What is ‘Religion’ and what is Man’s Solution to its Question?

Dogmatic and institutional religion have been, by and large, one of the most self- destructive activities of man. They have invoked terror of all sorts and magnitudes, blindness of all sorts of self-destruction and hatred for ideas and people based on the most arbitrary of distinctions. They have also been the cause of great unity, humanism and even the advancement of sciences in societies. Religion has been a powerful revolutionary force, encouraging the dawn of a penetrating humanism under Christian ideals, acting as a force which brought about the revolutionary American spirit and even the advancement of capitalism against the feudal lords. However, at each turn it has also had a profoundly crippling effect on man’s activity and his spirit, encouraging him to ignore facts and retain submissiveness encouraged by the state and church. This form of religion is a link in a chain which must be shrugged off by humanity in order to achieve freedom and unity. In this paper I intend to argue the psychologically and socially destructive nature of religion in general, designate a meaning for the term (as it is a very vague term), discuss its history, describe the comparative destructiveness of various religions and explain briefly with which methods man may free himself from this type of self-destructiveness.

The first issue to tackle is the very meaning of the word. I contend that the word should apply to all worldviews / character structures (the Freudian “Weltanschauung”). The Latin root itself (religio) means “ritual,” very similar, if not the same, as the activities one does on a daily basis (which of course are implicative and even comprise one’s character structure). This idea of religion as a worldview is further supported by an excerpt from the 16th century play, “The Revenger’s Tragedy,” in which Lussurioso, an aspiring Duke, states the following: “Marriage is good, yet rather keep a friend. / Give me my bed by stealth; there's true delight: / What breeds a loathing in't but night by night? “, to which the protagonist, Vindici, replies: “A very fine religion!” Here Vindici is clearly referring to a way of living as a religion.

Because of the vagueness of the terms that refer to ‘religion,’ I will use the following terms: ‘institutional religion’ to refer to dogmas with a central power structure, ‘dogmas’ to refer to any kind of supernatural belief, ‘personal dogmas’ to refer to atomized dogmatic views and ‘religion’ as a general term as argued for previously in the paragraph. Furthermore, I recognize two different kinds of ‘faith:’ that is, rational and dogmatic. Rational faith comes from a realistic analysis of nature, whereas irrational faith is a way of thinking that is self – supporting, as in the statement “I shall believe in God to make mother happy.” The degree to which one uses his reasonable sensory perception dictates whether or not a belief is supernatural. Though I won’t get into a specific discussion of early Judaic religion, it is eye-opening to recognize that the term “amen” means “certainly” in Hebrew. Finally, Faith and religion should not be confused: faith is the spirit compelling and surrounding a religion, specifically referring to belief, while religion is generally an activity.

Western society in particular has actually had a powerful secular trend, though only in practice and not word. This is due to both economic stratification and the general mode of capital itself: free – market capitalism, or any capital based system, because it has a trend of causing social distinctions to wither away. This is not true in the most important cases however: those unnecessary for capital wither away, and a compelling legal example of this is that the Americans with Disabilities act (A.D.A.) has been illegally ignored by schools across the nation, including my own junior and high schools. Further examples, of course, can be found in our nation's treatment of the elderly when it comes to healthcare and the disenfranchised masses - though many, if not most are black, the same presence of black lawyers, CEOs, etc. show that discrimination in the workforce is limited to a human's use-value.

This secularism is all too clear when one sees the practices of the so-called religious. They regularly go against not only their institutional dogma, but some even call themselves "non-practicing (Jews, Christians, etc.)"! If one does not practice their 'religion,' they are not 'religious' at all. It is apparent here that they have other religions which supercede their theism. Many so-called Christians would feign to follow the spirit of Moses' or Jesus' teachings - if they were to meet them, the prophets would say that they are not Christian if they covet earthly objects as opposed to social relations. Jesus himself said that it is easier for a camel to pass through the head of a pin than for a rich man to get into heaven. The spirit behind the story of Jesus' capture is another frightening example of where Christians have failed to be Christians. When Jesus' disciple cuts off the ear of one of the captors, Jesus replaces it. Knowing full well that he would be executed, he still did not lash out against his enemies: he replaces the ear, symbolically restoring the man's capacity to listen and relate to others. Many Chrisitians today have failed at following his example, marking Muslims as enemies and even in how they discuss issues with those they may consider equals: they lash out at signs that they may be wrong with misleading to erroneous statements, or simply move off of the topic with no intent of reconsidering their ideas. These values are clearly an example of institutionally - induced apathy: the speaker fails to productively understand the opposing viewpoint, probably due to our politically partisan attitude. They dehumanize their 'opponent' with labels, legit or not, and hence consider agreeing with them or seeing any logic in their ideas as a form of relating to them and becoming one with their ‘inhuman’ group. Communists were once referred to regularly as “subhuman,” and though we would not likely admit it today, the same rhetoric and spirit is applied to our nation’s Islamophobia.

