1

Review of the book by Yu. I. Semenov

Origin and Development of Religion, Mythology, Theology, and Religious

Philosophy

Grigory A. Zavalko

The book, published in the year marking the 90th anniversary of Yuri Ivanovich

Semenov, is not only the first scientific (i.e., Marxist) work on religion in our country since 1991

but also addresses nearly all the theoretical problems of religious studies.

Religion is belief in a supernatural force upon which the outcome of human activity, and

thus the fate and life of a person, depends. The roots of religion are not in consciousness but in

the world—in the failures of human activity aimed at transforming the world "In the beginning

was the Deed"—a principle that applies to any problem; when deeds failed, religion arose.

"The initial point distinguishing humans from animals lies in the nature of their activity.

Animals only adapt to their environment, whereas humans create things that do not exist in the

environment; they engage in production. Human activity is qualitatively different from that of

animals, and therefore the expression 'powerlessness before nature,' when applied to humans, has

an entirely different meaning than when it is applied to animals. Powerlessness literally means a

lack of power. It is important to understand what kind of power is being referred to. Clearly, it

does not mean muscular or physical power. In this respect, some animals are clearly superior to

humans. The power in question is the ability to alter nature, to subordinate it, to dominate it. This

ability presupposes the existence of specific tools or artificial means of influencing nature that

are distinct from bodily organs. Thus, power lies in the possession of specific artificial tools

enabling humans to transform or dominate certain natural phenomena. From the moment humans
 2

appeared, they possessed such power. Therefore, 'powerlessness before nature' in relation to

humans always meant not a complete absence of power but only its insufficiency in particular

areas of activity—never in all areas. In the animal world, there is nothing similar to the described

power. This is evident. Less noticeable but equally certain is the absence of the described

powerlessness in the animal world. Only such powerlessness—no other kind—could give rise to

religion. Both the power and powerlessness of humans could manifest only in one thing—the

practical (primarily productive) activity of humans. Human power is practical power. Human

powerlessness is practical powerlessness—the inability of practical activity to succeed. Humans

always set specific goals for themselves and strive to achieve them. Human power is

demonstrated when they successfully achieve their goals according to plan; powerlessness is

shown when they fail to ensure the success of their activities" (Semenov, 2019, pp. 14–19).

Unless one has internalized Marxism, nothing in human life can be truly understood—

including religion. This is vividly illustrated by the naïve, to put it mildly, bewilderment of some

scholars regarding the existence of belief in the supernatural. Examples: "Babylonian astronomy,

which was entirely rational in its methods, was based on a belief in a mysterious, irrational

connection allegedly existing between the arrangement of celestial bodies and human destinies.

This belief apparently has some very deep roots, as evidenced by the persistence of astrology,

which continues to hold sway over the minds of many people to this day." (Rozhansky, 1980, p.

10). "In the subway, there stands a man with a large magnifying glass and a sign on his chest

reading: 'I tell fortunes by palmistry.' People approach and pay money. Television weekly

broadcasts forecasts from unknown astrologers for all Scorpios, Cancers, Tauruses, etc. People

listen. Periodically, witches, healers, and psychics appear on the scene... So why do so many

people so readily succumb to the tricks of charlatans? ... There is something inherent in us that

serves as fertile ground for superstition and deception. What is it? Universal madness?
 3

Intellectual laziness instilled in the majority? Elementary ignorance?" (Nikiforov, 1998, p. 276).

There seems to be something—some very deep roots... The answer, as noted above, is practical

powerlessness. The authors, while experts in their philosophical fields, demonstrate a remarkable

lack of understanding of religion and, more broadly, the nature of the human being.

The objective causes generating religion in the primitive era were the dominance of blind,

unknown forces of nature over humans; in the era of class society, it is the power of the blind

necessity of social development, primarily manifested in class oppression.

Historical forms of religion: (1) Religions originating in primitive society, reflecting

human powerlessness before nature:

• Belief in the supernatural power of humans: magic (including mantics—divinatory

magic).

• Belief in the supernatural power of events: omenism (belief in omens).

• Belief in the supernatural power of influence: emanism.

• Belief in the supernatural power of objects: fetishism.

