The Views of Marx Weber, Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim on Religion

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

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

The two theorists i’ve decided to compare and contrast are Karl Marx and Emile Durkheim. Firstly i’ll compare them to one another. From all the readings I did and past education on these individuals I found they have a lot of the same views in regards to religion. Both Emlie Durkheim and Karl Marx believe that religion is a projection of mans hopes and desires. They both also agree that religion plays a powerful role in influencing the members of a society. While coming up with these theories they were both more concerned with the human rather than the religion. Both of them did not believe in a god or gods. It’s been said that Marx saw god as idealization of human nature while Durkheim believed the idea of a god was society itself. They were not religious people so it’s interesting that they did have some of the same views and theories regarding religion in the society.

The concept of religion is a contentious terrain with the subject being viewed as divisive and discordant within Nations. Beckford and Luckmann (1989) discuss religion as a continuous challenge to scientists studying society. Since the industrial revolution there has been ambivalent dichotomy of opinion towards religion with some perceiving religious ideology continuing as normal, whilst others believed the concept would be discarded as the new social order developed. This essay will consider the perspectives of Marx and Engels upon the role of Religion and will also discuss how relevant there argument is in the 21st century. The use of academic text, lecture notes and journal articles will be used to research and answer the essay

Throughout history, religion has played a significant function in society as a medium through which people connect, via various rituals and symbols (Marsh et al. 2009). When the subject of Marx, Engels and religion is discussed, the famous quote ‘Religion is the opiate of the masses’ (Marx as cited in Raines 2002, p.5) is one that is for the most part, at the forefront of people’s minds. It is often a misconception that Marx and Engels viewed religion in a predominantly negative light and saw it as something that human beings had no use for. On the contrary, as this essay will endeavour to show, Marx and Engels not only saw religion as a force used by the elite to control the repressed and justify their actions, but it is also an

In this essay I will be looking at the theories of Edward Burnett Tylor and Émile Durkheim, and comparing them to see which theory I think gives a better explanation about what religion is, or whether religion is actually definable. On the one hand we have Tylor’s theory that tells us that religion is belief in spiritual beings and that religion is just a step on the way to reaching full evolutionary potential. Durkheim’s theory, however, says that religion is very much a social aspect of life, and something can only be religious or “sacred” if it is something public (Durkheim 1965:52). Ultimately these theories do not give us an outright explanation about what ‘religion’ is, but there are aspects of the theory that can be used to gain an understanding or idea.

Marx warned that religion was like a narcotic: It dulled people’s pain so they did not realize how serious the situation was. He claimed that it kept that classes in order as well. Marx believed that religion had been institutionalize to undermine the masses impulse to resist exploitation and change the social order.

In the past few years, Karl Marx has been increasingly incorporated in general sociology though his ideas are briefly mentioned or totally ignored in certain specialties in the sociological field. One of the major sociological specialties where Marx's ideas have been briefly mentioned is the sociology of religion. The sociology of religion only consists of few references to Marx's concepts and views though he accorded much significance to religion. Regardless of the minimal use, Marx made several claims on religion based on his views including the assertion that religion serves as a platform for reinforcement of exploitative social structures.

Russell McCutcheon urges terms like “religion” and “religious” should not be used by scholars when referring to the study of religion. McCutcheon even suggests these words should be abandoned and removed from our vocabulary all together. He claims studying social sciences like anthropology, sociology, and psychology and using appropriate terminology will lead to a more accurate understanding of why we as humans are religious and how our religion ultimately affects our behaviors. Feuerbach, Marx, and Nietzsche all suspect the study of religion is not about God at all, but rather the people who believe or do not believe in God. In this essay, I will elaborate on the similar yet completely different ideologies of Feuerbach, Marx, and Nietzsche and compare them to the argument made by McCutcheon.

Karl Marx’s theory of religion works well with the film Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. One of the major motifs in the movie is religious oppression of the proletarian class through stones, which could be considered to be the power of the people. Both the Bourgeois and Proletarians exist in the movie; it is clear that the classes are treated differently, most of this has to do with religion. Marx’s theory of religion is not only exuded in the film but, is practically a perfect example of Marx’s ideas on communism.

The differing concepts and discussions of power by Althusser, Foucault, and Marx, led to different definitions and implications of power. I thought that Marx’s view of seeing religion as a power source that justifies and obfuscates reality to be the most evident in the world that I see today. The common people are caught up in a false consciousness that obscures any inkling they have of rebellion. Those who own the means of production (bourgeois) often control religion and its access to the working class or proletariat. The control of the religion often means a manipulation of the meaning of sacred texts, something that Martin Luther fought against and spawned the protestant religion with his 100 theses. Although some may critique Marx’s view and bring up

There have been some instances where, religion has been used by man as a means of explaining the unexplainable, as well as to provide a way out for those who want escape from the harsh realities that plague their lives. At the same time, for Marx’s criticism to be valid, religion has to be abused, and it has to be abused to the point where it becomes a hinderance on the stability and progress of society. Therefore, the use of religion would have to be to an extremity. While I said that his criticism of capitalism was more substantial than his criticism of religion, the aforementioned premise is remarkably similar to the basis of Marx’s criticism of capitalism. Capitalism would also have to be abused to the degree of it being a detriment to society as a

Marx’s argument against Bauer and his theory of political emancipation is correlated with the continued existence of religion.

Karl Marx himself was an atheist and Marxism is an atheistic ideology, meaning that they take distance from the belief that there is a God . He meant that “in the country of reason” the mere existence of God can have no meaning . He gave an example that if you brought your God to a foreign country that worshipped other Gods, they will provide proof of the non-existence of your God . However, Marx did not address religion in a systematic fashion in any of his writing but at the same time he touches on the subject recurrently in books, speeches and pamphlets. The reason for this is that one can clearly see that his critique of religion forms one piece of his overall critique of society. In order to be able to understand his critique of religion,