Gupta 1

Ishita Gupta

Professor Sandipto Dasgupta

Professor Pratap Bhanu Mehta

Western Political Thought II

3 May 2019

Marx and Nietzsche on Religion

Marx and Nietzsche, both are believed to be some of the biggest critiques of religion. They both

have famous and misquoted lines like religion is the opium of the masses and God is dead. In

this paper, I will analyse Marx and Nietzsche’s criticism of religion by highlighting their basic

assumptions. Further, I will also highlight the difference and similarities between their

approaches.

Firstly, I will lay down Marx’s idea and criticism of religion. He develops his idea of religion by

using his concept of the material conception of history. He presupposes about two things,

history and the man. He assumes history to be based on the material and social relations of the

society. In the German Ideology, he argues that “the basic premise is that men must be in a

position to live in order to be able to “make history ``'' (Marx, 1932). In order to survive, man

needs to produce items, i.e., clothing, eating and drinking. Hence, he argues “the first historical

act is thus the production of the means to satisfy these needs, the production of material life

itself” (Marx, 1932). Furthermore, he supposes, production of material life to be “a

fundamental condition of all history” (Marx, 1932) as it required to maintain and sustain human

life. Therefore, according to Marx, ““history of humanity” must always be studied and treated
 Gupta 2

in relation to the

“history of industry and exchange” (Marx, 1932). Additionally, in the Economics and Political

Manuscript 1844, Marx argues that man is his true self when he is connected to his society, his

surrounding (Marx, 1959). He believes it is also essential for humans to have a sense of purpose

and know themselves (Marx, 1959) .

He uses these notion to build on Feuerbach’s idea of religion. Feuerbach, in the Essence of

Christianity, argues that religious essence is not inherent to men, it is rather created by men as

a reflection of their own ideal and notions (Feuerbach, 1843). Marx goes a step further and

argues that religion is not inherent but is created by society. Marx, due to his presupposition of

man as a social animal, thinks man and society are inseparable, therefore, society creates

religion is similar to man creates religion because man is a tangible entity which forms the

society. Additionally, he believes, religion is also a by-product of social and material conditions

of the world. As a consequence, religion is also created by society. In Critique of Hegel’s

Philosophy of Right, he writes,

“...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” (Marx, 1843).

 Gupta 3

Therefore, Marx argues that religion is created by a society whose men are not self-conscious

and religion is a reflection of their notions of an ideal man. He calls it an “illusion” created by

the inverted world to reflects their ideals - which is the inverted consciousness (Marx, 1843).

For Marx, this illusion is problematic because it alienates human being even further.

Additionally, due to its perception as being a way to become self-conscious, people follow

religion to become less alienated, however, they get more alienated. Owing to this, they are

trapped in this vicious cycle; therefore, Marx writes, it becomes like “the opium of the masses”

(Marx, 1844). Marx highlights, religion propagates the idea of there being a creature called God,

who is above and beyond everyone. God, is the only creature through which man can identify

himself. Hence, Marx argues, the man due to their inherent need to become self-conscious

becomes dependent on God’s will. He illustrates religion acts as a “the sigh of the oppressed

creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions” (Marx, 1844). This,

however, increases the man’s alienation as is now dependent on God rather than himself to

become self-conscious. Therefore, the man becomes self-estranged and alienated.

Consequently, the man desires more religion because he has become more self-estranged. He

requires religion, the illusion, even more than before now. Hence, he is attracted to it even

more and gets trapped in this vicious cycle. Consequently, religion becomes like opium for the

masses which makes the numb and more dependent on it.

According to Marx, the only way to break out of this cycle is by changing the structure of the

society. As showcased earlier, Marx thinks that religion is created by the society which is
 Gupta 4

defined by its social and material relationships. Therefore, in order to change the ills of society,

one should change its social and material conditions. Thus, one should criticise this structure of

society rather than religion. Due to this, for a man to be his ideal self, it is essential to move to a

society which has abandoned these present social and material conditions. He writes, “the

struggle against religion is indirectly the struggle against that world of which religion is the

spiritual aroma” (Marx, 1844). Hence, while theorising communism, he argues that there will be

no religion in communism because the social and material relations would not alienate any

man, hence, religion as an escape from reality would not be created (Marx, 2008).

Now, I will lay down Nietzsche's idea and criticism of religion. Nietzsche’s, unlike Marx, does a

psychological analysis to understand human power dynamics and its impact on morality. Firstly,

it is imperative to understand the assumptions Nietzsche uses this to build his idea and criticism

of religion. He believes Will to power to be an essential and inevitable concept that impacts all

human being. According to him, Will to power is the man’s urge to be the most powerful and

stronger than everyone else. In his work, Gay Science, he also shows that due to this will to

power, the man has a deep-rooted need to see others suffer (Williams & Nauckhoff, 2001). In

Beyond Good and Evil, also he writes, “...will have to be an incarnate will to power, it will strive

to grow, spread, seize, become predominant – not from any morality or immorality but because

it is living and because life simply is will to power” (Nietzsche, 2014).

