Scientific Materialism of Marx and Ga - Essay Example

Scientific Materialism of Marx and Galileo: On Religion’s Role and Nature In the contemporary epoch, science and religion are contested fiercely (Dixon, 2008). There are those who view this contention or debate as non-existent; others view it as empirical or inevitable. From the science perspective, religion is understood or analyzed in many ways. Scientific materialism is a conceptual framework used by men of science in examining and exploring a specific thing or idea; it categorically views morality (e.g., religion) as a “function of culture or biology” (Schultz, West, & Maclean, 1999). In Marxist scientific materialism, religion as an idea is like an opium. In Galileo’s scientific materialism, however, religion and science are one. The philosophy of Karl Marx is generally called as materialism, particularly scientific materialism (Schultz et al., 1999). In Marxist materialism, religion is considerably viewed as an opium. The opium imagery creates a dramatic implication to the concept or understanding of religion. When taken or consumed, for instance, the opium as a drug vitally generates a sort of illusion within the drug user’s brain. As the opium takes effect into his or her head and/or body, the drug user experiences a type of “heaven” or “paradise” away from the material or physical world. The opium analogy used by Marx implies that religion is merely a hallucination or delusion, which possesses no material reality, mainly invented by the human society. Based from scientific materialism (in Marxist scholarship), religion is fundamentally a way of departing from the truth in order to avoid the problems inherent in real life. In general, God is only man’s delusion, an effect of consuming the opium drug. In contrast to the Marxist materialism, Galileo’s scientific materialism viewed God (i.e., religion) as a Great Mechanic who designed the nature of universe with observable patterns. When Galileo explained that the Sun is the center of the cosmos, he was not attempting to discredit, if not destroy, the system of belief characterized in the Christian religion. In his time, the prevalent perception of the universe was that of Ptolemaic system: the Earth was the center of the universe. Based from the Holy Scripture, the spiritual leaders in Galileos time were convinced that it was the Sun that revolved around the fixed Earth. During Galileo’s trial, the scientist argued that his scientific finding was not in contradiction or opposition against the fundamental doctrine of the Church but rather a kind of refinement that was more attuned to the law of nature; this law of nature is none other than the Great Mechanic’s design pattern. By and large, Galileo’s scientific materialism explained religion in conjunction with the mechanical cosmology (Brooke, 1991). The explanation of religion, based from the Marxist scientific materialism, provides an insight about the religion’s role in the human society. Indeed, religion is a terrible opium for the people; however, the apparent paradox here is that religion also provides a kind of comfort towards its pious believers -- no matter how illusory it may appear. True, religion creates a delusion in men’s mind; but it also creates in their mental framework a type of moral standard to follow; in essence, religion becomes “the heart of a heartless world” (Kunin & Miles-Watson, 2006). Morality is not something physical; therefore in Marxist paradigm, it is an “opium” or make-believe. Obviously, Marx utterly disregarded the reality or truthfulness of religion as a philosophy or system of understanding. The lack of materialism within any sort of religion -- e.g., physical evidence of God’s existence -- convinced him that it is beyond this world. His analogy of opium suggests that religion has no direct connection to the tangible world. Perhaps religion is not material in the same way that an idea is not; it is rather a dimension within the spirituality of man. In Galileo’s explanation using scientific materialism, it reveals a certain aspect of religion: religion is in harmony with nature. It must be noted that in the present-day world, religion and science are generally viewed as two different realms that are impossible to reconcile; perhaps this is attributed to Galileo’s trial and eventual verdict (Ferngren, 2002). Nonetheless, Galileo -- at least based from the trial document -- strongly argued that religion somehow reflects the material universe. This implies that the ideas found within the sphere of religion are close to the ideas characterized in the modern science. For instance, the scientific pattern of the planet’s orbit is considered in religion as the Great Mechanic’s original design; in Galileo’s conception of the universe, this orbit is circular in form. In the medieval world, circle is viewed as sacred and pure -- something that is attributed to the Supreme Being or Immovable Mover. As a whole, Galileo’s explanation of religion via scientific materialism enables one to perceive religion as in congruent with science. Marxist materialism has limitation in fully understanding the importance and “truth” about religion. For one thing, the scientific materialism of Marx only sees the relevance of a particular thing or idea with regard to the societal context and class struggle. Marxism as a “science” has an inherent system of thought and methodological system. When a particular concept (e.g., religion) is analyzed, such concept becomes something other than itself; this implies that religion in Marxist scholarship is transformed based from the worldview marked in Marxism. Since Marxism or Marx’ scientific materialism considers non-material ideas or aspects as not material or true, then it follows that religion as an “idea” is not real or true; it is merely an “opium.” This is the limit of Marxist materialism, religion is not understood based from itself but rather from the nature of methodological/philosophical system. The dilemma in Galileo’s explanation of religion using his scientific materialism is that the former changes as the latter alters some of its conception or understanding about the world. In the fundamental level, religion is constant; its core belief and doctrine do not change. In Roman Catholic religion, for example, Jesus is believed to be the son of God in the literal sense. Such belief has not change in the 20th century and even in this time. On the other hand, science changes in fundamental ways. The science of Galileo is no longer the science of this century. For instance, Galileo’s circular orbit of the planets is not scientific anymore; modern-day idea of, say, the Earth’s orbit is described as elliptical in shape. Moreover, the so-called “crystalline sphere” is considered as unscientific in the present-day thought or science. This is the problem of Galileo’s explanation: if science changes, then religion has to change as well (Rolston, 2006). Marx’s and Galileo’s scientific materialism substantially facilitate in comprehending the characteristic of religion. The paradigms of Marx and Galileo provide a useful insight to religion’s role in the society and its relationship to the material universe. On the other hand, they fail to fully appreciate religion on the basis of that religion (e.g., faith and doctrine). In using their framework, certain aspect of religion is missed, if not misunderstood. References Brooke, J. H. (1991). Science and religion: Some historical perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Dixon, T. (2008). Science and religion: A very short introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Ferngren, G. B. (2002). Science and religion: A historical perspective. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Kunin, S., & Miles-Watson, J. (2006). Theories of religion: A reader. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Rolston, H. (2006). Science & religion: A critical survey. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Foundation Press. Schultz, J. D., West, J. G., & Maclean, I. (1999). Encyclopedia of religion in American politics. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. Read More