I have just read The Point Is To Change It, an introduction to Marxist philosophy by John Molyneux. While reading it, I thought, "This is like religion but better." Why did I think that?
Molyneux argues that religion is or includes popular philosophy. People encounter philosophical ideas about the nature of reality and of humanity through their religious beliefs. Marxism presents or incorporates explanations of material and human processes, for example:
the interpenetration of opposites;
the transformation of quantity into quality;
These processes are discernible and comprehensible by us whereas, in a religious myth, the underlying processes would be hidden from us and comprehensible only by gods. Indeed, the Taoist Trinity, at least in one account, includes, apart from the Jade Emperor and Lao Tzu, a third person who controls yin-yang interactions, thus, to combine polytheist and Marxist language, is the god of dialectics.
We appreciate both explanations on the one hand and myths on the other. Thus, an introduction to Marxist philosophy could be complemented by a summary of religious origin stories. These myths can be comprehended and appreciated appropriately when it is understood that they are explanatory stories and not scientific explanations.
Addendum, 10/7/12: I have another use for the word "religion," which is "response to the highest transcendence," where the transcendent can be a (Buddhist) state rather than a (theistic) being but this does not contradict my agreement that Marxist scientific philosophy transcends religious popular philosophy.
I am having trouble tracking down the name of that god of dialectics, the third member of the Taoist trinity.