Is religion the "opium of the masses" as Marx said?

I think that the answer would be not to blame the music if the musicians are off key. I could sit down at the piano and butcher Beethoven, but that doesn't mean that you chuck Beethoven.


Those in power will look for anything they can use to sustain and increase their hold, and religion is by nature an easy tool. Let me put it this way; are white Americans inherently evil? If not, how do you explain slavery? The cause of slavery wasn't white people, it was those in power abusing that power, as is evidenced by the fact that in Africa the first link in the slave chain was black men selling black men to white men. But to use the reasoning you used to define religion, you would have to conclude that it was the white man's race which was the cause of slavery in America. Race was just a convenient tool for those in power.

The same can be said of slavery, or my version of Moonlight Sonata.

 

IMO, spirituality and logic aren’t incompatible. I think they are both part of the greater whole. And, although some religious groups certainly do seem to shun science, I don’t think this point of view is supported by the Bible or anything else in my understanding of Christianity. The Bible says seek and you shall find, not stick your head in the sand and do what other people tell you to. I should add, however, that for some scientists, science can be a religion. Thomas Kuhn covers this topic pretty well, but it can be seen in many different places. Scientists can become indoctrinated or politically persuaded to hold to positions that are not supported by sound science. Not all that claims to be science is good science, just like not all that claims to be Christian faith is Christian faith.

 

where have you been???!!! i've been at a simulcast of a church conference this week from Willow Creek (are you familiar with it?) they're simulcasting in churches through Canada, too. I thought about you, wondering if you happened to be there watching the same thing I was watching.

 

Faith is weird. I mean...I think I hear God! Maybe I don't hear him the way I hear noises...but I definitely feel like God speaks to me. I'm a freak. I know. But it is what it is. And I can't ignore it. I personally have a relationship with Christ. I just do. Maybe I've fooled myself...maybe the whole world who believes in God is fooling themselves. But it is very, very real to me. Very real. I realize that it doesn't seem logical to the outsider...hell, many times it seems entirely illogical to me.

To loosely quote Mel Gibson in "Signs": there are two kinds of people in the world. those who believe that there's someone looking out for them...and those who don't.

It's a belief. It's faith. If anyone sincerely wants to ask questions about my faith, that's cool as Christmas. Somehow I don't see that inquisitive spirit in this thread, however.

I will add that I'm much more comfortable with spirituality than religion. Religion carries with it a lot of baggage which really have nothing to do with my experience with God.

 

that was the point i was trying to make.

i don't think religion in itself is bad (quite the contrary), but it leaves itself open to such manipulation that it is truly a different beast than what it was intended to be. when i see pat robertson praying for the removal of certain justices, that disgusts me.... seriously. same with Islam. you have an uneducated people listening to what these clerics tell them to do in the name of Allah, yet these clerics never practice what they preach. but the common person never questions the motives of the powerful, because they believe their actions are justified religiously - all because some cleric said so.

i believe that's what Marx meant. the commoners feel good about what's being done because it's all in the name of "religion."

the powerful give you your hit of religion, and everything is good in the world.

 

and yet, there is very little (or nothing) in the Bible to indicate that belief in God equates to a rosegarden life. quite the contrary. ask John the Baptist..Paul..Peter..Thomas, etc.

 

Religion is the opiate of the masses in that it dulls the pains of living.

Living with unanswerable questions? Religion gives you answers.

Living in an unjust society? Religion provides the carrot of eternal life and the stick of hell to motivate the general moral behavior.

Living an unbearable existence of pain or persecution ? Religion can give you the hope for happiness in the afterlife.

Now and even more so 2000 years ago, life is brutal. A deep desire for some order amid this chaos drives men to create the myths, parable and rituals that develop into religion. And to all that find their comfort in that, more power to them.

But when religion takes the position that it can determine absolute truths it is ripe for corruption. Leaders who control those religions control truth. They can say the were annointed by God, or directed by God to do anything and religion can crack down on dissenters as heretics. So as much as religion can ease the burden of mankind, it can be the master of mankind. It takes a healthy questioning of all things to keep corrption at bay.

 

You apparently have met very few highly religious people.

