Karl Marx, John Mill, and Sigmund Freud are some of the most iconic philosophers and writers who focused their works on human nature. Each individual had a different view on human nature and progress, but religion ties into and is a key point in their work. In Karl Marx’s Early Writings, he refers to religion as “the opium of the people”, and is a strong critic of the relationship between religion and the human race. In The Future of an Illusion, Freud writes about the illusions we as humans experience that cloud our judgment and character, with religion being an agent of chaos that could damage human progress. And as for John Stuart Mill who wrote about utilitarianism, he became known as a philosopher that advocated for government to create the greatest amount of good with the least evil. He also dubbed Christianity as “a doctrine of passive obedience”; and how “it inculcates submission to all authorities found established.” To say these men were harsh critics of religion and the progress of human nature is an understatement, but each writer provides crucial reasoning behind the functions of our society and human conscience. Throughout history, religion has played a large role in the development of human beings. Without a variety of religious institutions, the course of human existence to this very day could have resulted in unrelenting chaos. To say religion is the perfect foundation for a high-functioning society is far from the truth, endless conflicts are the result of religious disputes. But without religion, human progress would be enormously harmed, and we would not be where we are today without it.
Out of all three thinkers here, John Stuart Mill is the most accurate in his assessment of human nature and potential. Mill champions individual liberty, as he sees an individual's self-determination as the enabler of a better society. We as humans can make rational decisions that benefit society through our liberty. This ideology is also referred to as utilitarianism. Mill would define Utilitarianism as the principle which holds people accountable for their actions, or that actions are right in proportion as they promote happiness, wrong when they produce harm. Although Mill was a fierce defender of our liberties, he was also aware of how they could be abused. In his third chapter of On Liberty, titled “Of Individuality”, he writes “ No one pretends that actions should be as free as opinions. On the contrary, even opinions lose their immunity when in which they are expressed are such as to constitute their expression a positive instigation to some mischievous act.” (Mill, 64). This quote is important on several levels. Mill preached about the ability of unconditional personal freedom but was aware of the harm that it could bring.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Mill’s feelings towards religion are very different from his faith in human nature. He is a strong believer that religion “is an illusion”, impeding progress. Growing up in an atheist household, with his father arguing against religion, it makes sense that Mill had the judgments he had that we know today. Mill, although not a believer in religion himself did not denounce it as much as Marx or Freud did. He rather believed that the functions of religion would be better if they were applied to the identity of the human race. By channeling one’s emotions and spirit, humanity would be able to progress. Mill placed intellectual and spiritual happiness ahead of any other aspect that contributes to human progress. In essence, he believes that the idea of utilitarianism is genuinely more religious than religion itself as it seeks to accomplish the greatest output of happiness and love amongst mankind.
John Mill’s writings on religion and human progress are tied to a lot of other important aspects of society, including the economy and women’s rights. Just as he believed that if humans focused their free will on bettering society, he also believed that an almost completely unregulated free market would benefit society. According to Mill, the financial harm from the free market is better for society as they experience more utility when governed by the doctrine of free trade. As for another matter of freedom, Mill was concerned with the maltreatment of women and wrote a piece titled The Subjection of Women. His wife, Harriet Taylor, who had a big impact on his life likely contributed to this worrying matter. In his work he championed equal rights for women, saying that the oppressive living and social conditions were deterrents to human progression. He also believed that some of the unequal conditions arose from the earliest twilight of society, and that “owing to the value attached to her by men, combined with her inferiority in muscular strength” (Mill, 137) compelled “obedience”.
One of the most crucial writers in human history who changed the way we think about political science is Karl Marx. Marx is the father of Marxism which has served as an elementary piece of political theory, especially for radical thinkers. According to his five stages of history, humans undergo: tribal/ primitive, imperialism, feudalism, capitalism, socialism/communism. Marx pushed for a revolution and inspired many generations to revolt (Lenin, Che, Neto, etc.). “Political revolution dissolves civil society into its parts without revolutionizing these parts and subjecting them to criticism. It regards civil society, the world of needs, of labor, of private interests, and civil law as the foundation of its existence”(Marx, 234). This quote from Marx’s Early Writings allows us to see how revolution could cure a shattered society. Marx’s struggles to accept the way of life in the times he lived in came from a variety of factors, one of which was religion.
