Thanks to georgesdelatou and others for pointing out that Marx' texts in English versions sometimes do call for the "abolition" of religion--unlike I suggest in this video. Therefore, I should have said instead that Marx' call for the "abolition" of religion should not be taken to mean that he wants to "outlaw" it. In German, Marx uses the word "abschaffen". The Communist Manifesto, for instance says: "Communism abolishes (schafft ab) eternal truths, it abolishes (schafft ab) all religion, and all morality ..." Marx does not use abschaffen/abolish here in the sense of "to outlaw", or "to persecute". A better translation for "abschaffen" would be "do away with", or "make obsolete". (It makes no sense to "outlaw" or "persecute" eternal truths or all morality). Marx' point is, I think, that in a communist society, eternal truth, religion, and traditional morality will all become obsolete and disappear because their socioeconomic foundations will have disappeared. I don't think that the persecution of religion by the state in some communist countries is/was in line with Marx' writings.

This is exactly the monologue I go into with my family over the Christmas dinner.

Marx's comments on religion should really be distinguished from someone like Dawkins's. He (Marx) was obsessed with ordinary people; his "opium" passage is not an edict against the weak-minded but a subtle and compassionate observation on the source of vital feeling in working life as we experience it. He does not dismiss the "user" as merely irrational but draws out the predicament common to humanity which lies underneath.

Timestamps of each part. 0:00 Intro 2:01 Part I - The People's Opium 19:57 Part II - Marx, Feurbach, Hegel, and the Critique of Religion 37:11 Part III - The People's Cocaine

Das ist wirklich sehr gut erklärt. Bin wirklich froh dass es solche Videos auf KZfaq (noch) gibt

More videos on Marxist philosophy would be very helpful. There is a lot of misinformation about his thought online.

It's not common to come across someone who can do full justice to the complexities of Marx's critique of religion. Your seven-point analysis of Marx's oft-cited remark that "religion is the opium of the people" was brilliantly developed and skillfully defended. I applaud your willingness to mine the conceptual depths of the ideas with which you treat, even if the medium within which you're operating obviates against the scope that an academic such as yourself is likely accustomed to covering. Still, it's refreshing to see content-creators that aren't afraid to take their viewers into-the-rabbit-hole, if only for a few minutes. Kuddos!

This video is actually incredible - the way you lay out the contents of the video just flows so naturally and cohesively and I found myself watching the entire thing without even properly realising the length. Thank you for making such good stuff!

one issue that might be developed is the idea that religion is a narrative in post-narrative times. Famously, Benjamin (and, to a degree, the hauntology of Derrida) concerns itself with the fragmentation and interruption of narrative. However, we also appear more and more to inhabit a period when technological means of communication break narratives (and intertextuality - the labour of deploying tropes - can become the narrative itself). This leads to a further distance from religion, but also invites metonymy - the expansion of religion's exchange value. I find Hegel's ideas (and Feurbach) here, somewhat optimistic. Religion isn't static, but constantly moves ahead of itself: the Bible is constantly reinterpreted to provide "lessons for today." There is therefore an elliptical quality to religion. Elliptical, but not dialectical: the "natural history" of interpretations merely refers back to the originary text, and reinforces it as the "first" text; it (re)constructs its metaphysics.

What I like about your videos is that is doesn't just cover a single topic per video, but that it is a continues conversation, exploration of topics like civil religion and profilicity.

This is a great video. I am living in a Zen Buddhist temple, and I must admit that your analysis rings true for aspects of Buddhism too...especially in our modern world 🌎

Thank God for Christmas specials! Enjoyed this one.

From Marx - Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right "The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man - state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. 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. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people

Excellent work as always. I look forward to your next video.

This video was a great belated Christmas gift! Thank you for creating your wonderful content! Hello from Arizona ☀️🎄

Incredible how correct Marx always was and how woke marxism is and still relevant (if not more than ever) today. Good video!

I find it very nice to observe your knowledge of eastern philosophy. Very often i see people that are well read in "western" philosophy commenting about buddhism and getting a lot of things wrong, with misconceptions and distortions dating back to the 19 century. You, on the other hand, appears to be well read on the topic. Very good video.

Loving this Christmas special!

