Was Karl Marx right when he declared religion to be the opiate of the masses?

Question

Religious devotion DOES trigger the release of endorphins in the brain. (New scientist, jan 28th 2006 subscription only)These endorphins are in fact the brain's own, naturally produced opiates.

When the masses are in mass, are they not high on the body's own opiates?

Doesn't this in itself make Marx right on this issue?

Answer 1

You silly monkey molester.

Answer 2

"Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right This is the whole quote...Marx found that, while religion was mostly being used to keep the people happy about their lot in life, it was helping the people deal with their nasty lot in life. So while it was an opiate, it was not the recreational drug that,say, the rich of the day were using, but it was more the painkiller being given to a person who is having their leg removed. What Marx was saying is, that while the painkiller needs to be removed, so does the cause of the pain itself. While this is not totally friendly to religion, it isn't as negative as the partial quote indicates.

Answer 3

Marx was speaking of his times and his times only. He had, for instance, never seen a college football bowl game, the NFL playoffs, or the final four in Basketball. Sports is the opiate of the masses.

Answer 4

Endorphins are released by so many things, why should religion be any different?

Sex, excercise, even the sound of a woman's own voice - all of these release endorphins and mimic the "high" of illicit drugs.

Why do you think drugs are so popular? All the pleasure, none of the "work."

Answer 5

I think the point he was trying to make, was that religion had a place in history. Humanity had endured much pain, and would likely have died out from something akin to social-shock. Shock kills as many people, as injury. But, Marx was implying, after the victim has recovered, the painkiller that prevented the victim from dying from shock had an addictive nature. He believed that humanity needed to cure the addiction, and that cure would involve withdrawal symptoms such as; revolution, Holocaust, purge, and the destruction of the free world.

read for content...

Answer 6

He was right sociologically, and the science only confirms it.

Whether that religious devotion is a necessary painkiller in an oppressive world, or a "doping" of society to keep them passive and compliant for their rulers has been argued back and forth for ages.
(see also arguments about "bread and circuses", television culture, consumer culture...)

Answer 7

No.

Karl Marx never saw video games or TV.

Now, there's some opiates!

Answer 8

Yes it does. Religion is a comfort idea my freind! The point of it is to feel secure and waste 1 / 7th of your life in a annoying building 1 day out of the weak every weak for the rest of your life! By having this false security you feel invcible. However religion is a lie.

Answer 9

You may have a bit of a point there but it can also be called
the Holy Spirit as well you know I think.people get on a high type thing when His Presence is there

Answer 10

Marx actually had more than one insight worthy of a bright grad-student economist ... but scored rather low on the 'political correctness' scale going around the western world.

Answer 11

Aside from that point, Marx is perhaps the greatest farce in history.