Eliade vs. Durkheim; People of the Book

     Critique and Notes


       Often times Jewish people are referred to as ‘the people of the book,’ or in Hebrew, ‘Am Hasefer.’ This nickname comes from their deep connection to the Torah, also known as the Written Testament, which is a scroll containing the Jewish laws. Three times a day for all seven days of the week, Jewish men gather at their local synagogue to worship and pray to their God. On Monday, Thursday, and Saturday service, the Torah is removed from the ark, in the front of the room, that it is kept in, and is read out loud. On Saturday, also known as the Jewish Sabbath, a larger crowd gathers at the synagogue because of the increase of women and children in attendance. The atmosphere can be described as having a sort of party vibe to it both before the prayers begin and after they have been concluded. However, once prayers begin, everyone must remain quiet and respectful; they are solemn and in awe of what is happening.
       The way the prayers are conducted is as follows; the hazzan, or cantor, stands in the center of the room on an elevated step called the bima. He leads the services, and after the completion of the first portion of the prayers, the hazzan removes the Torah from inside the ark and reads from it. The reading of the Torah is constantly changing; each Sabbath, a specific portion or the Torah designated for that week is read. When the weekly section of reading is done, the Torah is lifted in the air and everyone says a blessing together. The Torah is then covered and carried around the room for everyone to touch and kiss before it is returned to the ark.
      The reason why the cantor reads from the bima is to proclaim the Torah to the people in the synagogue the same way God proclaimed the Torah on Mount Sinai. It is this kind of dramatic reenactment that helps Jews relive what took place on Mount Sinai so that the Jews can understand what Moses felt and experienced when he accepted the Torah from God. Eliade states that the way the Torah is read and treated shows how important and holy it is. The Torah reading nowadays can help everyone in the synagogue imagine what it was like when the Torah was first accepted. This requires imagination and the intentional focus on what is important; mainly, being the people of Israel and accepting the laws at the hands of Moses. Everything that happens in the synagogue is supposed to highlight this event and allow Jews to experience this moment anew. For Eliade, everything Jews do is going to be an imitation of what happened the first time. The distance between the present and past is collapsed with this imaginative recreation, and as a result, Jews feel closer to God, and the to the first event that truly made the Jewish people a nation. Taking pledges to obey the law and having God say, “Be my people and I will be your God,” essentially makes Jews proclaim their love to God and do their best to serve him. For Eliade, being religious is wanting to be maintain a synchronicity with the holiest part of life.
      Durkheim has a different perspective to the pscho-social role of religion to that of ELiade. He argues that the Torah is assigned a recognition of divinity, and therefore read, carried, and kissed, this is the true sign of the Torah’s holiness, the symbol and reverence it plays for the faith community. For Durkheim, religion is the driving force that unites a group of people and allows them to recognize themselves as a distinct group. Religion generates the sense and feeling of social unity. Therefore, on the Sabbath, when all the people from the synagogue come together, they socialize before the service starts and after the service ends. They are all coming together with a certain kind of high spirit which is the reason for their gathering. It is looked at as a cause and effect of one another. Jews come together because their spirits are elevated and their spirits are elevated because they decide to come together. These two aspects reinforce one another and act as one ultimate goal.
Durkheim focuses on the gathering of people. The gathering may be looked at as having a party vibe, but it still maintains a level of respect and seriousness needed to show how holy the Jewish religion is in its entirety. Durkheim states that the Torah holds Jews together and Jews hold the Torah together. Honoring the Torah scroll and its contents gives Jews a group identity that is unbreakable, that being, the people of the book.
      Both Durkheim and Eliade believe the Torah scroll is holy. However, Durkheim believes it is holy because he finds the Torah scroll to be a sacred part of the Jewish history. It’s not an object that can be treated poorly, rather it’s something special that Jews treat with the utmost respect. Therefore, one can recognize it as an instigator of holiness. The Torah is holy because it forms the Jewish religion, giving Jews a guidance of how to live and approach life.
        Eliade and Durkheim argue that it's by virtue of dedication to the content of the torah scroll that the Jewish people are the Jewish people. Eliade argues that what's important is the connection with the holy, and Durkheim argues that the holy, in this case the Torah, earns its holiness, in so far as it empowers a group to be. By analyzing the reading of the Torah and how it is carried around, one can see how Eliade sees his way into it and how Durkheim perceives the scroll as holy; but in a sense, they end up in the same place. Every week you are renewing your dedication to being the people of the scroll.