Based on the above assumption of will to power, Nietzsche showcases that religion is

intertwined with morality. In his book, the Genealogy of Morals, he argues that in the Pre-
 Gupta 5

Socratic era, men with “superiority in power or by visible signs of superiority, for example, as

“the rich”, “the possessors”...” were associated with words like “noble” and “aristocratic” which

were considered “good”(Nietzsche, 1967). Simultaneously, people of low status were deemed

as “common” and “low” which further developed into the concept of “bad.” Nietzsche provides

an example that the German word schlecht which means bad is similar to the word schlicht

which means simple (Nietzsche, 1967). This classification was seen tangible as it was considered

in line with nature and was not just in accordance to and for morals, including religious morals.

However, Nietzsche highlights that this categorization of good with powerful and rich, and bad

with common and poor was changed due to the “slave revolt in morality”, which was born out

of the priestly caste ressentiment (Nietzsche, 1967). The priestly caste, due to its inability to

fight wars was not associated with noble and aristocratic morals as these values “presupposed

a powerful physicality” (Nietzsche, 1967). This difference in power dynamics created tensions

between the warrior’s caste and the priestly caste. The priestly caste, consumed by

ressentiment, sought to take the “most spiritual revenge” to become more powerful than the

others (Nietzsche, 1967). Nietzsche explains that weak and impotent man’s ressentiment is

more problematic than the strong man’s ressentiment. The strong and the noble, if every

consumed by ressentiment, become exhausted and are not “poisoned” by ressentiment to take

revenge (Nietzsche, 1967). Whereas, the weak and impotent, when overtaken with

ressentiment, become clever, and are driven to take the most brutal form of revenge. This is

due to their “need to direct one’s view outward instead of back to oneself is the essence of

ressentiment”(Nietzsche, 2014). Owing to this, the weak create an image of the enemy as the
 Gupta 6

“evil one.” The “evil enemy”, created by the priestly caste, has the qualities of the warrior

caste: aggression, desire to fight, hunting, etc. Consequently, the image of the “good” one is

born out as the antithesis of the evil one (Nietzsche, 1967).

These associations created by the slave’s morality (priestly caste) are different from the

categories created earlier as they first created the image of ‘good’, further, using these notions

the idea of ‘bad’ originated. Additionally, Nietzsche also highlights that this idea of the ‘evil’

differs from the notions of the ‘bad’ as the notions of the “evil one” is a product of “unsatisfied

hatred” (Nietzsche, 1967). In order to create these associations, the priestly caste put forth the

idea that the “ugly, week, sick, deprived are blessed by God” and men with good values are all

alone (Nietzsche, 1967). Therefore, priestly ressentiment gave birth to the moral revolt which

changed the power dynamics by inverting the aristocratic-slave relation.

The consequence of this change in power relations is highly problematic for Nietzsche. He

argues that the slave while inverting the aristocratic-slave associations created a new master

for themselves, God, who becomes a means to glorify suffering and condemn the aggressive.

He writes, the Christian faith “is from the beginning sacrifice: sacrifice of all freedom, all pride,

all self-confidence of the spirit…” (Nietzsche, 2014). He provides an example of this glorification

by pointing out that wherever religious ideas have spread, three ideas come along with it:

“fasting, solitude and sexual abstinence. ” (Nietzsche, 2014). Hence, according to him, these

ideas of sacrifice and self-control are constructed to be seen as more religious. Additionally, to

ensure man does not move away from this morality, any deviation like great intelligence,
 Gupta 7

standing alone, etc, are also considered “evil” and immoral (Nietzsche, 1967). This scares the

masses and they follow the path of religion. This, in turn, preserves the present power

relations.

This idea of free will is intrinsically central to religion, especially in Christian morality, and is

extremely problematic for Nietzsche. He believes that humans make decisions based on several

factors which may or may not be in their control. In Human, All Too Human, he writes,

“The fable of intelligible freedom. .... Now one finally discovers that this nature [of man] cannot be

responsible, since it is completely a necessary consequence and is assembled from the elements and

influences of past and present things; consequently one is not responsible for anything, not for his

nature, nor his motives, nor his actions, nor for his effects. Thereby one achieves the knowledge that the

history of moral sensations is the history of an error, the error of responsibility which rests on the error of

freedom of the will.” (Gemes and Janaway, 2006)

This argument of Nietzsche stands in tangent to the idea of free will which seems central to

Christian morality. Further, he argues, owing to the idea of free will, the agent can be held

responsible for his/her actions. As a consequence Christianity and religion as a whole gives birth

to notions like Guilt, Blame and Punishment. As people believe they are the agents responsible

for making their own decisions, they hold themselves or other accountable for their deeds. We

blame because we hold the other or ourselves responsible for that action, this, in turn, justifies

punishment (Gemes and Janaway, 2006). However, for Nietzsche, this concept is problematic

because guilt leads to the self-destruction of the man.

 Gupta 8

Self-destruction of man is probably the most consequential and essential ill-effect for Nietzsche.

Three things are the basis of his argument: will to power, guilt and sacrifice. He argues that the

idea of self-restraint in religion prevents man from practising his inherent nature: to make

someone suffer or to see them suffer which is a consequence of their will to be most powerful.