Thank you for another wonderful video! Just a few thoughts... In my understanding the deeper reason for civil religion, as envisioned by the thinkers of the Enlightenment, was that it is always an act of faith when I assume that another human being is as capable of experiencing herself as free as I am. Freedom can never be proven in the outside world, it is necessarily intersubjective, never objective. This is also at the core of Hegel's analysis in the Philosophie des Rechts, where the inherent possibility of freedom of every individual needs society to unfold. This means that society not only needs faith, it is a vessel of the collective acts of faith of all free humans that form it. This is by no means identical to what we see as civil religion right now. Capitalism can't see humans as inherently free, quite the contrary. In Capitalism you always start as a slave, your freedom is something you get paid in small change when you subject yourself to it. The difference is, in a society that is enlightenent, every individual can at every point in time demand proof from society that the freedom she gives up comes back to her with interest. While in Capitalism you need to proof to it at any point that your work is worth the small bits of freedom it grants you. So, I think at the core of our modern form of civil religion is a perversion of its original meaning. Neoliberalism is really Pseudiliberalism, with its own false prophets. But I also think we need faith. Faith not in God, that is, but faith in humanity.

Very interesting. I think our national lutheran church (Sweden) has completely transformed into a civil religious post-christian one. It's very much in line with the "wokeism" and places very little emphasis on traditional biblical scripture. It's the humanism Feuerbach talked about.

Merry Christmas Prof

My civil religion is watching professor Moeller's videos. Hope it will never let me down the way all others I tried did.

In his essay Junkspace, Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas has a striking analogue to religion as opium for the masses, which is "Identity is junkfood for the masses; globalization's fodder for the disenfranchised". I continuously relate that phrase to your and your partner's work on profilicity.

Loved this video keep them coming !

Thank you, yet again, for a highly interesting and thought-provoking video. Loved it! :)

Marx travelling to the future to the nowadays US: "I correct myself. Opium is the people's religion now."

Merry Christmas!

Amazing video, as always!

This episode was like taking a paracetamol for the hangover of the Christmas ritual indulgence. Thanks I feel better now.

Hi Professor! Love the content. Curious if you could do a video on Doestoevsky. His writings to me feel like a proposed refutation of enlightenment thinking and the abolition of religion).

Great video professor Moeller! Love this channel. -Eddie

From what I remember from earlier videos, one of this channel's goals is to popularize philosophy. And this is one of the goals which is really hard to track progress on. So I think some pieces of direct feedback may be pleasant :D Plus just wanted to say thank you to professor Moeller and whoever helped him with execution. Thank you so much, this channel finally started my journey into philosophy. And I totally love it. For now I just reading first book (Macintyre's "Avter virtue", because for person from orthodox family morality was the most interesting initial subject for me) and ordered second ("A History of Western Philosophy" by Bertran Russel). These are not particulary something pushed by this channel, but the fact that I started to do this at all is definitely in big part - your achievment. And I'm really happy that it happened with me. Something that started as "learning my enemy" (watching lefties popular channels) ended up really just elevating me even if just a little bit yet :D

Thank you very much for this video. I would be most interested in hearing more about culture and tradition as well. Living in Japan, these two seem to me to have very similar qualities to religion in other regions.

These “isms” are flavors of the moment. There’re used by individual people for a time, for many random reasons and motivations, but then fade away in time. It’s all about us smucks! Thanks

Wonderful final message. Great video.

Hello professor Moeller. I was wondering If the concept of Civil Religion is something you have been developing and If I can learn more about It in your book? I was also wondering If I can use the idea of Civil Religion for something I'm working on (giving you credits of course)

A good alternative translation of "Aufhebung" in this context could possibly be "to cancel sth. out" similar to the way noise cancelling earphones cancel out noise by mirroring the external humming noises so they can't be perceived by human ears anymore.

I love the last line!

Now I'm addicted to philosophy videos

It's funny that you bring up Harris because he critiques religion but he would likely fall into Nietzsche's dichotomy where Christian people think agnostically and agnostic people think like Christians. Great video as always, thank you for some of the greatest philosophy content on KZfaq rn.

Very interesting, 👍👍

This is absolute 🔥... amazing I am Anabaptist pastor who works primarily with marginal communities in the semi-rural context. This lecture is a must for any critical thinker peering out beyond late stage capitalism

Thank you once more! I would love if at one point or another you could elaborate your views on the morality, refering to your thought-provoking book "The Moral Fool" as well as to the comment in this video: "Like Christianity in the past, civil religion today produces false relief from suffering: Sustains a capitalistic economy by focusing on moral, rather than socio-economic problems". My question is, do you not think that approaching a socio-economic problem needs a moral-based approach? Meaning, it seems clear to me that for a problem to "a problem", it needs some codex of right/wrong. Is it not Morality? How do you distinguish between 'moral issue' and socio-economic problem'? In "The Moral Fool" you note that your approach in criticizing 'moral mindset' isn't a moralistic approach, and I must say this point feels contradictive to me. Happy to hear your thoughts!

That was interesting!

Herr Moeller please do critique on Pinker's "Enlightment Now"!

Thanks very much for the video! I also find it very interesting that Marx says the critique of religion is the "Vorraussetzung aller Kritik" (the precondition for all critique). So the critique of civil religion should be the startingpoint of all critique of our era. Similarily to this video and your video on the Kamala Harris video Marx also arrives at a moral rule (his form of the categorical imperativ), so you also join him in that regard. However he also stats (already in the introduction to the critique of hegel...) that the critique of religion necceserily transforms into a critique of politics and economy. Shouldn't you then for your critique of profilicity start to move into other fields usualy outside of philosophy? Are you planning on also doing something on the economy behinde the social media or the algorithems that produce addiction (or seek to do so)? What would a "digitalization" of marxism look like?

This content is so good, that I almost feel it could need a more sophisticated platform than the occasional KZfaq videos.

Can you do a vid on Stirner? I think there is a valuable connection with Zhuang Zi’s philosophical project of Carefree Wandering 逍遙遊.

what a great video!

What are your thoughts on the practice where youtubers set their camera in front of their bookshelves? I am curious if you are following the trend or it was just a convenient place to set your camera. Thanks for the great video!

Thank you for the vid. I hope to listen-to/watch-it again and take notes while doing so. It clarified to me - what Marx actually meant by 'Opium of Masses', and how it is important to understand Marx's response to Fuerbach - how it is important to keep in mind that Jiangxi Mazu Daoyi Chanshi Yulu convo of saying 'Buddha and Spirit exist within another' first, then of following it with "Neither of them exist". It does seem to me that your use of the word "Populism" is confusing to someone in a part of the world like US, cuz that word here is used as a way to refer to a kind of a conservative labor-centered collectivism.

Well, the algorithm brought me to you, and I have watched a few of your videos from my main account. (This is my commenting account.). I have enjoyed your breakdowns on the videos I have watched so far. This one, the Jordan P videos and the one on Wokeism. I am not a fan of the word itself because talking about being woke stopped being hip in 2015 ish. ;) JK, but it is true. There is always a new name for the right extreme to call the left extreme. The same phenomena will be called something new in 5 years. Anyway, that is neither he nor there. I wanted to toss up a book recommendation since you talk about Civil Religion. My Constitutional Law professor has a recently published book about his thoughts on America needing a common civil religion again. It might be an interesting addition. Bruce Ledewitz, The Universe is on Our Side: Restoring Faith in American Public Life (Oxford University Press 2021).

Sorry for the late comment. What would your response be to Slavoj Žižek's critiques of eastern religions like Taoism or Buddhism? I do appreciate the Taoist content on this channel btw.

Oh, interesting--without additional context, I would have interpreted the Wenyi story differently, considering it an allegory about form and emptiness, similar to this Zen saying: “When I first began to practice, mountains were mountains and rivers were rivers. As I trained, mountains were not mountains; rivers were not rivers. Now that I am established in the way, mountains are once more mountains and rivers are once more rivers.”

Can you find the time to read and comment on Jonas Čeika's "How to Philosophize with a Hammer and Sickle: Nietzsche and Marx for the 21st Century Left"? You're far from the intended audience but that makes your commentary so interesting.

Yes, notice how every Presedent in the U S and other leaders always use religion to show that they are to be trusted. It's basically living in a British ex colony where you must know the game of cricket and its terminology. Great work and thank you. Don't forget that it is faith, faith in the dollar that is higher than any religion when it comes down to it: 'in god we trust'.

It’s interesting you associate opium with the bourgeoise, because for people writing even prior to but generally around Marx’s time, principally Goethe, Dostoevsky, and Tolstoy, it was remarked that Christianity amongst the gentry was generally seen as an unfashionable and dirty historical artefact. In light of this, religion being the opium of the people would be more of a metaphor on opium than religion. However one can only assume that Marx did have the intention to say that religion is a discardable and arbitrary historical contingency that serves as a source of temporary pleasure and permanent fixation; and I see lots of people in the comments quoting late Marx on religion, it’s worth remembering than Marx’s views of religion shifted towards the end of his life.

I truly like your videos and your very objectiv, scientific like way of working on a certain philosophical topic... unlike, as you always mention, Jordan Peterson for instance... however, I can't help noticing that you have already talked about Identity and Authenticity a lot. So you have spoken about most of the thinkers that Jordan Peterson is constantly mentioning, why don't you make a video about Jung?

Fantastic video

I think more and more on Karl Marx is needed. Besides David Harvey, your content is very good to explain what Marx was talking about and how rich his thoughts were.

Super!

have you eve heard of the Sitch & Adam Show? you could be a cool guest if you do that sort of thing and talk about prolificity and civil religion to a wide audience

again very enlightening

I have just started to watch the video. But I have to say that the thumbnail 'Religion: The People's Opium or Cocaine' was definitely amusing.

i would like to see more nuance in descriptions of modern leftist thought on this channel than to reduce it to 'wokeism' without reference to what is being said or who is saying it. when describing centrist or right-wing thinkers mueller usually describes that persons position and abscribes it to someone, but when he speaks of wokeism he generally does not

Certen dose, quite brilliant, haaaaaa. This is by far an excellent channel I have seen so far and especially when it comes to Marx.

Awesome video man! Would love to have more content related to Marx.

consume responsibly....now that's a great topic for another video. looking forward to it.

Is it the professor's view that this is how religion functions (in distinction to philosophy) or is he presenting Marx et al? I ask because I don't know anyone who studies religion, even an atheist who does so, who would agree with this definition of religion or it's function. Maybe it's about 1/4 right and perhaps more for certain religious sects - but it is so limited I can't help but conclude that it is a straw-man. It's not even a very good description of Christianity on the continent in the 18th and 19th century. So maybe it would be helpful to use a different term - fundamentalism is perhaps more accurate, but there might be others that are better informed. The rest of the video is quite good and I appreciate the work being done on identity, but I can''t really take this argument seriously as a critique of religion as a general phenomenon. Maybe someone can help me if I am missing something.

great stuff

I will be thinking about the Mazu story for a long time. I wonder, does it mean that you should not dispel religious myths among people with tears in their eyes? Does it mean you should pray when you are crying, just as you should take medicine when you are sick, but not at other times? I sense that it is not just the Zen master's proclamation of atheism. The first part is as important as the second. (I'm not defending religion, by the way. I'm an atheist myself.)

Your pronouncoation of xin was spot on :o

Once again a really good video, thanks! Now Im wondering, what is your position on the revolutionary practise/ Marxism-Leninism-Maoism? Just another "Religion", or a based strategy leading to a dialectical evolvement?

Can Wenyi’s criticism of religion equally apply to philosophy? Or is there some relevant difference them making philosophy dominating your life more ok.

Irgendwie kommen die deutschen Worte zwischen dem ganzen Englisch richtig cool rüber zumindest für mich, denn ich verstehe beides ganz natürlich. Lässt das Ganze irgendwie beruhigend wirken so bisschen wie zu Hause. 😏😸☺😊

What do you make of Liberation Theology then? Which is influenced by Marx

Thank you so much for uploading about Marx!

Fantastic video. Like another commenter mentioned, I would love to see a video on Heidegger. In particular I’d love for you to explore a Heideggerian ontic experience of being in the digital world. As a Marxist, I do think that Heideggers ontology offers a really interesting conversation with the Marxist subject (if there is one, and I do think that there is). Since you do a lot of work on Marx, perhaps a conversation with Heidegger would be interesting! I look forward to more of your content.

44:45 What world was used for left? Religion, i am not native speaker and want to find out more about this.

