The Purpose of Spirituality as a Representation of Optimism in a Society of Prejudices, Misery, and Agony

Religion: Reassurance for Life in a Repulsive World

Imagine a reality where pain is avoidable; an oasis protected from suffering and intolerance. Contemplate about an eternal being, whose very power granted those worthy eternal life, love, and happiness. Too good to be true? It may be so, but people throughout the ages of history, poor and rich alike, have clung to such beliefs in a life better someplace else, tormented by a physical world warped with natural disaster, disease, and inevitably death. Searching for comfort and mercy in an unforgiving world, many sought answers from religion. From the Navajo religion in the America’s to Christianity in Europe to Hinduism in the Orient, religion originated to function as a symbol of hope that can answer for and help cope with the injustices of the world, and persists as a respite from worldly suffering and pain.

In order to survive in a heartless, material world, people desire to obtain the immaterial in order to sustain. Father of psychoanalytic theory, Sigmund Freud argued that the what people truly seek is unconditional love and acceptance, as well as a way to cope with death. Freud theorized that the minds of people had three distinct regions, the id, the ego, and the superego. The id was the most primitive part of a person’s unconscious, which desired for the basic needs of sex and hunger. The superego was the more advanced part, seeking morality and righteousness over physical need. To balance the wants and needs of an individual, the ego acted as the middle ground, which attempted to satisfy the needs of both the id and superego. Based on this theory, religion originated to train a person’s ego, restricting himself or herself from animality while pursuing virtue. For example, in Christianity the holy sacraments, such as Baptism and Confirmation, provide a sense of acceptance and love from God by giving them “grace”, and provides condolement of death through the Anointing of the Sick, which prepares them for heaven if they were to die from sickness. In return, Christianity also guides the ego with the idea of right and wrong in God’s eyes called conscience; and makes followers accountable for their mistakes through the sacrament of Reconciliation by admitting their “sins”. Thus, Freud shows that religion is a two-part system, restricting people from primitive urges, while promising unconditional love and acceptance of death.

In the eyes of Karl Marx, father of communism, religion plays a more sinister role in the overall scheme of human civilization. The idea of private property created rifts among people, dividing the masses into economic classes based on material wealth. With the introduction of industrial capitalism, there existed a definition between the powerful and powerless, and while the rich controlled government, the common man was only worth as much as his wages. The economy from which these classes formed is what Marx established as the base, only which structures such as government, religion, the arts, and etc. could be built upon. With the growing tensions between the rich and the poor, religion plays a role of suggesting contentment and acceptance, providing rationale for the way things are. For example, the economic and religious classes of Hinduism were separated into four castes, “The Brahmin were at the top, representing the intellectual leaders of philosophy and teaching. Next were the Kshatriyas, which involved the military, and government. Following were the Vaisyas, the merchants and skilled craftsmen. Last and least influential were the Shudras, the menial laborers.” People transferred between classes due to one’s karma, or morality. In Marx’s opinion, rather than rebel for equality and privilege, the institution of Hinduism made people content with their current classes, making themselves responsible for their own misfortune rather than blame on social structure. In the presence of suffering due to inequality, Hinduism provides the opportunity to go up in the caste system based on karma called reincarnation. Thus, Marx would argue that the classes could not be challenged if people can go up the system through good morality. However, he would find Hinduism as an illusion, forcing people to accept things as they are. Religion can only exist as superstructure established once there is a base. Only when there is inner tension due to class conflict will people turn to religion for satisfaction.

When it comes to appealing to religion for a sense of love and acceptance, many would accept Freud’s theory of religion. It helps evaluate the existence of certain practices among different religions, the observance of Mass in Christianity or the worship of the puja in Hinduism as a means to bring people of similar beliefs together in a sense of acceptance. The concept of the id, the ego, and the superego help account for the existence of conscience, and is reflected in the Jewish Ten Commandments or the surahs of the Muslim Qur'an to guide or restrict it. However, Freuds theory does not account for the indigenous religion of the Navajo, who neither appeal to love or death. Freud’s theory does not explain the necessity of the Navajo sand painting, or the existence of the Holy People whom the Navajo regard. To the Navajo, the Holy People act among the people, not as eternal beings or gods that can grant a heaven or mercy. They act one with nature, and must be calmed when there is an imbalance. The Navajo sand painting acts a ritual to bring harmony back to nature, a concept foreign to Freudian theory. Thus, Freudian theory supports the thesis, but cannot explain Navajo religion.

Constant tensions due to the infliction of poverty and the masses’ submission to those with more wealth, Karl Marx’s theory of religion would seem appropriate. By a lack of equality of wealth between people, those who are wealthier can assert more power and force while those with less or none suffer from hunger and despair. In such suffering do people turn to religion. Rather than promise more wealth and material goods, the ideals of Christianity promise those who give up their desire for wealth instead for morality will achieve eternal happiness and life with God. The caste system and karma within Hinduism help people cope with and accept their social standing, in the promise of going up the system if proven morally true. In this sense, religion exists as a superstructure built upon the economic disparities that make up the base. However, Marx’s religion cannot explain the reason for religion in the lack of capitalism or desire for material. Neither desiring wealth or material, the followers of Buddhism deny themselves the luxuries of the physical world. They instead separate themselves from the world seeking Enlightenment. This does not follow Marxist theory, since Buddhism cannot be built upon the theorized base as it does not concern itself with economic class or private property; and is not produced out of class conflict as Buddhism isolates itself from society.

Religion exists as a means to accept the physical world for what it is, and helps find the innate needs for love and coping with death. In terms of Freudian and Marxist theory of religion, I agree with both their assertions of religion as an emotional need for people to strive through a world of unending pain, unequal opportunity, and eventual death. However, I would side more with Freudian theory of religion, as its concept of the unconscious is reflected through the many restrictions imposed by religions as well as the many promises religion makes for its followers. As long as suffering and pain exist in the world, so will religion. It differs only in how one religion is going to approach and cope with the injustice of the world, how it will maintain its followers from falling into despair, and method of keeping its promise of making those faithful feel loved and accepted.