I am guessing (not labelling, just guessing, could be wrong) that you are a young person. A lot of young people think that way. I thought that way when I was young. As you get older, you'll find out that life is not that simple. Nor is it the wisest way to spend your life.

 

You are right, so right!!!!!

 

Yes, that is correct. But you would also have to add more things. Mass produced culture (like you said television, but also music,and lots of other things), legislation, etc..

The ruling elite will employ whatever means they can to repress the masses. Religion, of course, included.

 

It's certainly an opiate for the masses. As to whether that's what it exclusively is... that's another question .

Precision is good...

 

Hey Max! I’ve been taking a break. Stepped away from it for a while. How are things? There seem to be a few new faces around.

I don’t know much about Willow Creek, but I believe they have a choir that put out a CD that some people I know really like. I don’t think I’ve actually heard it though.

 

what he said.

 

MacB

Really I thought you would have known better than that...

The Pope is infallable in matters of theological doctrine....not science or other things...

Now to say this does not mean that doctrine can not change or grow.... take for instance the Virgin Mary.... A doctrine introduced by theologian Duns Scotus (the name I want for my punk rawk band) in I think the 1400's I could be wrong.... now, It was never made official church doctrine until the 1800's.... yet during that time no pope actually said that it was wrong.... they just didn't profess it as truth just yet....because it was a matter that was still in discussion.... the same can be said for transubstantiation ro any other church Dogma... that was not preached as dogma before...Now, you will logically say how do you account for the change that happens going from one set of dogmas on something to another... let us say that, previous dogmas, aren't neccesarily wrong, its just that man, through tradition, scripture and discursive reason, has found a new truth in what was thought... one that is more poignant than what was thought before.... the previous truth does not neccesarily become wrong, just less right.... bobrek or Yetti, or Mr. Clutch, does this make sense, am I saying it right, I could be a bit off...

Now, lets go back to our first discussion on faith and reason.... do you remember that one, the one where I told you you had come to basically the same conclusion Aquinas did in the Summa Contra Gentiles? Well, As you remember, Faith is what gives us the first principles of our dogma, Insight into God (Christ), Sacred Scripture, etc....reason then takes over to draw the first precepts out into the full dogma of the church....this is how councils like Vatican II can come along and make "changes" to doctrine, without really hurting the integrity of the previous doctrines... so yes, theology can grow and mature underneath the Vicar of Christ in the Catholic Church....

 

Would anyone disagree that religion played a part in keeping American slaves in check??? I think it played a part, as a matter of fact, I would some of the teachings of Christianity played a strong hand in keeping slaves from rebelling.

 

I have heard this response before, religion not science, as i addressed in my post. But a quick review of the past conclusions fo the RC church doesn't substantiate that claim. At the time in question it WAS a matter of theological doctrine...as evidenced by the fact that Gallileo was deemed heretical for espousing it. It is the rationalization after the fact to now say it didn't come under the theological heading that undermines thw hile credibility. At the time it was about interpretation of the scriptures, and Gallileo himself offered the ( now accepted) isea that the Bible wasn't to be taken literally, and he was excommunicate for defying the Pope...on theological matters.


Or what about old Urban II's conclusion...a theological conclusion...that Crusaders would be forgiven their sins and assured a place in heaven if they slew infidels and reclaimed the Holy Land? Was that not a matter of theological doctrine? How is that to be reconciled now?


Or take the Papal injuction against the Cathars on theological grounds, which completely contradicts the current theological position re: other religions. The list is endless. Either he is faultless or not; I persoanlly would find more comfort with an admission that the position of the Pope has superceded in practice what it's intent was in principle. The Petrine Principle has always been among the weaker of Catholic arguments anyways, IMO.'Upon this rock I will build my Church' does not equate to a linear progression of infallible pontiffs based on the geographic location of Peter's ultimate residency. Especially in light of the fact that the Disciples themselves chose Jesus' brother James the Just as the first head of their church following the ascenscion.