Important to note is that this early trend of Christianity is in fact extremely humanistic, and many would even argue secular! There are those who are Christian and yet view god as literally being everything - in a word, god is nature. This is a totally secular trend, and as such this particular idea must be recognized for its humanistic and scientific religion.

Most important are the issues of the self-destructive and socially-destructive natures of dogmas in general. Dogmas, by nature, blind one to the truth – both natural and moral. Even if a dogma turns out to be true, holding it as a self-evident truth stifles the ability of man to realistically explore his world, as he ignores the opposition which would give insight into the truth of his own ideas. It also acts as a ‘scapegoat’ that allows one to commit acts one would otherwise consider immoral, or to scapegoat ideas/acts whose banishments will solve the individual’s problems. Dogmas blind one to the truth of their condition, and in doing so limit the individual’s capacity to realistically explain – to themselves or others – any relating knowledge or theories. This will of course limit their ability to act effectively and reasonably. If my dogma claims that there is no right or wrong, in the social structure or in personal decisions, what motive have I sustained to act towards the interests of mankind in general, or towards any of my own? This moral degradation will encourage a complacent worldview, sometimes even while the world acts in a way which is totally destructive towards one Dogma – institutional or otherwise.

Marx attacks the idea of religious dogmas as a masking of ones own eyes from the truth in his introduction to “Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right”: “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.“ Here he claims not only that ‘religion’ is a sustainer of a “soulless” world, but further that it is an “opiate” forced on the people in order to help reproduce this society. In a letter to Freud, Einstein wrote, “The minority, the ruling class at present, has the schools and press, usually the Church as well, under its thumb. This enables it to organize and sway the emotions of the masses, and make its tool of them.”

Max Weber shows the need for dogma amongst the oppressed classes, a mirror of Marx’s statement: “As a rule, however, the oppressed, or at least those threatened by distress, were in need of a redeemer and prophet; the fortunate, the propertied, the ruling strata were not in such need. Therefore, in the great majority of cases, a prophetically announced religion of salvation has had its permanent locus among the less-favored social strata.” Further in his paper, however, he commends certain kinds of religions: “The rational elements of a religion, its 'doctrine,' also have an autonomy: for instance, the Indian doctrine of Kharma, the Calvinist belief in predestination, the Lutheran justification through faith, and the Catholic doctrine of sacrament. The rational religious pragmatism of salvation, flowing from the nature of the images of God and of the world, have under certain conditions had far-reaching results for the fashioning of a practical way of life.” Here he is clearly applauding certain religions, and implicating that beyond the good a religion may create, it may also be good in and of itself. He says further of dogma, “Behind them always lies a stand towards something in the actual world which is experienced as specifically 'senseless.' Thus, the demand has been implied: that the world order in its totality is, could, and should somehow be a meaningful 'cosmos.' This quest, the core of genuine religious rationalism, has been borne precisely by strata of intellectuals.“ Clearly, he is a supporter of dogma as a means by which one might free themselves from irrational religion, but also seems to support the notion that religion ought to be a norm, as “the demand has been implied.”

Durkheim Writes the following: “Religious representations are collective representations which express collective realities; the rites are a manner of acting which take rise in the midst of assembled groups and which are destined to excite, maintain, or recreate certain mental states in these groups. So if the categories are of religious origin, they ought to participate in this nature common to all religious facts; they should be social affairs and the product of collective thought.” Here he views religion as a collective force which brings people together, implicating a communal, egalitarian picture of nature. In the following he even goes so far as to say that society is impossibility without ‘religion:’ "If religion has given birth to all that is essential in society, it is because the idea of society is the soul of religion." This shows a vulgar ignorance of the fact that atheism is not only common amongst certain societies, but that purely atheist societies exist at all!

