What is religion?

[3dward]

From my point of view, understanding religion is a fundamental problem for a Marxist. A good starting point would be its definition. I´ve been thinking on this a lot and although I´ve found many definitions, I think that all them in one way or another doesn´t cover the entire essence of the problem.

U might say that religion is the primary response to the problem of the unknown phenomenon of the world. Is this so, why then so many scientists are believers of one or another religion. I think that this point of view also leads u to the (wrong for me) path of confronting religion vs. science.

Some people could say that is a system of beliefs. Although this definition is a comprehensive one, it leads u to consider that any system of beliefs could be a religion. One might say that pragmatism is a religion or go even further and categorize philosophical thinking as religion.

There´s also the cultural point of view. Considering religion as a culture is somehow true, but also lead to the question, what about religious people that aren´t integrated into its surrounding culture? The Christians that live in the Muslim world could be an example.

So what do u think of this? Is there a good definition outhere?

[connoros]

I don't know if there is a perfect definition of religion. I'd say it's organized superstition, by which I mean it's a system of explaining things magically that influences the way society is run.

[Bostana]

Marx on Religion:

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.

[connoros]

Marx on Religion ...

Would you care to expand on what he means when he describes religion in this way, though? I think, although Marx is very insightful in this comment, there may be a more precise, practical way of describing religion.

[Bostana]

Would you care to expand on what he means when he describes religion in this way, though? I think, although Marx is very insightful in this comment, there may be a more precise, practical way of describing religion.

Marx is calling religion an opium (or opiate) which basically means something that Religion stupifies to relieve pain. But it is not the cure for it.

[connoros]

Marx is calling religion an opium (or opiate) which basically means something that Religion stupifies to relieve pain. But it is not the cure for it.

Yes, but maybe it plays another role, too, one that benefits the bourgeoisie. I guess we can extend the opiate metaphor to identify the bourgeoisie as a pharmaceutical industry that benefits from keeping people dependent on painkillers.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Even from Marx's view, religion already does benefit the bourgeoisie because, as someone already said it is not a cure, thus it is a distraction from the real struggle, class struggle. However, the bourgeoisie do use religious teachings to divide workers ie straights against gays (ie politicians arguing against gay marriage and LGBT rights), whites against blacks (ie before the American Civil War when politicians used the Bible to justify slavery and even today with modern non-slavery racism), etc.

[3dward]

I think that Marx was referring to the use of religion as a tool of dominance when he wrote that. But although the use of something somehow defines it, its very essence is way beyond that.

Marx was analyzing religion from a political perspective, oppressors vs. oppressed. The use of religion as an instrument for reinforcing dominance is just a view of the problem, but arises the question, what is within the nature of religion that allow this use?

[Bostana]

Yes, but maybe it plays another role, too, one that benefits the bourgeoisie. I guess we can extend the opiate metaphor to identify the bourgeoisie as a pharmaceutical industry that benefits from keeping people dependent on painkillers.

No doubt religion can benefit the bourgeoisie. As adopting a certain religion can please the masses

[3dward]

I would like to hear some opinion from religious people. After all, this part of the forum is for opposing ideologies. I mean, I´m not asking what does it means in the life of the people or its use as a tool of dominance. I want to know how u think it can be defined and confront the different points of view.

[Zostrianos]

I would like to hear some opinion from religious people. After all, this is part of the forum is for opposing ideologies. I mean, I´m not asking what does it means in the life of the people or its use as a tool of dominance. I want to know how u think it can be defined and confront the different points of view.

An experiential knowledge of something beyond the physical senses is how I define the spiritual core of religion for me. Whether there actually is a God or Gods, or it's all in our heads, the result is the same. Mysticism, meditation and spiritual philosophies provide meaning to millions of people, including many atheists and people who are materially content - therefore the whole "opium-painkiller" explanation doesn't fly. If you think that's silly or whatever, it's pretty simple: don't practice it. As long as religion remains a personal thing and secularism is strictly enforced, it poses no harm to society, on the contrary. Now to define religion however requires looking at various facets.

The more sinister, non-mystical form of religion can be defined as a set of laws to govern society based on perceived divine revelation - the precise term for this however is theonomy, and it happens to be at odds with the more mystical\spiritual aspects of religion; it's mainly present in classical monotheistic faiths. Mystics throughout the ages have been ruthlessly persecuted by theonomists, and this continues today with Sufi muslims in various countries who are savagely persecuted by Wahhabis.

Many atheists like to lump all religion under this definition, but that's just burying your head in the sand. Marx's experience of religion was the oppressive Christian church, and in his time academic knowledge was harder to come by, so if all you see is that facet of religion, you naturally come to erroneous conclusions regarding it.
As for those who attack the supernatural or mystical elements, again, they work for many people regardless of whether they are objectively real or not. Meditation and mystical practices have been scientifically proven to improve people's lives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_on_meditation), thanks to the human brain. I myself credit regular meditation with overcoming chronic depression a few years back.

[3dward]

Ur opinion is very interesting because it raises an essential question: the search for a meaning for our life and its relation with religion. I guess that an encompassing definition for religion should include it as a way of give some kind of meaning for life for a group of persons.
Also is true that some people doesn´t understand really what religion is and apply all kind of generalization. I find this very disturbing because generalization can lead to all sorts of misunderstanding.
The theonomy is part of the use of religion as a tool of dominance. Like I said in a above post, the question would be: what is within the essence of religion that allows his use as an instrument of oppression?
I also practice some meditation techniques sometimes and I find them very helpful. They were very useful when I quitted smoking.