Context for Critique; Marx and Engels

      Karl Marx considered in this world to the heart in the human body. This is confusing because the heart is the most important organ in the human body, yet Marx, an atheist, was a critic of religion. Unlike Freud who analyzed the effect of religion on human behavior, Marx’s doctoral dissertation (1841) and subsequent works analyzed the influence of religion on the class structures and power dynamics of society. 
Marx’s critique of religion is better understood when considering the context within which his ideology and worldview emerged. As a child of the post-enlightenment era, Marx recognized the lingering effects of absolutist monarchy, the feudal system and other medieval political and cultural systems of oppression. Similar to the victim of domestic violence who uses heroin to numb the pain of abuse; Marx was frustrated to see his fellow country men, and the working poor around the world, use the opium of religion to avoid the harsh realities of capitalism. The central powers of his time exploited the rest of society, he categorize this as class conflict. The frustration of this injustice was an important factor that he believed should have incited the working class to fight for their freedom through a social and political revolution.
Although Marx was not polemical and did not engage in theoretical debates on the existence of God, it is possible to sympathize with his rejection of organized religion, given the political context and the social function religion served at the time he lived. Contextualizing Marx’s economic philosophy is especially important to honestly acknowledging that Marx was not an anti-theist and certainly did not advocate for religious persecution as did his disciple Stalin.
Marx did not suffer childhood trauma from religion nonetheless, through understanding his life events a greater understanding of the source and contacts for this thesis can be gleaned. Marx was born to a jewish family and his father was a lawyer. However, his family converted to christianity, and at the age of six he was baptized. They converted for social mobility rather than a true belief in the trinity or the divinity of Jesus as the son of god or a saviour. In 1848 Marx wrote his seminal work, The Communist Manifesto, with his close friend and benefactor Friedrich Engels. During that time they both worked and lived in Brussels. Due to the controversial nature of his work, Marx was exiled and expelled from several counties until he finally settled in England. Marx’s vision of freedom for all involved the abolishment of all forms of social stratification and the complete eradication of private property, courts, cops and the military. He argued that the economy should be equal and there should be no government or king ruling over the people. Politicians and lawmakers were concerned that his work would incite an armed rebellion, therefore he was exiled from Germany, France, Brussels, and England. During his time in France Marx studied philosophy and economics. Germany charged him with sedition and inciting a rebellion; charges that were later dropped. Still he was expelled from this country a second time and banished to London, England where he lived with his family and continued to build the foundations for communism for the rest of his life (1849 1883). 
Marx could not have spread his ideas and developed his framework without the help of his close friend Friedrich Engels. Engels was born to a wealthy family in Barmen, Germany; his father owned cotton mills, and it is through his work at the family owned mill in England that Engels was able to support Mark for many years. Raised in a Protestant Christian household, Friedrich Engels father was a Calvinist, which means they followed the theological tradition of John Calvin, a french theologian. Engels first  became interested in the communist worldview working in England for his father’s cotton mill. He documented his impressions and experiences of the English slums in his book, “The Conditions of the Working Class in England,” when he returned to Germany.  Marx and Engels met each other in the year 1840, and eight years later, they wrote The Communist Manifesto, in 1848. Outliving his friend Marx, Engels died in 1895.
In their lifetime Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels could not have dreamed the influence their ideas would eventually bring to the world. Until this day there are great debates on the morality and efficacy of the communist framework for an ordered world.

Eliade vs. Durkheim; Sacred Foundation of Religion

The premise of this article is that Eliade and Durkheim each had a different definition, characterization, and interpretation of the word "sacred" and their divergent opinions of religion center on this dichotomy. 

