point in saying religion is the "heart of a heartless world" he assumes that having a "heart" in that "heartless world" is a distraction from reality. What Marx fails to see is that people may be just as likely if not more likely to want to better their world if they have faith that their actions are contributing to a higher purpose.
When a baby is crying there are typically two schools of thought on what to do either A- leave the baby to calm itself down or B- comfort the baby, remind it that you are there and then leave it to fall back asleep. Both sides have their good and bad points; with theory A the baby will learn very quickly to calm itself down and that no one is coming but may become distrusting and emotionally withdrawn; in theory B the baby will know it has someone to care for it and keep it safe yet may not always develop the best coping skills. Marx's theory on religion is very much like theory A when calming a baby; in this case the baby represents the people and religion the caretaker of the child, if people are left completely to them selves and never have something they can rely on they may become self-centered and negative. The next question would then be is a world that is negative and has people that view all the raw reality of life without comfort better than one that sees that reality of life yet chooses to be comforted by a higher power ?
According to Marx the only time the world will see real change is when people "throw of the chain and pluck the living flower" or in other words throw religion away and live in the present world with its flaws. This idea would seem wonderful if people saw what was wrong fixed it and made the world a joyful place again, yet this would only be fixing the short term need for revolution and not the long term need humans have for faith in difficult times which will never completely go away.
Marx's view of religion would be amazing if people could all take charge and make their lives exactly what they wanted them to be without need for any support; but humans are not robots humans do need support. They need to feel taken care of, they need something to believe in to make the world better and if they loose that, many will not be able to move ahead. If religion gives humans the strength and faith they need to make it through life why not keep it?so that leads to the final question is a little opium such a bad thing?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Good arguments, and a nice analogy between the theory and the baby. It could've been explored a little bit more, but as it is written here, it was adequate. Could have been a little more in-depth and specific overall, lots of generalizations, but the argument makes very good sense, especially with the added kick of the robot metaphor at the end.
A thoughful paper with good points and a clear thesis. Nice analogy between Marx's theory and the baby, but could have been explored a little more in-depth. Over all, it was a bit generalized and could have used more details and specifics, but the ideas made sense, and the final metaphor with robots added an extra kick to your argument.
Amy, you bring up really great points in your arguement. It's true, people do need something or someone to rely on, and even if they're not relying on a higher power, maybe they rely on a friendship. In that case, Marx would still say they do not rely completely on themself; however, if everyone did rely solely themselves, many connections between people would cease to exist. To answer your last question, Opium in the sense of numbing people of their capabilities is bad, but Opium in the sense of easing the pains of life is not such a bad thing.
The example of babies, A and B was great. It helped me to understand the theory of Marx more clarly. Is opium really bad? I personally think that it is the way that people choose to take or not. If religion helps one gets through hardness and make one's life better(in one's standard), I think religion should be there to be chosen, not just oppressed or praised.
Post a Comment