How the Social Importance of Religion Has Receded with Modernity

Karl Marx’s view of society was based around the economy. All other social structures according to Marx, such as religion, family values, and politics stem from the base, the economy. Religion played no part at all in Marx’s sociological views. He is known as an atheist. He believed that religion was nothing more than a burden on society. “The

Karl Marx a Marxist sees religion as an illusion and that the phenomenon of religion is part of what Marx refers to as an alienation of people

The skies are an eternal grey, the sun is hardly seen, and people hurriedly rush to a meaningless job only to stumble back to a home in squalor. The grey of the skies is a perfect match for the people’s spirits. Hope, like the sun, becomes shrouded in a smoky cloud as the jobs provided to these people offer little in wages and even less in purpose. This is the life facing the proletariat, wage-labor social class or working poor. In contrast, the employers of the poor caste live rather lavish lives of wealth and stature. The bourgeois, upper middle-class consisting of business owners, shop owners, landlords, otherwise known as the wealthy employers. It is this contrast of social struggle that produced Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto and Abraham Kuyper’s The Problem of Poverty. Both Marx and Kuyper’s writings focus on the social struggle between the privileged, wealthy, and unprivileged, poor; however, Marx presents the struggle and his solution from an economic viewpoint while Kuyper presents the struggle and his solution from a religious viewpoint. Marx begins his presentation with a defining of both socio-economic groups then presents the political movement of Communism as a solution to the contrast. Kuyper, on the other hand, focuses his presentation on the idolization of monetary wealth over the sovereignty of God beginning at the conclusion of the French Revolution. Kuyper’s writing not only presents a religious solution to class struggle, but is also a response of

Althusser recognised that religion also plays a crucial role in communicating ruling class ideology to the masses. Relating back to Marx’s (1844) description of religion as ‘the opium of the people’. Acknowledging that the teachings of the church are imposed by the ruling class to allow for false consciousness as the church teaches the working-classes to comply with capitalism and provides measures to cope with hardship. Nonetheless, (Giddens, 1971. P: 7) claimed ‘the abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness’. However, ideology is necessary for social life. Regardless if a society has a class system the function of ideology allows for social cohesion (Rancière, 2011).

For most people of the modern age, a clear distinction exists between the truth as professed by religious belief, and the truth as professed by scientific observation. While there are many people who are able to hold scientific as well as religious views, they tend to hold one or the other as being supreme. Therefore, a religious person may ascribe themselves to certain scientific theories, but they will always fall back on their religious teachings when they seek the ultimate truth, and vice versa for a person with a strong trust in the sciences. For most of the early history of humans, religion and science mingled freely with one another, and at times even lent evidence to support each other as being true. However, this all changed

When dwelling into the explorations about science and religion, one can find it quite amusing. "If science and religion are to continue to coexist it seems opposed to the conditions of modern thought to admit that this result can be brought about by the so-called

He chose to view religion as a negative thing unlike Durkheim who viewed it in a positive way. Marx believed that “humanity makes religion; religion does not make humanity.” (Kessler. A, 2001). Karl Marx states that opium and religion can be an effect on human suffering by removing the incentive to do whatever is necessary to overcome it. Hamilton points out that “religion offers compensation for the hardship of this life in some future life, but it makes such compensation conditional upon acceptance of the injustices of this life.” Religion, to Marx, does not have the power to lead to social change. (Kessler. A, 2001). Max Webber attempted to demonstrate that religious beliefs were not mechanically connected to the economic structure of society, it shapes individuals behavior and actions in everyday life. Overall, it can be seen that the three main sociology writers differ greatly when it comes to ideas regarding religion.