Critique and Notes

      Historian and philosopher Mircea Eliade developed a distinct perspective on religion. Eliade's definition of the concept of sacred diverges from the opinion of 19th century French sociologist David Émile Durkheim. Through exploring and elaborating each scholar's interpretation we will understand their distinctive worldview. To better understand each philosophical position we will also discuss the key ways the two theories come into conflict.
Mircea Eliade and Durkheim explore the divergent perspectives on religion.
Mircea Eliade argues that a profane world is a world that has been desacralized, in which transcendent spiritual meaning has been stripped from the cosmos and therefore has no meaning to it other than what can be seen in its plain natural form. The western wall, for example, would be no different to the wall President Trump wants to build on the southern border of the United States. However, a sacred object or place contains holiness while still retaining the original physical qualities of its natural form. For this reason Eliade argues that sacred is the opposite of profane. If the natural world did not have the ability to manifest the divine through nature then there would be nothing more to the natural world that we could see. Without the understanding of sacred as transcendent to the profane religion would be irrational and opposite to nature.
Eliade points out that whether a person is  religious or not, one needs to consider the bigger role played by the cosmos in order to occupy a space. With this understanding of sacred, our physical world is symbolic, It serves as a parallel for the spiritual experiences each person experiences in their effort to create a connection with god. Elaide coined the term spiritual hierophany to describe the ability to connect to a higher spiritual plane through the mundane. Therefore spiritual rituals are repeated and high value is given to sacred spaces. Eliade primarily draws examples from  the three monotheistic faiths; Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, because in  these religions there are many  cosmological rituals and many places consecrated as a sacred space.
The Torah scroll in the Jewish religion is covered every moment in which it is not actively being used for worship, and a covering is gracefully placed on top even during the five minute break in the reading during which blessings are recited. These ritualistic behaviors reinforce the idea of dignity through concealment. In accordance with the same concept of modesty, the human body isn’t covered because it is ugly, rather to retain dignity; so too the scroll isn’t ugly, and it is not that the Jewish people don’t want to share the beauty of the Torah. The mission is to keep the Torah meaningful and holy. If the Torah were to be paraded on the streets it will degrade the value that is inherent in it. This is a very abstract idea of privacy, therefore these rituals are practiced to make them concrete. Even though scroll is just animal skin written with ink it holds an enormous value because it is the written word of God, the physical symbol of the sacred the gift that God gave the Jewish people on Mount Sinai.
      Durkheim argues that religion is about security and people take spiritual action in pursuit of security , which seems to be “sacred”. These collective rituals develop an emotional association that expresses itself through religious devotion. Considering the dependency on religious symbolism for a sense of stability, whatever is holy is protected in society by a taboo. What society holds to be sacred is that which was deemed to be special, therefore it should be treated with respect. An example of this superstition is a Churinga. A Churinga is an object that- is protected and should only be seen by men; women and children are excluded from the viewing experience. It is not inherently sacred only acquires status as “sacred” when surrounded by taboo. A Churinga becomes holy by carrying the totem that bears the family name. Durkheim argues that religion is about social order and only exists to turn individuals into a group; it is a way people commit themselves to become part of a group. In Durkheim's worldview a deity is not a necessary component of religion. Although Durkheim relates a cynical perspective of religion he does concede that religion gives people a sense of order to the world. Religion teaches people how to look at the world, therefore, he opines, religious doctrines discuss their belief regarding the beginning of the world as this relates to the origin of ceremony and tradition of belief itself.
  Most things we come across in life are quite ordinary. The everyday things people do in their everyday life such as drive a car, go to work and check their email. The routine aspects of our day to day existence can easily  be distinguished from the sacred. As Durkheim states, these things are profane. However, we consider some things to be sacred. These are things we set apart as extraordinary and worthy of inspiring awe and reverence. Building a Sukkah for the Feast of Tabernacles, reading the Torah, and paying respect as the gravestone of a great sage are all  considered to be sacred. Religion in this case is a social institution involving beliefs and practices based on recognizing the sacred. Equally important, as part of the social institution of religion, are the rituals that are considered formal ceremonial activities that center on recognizing the sacred.

Eliade and Durkheim agree that a sacred object retains an essence of the original quality of physical reality in a natural world. However, the key difference between the two philosophies is that Eliade argues that  sacred means the physical transcended its nature while retaining its physical characteristic whereas Durkheim believes that no value is added other than a social construct fictionalized by a superstitious society.