And in terms of Summa, the 'reason' of the pontiff in terms of his infallibility in spiritual matters is not supposed to be engaged; he is supposed to be communicating divine will, wherein his reason is in absentia. As such interpretation is antithetical; he is telling us how it is. So when we later see error in that statement, it undermines the entire premise, and we can't retreat to the faulty nature of the tool of God without therefore completely doing away with the assumption of divinity inb the Papal Bull.

 

I would disagree. Mostly because I don't think it worked very well.

It could have, that is if you read 1 Cor. 7:20 as saying it is wrong to try to escape slavery.20Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. 21Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. 23You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 24Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.

But you could also focus on the idea that "if you can gain your freedom, do so" and interpret escape as a means of gaining freedom. Under their system, I believe it was possible to buy back your own freedom. In that case it would probably mean that if by simply working a little harder you could get out of slavery you should do so. Otherwise, recognize the freedom you have in Christ.

In any case, I believe that historically a lot of the means that people used to escape their plantations was through the organization they were allowed as they practiced their Chrisitianity (using traveling ministers to pass messages and using the double meaning in gospel songs, for instance). And they hoped for the freedom they saw for the Israelites and in general for Christians.

Also, I want to add onto the reading list of EXTREMELY logical apologists: Cornelius Van Til.

 

I want to comment on all the posts but I'd like to focus on Gene's because he seems to be the most read in the ways of Freaky Friedrich Nietzsche....

Faith. Reason. None of the Above.

These seem to be the three trends in what religion, nihilisim, and all out rationalism are concerned with. The Catholic faith, by way of Augustine, Damascene, Ignatius Loyola, the saints and sinners that have been involved with the church, and most especially, St. Thomas Aquinas, has been concerned with the harmony of faith and reason (if anybody is too lazy to go over to the biblical questions thread I could possibly find the link to the Aquinas starter web page and post it for you)... simply put it has been what we have always argued, logically, so this quite simply dispels the notions of those who said faith is just blind faith... well you know what, faith is an act that one must make on their own... you can believe or you can not, those are the only two options... Mr. Peterson, agnostics are just waiting to make up their minds.....

Now, lets move on to the rationalists... everything is reason... Well if you follow reason out to its logical conclusion, it seems to be that it cannot know the whole or everything... for instance Socrates saying that all he knows is that he knows nothing.... trace that to Augustine's I doubt therefore I am, which is then changed by Descartes into I think therefore I am....and one is left with a certain amount of speculation (I know that is a bit rough, but if you have reason as you claim to, you should get the point)...if you trace things back to the big bang, you have to say, what is the thing that created the big bang... and then you say what created that.. and so forth and so on.... well, if you are working through reason, you must realize that the final cause and formal cause must be present for action to occur...i.e. something that man cannot possibly understand has to be for anything else to be or occur....

And that leaves us with the only other viable option, the philosophy of Freidrich Nietzsche... a historicist and all around interesting chap.... Nietzsche throws out both faith and reason and claims that man and the meaning of life is the will to power... Now, I could jump through the various loopholes in Nietzsche's argumentation, but that wouldn't really matter in an argument with him, because he has dissolved reason as something that is anyway... so a logical argument would not hold up with him... and he has also dissolved faith...One could simply say hey to even choose the will to power takes an act of reason would simply mean nothing to him... end result, Nietzsche got syphullus, went mad, and committed suicide.... HE claimed not to be a nihilist yet his philosophy left that as the only other viable option....

Oh, and Gene, when you say there is no absolute truth, doesn't that in itself, become an absolute truth? Or is that just to damn reasonable for you? Maybe you should just believe that....

Oh, and to all other Christians out there, I admire your dedication and commitment to loving God and Christ... In the spirit of eccumenism (sp?), I just ask what problems you have with the Catholic Church are and maybe we can have a dialogue about that and reach a greater understanding of each other's faiths... I have the top CAtholic theologian in the world (next to Cardinal Ratzinger) living in a monastery across the street, and I can bring him questions if need be if you stump me and and my friends, and I'm serious about that, not as anything bad, but in the spirit of using our reasons to come to a greater understanding of God's message for us all....

 

But, is this a theological matter, even if it was said to be at the time? I think that it is not....it is clearly a matter of scientific importance, and so that Pope was talking out his ass on that matter.....


I'm looking up an answer for the second response....