@Carefree Wandering what is the Song in the end called pls. Liebe Grüße

What is your definition of religion? You seem to define it as inherently superstitious-like it is just when people blindly accept something they are told uncritically regardless of if it even has anything to do with supernatural stuff, origin of the universe of life after death. If that's religion, most religious are doing it wrong. It just says you haven't read too much outside of the heurmanutical skeptics. You cannot seriously read Aquinas, Kalam, Tillich or even just talk to a regualr preist and come away thinking these guys have just completely sacrificed their critical thinking and have no reasons for their belief other than superstition. And the fact people are so willing to let it control every aspect of their lives gives it more credibility in my eyes, it at least suggests there is something there. No one does that with philosophy. Most of the Enlightenment philosophers you say are mainly anti-religion were devout Christians, and their faith played a central part in their ideas (Kant, Hegel, Locke, Descartes). The same goes for the Islamic golden age and even the Greeks- Aristotle was a huge influence on the Catholic Church's thinking. And Hegel was by no means Anti-Religion; he literally viewed Protestant Christianity as the end of History for spiritual development. I get their religious views aren't highlighted in philosophy classes these days, but that is no excuse. Kant saw belief in afterlife as essential to his ethics. And not to defend instutional religion too much, but presenting it as a negative force thst perpetuates oppression is just wrong and only works if you cherry-pick. It is just s fact that the Catholic Church is the biggest provider of healthcare, education, and care for the poor (outside of gov'ts) in the world. And charity is a major pillar of Islam as well. Churches have done far more for the sick and poor than any philosophy department (or Marxist government) ever has. And it isnt like any serial killers repent after reading Bentham the way so many have when they become religious. And I dont see philosophy or even science as some major step forward and is just so much better than religion- there is no objective improvement in morals or thinking the way there is with technology. The 20th century was far and away the most brutal, savage, violent and oppressive in world history. And those evils were a direct result of the academia you praise as so enlightened. The Nazis appealed to genetics and evolution to justify their eugenics programs, and Soviet-style socialism killed tens of millions becuase the social sciences told them this was an inevitale step towards utopia.

I think it would be very usefull if you could upload these videos as a podcast as well. Großartige Inhalte auch für Einsteiger wie mich!!

Then Frederick Nietzsche compared religion to alcohol. His metaphor was to illustrate people's desire for escapism and denying what Nietzsche would say to ignore uncomfortable truths.

Great argument

I'm not religious myself, but for better and for worse, religions can be very very good at producing cooperation within ingroups. Religious people tend to look out for each other more, and even as some rituals may seem silly, the communal aspect, bringing people together and making them feel like a part of a bigger whole fosters a certain level of compassion that can help a lot. On the flip-side, for *outgroups,* it tends to lead to condemnation, vilification and terrible, *terrible* conflicts. Some of the worst behaviors we saw humans do were committed in the name of religion. Also, even just that first part can go too far, swinging easily into the negatives. Brainwashy cults that may be designed to keep people unquestioningly loyal and control them, possibly extorting them in the process or even going so far as to end in ritual suicide... Stuff like that is absolutely crazy. So I gotta wonder whether it is possible to have your cake and eat it too here: Could there be a way to give rise to the compassion and community benefits without diminishing capacity to be (constructively) critical of the organization of that community? To be clear, there are plenty of people who are compassionate and kind without needing to be religious. However, it seems like something about religion can help a lot. And I think that is probably a combination of a base set of principles you can trust everybody to share with you because they are "god-given" or whatever, and a sort of forced set of community activites which enforce people meeting and being more likely to have some active interest in the wellbeing of each other. The first thing seems to be extremely difficult to make work with being free-thinking. The second thing seems to be difficult to make work with being free-acting. So maybe it's just not possible... Certainly it seems like *some* concessions would have to be made if your goal were to foster such community thinking. To some extent I really think it might be a matter of forcing people to their luck. Like, on their own, people seem to tend to avoid confrontation. - Not just *bad* confrontation. ANY confrontation. Because you always have this note of "what if I'm annoying" or "what if I'm offensive" or "boring" or "unlikable" in there. A base reluctance to interact. Obviously some people have this more than others, but I genuinely think an ever more secular society actually makes this worse. - And then you don't even dare ask for help even if you really need it and others are very willing to give it. People tend to underestimate the willingness of other people to help and overestimate how annoying they are to others. I'm saying all this, btw, while being in that boat of not really engaging a whole lot with people who are physically near me. And of not being religious what so ever. I can't bring myself to go out and meet these people. I don't even know how to *start* doing that. Just randomly burst into conversations and go "hi I'm [me] how is it going" to what effectively are strangers even if I have seen them thousands of times? Just seems so awkward. Some sort of pretext to do this would be great. And sure, religion isn't the only way to do it, but it seems to be quite an effective one. I reckon it's a much better ice breaker to ask, Iunno, perhaps "what's your fav bible passage" or something than to go "oh the weather sure is nice innit" (Not that most "casually religious" Christians these days are likely to know enough about the bible to even engage with that first idea either. The world has become a whole lot more secular. For better and for worse)

