Does God exist?
This is a question that is constantly debated by many. The word ‘God’ implies that there is a belief being trusted. Believing in ‘God’ would mean having faith in said ‘God’. A higher being so to speak. Religion to most of us would pertain to the following: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. But, there is so much more to religion than just the types of religions: The belief in a system of faith, the devotion, the worship of a supernatural power that is beyond humans. A set of organised beliefs, practices, and systems–that is what religion is.
Beliefs or a set of beliefs could also refer to ideology. However, Ideology is more specifically associated with a set of political beliefs. One may ask, what is the reason for Ideology’s existence? What is the purpose of it? Mainly, ideology exists to stabilise and perpetuate a dominant belief or dominance in general through masking or illusion. The idea of ideology is truly political though it may give the illusion that it is epistemic.
Both Religion and Ideology, thus have one thing in common: belief. It can thus be said that ideologies and religion are both systems of belief and are built on man’s dual interpretation of the world. Religion values the dual conception of human nature while ideology emphasises harmony and its materiality. These systems of belief give a meaning to life- salvation in the afterlife for religion and human fulfilment at present for ideology. Yet, they are vastly different.
Nevertheless, there is more of an overlap between both systems of belief than one can imagine.
It is possible for common culture (also known as religion) to be manipulated to the political advantage of the existing dominant class in a state. This brings me to the dominant ideology theory. Creating ‘false consciousness’ among the working class that they need to accept being subordinates to the bourgeoisie (in a Marxist context: the capitalist class who own most of the wealth in society) to legitimise the social inequalities of the status quo through the promotion of hard work. That is the general gist of the theory.
How religion is moulded to the advantage of the dominant class is referenced from Plato’s ‘noble lie’.
The noble lie is a typical lie that is somewhat religious and intentionally spread by a person of a higher social class (i.e. an elite) to maintain social unity or to promote an agenda. It was discovered that to keep people from the lower social classes from being dissatisfied, it would be efficient to tell a lie to maintain harmony between the classes in a society. If people are innately content with their lives (especially those of the lower class) then it is assumed that people would do their jobs happily and not aspire for others’ life. Plato calls this a noble lie as he believes that this considers the best interest of the public as a whole. The manipulation of religion to aid the political advantage of the dominant class can be traced back through the rational criticism of the “enlightenment philosophes” to Plato’s ‘noble lie’.
One example that comes to mind when I think about the “noble lie” is the caste system in India. In ‘The Republic’ by Plato, he mentions a ‘noble lie’ to the citizens, that God assorted people by classifying them as those who are ‘qualified to rule by mixing in gold with their birth’. