Religion, as a historical concept, is a complex phenomenon that has a varying influence on individuals and societies. Two prominent scholars, Karl Marx and Rudolf Otto, offer contrasting ideas on the role of emotions within religion. Marx is known for his highlighting of the socio-economic conditions of the time period that play a role in how society views religion. He offers the idea that emotion is not all that relevant because religion serves more as a numbing agent, or as the “opium for the masses” and focuses on the more consumerist and psychical world. On the other hand, Otto is very convinced that emotion plays a key role in the topic of religion, giving heavy weight to what he calls the numen and the numinous, the creature feeling, and the mysterium tremendum.
To make one thing clear, Marx does discuss emotion in his work. While he does not necessarily think it is the most important feature of a society, in his own way he acknowledges the space for emotion in a religious context. He refers to the idea of religion as Opium for society so that they have a distraction from the larger issues and suffering happening in ‘real’ life. He makes it apparent that emotion is relevant in the sense that it is suppressed, and that if religion were removed, people would eventually demand “real happiness.” He creates this idea that emotions related to religion are thereby just an illusion that people have tricked themselves into believing. Moreover, he discusses the idea that systems and institutions will continue to harm the people unless something is done about it. Therefore, when emotion and religion are being discussed, one must critique the ideologies and separate emotions in order to bring about change. While Marx is much more focused on the material and social power of religion, he notes that emotions are a possible entity preventing the proletariat from moving forward.
On the other side of the spectrum, Rudolf Otto’s work highly suggests that there is a key component to the religious experience and a person’s understanding of religion. He does this by using the key facets of the numen and the numinous, the creature feeling, and the mysterium tremendous. Firstly, he believes that religion is not simply about one’s idea of what or who God is, but the special, “irreducible” emotional connection to that being and all that the religion implies is sacred. The numinous can be defined as the associated feelings of terror, awe, and mystery in a divine way. It is an indescribable feeling that cannot be properly expressed in words. This numinous experience is characterized by an emotional response that goes beyond the rational ideal. Furthermore, Otto introduces the idea of the “creature-feeling,” which is an addition to the numinous experience. This feeling involves terror or horror in the religious experience and must be experienced to be truly understood. He explains that it is a response to an objective presence that impacts and changes individuals. The “mysterium tremendum,” then adds on to understand the emotional experience when confronting the divine. It involves feelings of fear, awe, and mystery. To conclude, it is clear that Marx’s understanding of emotions in relation to religion shows the reasons why it is a negative to explore, while Otto’s interpretation illuminates a far more positive interaction between those two powers.
The concept of how religion can shape society and examine critiques and different perspectives is extremely important to how we all see the world.