In a Faith and Reason column, published in the past few months in the Otago Daily Times, the writer – a pastor – started his discourse on religion by quoting Karl Marx as saying “Religion is the opiate of the people”.

The problem is this quote is, strictly speaking, not factual.

Let’s look at what Karl Marx actually wrote in his Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right (1844) in full, which reveals a very different and much more subtle meaning:

“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.”

Marx describes religion here as the very real projection of human hopes and desires, an impulse for a better world.

But to him, religion is nonetheless a human creation that is holding back people from improving their real lives in the here and now, as they wait for “pie in the sky when you die” (that quote is from Joe Hill).

As Marx said: “Man makes religion, religion does not make man”.

I think the pastor was trying to make a point that atheism equals Karl Marx equals Stalin equals dictatorship.

Which, of course, is nonsense, as atheists have diverse social, political and economic views.

What we have in common is not believing in God.

The problem for the pastor’s argument is that if we apply the same standards to religion, we could say that it shares the “legacy of violence and repression” that he attributes to others.

Should we hold Jesus Christ responsible for the Inquisition, or the Salem witch trials, or the numerous other squalid and brutal atrocities carried out in the name of faith or under its cloak of justification?

What about Christian civilisation as encountered by the indigenous Americans or Tasmanians, or the victims of the slave trade?

I’m not seeking to rank historical horrors here.

But I suggest a good place to start is “first remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother’s eye”(Matthew 7:5).

There is an arrogance behind the attitude that if you do not agree with religion, then you are doomed to misery and hopelessness, to being a lesser person.

That’s the crude carrot and the stick method of religious indoctrination – “believe” and good things happen, don’t “believe” and bad things happen.

What we need to give our lives “meaning”, according to some recent religious correspondents to Faith and Reason, is a hotch-potch of ancient fables mangled through countless translations, featuring contradictory advice, incidents of appalling cruelty carried out by a loving God, spiced up with magic tricks and concluding with the impressive but frankly barking Book of Revelations.

Then comes the emotional manipulation.

One recent story trotted out is that of the bereft parent suffering unimaginable loss who is advised simply “to believe”.

We could perhaps ask why a benevolent creator of the universe, who pays special and particular attention to all of us, would visit such suffering on his children in the first place.

Perhaps to teach us some kind of obscure lesson, or to make us better people?Great. Good one, God.

I have no issue with the healing power of love or compassion.

But these are truly human things, a complex result of our evolution, our emotional, intellectual and cultural make-up.

Another concern is the claimed scepticism and disillusionment of modern society.

Certainly modern society has disillusionment and scepticism, although a modest level of disillusionment and scepticism is not a bad thing.

It indicates experience of life, and perhaps a level of maturity.

If scepticism is a problem, there are plenty of examples of modern day societies where religion plays a defining role and scepticism is off the menu.

The government of Iran would be one, a model of toleration and spiritual values – or perhaps not.

The United States has a enormous number of people who believe in the Christian message, or at least their own curious interpretation of it, but it can’t seem to organise basic medical care for tens of millions of their least wealthy citizens.

The meek may inherit the Earth, but they can’t get an operation when they need it.

The way we act towards each other is important, but a good life is not dependent on religious belief.

Albert Einstein, who held moderate socialist views, wrote the following in an article on religion in the New York Times Magazine, on November 9, 1930.

“A man’s ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”

Victor Billot is an atheist. He lives in Dunedin.

Contrary to received wisdom, atheists have diverse social, political and economic views, says Victor Billot. What they do have in common is not believing in God.

In a Faith and Reason column, published in the past few months, the writer – a pastor – started his discourse on religion by quoting Karl Marx as saying “Religion is the opiate of the people”.

The problem is this quote is, strictly speaking, not factual.

Let’s look at what Karl Marx actually wrote in his Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right (1844) in full, which reveals a very different and much more subtle meaning:

“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.”

Marx describes religion here as the very real projection of human hopes and desires, an impulse for a better world.

But to him, religion is nonetheless a human creation that is holding back people from improving their real lives in the here and now, as they wait for “pie in the sky when you die” (that quote is from Joe Hill).

As Marx said: “Man makes religion, religion does not make man”.

I think the pastor was trying to make a point that atheism equals Karl Marx equals Stalin equals dictatorship.

Which, of course, is nonsense, as atheists have diverse social, political and economic views.

What we have in common is not believing in God.

The problem for the pastor’s argument is that if we apply the same standards to religion, we could say that it shares the “legacy of violence and repression” that he attributes to others.

Should we hold Jesus Christ responsible for the Inquisition, or the Salem witch trials, or the numerous other squalid and brutal atrocities carried out in the name of faith or under its cloak of justification?

What about Christian civilisation as encountered by the indigenous Americans or Tasmanians, or the victims of the slave trade?

I’m not seeking to rank historical horrors here.

But I suggest a good place to start is “first remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother’s eye”(Matthew 7:5).

There is an arrogance behind the attitude that if you do not agree with religion, then you are doomed to misery and hopelessness, to being a lesser person.

That’s the crude carrot and the stick method of religious indoctrination – “believe” and good things happen, don’t “believe” and bad things happen.

What we need to give our lives “meaning”, according to some recent religious correspondents to Faith and Reason, is a hotch-potch of ancient fables mangled through countless translations, featuring contradictory advice, incidents of appalling cruelty carried out by a loving God, spiced up with magic tricks and concluding with the impressive but frankly barking Book of Revelations.