Marxist believe that religion acts inevitably as a conservative force because religion is an ideological state apparatus which spreads capitalist ideas, thus maintains the social hierarchy, and in doing so maintains harmony and consensus in society. This is reinforced by Marx who claims religion is the opium of the people hence religion dulls the pain of oppression for them. Marx claims that religion is still a conservative force as through the use of ideology it justifies the oppression of the proletariat e.g. in the hymn ‘rich man at his castle the poor man at his gate, god made them high and ordered their estate’. This suggests god created inequality; as a result

Karl Marx said what about religion? Why might this be significant? Karl said religion is important, people need something to believe

This essay will be arguing that Marx and Burke held heavily contrasted views in regards to the role of religion in political. The topic of religion in politics has been highly debated throughout the ages, and the viewpoints held by these two scholars is meant to exemplify the struggle of opposing political ideologies. Marx believed that religion should be abolished and entirely separated from the state, and Burke believed that church and state should remain united in governance. To support this argument the use of their books the Reflection of the Revolution in France and the Marx-Engels Reader will be referenced to provide evidence.

While both Locke and Marx believed that religion should be held separate from politics, diversion in ideology can be seen through the fact that Locke felt that religious life should be privatized, while Marx believed that religion becomes superfluous, and therefore unnecessary in a society in which power is appropriated to all of its masses. Locke’s “Letter Concerning Toleration” and Marx’s “Manifesto of the Communist Party” showcase the dynamic, oft-conflicting nature of power and control that the institution of formalized religion and politics have imparted on human consciousness, with Locke and Marx proving similar in their convictions that politics should be distinctly maintained, though differing on their stance on the privatization of

Generally, Marx’s position on religion is drawn up in an entirely negative manner. In his writings, he expresses his belief that religion is a set of doctrines intended to stabilize, while at the same time bring into servitude the working class people. In addition to that, he argues that the society’s inclination towards religious excitement serves to represent a reaction to disaffection. Also, Marx contends that, since religion causes human beings to feel delusive happiness it makes an erroneous mental representation in as well as of itself. Indeed to him, it is an instrument utilized to sustain cultural systems together with ideologies that in most cases encourages oppression in the society (Parsons 38-46).

Following the Industrial Revolution in 19th century Europe, change was in full swing and religion began to have different meanings for different people. The upper-class citizens used Religion, namely Christianity, and the power that it possessed in an attempt to keep their high status in society, while the lower class turned to faith so that their lives could possibly improve. Instead of religion being the cornerstone of faith and worship amongst all people, it was being used for power and money by the upper class. Even worse, religious leaders were using the upper class people as well, gaining money and authority from their endorsement. A man by the name of Karl Marx saw

To understand the religion as a social control tool, it is necessary to understand the term socialization. Many sociologists have placed more focus on defining the term socialization. Ward (2011) defined the term socialization as the process through which an individual acquires the ways of a social group or a society so as he or she can fit in it. In his invitation to sociology, Koenig (2013) defined the term ‘socialization’ as the process through which acquires knowledge of how to become a member of the society. It is only through socializing that an individual is able to learn normative values, skills, beliefs, languages as well as other essential arrangements of action as well as thoughts significant for any given social life.

According to Marx, religion can be seen as the opiate of the people (Engels, Marx 1955, p.41). Here, Marx is suggesting that just like opium, religion is trying to relieve people of the pain and suffering in their lives. Marx also puts forward the idea that religion is used by its oppressors in order to make people feel better about their lives. Thus, it can be seen that Marx chooses to adopt a negative view of religion. Max Weber can be seen as the only sociologist to place so much scope and emphasis on the subject of religion (Nisbet, p.250). Biographical and textual evidence suggests that biblical religion played a part in shaping and influencing Weber's life and the context of his sociology. Weber's main concern was to attempt to demonstrate that religious ideologies were not mechanically connected to the economic structure of society, however it does shape individuals behavior and actions in everyday life (Swingewood 1984, p.152). Weber also came to several conclusions regarding the remarkable relationship between capitalism and Protestant. According to Weber, the more capitalism had a free hand to alter social distribution, the larger the relationship between capitalism and protestant (1930, p.4). Overall, it can be seen that the three main sociology theorists differ greatly when it comes to ideas regarding to religion.