Carl Jung indicates the psychoanalytical criticism of dogma as a controlling force by stating that “[religion] …is a dynamic existence or effect, not caused by an arbitrary act of will. On the contrary, it seizes and controls the human which is always rather its victim than its controller.” Though it may be argued that this statement does not hold up in regard to individuals which use dogma secularly, that is, in a manner which does not imply their own belief and submission to religious dogmas that they use to control others, it is arguable that the very act of controlling others leads to submission. By basing one’s own lifestyle on the act of extra-personal control, they can no longer appreciate their own development, but must rather focus on the actions of others as an unrealistic measurement of their own achievements. (Jung 1937, p. 4)

It is also in the realm of social analysis that institutional dogma is shown as a malignant force of dominance. Karl Marx writes, “…[that] the process of production has mastery over man, instead of the opposite, appear to the bourgeois consciousness to be as much a self-evident and nature – imposed necessity as productive labour itself. Hence the pre-bourgeois forms of the social organization of production are treated by political economy in much the same way as the Fathers of the Church treated pre-Christian religions.” So, to Marx, the Christian Church was comparable to capitalist economy in that it acted to self create and re-create, and further imposed the idea that not only was it historically evident that it must prevail against other social orders, but that it was abstractly evident to the same end. (Marx, 1867, pg. 175)

The structure of things today implicate that the reason behind this new, institutional religion. William Harris, Commissioner of Education from 1889 to 1906, wrote the following in his 1906 book, "The philosophy of education:" "Ninety-nine [students] out of a hundred are automata, careful to walk in prescribed paths, careful to follow the prescribed custom. This is not an accident but the result of substantial education, which, scientifically defined, is the subsumption of the individual." It is easy to see how this is relevant today: the core structure of our school system is to encourage an attitude in the student which prepares him for the authoritarian structure of the workplace. Woodrow Wilson once commented on our public schools that "We want one class to have a liberal education. We want another class, a very much larger class of necessity, to forego the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks."

As an example of malignant dogma, a man whose daughter has decided that she ought not follow her parents’ religion could readily alienate this daughter based on a dogmatic defense of his religion, thus harming himself in cutting the social tie between himself and his daughter. Furthermore, this could harm his daughter by making her feel less secure in her own ideas and in alienating her. This would be a clear example of how a simple dogma – held by only one of the two individuals – can destroy important bonds and hurt each individual’s capacity to relate reasonably to others; this will of course lead to other problems in both of their futures.

‘Christian Science’ serves as a powerful example of how compelling the self – destructiveness of dogma is: people are blinded by a sect so heavily that they deny medical attention, sometimes for their own children. This denial of science to the point of literal self-destruction is a frightening example of how dangerous dogmas can be. Workers at abortion clinics have felt this terror all too well: there have been numerous deaths due to bombings, and one man even created a hit list which contains names of abortion doctors.

Extremists in the Middle East, particularly the Zionist and Palestinian terrorists - whether atomized or organized - show another case of the malignancy that is provoked by both personal and institutional dogmatism. I need not go into the various atrocities that these people have committed in the name of their gods, but it is known that they are rife, prolific and their actions gruesome. Anybody who read Osama Bin Laden's post - 9/11 call to Americans can see two things: that his message is deepy political and propagandistic, and that his concern with religion is chiefly in its ability to rally people to fight for his cause. His cause is both malignant and benign, just as all extremist militants': he fights against the oppressors of the middle east (or supposed oppressors, depending on one's view) but kills even civilians who have little stake in or support of the oppression of the middle east.

There is an excess of institutional dogma that acts to control the public mind. One example would be that of the cult of personality formed around such individuals such as Lenin, Stalin, and our own presidents. Stalin used Lenin’s image as a stepping – stone onto which he would fashion his own cult of personality. This dogma became so powerful that people Stalin had imprisoned to be executed would write Stalinist slogans and symbols on the walls of their cells, even with certainty that they would be executed. Bush’s cult of personality reflects a similarity – however, his is mostly rooted in the American sentiment toward the presidency in general as a protector of the people. Regardless, he has used this cult to garner favor for wars, illegal activities and the passing of laws which uplifted many privacy rights throughout his tenure.