• Belief in the supernatural power of beings: demonism (animism).

• A hybrid of magic and demonism: shamanism.

• A fusion of fetishism and demonism: idolatry.

(2) Religions emerging in class society, reflecting human powerlessness before blind

social forces:

• Traditional-ritualistic (serviological).

• Salvation-oriented (soteriological).
 4

Primitive forms do not disappear with the emergence of class forms:

"When religious ideology and teachings arose in civilized societies, almost every religious

system contained all the above-described forms of religion. This is evident in Christianity.

Christianity is regarded as a monotheistic religion, but its God has three persons: the Father, the

Son, and the Holy Spirit. In some varieties of Christianity, there exists a cult of saints, and major

saints are attributed roles similar to minor gods in polytheistic religions. In Orthodoxy, St.

Nicholas the Wonderworker is the patron of sailors, St. George the Victorious of warriors, St.

Blaise of livestock, and so on. Christianity has a well-developed demonology. Angels are clearly

benevolent spirits, while devils are malevolent demons. The cult of miraculous icons is typical

idolatry. Not only ordinary believers but even the most learned theologians cannot clearly

explain, for example, whether the Kazan Mother of God icon possesses supernatural power or if

it is attributed to the Virgin Mary herself or to her specific representation. Emanism is clearly

evident in the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, especially in the New Testament story of its descent

upon the apostles, in the doctrine of grace, and in the sacraments of baptism, marriage, and

ordination. Fetishism is seen in the belief in holy relics, various sacred artifacts, and veneration

of the cross. Clear omenism appears in the New Testament story of the Star of Bethlehem, which

heralded Jesus Christ's birth. Examples of purely magical rituals include processions intended to

summon rain. Thus, Christian monotheism encompasses polytheism, demonism, idolatry,

emanism, fetishism, omenism, and even magic." (Semenov, 2019, pp. 66–67). Additionally:

"Exorcism" (the act of casting out demons) is shamanism.

“Gods” are not essential for religion—the very concept arises with the emergence of class

society (social stratification among humans gives rise to a similar stratification among

supernatural beings, leading to the formation of a privileged upper tier). In early Buddhism,
 5

there are no gods, but it is still a religion because its teachings “offered a path not to real, but to

supernatural salvation from suffering” (Semenov, 2019, p. 130).

The development of religion followed a lawful pattern. In class society, religion became

an important tool through which the ruling classes maintained control over the exploited masses.

Early religions of class society demanded submissive service from the laboring classes,

threatening divine punishment for any attempt to challenge the established order. These are

serviological religions (the religions of the ancient Persians, Chinese, Greeks, etc.). Later

religions introduced ideas of supernatural salvation from evil and the restoration of justice in the

afterlife. Such religions (Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, etc.) are called

soteriological religions. These are the ones generally meant when people speak of “religion” in

general, so I will focus more on their differences from serviological religions.

Serviological religions regulate behavior primarily through fear of punishment in the

afterlife, not through the promise of reward; they begin with rituals, and only occasionally do

they develop doctrines (for the first time, this occurred with Akhenaten’s teachings in Ancient

Egypt). As a result, they are unsystematic (for example, in Greek religion, who is the god of the

Sun—Apollo? Helios? The goddess of the Moon—Artemis? Selene?) and ethnically confined

(which is evident even from their names). Soteriological (soter, meaning “savior” in Greek)

religions offer hope for salvation (supernatural salvation from evil and posthumous restoration of

justice—retribution). They originate with teachings (hence there is a founder—a teacher—and a

sacred book where the doctrine is outlined). The teachings are more or less systematic, and an

adherent is someone who accepts these teachings. This results in de-ethnicization (“neither

Greek nor Jew” in Christianity, which is de-ethnicized more than others, though this does not
 6

exclude the reverse process—the emergence of ethnic variants, such as Armenian-

Gregorianism).

The conventional distinction between "world" and "ethnic" religions (a poorly chosen

term) is secondary: only soteriological religions can become world religions, though not all have,

due to an unbroken connection with a particular ethnic culture—the legacy of serviological

religions (e.g., Zoroastrianism).

The afterlife in serviological religions is a continuation of earthly life (a slave remains a

slave, a pharaoh remains a pharaoh); in soteriological religions, it is a negation of earthly life.

The enduring experience of social oppression and the impossibility of achieving natural salvation

from it led to the emergence of faith in supernatural salvation: Christ triumphed because

Spartacus lost, as Hainchelin remarked (I would add that not only Spartacus but also the Gracchi,

Brutus, and even Caesar, who initially triumphed—all classes of antiquity lost, which led to the

triumph of Christianity with its hatred for all things earthly).

In soteriological religions, for the first time, the afterlife is prioritized over earthly

existence—this world becomes a trial before the judgment of the afterlife. From the perspective

of adherents of these religions, this places them above all others (serviological and primitive

religions, together labeled “paganism”); from the perspective of common sense, it reflects the

belief that the most interesting part begins in the grave; and from a scientific perspective, it is the

inevitable consequence of the inescapability of social oppression in earthly life.

These religions generally arise among the oppressed (with the exception of Islam—a

religion of conquerors—which initially promised posthumous rewards to fallen warriors and

only became a consolation for the oppressed after the aggressive period had ended), but
 7

eventually begin to serve the oppressors. The ideas of supernatural salvation from evil and

posthumous retribution were “a form of protest by the masses against existing social orders. But

it was a form of protest that comforted the oppressed and reconciled them with their reality. This

is precisely why these ideas could be embraced and exploited by the ruling classes. In them,

particularly in the idea of posthumous retribution, the ideologists of the ruling classes found what

they lacked. They could now offer the oppressed masses a reward for following the religious

teachings—bliss in the afterlife… Religion turned out to be capable not only of intimidating

people but also of comforting them” (Semenov, 2019, pp. 117–118). The serviological stick was

complemented by the soteriological carrot. Soteriological religions do not need to be

imposed—they attract people naturally; in the truest sense, they are the opium of the people.

The author mentions V. B. Meister's book “…And They Shall Be Rewarded…”

Posthumous Retribution: Toward the History of the Idea (1999). Taking this opportunity, I

would like to draw the reader's attention to it. In this unique study of the topic, it is clearly

demonstrated that for the idea of retribution to arise, the oppressed must become aware of the

inescapability of oppression (not just its severity), which is not an immediate realization. The

book also explores how this idea eventually comes to serve the oppressors:

"...The refracted social protest of the oppressed, shaped through the lens of a worldview

influenced by the idea of posthumous retribution, led to the distortion of many universal human

values, including moral ones. This distortion of universal morality gave rise to an entirely new

system of specifically religious (truly religious) morality, a product of the distorted imagination

of the masses crushed by class oppression. The extreme—and thus most distorted—rejection of

class oppression by the exploited led, in turn, to the extreme distortion of universal human

morality, resulting in norms and principles of specifically religious morality that, because of their
 8

extreme distortion, could not be practically followed by either the upper or lower classes of

society. Thus, religion sanctified celibacy, fasting, the refusal to treat illnesses, and other forms

of asceticism, including the most fanatical practices (castration, silence, hermitage, etc.), as well

as foolishness, self-humiliation, love for enemies, and so on.

The replacement of universal human morality, shared by both the exploited and the

exploiters, with specifically religious morality allowed religion to simultaneously condemn both

the oppressors and the oppressed. For example, the sanctification of asceticism and the

renunciation of worldly goods not only condemned the exploiters indulging in luxury, but also

the exploited, who, in order to maintain their labor capacity, could not weaken themselves like

ascetic fanatics who refrained from productive labor. In this case, only professional ascetics, who

formed a peculiar parasitic stratum of society, were considered virtuous. Consequently,

specifically religious morality instilled a sense of sinfulness in the oppressed, diverting their

efforts away from resisting class exploitation and toward battling their own sinfulness, which

was expressed in satisfying essential needs, striving for happiness, and pursuing universal human

values. Thus, the social protest of the exploited against the system of class oppression was

replaced by the condemnation of the exploited themselves. As a result, the early condemnation

by the poor of their oppressors, which arose during the formation of the doctrine of posthumous

retribution and was expressed in the form of norms of secular morality included in the religious

moral framework, was significantly weakened. The simultaneous condemnation of both the

oppressors and the oppressed by specifically religious morality gave it the appearance of

supraclass morality." (Meister, 1999, p. 99).