Then comes the emotional manipulation.

One recent story trotted out is that of the bereft parent suffering unimaginable loss who is advised simply “to believe”.

We could perhaps ask why a benevolent creator of the universe, who pays special and particular attention to all of us, would visit such suffering on his children in the first place.

Perhaps to teach us some kind of obscure lesson, or to make us better people?Great. Good one, God.

I have no issue with the healing power of love or compassion.

But these are truly human things, a complex result of our evolution, our emotional, intellectual and cultural make-up.

Another concern is the claimed scepticism and disillusionment of modern society.

Certainly modern society has disillusionment and scepticism, although a modest level of disillusionment and scepticism is not a bad thing.

It indicates experience of life, and perhaps a level of maturity.

If scepticism is a problem, there are plenty of examples of modern day societies where religion plays a defining role and scepticism is off the menu.

The government of Iran would be one, a model of toleration and spiritual values – or perhaps not.

The United States has a enormous number of people who believe in the Christian message, or at least their own curious interpretation of it, but it can’t seem to organise basic medical care for tens of millions of their least wealthy citizens.

The meek may inherit the Earth, but they can’t get an operation when they need it.

The way we act towards each other is important, but a good life is not dependent on religious belief.

Albert Einstein, who held moderate socialist views, wrote the following in an article on religion in the New York Times Magazine, on November 9, 1930.

“A man’s ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”

Victor Billot is an atheist. He lives in Dunedin.

The late American writer Kurt Vonnegut observed “say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying.” I agree.

The common religious belief in a “supreme being” is a psychological and social construction.

Religion is made up, an invention given credibility simply because a lot of people agree with it.

It is the product of primitive human societies which required a way to explain reality and create social rules.

Religious leaders developed in history as a privileged class who still insist they have all the answers and a direct line to the Creator of the Universe.

Yet the list of these individuals is hardly confidence-inspiring; just imagine ending up in heaven and finding your eternal flatmates are the Ayatollah Khomeini, the current Pope, and Bishop Brian Tamaki.

In our society, the “right” God is usually one of the various Christian versions.

However, it doesn’t take much to realise that if the same New Zealand pastors, priests and door-knockers happened to have been born in Iran, they would no doubt be devout Muslims, or in Timbuktu, devout followers of the established religion of Timbuktu, whatever that may be.

The basic line of most religions is that our religion is completely right and everyone else is completely wrong.

We are blessed and others will be sorted out by God. How do they know?

It says in their preferred collection of fables from the dim past.

No evidence is required and there is always the fall-back position of “faith”.

If I was to proclaim my faith in Zeus and Apollo, most people today would rightly regard me as a lunatic.

Yet absolutely nothing separates faith in Zeus and Apollo from faith in Christianity or Islam in any respect but current popularity.

If religion had not been challenged by reason, and free-thinking independent minds, we would still languish in the dark ages.

Most major Western religions are filled with guilt and sadistic violence.

Their so-called “message of love” is complemented by a message of fear and retribution.

If you don’t obey the angry male father figure in the sky, you will be thrown out of paradise, burned, drowned, cursed by plague, turned into a pillar of salt, plunged into eternal torment etc – the vengeful imagination of our loving creator knows no bounds. One could say the “love” of God is conditional.

Love me, and more importantly obey me, or face the consequences.

Even if God existed, why would people wish to “worship” such a psychopathic control freak? By all decent standards, if such an individual was human, he would be locked away for the safety and wellbeing of the rest of us.

Why can’t we take this disturbing God character out of the equation and just treat each other with compassion and respect for their own sake, rather than because we want a reward or to avoid punishment?

Religious advocates often assert science “does not have all the answers”. Of course science does not have all the answers.

Nor does it claim to, unlike religion which pretends to have the answers for everything, even if those answers are gibberish.

Religion encourages mindless obedience and unshakeable certainty, not reason.

Those who reject scientific concepts such as evolution seem to generally have no problem with aeroplanes, electricity, hygiene, dental care and all the other products of applied science and reason that we enjoy.

This is complete hypocrisy.

Thanks to reason, we have realised we are not at the centre of the universe, woman was not created from the spare rib of the first man, and that the earth is unlikely to have been created in seven days (although that would have been far more efficient and impressive than the boring several billion years it did take).

The reality revealed and investigated by reason is far more complex, amazing and wonderful than the cramped one-stop shop presented by religion. So much for faith.

Science doesn’t provide a moral or ethical framework, but it is a way of describing reality far superior to religious explanations.

It allows us to a limited degree to understand why people are the way they are, and to a limited extent act the way they act.

This does not create a moral or social framework in itself, but can inform the way we look at moral and social questions.

There are many moral or ethical ideas or behaviours that can be adhered to without believing in superstition, and it is about time religion was challenged on its self-appointed moral high ground.

My argument is not that religion is the sole cause of the world’s problems, and obviously there are countless decent people of both religious and non-religious opinion.

I support freedom of religion, which in my case means freedom from religion.

However, an outlook based on reason, openness, respect and dignity is possible and in my view preferable, even if it does not always provide simplistic easy answers to the tough questions.

It will be difficult to move to a post-religious world.

The disappearance of religion has dangers, too, if people are simply going to fill its absence with mindless consumerism or ego-driven selfishness, the creed of modern capitalism.

But move to a non-religious world we must, if humanity is to survive and grow beyond a dangerous and challenging century ahead.