Faschinating topic and speech! But I am confused. I'd like to hear more on which ground can we critique the civil religion of wokism? It's not like the old-fashioned organised religion with specific texts, dogmas, rituals and personell, but more like an unorganised movement. Also the old religion could be seen as a form legitimisation of actual forms of oppression, but wokeness seems to think of itself more like a liberation of those actual relations. I think a distinction between formal state religion and underground informal religion is useful. For example, in Eastern Germany the Theological faculties where the breeding ground for resistanse against the enstablisment. So religion can be used as cocaine but towards a liberating route. It depends on who has the power. So not only religion is a opium for the people, but also politics can be.

Now we know why there is a sign "wall" on the wall

Isnt it quite a big distinction whether it is "opium OF the people" or "opium FOR the people"? If opium is for the people, it is being given to someone else, perhaps to induce false consciousness. If Opium is of the people, it is something people go to of their own volition. The people are either an object being acted on or a subject acting of their own volition.

Religion as ideology, Faith as Praxis. What's it have to do with Christmas? And has Islam, Judaism, and the eastern religions dilude their subjects in the same way?

Wonderful video as always! As you point out in the video, Marx theorized that religion would disappear along with, and only along with, changes in the material reality which produced the religion to begin with. As you say in your pinned comment, Marx's point is that "eternal truth, religion, and traditional morality will all become obsolete and disappear because their socioeconomic foundations will have disappeared." I was wondering, and maybe you go in depth with this in your previous videos on Wokeism which I would have to go back and watch to make sure, what you believe are the material conditions which produce Wokeism/Populism as civil religion, why they manifest as such (in their content), and what material conditions would need to be changed (and to what) in order for this "cocaine of the people" to be made obsolete. Thank you!

I was under the impression that the purpose of zen stories where the wise master says something that sounds "pragmatic and atheistic" to us is actually intended to shock the student into perceiving the "faith" with a new clarity. Like, master, you could say that the door is just a door with no spirit, but I never could. But also it could be making a point about dualism or objectification. As in, to say the door has a separate "spirit" to the window or the monk or the Buddha is wrong.

I'm not sure is so easy to separate moral and socio-economic issues as you describe towards the end of the video

In the Pokemon Go augmented reality metaphor that Zizek made, He said the Jew is the Pokemon figure which was funny, I think it applies more to wokeness. In institutions the men are really Pokemon. I've seen myself looked down on like that with overconfident false understanding often and I don't like it.

If God is characterized by what humans tend to value, namely loving, creative and intelligent, then how come Christianity is considered "slave morality"?

All he meant was that religion was keeping people content and preventing them from rising up against oppressive governments when he was trying to have a revolution. Wasn't some rallying cry to atheist redditors.

I've been saying for decades that adherents of the Book and the Bottle have a great deal in common. It's not a huge jump to move from the jigger to Jesus since both can help salve our lives and we can feel justified in salving.

Religion must be seen separately from faith. Philosopher and scientist are both guided by faith. Faith in their method, faith in the ability to uncover truths (in the sense of Popper). Religion on the other hand, is an instrument of power and the place where faith dies.

10:15 People always hated intelectuals. It happens to Socrates, to Epicurus, to Confucius, to Machiavel, to Marx, etc.

Han, I forget who I heard it from, perhaps Chris Hedges, there is a view that religion is a response of the suffering of the oppressed, that it embodies many of their experiences and sentiments. Is that something you have found in religion?

Finally.