Religion undermines, rather than strengthens, morality. This is something to keep in mind

when confused atheists write pitiful statements like: “In one—most important—area, scientists
 9

can productively interact with religion. That area is morality” (Kardashev, n.d. p. 6);

“Righteousness, which is true faith, is humanity” (Biske, 2019, p. 187), and so on.

Where class systems have existed for a long time, serviological religions die out. Only

Shintoism and Confucianism have survived to this day (the latter, in its narrower sense, is not a

religion but merely Confucius’ teachings; in its broader sense, it is a synthesis of ancient Chinese

serviological religion with these teachings)—and only because they are practiced alongside

soteriological Buddhism and Daoism. Hinduism and Judaism evolved from their corresponding

serviological religions when they incorporated soteriological ideas.

Mythology should be distinguished from religion. A myth “explains” natural and social

phenomena as the result of the actions of intelligent beings. If religion is pseudo-help, then myth

is a pseudo-explanation. Religion arises when something goes wrong; myth arises when people

do not understand something. In primitive societies, they existed separately; in class-based

society, they merged—soteriological religion, in its “explanatory” part as outlined in sacred

texts, became religious mythology. It is myth, not religion per se, that is akin to idealism in

philosophy and infiltrates it in the form of teleology (the predetermination of events by a goal set

by a deity).

"Totemism, in its original form, was not religion. Myths, too, initially arose

independently of religion and were not religious. We are dealing with a completely independent

evolutionary line of one aspect of the spiritual life of people in primitive (and later) societies,

which only later intersected with the development of religious ideas and had a significant impact

on them. Totemism, in its original form, represented a deep, unquestionable belief in the

complete identity of the members of a particular human collective (initially a proto-community,

later a clan) with individuals of a specific animal species (bears, wolves, deer, etc.). This species
 10

of animal, and thus every individual of that species, was the totem of that group of people, and

by extension, any of its members. Essentially, totemism was nothing more than the recognition

of the real unity of a human collective, the fundamental commonality of all its members, and at

the same time, their equally fundamental distinction from members of all other human

collectives on Earth. If all the previously discussed forms of religion, excluding polytheism, were

reflections of the domination of blind natural necessity over people, then totemism was a

reflection of the domination of the forces of social development over humans—a reflection not

of natural, but of social existence. This reflection, like the one in magic, omenism, and other

phenomena, of the dominance of objective natural forces over people, was inadequate, illusory,

and fantastical. Therefore, totemism, like magic, omenism, fetishism, and others, was a belief.

All of this led to the interpretation of totemism as one of the forms of religion. However, such an

understanding of totemism is not acceptable. The concepts of illusion and religion are far from

identical. Every religion is an illusory reflection of reality, but not every illusory reflection of

reality is religion. Various non-religious illusions can and do exist. Religion is only such an

illusion that includes, as an integral element, belief in a supernatural force, upon which the

course and outcome of human actions depend—a belief in the supernatural influence on human

fate. If such belief is absent, an illusion cannot be characterized as religious, no matter how

fantastical its ideas may be. It is precisely in totemism that mythology has its roots: the first

myths were totemic...

The first objects of mythological interpretation and explanation were not social

institutions or natural phenomena, but specific human actions. These actions were not the usual,

mundane deeds dictated by everyday circumstances (making tools, hunting, cooking, etc.). These

actions were already understood. Nor were they magical or generally cultic actions. These, too,

were understood: people performed them to ensure the success of practical activities. The
 11

mysterious actions were non-religious ritualistic acts passed down from generation to generation

and performed by tradition... non-religious ritual actions primarily included those performed by

people at totemic celebrations." (Semenov, 2019, pp. 71–75).

The author focuses on the emergence and role of theology (divinity studies) and religious

philosophy, both closely tied to religion. The latter is a branch of philosophy that seeks to solve

philosophical (real) problems based on dogmas (Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.), rather than on

facts; the former is neither science nor philosophy, but “pseudo-knowledge.” Even in primitive

times, there was an illusory "knowledge" of how to use supernatural forces for personal gain

through rituals. Theology systematizes this fiction—it is "a developed, systematized vacuous

knowledge, pseudo-knowledge" (Semenov, 2019, p. 163). It represents the search for rational

arguments to abandon reason, something unnecessary for both believers and nonbelievers alike.

I cannot resist quoting an anecdote cited in the book: the first sentence of the first lecture

in theology at a university— “Forget everything you’ve been taught” (Semenov, 2019, p. 184).

Religion and science are opposites; they can coexist in one mind only as "two truths."

The only question the book does not address is the future of religion. This can be easily

resolved based on what has already been said. Religion exists where there is powerlessness. The

stronger a person becomes, the less they need religion. No one prays when lighting a match at

home, but everyone would pray if lighting one on a deserted island. If we do not want people to

pray, we need to eliminate such situations. Ideas reflect the world, so to eradicate undesirable

ideas, we must change the world. (Incidentally, this refutes the clichéd argument that in politics,

ideas should be opposed not with tanks, but only with other ideas. The ideas of Nazism were

defeated not when they were refuted, but when our tanks entered Berlin.) In a world where

powerlessness disappears, there is no place for religion, as it has nothing left to reflect, as Engels
 12

famously said. Is this possible? Allow me to correct the classic: yes and no—relatively speaking,

to some extent, it is possible. A classless society is not a conflict-free society, and some human

desires (such as the desire not to die) will remain unfulfilled. Therefore, certain elements of

religion—such as fortune-telling with daisy petals—will, unfortunately, remain eternal

companions of humanity. However, the current organizational forms, dogmas, and rituals will

not survive the private property that gave birth to them. "The future dooms you to decay and

oblivion"—there is nothing more to add to the words of the schoolteacher addressed to the priest

in V. F. Tendryakov's novella The Miracle Worker.

Finally, I would like to add the following. Believers think we take pleasure in insulting

their feelings (so much so that only the Criminal Code could prevent us from this amusement)

and perhaps even believe that we invented our atheism just to spite them. They are wrong in this,

as in everything else. Scientific (Marxist) atheism is based on knowledge of religion. We

understand why they believe. We know that the object of their faith exists nowhere but in their

consciousness. They do not know that we know this, and they do not know why we do not

believe. A scientific worldview, which encompasses knowledge of both nature and society,

excludes belief in the unprovable. A believer views the very existence of a scientific worldview

as a personal insult. There is nothing we can do about that. They are driven by emotions, while

we are guided by reason. For us, religion is an object of study, like any other, and we do not need

it in any other form (including as an object of hatred). A strong surge of anti-religious emotions

arises in a different situation—when breaking away from religion and realizing one was blind.

As in A. A. Surkov's (1899–1983) poem God Does Not Exist in the World:

"Do you think it wasn’t terrifying

To realize there is no God in the world..."

Surkov was part of a generation that had to break free from the religious dogmas drilled

into them in childhood. This process is described, for instance, by his Polish contemporary "the

Polish Anatole France," Jan Parandowski (1895–1978) in the novel Sky in Flames. Today, this is

once again relevant: before addressing real problems, we must first tackle imaginary ones—a

task that is difficult and perhaps even terrifying. But a person raised in an environment free of

clericalism feels no strong emotions toward religion—only a lasting amazement that some

people love themselves so much they plan to live forever. They are so incapable of doubt that

they fail to see the absurdity of the religious worldview.

References

Biske, G. (2019). Как быть с религией [How to deal with religion]. Alternatives, (2),
187.

Kardashev, N. S. (Interviewee). (n.d.). Есть ли во Вселенной бог? [Is there a god in the
universe?]. Novy Bezbozhnik [New Atheist], (3), 6.

Meister, V. B. (1999). И воздастся им… [And it will be repaid to them...]. Moscow.

Nikiforov, A. L. (1998). Философия науки: история и методология [Philosophy of

Rozhansky, I. D. (1980). Античная наука [Ancient science]. Moscow.

Semenov, Yu. I. (2019). Происхождение и развитие религии, мифологии, теологии и