.Religious beliefs and practices are easily understood from a materialist conception. The fact that religion has served an essential social purpose through most of human history must be assumed from its pervasiveness. The exact material value of religion to society through the millennia is not hard to work out either, even if it is somewhat shrouded by the literal beliefs which clothe religion. But although the literal beliefs differ widely, the basic material functions are always the same. To preserve the values and culture of a society, essential to its cohesiveness and thus its viability, through the generations.
^^^^^
CB: Yes, "ancestor worship" was a fundmental way of expanding sociality qualitatively in the sense that a living generation has a "social" relation with dead generations of the species. I think culture is transmitted by "religion" and other ways. I agree it becomes a sort of paradox that this institution that is very adaptive at first in early human history , can turn into its opposite and bar evolution and revolutionary change in society.
^^^^^^^
What is essential for social radicals to comprehend is that the religious system of preserving cultural values and beliefs is an obstacle for those who want to create a society based on new values and beliefs. Because religion is entirely concerned with preserving existing values and traditions.
But all is not entirely lost. As it happens the very system which we wish to replace, capitalism, is also the enemy of religion. Capitalism repeatedly finds itself needing to quickly uproot existing values and traditions and replace them with new one, to suit the new material conditions it creates. So the very system of preserving old values intact from generation to generation, the religious culture, is an obstacle to capitalism.
Religion is the common enemy of both the existing capitalist system and the socialist opposition to capitalism. Just because we sometimes appear to have positions in common with various religious strands of thought doesn't change that, it just means that there are some particular aspects of past culture which we both wish to preserve and capitalism needs to destroy. But it is *our* interests to find a different way to preserve these values, rather than dogmatic faith. We must advocate for certain values because they are in the objective best interests of humanity, not merely for dogmatic reasons.
Although of course the reason these beliefs became incorporated into religious dogma in the first place was that they represented a social
good. But the point is that religion takes far too long to adapt its dogma to changed material circumstances, dogmatic preservation of social values is simply impractical in a society where social values must be amenable to more rapid change to adapt to changing material circumstances.
But of course the notion that religion is merely the "opium of the people" fails to acknowledge all the (other) material functions of religion.
^^^^^^^^
CB: The larger context of the "opium of the people" metaphor does acknowledge some of the other material functions of religion. All of the following amounts to a significant chunk of your "..preserve the values and
culture of a society, essential to its cohesiveness and thus its viability, through the generations."
Religion is the general theory
>of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its
>logic in popular form, its spiritual point
>d'honneur, it enthusiasm, its moral sanction,
>its solemn complement, and its universal basis
>of consolation and justification. It is the
>fantastic realization of the human essence since
>the human essence has not acquired any true
>reality.
Even the reference to the "opium of the people" by Marx specifically does not dismiss the need for it, but describes why there is a need for an opium of the people, and proposes a way to dispose of the need for an opium, i.e. by revolutionizing the real world of which religion is a fantastic reflection.
Marx's focus on the fact that Man (sic) makes religion, religion does not make man, and that God is alienated man/people is analogous to his theory of commodity fetishism. Something that we create, religion, controls us rather than us controlling it. This is true of both religion and commodities in capitalism. We are ruled by our creations. This is the essence of Marx's notion of self-estrangement and alienation , I believe.
^^^^^^^
Bill B. :...fails to acknowledge all the (other) material functions of religion. The main ones. Even to dismiss the need for an opiate outright is narrow-minded, an opiate has been entirely the appropriate social prescription for most of human history. Not much else could be done about human misery so long as the material conditions were lacking to lift everyone out of that misery. It is entirely the wrong prescription now, when a cure (socialism) is materially possible, but that doesn't mean we can assert that the religious opiate was always the wrong prescription.
^^^^^^
CB: I'm not sure Marx's use of "religion" is as universal as you attribute to him. Isn't he especially referring to modern , European Christianity not all religions everywhere and always, though there may be some more generality than just modern, European Christianity ? But nonetheless, he is not denying the need for an opiate given the vale of tears that life is in class exploitative society, and he certainly specifically holds that socialist revolution was not possible through the Middle Ages or anything, when religion may have been the right presciption as a pain reliever , as you say. He is not saying "oh they should have abolished religion in the Middle Ages."
^^^^^^
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas