Ralph Dumain >But anti-clericalism falls short of examining belief itself. Even Marx's >celebrated description of religion as "the opium of the people" remains >relatively useless for explanatory purposes. Ruling classes of course use >religion to their own advantage but where does the religion come >from? Did they invent it? How? When? Marxists say (and this certainly >is accurate) that religion generates priesthoods which, because they wield >great social power, tend to merge into the ruling class and bestow tokens >of divine approval on ruling-class strategies. Whence comes the social >power of religious hierarchies?
This is all true as far as it goes, but it may create a distorted impression. "Opium of the people" in actuality is the least revealing and productive, though most provocative, phrase in the passage in which Marx states it. Marx did not in fact define religion thus, though he did sum religion up as a popular epistemology, ending with this functional attribution. ^^^^ CB; I agree. The more fundamental analysis of religion in Marx's famous discussion in "Intro to Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of the Law" is that irreligious criticism begins with "man (sic) makes God, God does not make man". God is alienated humanity. Examination of the anthropomorphism of "God" helps in looking at religion today. For example, "intelligent design" anthropomorphizes the natural history process through bringing "intelligence", i.e. human thought and purpose in. _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [email protected] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