Erikson vs. Freud; Theology vs. Empiricism (Religion vs. Science)

Sigmund Freud and Erik Erikson are two psychologists who disagreed on the value of religion for human civilization. Freud argued that religion is a corrosive influence on society because it is rooted in fantasy; whereas Erikson believed that religion provides an important framework and order for life. A 2010 Pew Research study estimated that 5.9 billion people claim affiliation to an organized religious group.  If Freud's theory is correct 84% of the world population is engaged in wishful thinking. Could it be possible that a majority of society are immature and childish? 
In his book, The Future of an Illusion, Freud discusses the destructive nature of human beings and the need to find a way to coerce people to overcome their laziness and impulses.  His perspective on religion is built on his theory of the id, the ego and the superego. He also discusses the primal need for people to find comfort and feel the illusion of control when facing the harsh realities of life. When still a child a person first turns to his mother, then later on, his father, to solve his problems and protect him. This emotional craving for reassurance and comfort persists with a person throughout his life; and in the absence of a father, people turn to religion. Religion and its associated moral precepts can also serve as a motivation for the work and impulse control that is needed for the functioning and continued preservation of society. Religious ideas inform people on the most important issues in life. However, Freud opines that religion is merely an illusion rooted in wishful thinking. Moreover, whereas statements made in other aspects of life can be questioned and even proven, religion is often accompanied with dogmatism. Questioning the tenets of religion is often met with negative consequences. Instead, belief in religious principles rests on inherited tradition and assumptions of proof that are also passed down from previous generations.
Freud believed that human society progressed through science, not religion; and that science and religion were mortal enemies. Due to the advancements in science such as technology and medicine, religion will become less and less relevant. Instead of turning to an imaginary g-d for help with an illness or preparation for a natural disaster, practical solutions will be found in scientific discoveries. It is for this reason Freud asserts that religion can be a destructive force as it can convince someone to be lazy and avoid pursuing real solutions to his problems and taking the necessary steps to improve his life and the world he lives in.
Erik Erikson critiques Freud's beliefs of religion from a psychoanalytic point of view. Erikson argued that Freud’s misunderstanding of religion results from his misunderstanding of the human mind. While he respects the premise Freud’s theory of the human mind, he believes it is truncated and ignores many aspects of human capacity. Erikson refutes Freud's assertion that religion is a vacuous illusion. There are many variables that influence the formation of religious beliefs. These include social influences, interpersonal interactions and creative innovation. Religious symbols cannot be reduced to simplistic psychic phenomena because they invariably express multiple meanings that transcend even unconscious experiences.
Erikson directly challenges Freud's claim that religion is childish and anti-social. Religion offers a greater meaning and internal motivation for self-control. A comprehensive religious worldview in this regard is not limited to those of the Judeo-Christian tradition, rather, secular ideologies such as humanism and rationalism can also serve to provide stability in life and a moral guide for ethical behavior.
Erikson recognizes the connection of human maturation to the development of trust; the ability to both trust oneself and to trust the world one lives in. With this understanding of human nature religion plays a significant role in the human psyche. Religion provides a framework for a mature trust in life that, unlike an infantile trust, is a faith that takes into account the alienations and anxieties that are discovered throughout childhood and adult life. Erikson's definition of religion is a worldview that is developed or exists with societal confirmation that  inspires aspirations and motivation and contains a comprehensive ideological system that can help its adherents to overcome adversity and support both individual sense of identity and a collective or group identity.
According to Freud’s interpretation of religion majority of society structure their lives around a false sense of reality. Erikson’s disagreement with Freud is not based on theological grounds, instead, his positive opinion of religion stems from his deeper understanding of human psychology. Considering the Pew Research study in 2010, the majority of society have not come to regard religion as irrelevant in their lives as Freud predicted. However, noted scientists and atheist thinkers, such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, continue to educate the public on the growing role of science in the development of human civilization. They agree with Freud that the reliance on religion and its influence on the progress of society will diminish over time with the advancement of science.