Karl Marx had a variety of dissenting views towards religion, especially when compared to John Stuart Mill. These ideas were derived from the world's asymmetric society, created by natural and social inequalities (especially societies with different classes). He even called religion “the opium of the people”. In his forward in his chapter “On the Jewish Question”, he criticizes Bruno Bauer who argued against the religious freedom for Jews (Marx, 211). Part of his objection to Bauer is that the Jewish people could be integrated into society without being “emancipated from religion”. This is one of the problems he has with religion, that it outcasts individuals who aren’t members of a certain religion. Citing America and France as examples where religion is not controlled by the state, but rather it’s a private concern for individuals, he believes that this is at least better than what he sees in most of Europe.
He goes on to preach that religious ideas are not a product of the “Christian state”, but instead the “free state”. This distinction speaks big of Marx’s morals. The ability to be religious does not come from religion itself, or the “Christian state”, but the unchecked utopia of a “free state” which allows individuals to find “fresh and vigorous political emancipation and religion” (Marx, 217). This connection between religious freedom and political emancipation falls right in line with Marx’s attitude toward the state and the alienation of the individual. Just as the proletarians are dominated by the bourgeoisie using modes of production, knowledge, and technology, the individual's liberty is oppressed by the state and its powers.
Marx continues to attack religion by saying “The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man” (Marx, 244). Although there is some truth to the literal meaning of this phrase, Marx is blind to what benefits religion brings to man in society. Religion provides structure in the everyday lives of countless people, and on top of that gives a safe space where people can fall back on in times of need. We as humans can commit ourselves to religion because we may feel we have moral obligations to do so, not because someone tells us to.
Sigmund Freud was not only a philosopher but also a psychoanalyst who was fascinated by human nature. In his work The Future of an Illusion, he focuses on how contrary to its intentions, religion drives irrational human emotion, including aggressive and violent tendencies. Some of these instincts like murder, rape, or incest are used to drive human impulses. In some respects, he shared a similar idea about the state of nature with Thomas Hobbes. He also believed that our personality and adult lives are shaped greatly by painful memories and events as kids, as well as childhood fantasies.
Freud, who was of course fascinated by the mental state of human beings applied his psychoanalytic views to religion. To him, religion comes from helplessness and the unconscious mind's need for wish fulfillment. God, who represents a father-like figure helped (or at least humans thought he did) people feel secure and absolve themselves of their guilt.
Aside from the aggressive impulses that religion created, Sigmund Freud also felt that religion has harmful implications on a community, alienating those who weren’t members of a certain religion. Fascinated by the relationship between religion and human nature, Freud said “Our knowledge of the historical worth of certain religious doctrines increases our respect for them, but does not invalidate our proposal that they should cease to be put forward as the reasons for the precepts of civilization.” (Freud, 40). Freud alludes to the idea that despite what the tenets of religion say about how they have formed our society, it is not belief systems that have made us who we are. Instead, he thinks that our barbaric urges from a state of nature lead to our predetermined lives.
Throughout human history, the relationship between religion and human progress has undergone substantial change. There have been countless wars and atrocities all in the name of religion. It is also true that religious leaders and institutions have blocked our progress. And because of this, it’s “God”, or the religious deities who are assigned the blame for it. According to some of these writers, Marx and Freud in particular, believe that religion promotes harm and leads to humans regressing, not progressing. I do not believe that this is true. Humans have been around for a very long time. Religion (in its many forms) has also been around for a very long time, and we have been able to coexist with it, without nearly toppling society because of it.
Mill writes about how religion could be better applied to his theory of utilitarianism. If humans focused on their liberation and passion then the human race would progress undoubtedly. Out of all three writers here, I think Mill has the best argument against religion, as he at least champions all humans to be happy and develop virtues. However, it’s as if Mill doesn’t even take into account real-life examples of how religion offers this too. Religion allows people to fall back on a community whether it’s in a time of need, or if they just want to be a part of something. Freud said that God is a “father figure” in the eyes of his worshipers. This is accurate, but it’s not necessarily a bad thing. He believes that it causes aggressive impulses in us, especially among children. On the contrary, I think that having a leader or somebody to look up to can be a good thing, especially when that figure promotes the well-being of others (which most forms of God do for the most part).
Overall, Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, and John Stuart Mill who all championed human progress and personal liberties in their unique way ultimately were inaccurate in their assessments of religion. Each writer does believe that religion performs valuable functions to society, but believes that it is a deterrent to progression. Without religion, the course of human history would have been substantially more violent and gruesome, like one in a state of nature. Humans have long reaped the benefits of having religion as a source of stability, and as we continue to have it involved in our everyday societies, human progress will continue to grow.
Stuck on your essay?