In order to fulfil his need, the man turns inwards and makes himself the victim. Due to the guilt

of making certain decisions, he punishes himself instead. This satisfies his need to see someone

suffer and he believes he is practising morality. He writes, “For every sufferer instinctively seeks

a cause for his suffering; still more precisely, a perpetrator, still more specifically, a guilty

perpetrator who is susceptible to suffering” (Nietzsche, 1967). Hence, self-destruction becomes

an inescapable product of religion and is probably the most problematic for him.

Nietzsche, unlike his contemporaries, does not believe that with the coming of the Age of

Enlightenment society will be saved from ill-effects of the world created due to religion. This

idea of his captured in his famous line: “God is dead” (Nietzsche, 2002). He does not mean that

god, as an entity is dead, but with the coming of Age of Enlightenment the entire society which

is based on the concept of Christian morality is going to collapse and disorient (Anderson,

2017). However, Nietzsche does not believe in reason which would now be the basis of the

structure of society. He believes, like religion, they are also illusions and falsifications created

by man. Therefore, according to Nietzsche, even with the coming of the Age of Enlightenment

man will still face problems.

 Gupta 9

In my opinion, Nietzsche’s theory on the role of sacrifice in religious practices can be extended

to Hindu baba’s and saints. Like Nietzsche argument, these babas too propagate the idea of

sacrifice and have sacrificed everything, like family, money, home, ambition, to find salvation or

god and help others find god. However, it is ironic that they are the ones with the most power

and influence. They are worshipped wherever they go and are treated with the utmost respect.

Additionally, according to the Hindu ideology, you are the agent and you will be punished or

rewarded based on the deeds you commit. Therefore, if you sacrifice worldly pleasures you will

attain salvation.

Both, Nietzsche and Marx, are critics of religion, however, their approaches and assumptions

are significantly different. Marx’s critique of the religion rests on his theory of the material

concept of history. On the Contrary, Nietzsche criticism of morality and religion is depended on

his psychological analysis of morality. Furthermore, Marx claims that at the end of suffering

(removal of all social and material conditions that alienate humans) there is freedom

(communism). Nietzsche would argue that this presumption about suffering is created by weak,

sickly men who are influenced by the Christian morals and religion which glorifies suffering. He

would consider this theory dubious as he believes propagation of sacrifice has self-destructive

effects “like guilt and ascetic self-denial” (Anderson, 2017). Lastly, Marx’s criticism of religion

is his means to expose the questionable structure of society and builds into his bigger idea of

the consequences of capitalism and finding an ideal society. This is remarkably different from

Nietzsche, who is trying to understand the self-destructive effects of morality.

 Gupta 10

Irrespective of their differences there exist some similarities between Marx and Nietzsche’s

criticism of religion. Marx and Nietzsche, both highlight that religion is created by the man and

not inherent to man’s nature. While Marx argues it was produced by society as an illusion,

Nietzsche suggests it originated due to the inversion of aristocratic-slave morality. Additionally,

they both would agree that religion as a concept is dubious and it traps the man. They don’t

agree with the idea that God, as a supernatural entity, will help a man become his true self.

Marx argues it is a social concept created as an illusion. On the other hand, Nietzsche provides

psychological insight into the ill-effects produced due to the propagation of such ideas.

Hence, one could argue that despite there being a significant difference between Nietzsche and

Marx’s approach they both think of the agree that religion has ill-effects on society and

mankind. Marx’s critique of the religion comes out of his bigger idea regarding the flaws in the

present societal structure. Religion, for him, is created by the society to act as an illusion as a

path to become self-consciousness, ironically, Marx argues, it is self-alienating. Nietzsche, on

the contrary, understands religion as a means to inverse the old and retain the new power

dynamics. He wants to understand the relationship between the ascetic ideas propagated, i.e.,

sacrifice, love, kindness, and the ressentiment (hatred) religion is built on and its consequences.
 Gupta 11

References

Anderson, R. L. (2017, March 17). Friedrich Nietzsche. Retrieved from

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/

Feuerbach, L. (n.d.). The Essence of Christianity. Retrieved from

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/feuerbach/works/essence/index.htm

Gemes, K., & Janaway, C. (2006, 06). Nietzsche On Free Will, Autonomy And The Sovereign

Individual. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Hardback), 106(1), 321-338.

doi:10.1111/j.0066-7373.2006.00135.x

Marx, K. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/preface.htm

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/

Marx, K. (n.d.). Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. Retrieved from

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2008). The communist manifesto, with: The condition of the working class

in England in 1844. Wordsworth.

Nietzsche, F. W., Hollingdale, R. J., & Tanner, M. (2014). Beyond good and evil: Prelude to a

philosophy of the future. Penguin Classics, an imprint of Penguin Books.

Nietzsche, F., Kaufmann, W. A., & Hollingdale, R. J. (1967). On the Genealogy of morals ; Ecce

homo ; Friedrich Nietzsche. Vintage Books, div. of Random House.

Williams, B. A., & Nauckhoff, J. (2001). Nietzsche: The Gay Science. Cambridge University Press.