Opium of the Masses, Product of the Oppressed; Karl Marx on Religion

Karl Marx, a 19th century German philosopher, stated that  “religion is the opium of the people,” as meaning that religion is an escape mechanism; a buffer against reality allowing people to escape into a world of illusion. Perhaps even Marx would have agreed with the concept behind this interpretation, however, this does not capture what Marx was conveying when he initially wrote the quote, during his exploration of the role and effect of religion on society. Greater insight into the original intent can be understood when reading the quote in its larger context. “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…. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.” Marx did not claim religion to be a pain-killer, rather, he is calling religion the product of the oppressed people, where people project their needs and desires onto an idealized existence.
Factory workers in Europe in the 19th  century couldn't achieve happiness in their ordinary real life. Therefore, for Marx religion has a social function distracting people away from their appreciation into thinking that their state is somehow the natural order of things. Instead of what it really was the status qual being maintained by elite powerful man.
Instead of asking if “religion is not the opium of the people” it can be asked as is religion oppressive something that conservatively holds back social change and maintains the state's que or is religion a liberating force something that subvert the status quo and encourages social change.
Does religion uphold and maintain the status quo? Yes. Some aspects of religion are inherently conservative and resistant to social change; religious adherents have a vested interest in the continuity of tradition and are therefore committed to the mission of passing along their beliefs and rituals to the next generation. This tendency towards conformity has oftentimes caused allowed religion to be abused and used as a tool to justify illegitimate political power; for example, when a king proclaimed his rule to be divinely mandated, or when a ruler leads his country to battle claiming that he is engaging in a holy war that was inspired by God. With both of the examples above we can recognize that religion has legitimating  power, a power which is seen around the world, across a wide variety of cultures .
Religion can also be used as a means for social control. Public shaming, shaming individuals from deviating from social rules, or discouraging people from acting out of line, can inhibit social change. Marx claimed that religion can discourage social change, and therefore the upper classes of society have often used religion as the means with which to retain power and maintain control over society. However, religion and society are very complex, therefore, religion is not the only force holding back societal change. In fact, there are many times in history where religion was the catalyst for social change and the driving force that was able to subvert the status quo.
In an ostensibly contradictory manner, the author writes that “capitalist society, as a two-class system of an exploiting and an oppressed class, has social alienation in its very heart”. Evidently, the source of tension exists at the very core of society. So close is it to the core, that one can consider it to be at the heart. Marx conceives of the heart of a heartless society as religion, rendering it incompatible with reality as it is. Encouraging the oppressed to recognize their circumstances, Marx believed that religion must be acknowledged as a root of alienation, rather than one of hope.

Tillich vs. Freud; Theoretical Analysis of Theology

Outline
Notes

Paul Tillich was a German-American Christian existentialist philosopher and Lutheran Protestant theologian who lived from 1886-1965. He argued that, regardless of one’s awareness of it or not, all people are religious. To him, religion was not the belief in a deity of some sort, but is something that is so important to them that they would sacrifice even their lives for it. In this way, religion answers the question of the meaning of life, because everyone has something that makes them exist and he labels this “religion.”  His ultimate concern is that one is obligated to obey the demands of their religion in order to reap the rewards. In the Judeo-Christian religion, eternal life, joy, peace, and a relationship with god are promised to those who obey the ten commandments, worship God and keep the faith. His faith is the background behind his primary critique of the Freudian worldview, which is that Freud's anti-religious dogmatism led him to ignore this basic human yearning that only religion can answer. In his eyes, Freud was therefore limited to the narrow prism that people only fear death and any other anxiety is infantile or neurotic, and religion is an illusion to deal with the world.
Tillich’s condescending view of Freud’s theories of anti-religionism stems from his belief of how religion was relevant to the rise of the Nazi Party and World War II in Germany. Tillich was raised in Germany, and saw the beginnings of the Holocaust from the German side. He witnessed Jewish people lose their jobs, their homes, their lives, and their freedom because of their devotion to the Jewish religion. During the Holocaust, the Jewish people kept their faith despite being tortured for it because it was what made their lives meaningful. Tillich also witnessed many Christians who believed that to be true to their faith, they had to protect and support the Jews. These Christians hid Jews away and helped save them, even though most of the Germans around them were persecuting those who aided the Jews. In this way, the helpful Germans were more devoted to the values of their faith than to being Christian alongside their neighbors. He also saw the Nazis sacrifice their personal beliefs, integrity and values for the sake for the party. They lived for the party, and even though we look down upon their actions, Tillich witnessed that their beliefs really did fuel their controversial actions.
The question is, why did so many people in Germany interpret their religion to allow them to kill other humans, while some German Christians aided the Jews and other persecuted people? Freud believes that religion is only for unhealthy people, and maybe unhealthy people make weak decisions. Freud argues that religion was an illusion, yet it is important for those dysfunctional people for multiple reasons: to give consolation to create faith that God will do what is right, to give requirements by setting boundaries, to give rewards, to guarantee that you will be provided for, and to give answers about the origin of people and the meaning of existence. However, according to Freud, this develops during childhood because of childhood neurosis that prevents a child from getting a good handle on reality.
      To break Tillich’s arguments down, both an axiological and ontological approach can be used. An axiological perspective is a philosophical study of the value of an action. Tillich’s  axiological view of religion is his understanding of the value of religion and using this approach, it can be seen that the value of religion outweighs other values and is the ultimate concern. Ontology, the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations fuels Tillich’s understanding of religion and how religion informs the meaning of existence. Tillich claim that religion is an intrinsic part of the creation the world around every person and is not an illusion, as Freud deems it, but a part of every person’s worldview.
The difference between Freud and Tillich is that Freud sees religion only in theological and doctrinal terms and in psychological terms of what people think, therefore, it is not valid, but Tillich sees religion in ontological terms and in axiological terms as how it describes human behaviour both individually and on a group level. It provides an argument that religion has little to do with a dysfunctional childhood and is an intrinsic part of how the human mind creates its values.

