Marx claimed religion is the opium of the people. Science suggests he was right (sort of)

Karl Marx famously described religion as “the opium of the people.” He meant that religion comforted people in difficult circumstances, much like a drug eases pain, but also distracted them from confronting the real causes of their suffering.

Interestingly, modern scientific research suggests that Marx may have been partly right, though perhaps not in the way he intended.

An international team of researchers from universities including Cambridge and King’s College London studied people from 24 worshipping communities, most of them mainstream Christian churches. They found evidence, published last week by the Royal Society, that taking part in religious services is associated with the release of naturally occurring opioids in the brain - the same family of chemicals involved in pain relief and feelings of wellbeing.

Scientists have known for some time that social bonding in animals triggers the release of these chemicals. For example, when primates groom one another, their brains release opioids that strengthen social relationships. The researchers wanted to know whether something similar happens when people worship together.

To investigate, they measured participants’ sense of social connection and their tolerance for physical pain before and after taking part in religious activities. They found statistically significant improvements in both. Activities such as communal singing, praying together, sharing rituals and moving in synchrony appears to strengthen people’s sense of belonging while also increasing their ability to tolerate discomfort. Preachers may be relieved that they didn’t test for pain responses during sermons!

A beneficial by-product?

The researchers suggested that these shared activities are especially far-reaching because they involve a whole community rather than just two individuals engaged in mutual grooming. They also argued that religious worship may be more effective than secular gatherings because it involves shared purpose, sacred meaning and a sense of transcendence - although football fans might not agree.

Some people see this research as evidence that religion can be fully explained by evolution and neuroscience. In this view, human beings developed religious practices because they helped groups cooperate, reduced stress and strengthened communities. Belief in God, they argue, is simply a by-product of these beneficial social behaviours.

This fits with the familiar claim that religion is merely a psychological ‘crutch’ that helps people cope with life. Science, they say, has now uncovered the biological mechanisms that explain why church attendance makes people feel better.

Communal singing, praying together, sharing rituals and moving in synchrony increases ability to tolerate discomfort

If you already believe that God does not exist, this explanation may seem sufficient. The brain rewards us for participating in rituals that strengthen communities and, over time, human beings developed religious beliefs around those practices.

But does this research tell us whether Christianity is more likely to be false than true? Bluntly, it does not. Instead, it is a good example of the ‘genetic fallacy’. This is the mistake of thinking that you can judge whether a belief is true simply by explaining how people came to hold it.

Take the example of the crutch. Someone may need a crutch because they have a broken ankle. The need, in itself, does not call into question the existence of crutches. Using this analogy to discredit faith only works if you have a prior commitment to the claim being false. Philosophers call this “begging the question”, because you must already be committed to the premise you are trying to prove to make the argument work.

If the claims of the Christian faith are true, it is irrational to reject them on the grounds of the associated benefits - just as irrational as hobbling around on a broken ankle because you have formed the incorrect belief that crutches don’t exist. Even if faith brings psychological or physical benefits, this does not tell us whether God exists. The benefits themselves neither prove or disprove Christianity’s truth claims. 

The crutch and the compliment

In everyday life, we often accept that events have more than one valid explanation. Suppose my wife asks why the kettle is boiling. I could answer by describing electricity flowing through the heating element and transferring energy to the water. That would be scientifically accurate. Telling her that Bob has popped round and I’m making a pot of tea might be closer to the answer she expected.

While both accounts are true and complementary, they answer different kinds of questions. The scientific explanation describes the physical process, while the second explains the purpose behind it. One does not replace the other; the scientific explanation does not invalidate the fact that Bob is sitting at our kitchen table.

Worship may be more effective than secular gatherings because it involves shared purpose, sacred meaning and a sense of transcendence

The same principle applies here. Neuroscience may explain what happens in our brains during worship, without saying anything about the existence of God. These are different questions.

The truth claims of our faith must stand or fall by the strength of the evidence and reason we use to defend them. We should not confuse them with accounts, however true, of what neuroscience might show us. We rightly call on the services of philosophy, natural sciences, historical record, personal testimony and the internal witness of the Holy Spirit to form a broad base of evidence and reason which lend credence to our faith.

Comfort and community

Imagine a man standing before a hillside during the California gold rush of 1849. He decides to dig because he believes there might be gold there. He is motivated by the hope of becoming rich. Now suppose a sceptic leaning on his shovel says: “Your desire to become wealthy explains why you are digging the hole. Therefore, we should doubt that you will find any gold.”

That conclusion obviously makes no sense. His motivation explains why he started digging, but it has nothing to do with whether the gold is actually there.

The same distinction applies to Christianity. The fact that people may be motivated by the comfort, community or emotional benefits of faith does little to cast doubt on whether God is real. But this new research does offer us valuable insights.

It helps explain why communal worship strengthens relationships, improves wellbeing and benefits both individuals and communities. Those findings are certainly interesting and worth reading (you can read them here)

If God created human beings for relationship with Him and one another, we shouldn’t be surprised that we are hardwired to enjoy measurable benefits when we gather for worship - whether those are chemical, neurological, social or spiritual.

Karl Marx rejected Christianity’s truth claims. Yet, perhaps unintentionally, he may have been right about one thing. Religion really can act a little like opium - but don’t let anyone tell you that this casts doubt on the foundation of our faith.