Is Marx correct or incorrect?

In discussing Marx’s quote, I thought your choice of the word “outlet” exactly captured what would make Marx correct – if in fact we see religion as an outlet, a “sort of release from the pressure of daily life”, then it is little better than an opiate. If, on the other hand, we see religion as a way of proactively engaging with the rest of the world, rather than as a means of escape, Marx is incorrect.

To what extent does religion provide answers to questions we cannot answer otherwise?

I actually don’t think religion provides answers to questions we cannot answer. Religion might lead us to answers, but it cannot compel us to internalize those answers and make them our own.

Can religion give us hope that no matter how bad things may seem, everything happens for a reason?

I do think religion can do this, but I’m not sure if that’s actually so desirable. Take karma as an example – yes, it does tell us things happen for a reason, but what does this knowledge mean to us? If we interpret karma as a reason to take responsibility for our own actions, then I think this knowledge is valuable. However, if we constantly search for ways of rationalizing why things happened in the past, or if we fall into the trap of thinking we or others “deserve” something, then I think this knowledge is not just worthless but is actually destructive. So religion might tell us that everything happens for a reason, and it might suggest an answer to the question of why knowing this might be useful, but again, it cannot compel us to internalize that answer.

Is religion simply a defense mechanism in response to the existentialist threat?

Somebody once offered the following “way”:

1. Define goals. All action must be consistent with the goal.
2. Let the universe manifest itself.

I think viewing religion as a means of following this “way” might help answer your question.

At worst, religion is a defense mechanism, allowing us – or rather through which we allow ourselves – to give up responsibility for our own actions. In other words, we fail to follow the first step of the way – by giving up responsibility, we renounce our ability to define our own goals. In Hinduism, for example, we might be tempted to view karma as some amorphous force that provides order to the world, distracting ourselves from the central point that we alone must take responsibility for making our own choices and accepting the consequences of those choices. Kierkegaard made a similar point in regard to Christianity: he claimed that congregations are meaningless because they do not force Christians to control their own relationship with God.

Somewhere in the middle, religion is an “offense mechanism”, suggesting to us (not providing us) a framework for actively engaging with the world but leaving us lacking when it comes to dealing with the consequences of our actions. In other words, we fail to follow the second step of the way – by failing to accept that the universe will “manifest itself” however it will manifest itself, we become prone to destructive reaction rather than constructive action. My thinking here is much hazier, so I am not providing an especially great answer. My intuition is that if we view religion as an offensive mechanism, then we remain attached to our actions. Because I do not yet understand what it means to be detached, I cannot go further than this.

At best, religion is neither a defense mechanism nor an offense mechanism, but it suggests to us a framework for following both steps of the way.

To put all of this more succinctly, religion as a defense mechanism corresponds to failure to follow either step of the way (tamas), religion as an offense mechanism corresponds to following just the first step of the way (rajas), and religion as neither a defense nor an offense mechanism corresponds to following both steps of the way (sattva).