A Heart in Heartless World; Karl Marx's Theory on Theology

As the famed revolutionary career began, Marx articulated what would become the founding notion of his theory: “‘Man makes religion, religion does not make man’”. Although at the time the concept itself was not groundbreaking, the context in which it was said began the greatest change of social development the world had ever experienced. In effect, Marx solicited the uprising of any oppressed group of people by allowing them to take ownership of their lives. He freed them from the compulsion to accept the yolk of divinely ordained circumstances by being the occasion to their triumph over oppression. “Religion,” wrote Marx, “is the heart of a heartless world…” Religion is not itself evil; it is only in the heartless world that it is the greatest catalyst of oppression.

        Although the author initially excerpts the most famous (or perhaps infamous) quote of Marx, he resolves that it must be understood in its complete context: “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.”

Most crucial to appreciating Marx’s depth is recognizing his sensitivity to religion’s essence. Religion is a response to an overwhelming circumstance. Dominated by the upper class, the Bourgeoisie faces an inescapable dilemma of conforming to the will of their superiors. Without the means to protest their oppressors, this group of people embraces religion as a way of coping with their suffering. Thus, Marx called religion a “reflection,” “reflex,” and “superstructure” of the real world. In any society, the group that is treated secondarily can utilize religious perspective to justify the unfairness of their circumstances. From the outset, this group hasn't had a chance to create an ideology of self-creation, since it is stifled by the reality of its situation as second class citizens. Marx did not have a disdain for religion. Yet, he disliked the fact that religious perspective caused people to accept their downtrodden situations. Thusly, “he was not an anti-theist, but a critic of the reactionary social role that religion plays in supporting an exploitative social system”. It is religion’s functionality as a scape-goat from confronting reality that deems it negative.

        Furthermore, Marx explains how the specifics aspects of religion promote an illusion of light in the dark work. As heaven—a realm independent and superior to the earth—is central to the Christian consciousness, Marx believed that it is a “duplicate world… the sort of duplicate to be found in a mirror which inverts the object it is reflection”. When one attaches himself to the notion of heaven, he can recreate his experiences on earth to reflect his self-imposed imaginary reality. Thus, Marx explains, “the sufferings of earth are reversed in the expectation of heavenly bliss; or, human suffering is said to be ultimately caused by God’s punishment of sin, whereas in reality that suffering results from the oppression and exploitation of human beings.” Through a subtle but definitive thrust, Marx dilutes the foundation on which religion stands, highlighting its reliance upon an illusory reality. Man needs religion in order to cope with his horrendous conditions. Marx believed that, while “religion may be illusory and self-defeating response to human problems…it is not an accidental nor pointless illusion”. In this way, religion is the heart of the world—heartless or not—since “the proletariat takes religious opium in response to actual pain”.

        In an ostensibly contradictory manner, the author writes that “capitalist society, as a two-class system of an exploiting and an oppressed class, has social alienation in its very heart”. Evidently, the source of tension exists at the very core of society. So close is it to the core, that one can consider it to be at the heart. Tautological with religion, Marx conceives of the heart of a heartless society as religion, rendering it incompatible with reality as it is. Encouraging the oppressed to recognize their circumstances, Marx believed that religion must be acknowledged as a root of alienation, rather than one of hope.