Drug of Choice?

Is Religion Like a Drug? | Rev | BBC Comedy Greats, via YouTube

“You’ll feel that God reached out to you with his love.”

“What does that feel like, then?”

“Well, on a good day, that feels like heaven. I feel at peace. I feel a real sense of connection to others... an absence of anything bad. And there are moments when I almost feel like I’m surfing on a great wave of hope and love.”

“Bit like doing Ecstasy, then?”

Is Religion Like a Drug? | Rev | BBC Comedy Greats, via YouTube

The human brain is an electro-chemical computer. We know that it’s affected by chemicals, and we know that it’s affected by electromagnetic radiation, though (sadly, it needs to be said) there is absolutely NO credible evidence that cellphones, wifi, or 5G have any significant effect – they’re the wrong type of radiation, and not strong enough (by several orders of magnitude) to do anything.

When it comes to chemicals, we have a lot of information about how different classes of drugs work in different ways. For electromagnetic radiation, we’re talking about transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS), and similar techniques, some of which involve the insertion of electrodes directly into the brain.

But now that we’re starting to understand the brain in more detail, we’re learning about behaviours which appear to work on the brain in ways similar to (or identical to) the ways that chemicals and electromagnetic radiation do.

Like religion.

In 1843, Karl Marx wrote the famous phrase which I had always heard translated as “religion is the opiate of the masses”, though here it is in full:

“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.”

Karl Marx, 1843

In the 19th century, opium was both a popular medicine for a wide variety of complaints, and a recreational drug in common use. For Marx, the wording suggests that religion is both a comfort to oppressed people and a means of control over those people. Religion was not simply an individual phenomenon, but also a societal reaction to underlying issues, and would likely disappear (or be significantly less prevalent) once those underlying issues were addressed.

As a side-note, some people will immediately become hostile when hearing things like “Marx”, or “socialism”. Ask them to define “socialism” – if they can’t, you can simply disregard most of what they say about it. If they persist, ask them about existing “socialist” programs which should presumably be cancelled, like public infrastructure, Medicare/Medicaid, and Social Security. (Using US examples, with the desperate hope that the question will be less likely from a Canadian...) At that point you should be able to determine whether they have a consistent worldview, or one made of sand.

Now that we understand more about how religion works, it is fairly clear that it affects the brain in ways similar to drugs and electromagnetic radiation. This article discusses a popular study of the impact of religion on the brain, and also some of the ways in which different features of a given religious practice might have an impact on different areas of the brain.

Getting back to Marx, I’d say that the word “opium” should be taken as “drug” in the generic sense, rather than specifically referring to opiate drugs. In this sense, an interesting question is about which drug corresponds to which religious group, and the metaphorical possibilities are endless.

In the above example from Rev, the effects of MDMA (aka ecstasy, or molly) generally include euphoria and increased sociability, while other religions might be more analogous to cannabis, inducing relaxation and altered perceptions. Neither drug is strongly associated with violence, except in extreme cases. From a societal perspective, then, the negative impact of these drugs is comparatively small.

In contrast, if we look at Christian Nationalists and MAGA supporters, we see two separate (but sometimes overlapping) groups of Trump supporters, which can fairly easily be defined as cults. If we go searching for drugs to correspond with these groups, the ones which most easily come to my mind are crack cocaine or methamphetamine – these are powerful stimulants which are highly addictive and can contribute to aggressive action (check), anxiety (check), and a variety of other problematic behaviours (check). Both of these drugs are strongly correlated with violence and disruptive behaviour.

The common elements appear to be loss of nuance, and extremism. Groups which practice empathy and understand nuance find ways to collaborate and find solutions to shared problems. In stark contrast, we see extremists who ignore facts, believe fiction, and rejoice in the suffering they see caused – but only if it’s happening to the “other”. (When it happens to them, or someone close to them, we usually see rationalization and a belief that there must be some mistake...)

The important question remains: What can we can do about it?

First, we need to be aware of what is happening. None of this was unpredictable for anyone truly paying attention, and there have been those “screaming from the rooftops” since before the 2016 election (Indeed, people like Carl Sagan were warning about this sort of thing in the 1980s, and earlier) . As time went on, the danger became clearer, and the screams became louder, but not enough people were willing to see what was happening. Even now, many appear unaware of the fact that none of this is normal.

We’re long past the point where we can afford to ignore the reality of what is happening. We need to push back against the fascism that extremists are trying to normalize.

To quote Barack Obama (again), “How hard can that be, saying that Nazis are bad?”

Cheers!