Subject: Is Religion Desirable as the Opium of the People? Date: 4 Dec 89 21:06:15 GMT Sen

From: loren@moonzappa.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Is Religion Desirable as the Opium of the People?
Message-ID: <40492@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Date: 4 Dec 89 21:06:15 GMT
Sender: usenet@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV
Reply-To: loren@moonzappa.llnl.gov ()
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lines: 106


        There is a large school of thought that states that religion
is desirable to have around, not because of any degree of truth, but
because it makes people virtuous. In effect, this school of thought
states that religion is desirable AS the opium of the people. I hope
some examples will make this school of thought clear:

        The geographer Strabo of Amasia, who was a contemporary of the
Roman Emperor Augustus, commented:

        The great mass of women and common people [yes, I know that's
sexist] cannot be induced by mere force of reason to devote themselves
to piety, virtue, and honesty. Superstition must therefore be
employed, and even this is insufficient without the aid of the
marvelous and the horrible.

        Plato advocated that the rulers of his Republic systematically
lie to its citizens. In particular, they should tell one "royal lie"
-- that the rulers, the Guardians, are made out of gold, the soldiers
are made out of silver, and the working classes are made out of
bronze. In this way, the people will be convinced of the Guardians'
right to rule them. He feels confident that the people can be induced
to believe this myth, implausible as it may seem. The Guardians are to
lie in other ways: there will be festivals in which the people will
have partners selected for them by lot, or at least that is what they
will be led to believe. In actuality, the Guardians will manipulate
these pairing according to eugenic principles, in analogy with the
selectivity of animal and plant breeders.

        Homer and Hesiod are to be banned from Plato's Republic, for a
variety of moral reasons. They depict rich feasts -- the citizens of
the Republic are not supposed to wallow in decadence. They depict
people mourning their dead comrades -- the citizens are not supposed
to be unhappy about such things. They depict the souls of the dead
having a miserable existence in Hades -- the citizens are not supposed
to think that they will be unhappy after death. They depict the gods
laughing and being lustful -- the citizens are supposed to be grave
and serious, and also not horny and lecherous. They depict Zeus
handing out good fortune and bad fortune -- the citizens should be
taught that God is the cause, not of all things, but only of good
things. Plato does not say whether he believes that himself, however;
even if it makes a good solution to the Problem of Evil.

        I somehow suspect that Plato and Xenophanes (see my posting on
him) would absolutely rip the Bible, if they could see it in its
canonical form.

        In early modern times, Niccolo Machiavelli also supported this
theory. The adjective, "Machiavellian," comes from his depiction of
politics in _The Prince_ as a game to be played to win. He went into
more detail on political goals in _The Discourses_, in which he stated
that religion is a good thing to have around, not because of any
purported truthfulness, but because it is a good social cement. He
tells us that the Romans were right to pretend to believe in auguries,
offical divinations of the will of the Gods, and to punish those who
disregarded them. And this is from someone who probably did not
believe in the Gods of ancient Rome.

        Needless to say, there were lots of other advocates of this
school of thought. There were many people who held that while
"Advanced Thinkers" like themselves who had seen through organized
religion, it was necessary to dope the "common people" with it.

        In recent times, however, one seldom hears this school of
thought stated very explicitly. The more usual tendency is to evade
the issue whenever it is brought up. Maybe it is expecting too much
for people to be honest about an elitist theory like this one. Perhaps
a comparison can be made with opposition to divorce. I have a relative
who is violently against divorce. As was typical with him, he would
seldom give reasons for his anti-divorce stance. One reason he did
give, was this his parents had hated each other, but still stayed
married. Apparently he believed that people ought to stay married even
if they are filled with hate for each other. Most opponents of
divorce, however, have not taken this stance, at least in public, for
reasons that ought to be obvious. Interestingly, this relative was
raised a Catholic. He left the Church in his adolescence, because he
was tired of practicing its rituals. However, he thought that one
should never say anyting disrespectful of any "established"
institutions -- like the Church.

        A view related to this school of thought, that religion is
desirable as the opium of the people, is the school of thought that
children should be taught a religion, even if their parents don't
practice it, or even believe in it. It is thought that that is a good
way of "knowing about" the subject. But is raising one's children
hard-line Communists a good way to have them know about politics?

        I must say that I have more respect for any school of thought
that says that some religion is "true" -- WITHOUT any implication that
it is desirable as opium for the people. I even have respect for
consideration of the possibility that it is necessary to teach people
a false religion in order to make people virtuous. But to argue that
some religion is desirable as the opium of the people, while evading
the question of its truth -- that strikes me as rather extreme
intellectual dishonesty.

                                                        ^
Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster                    \  ^  /
        loren@moonzappa.llnl.gov                      \ ^ /
One may need to route through any of:                  \^/
        sunlight.llnl.gov                       <<<<<<<<+>>>>>>>>
        lll-lcc.llnl.gov                               /v\
        lll-crg.llnl.gov                              / v \
        star.stanford.edu                            /  v  \
                                                        v
"Crucifixes are sexy because there's a naked man on them" -- Madonna