The prevalent western dogma of Islamophobia is frightening as well; this is not always spiritual, either. I have seen some of the least 'religious' people claim that there are fundamental moral differences between Muslims and those of other 'religions,' even with atheists. My 12th grade Government teacher, a Republican, once made it extremely important in one of his lessons that those Muslims who commit violent acts against civilians are not the norm, but deviant in their culture, and yet today you can see a leftist - atheist or no - speak of Muslims as if they were the 'Soviets' of the 21st century. Some even go so far as to make it not an unfair, arbitrary judgment in general, but a racist consideration. It is even arguable that dogmas are drugs: the history of capitalism has been one of forced drug usage, from institutional dogma to the internet, cars, television, and even pop literature. We cannot ignore this threat simply by showing the benign use in such drugs: they are regularly a symptom and a cause of alienation, a way to release oneself to some degree from this world. These drugs addict us to activities which are often self and environmentally destructive, and alienate us from our fellow man. No longer do we have to logically describe our world: we have religion. No longer must we endure a walk to work which inevitably leads to conversation with one's neighbors, or explore nature and exercise - we have cars. With television we learned further how to be passive - receptive of knowledge. The internet curbs our ability to understand the reality of humanity by putting people in social and political ghettos, and reducing real interaction while encouraging interaction with people one may never have seen in their lives, never understood, whose lives are comparable to characters in a book. These activities unquestionably modify the chemicals in our brain, so how different is external intoxication from internal intoxication?

We cannot simply fret against this trend, however: it is imperative that action be taken in order to curb it. But to do that, an understanding of why people become entrenched into these dogmas and take in so avidly relating viewpoints throughout their lives must be established. I propose that the energy behind it comes in fact from a naturally benign human faculty. That faculty is our inherent desire to relate to as many other humans as possible. The evidence for this drive is clear: people go so far as to subsume their entire way of life into that of another person’s or an exterior entity in order to achieve this end. I propose that this is an intrinsic human drive because it reflects the way that pre-historical society was set up: concerns were social, and we see similar trends in other primate societies, as well.

Today this benign relationship is not what comes of this theorized drive, however. There are those who would gladly destroy the populations of entire nations – yet, internally, with the goal to become one with his or her nation or group. It is quite heavily the environment that one comes from that dictates what dogmas, they will possess, and it is almost always from a dogma that this natural drive becomes perverted and disfigured – even genetic disorders of the mind can be curbed or nurtured by one’s environment. To fight against dogmatism, it must first be taken seriously as a serious threat. But we must not make blanket statements to this end; rather, the nature of the dogmatic individual must be taken into account before we attempt to educate him or her. There are many Jewish communes in Israel, for instance, showing a strikingly revolutionary trend amongst those who ascribe to such an ideology as well as the dogmatic religion. Those Christians who follow the real messages of Jesus are truly working more against dogmas than most people are. The point is to teach people to be free, especially internally, before they can develop a revolutionary, undogmatic spirit.

The presence of dogmatism in and of itself must mot be taken as a sign of reactionary spirit; it is the institutional church that must be destroyed, and those malignant dogmas that must wither away before people can see the world in a realistic sense. The individual's beliefs are his and ought to remain his, but the sources which violently instill dogmas into the human heart must be destroyed. This goes beyond the notion of purely spiritual dogmas into politics, as the politics of our modern age serve to accept and promote religious dogma and religious dogmas in turn serve to promote capitalist ideology. But yet politics are a form of religion, and as such must be treated in the same regard - dogmatic religions, 'secular' or not, must be attacked and undermined. It is through populist and workers' movements that we have found freedom of conscience, which in turn leads to freedom from the individual's internal bondage. Freedom can be accomplished not when external forces allow it, but when the internal chains of dogma are shrugged off. The free man can lay dead or dying on the battlefield, or in a prison, but he will always be free as long as he can see the world for what it is, beyond these “chains of illusion.”

Fromm, Erich. Escape From Freedom. New York: Avon Books, 1965
Jung, Carl. Psychology and Religion. Oklahoma: Yale University Press, 1960
Marx, Karl. Capital Volume 1. London: Pelican Books, 1976
Weber, Max. Sociology of World Religions: introduction (http://www.ne.jp/asahi/moriyuki/abukuma/weber/world/intro/world_intro.html#ide-int)

Durkheim, Emile. Thompson, 1982, p. 125 (excerpt from The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life)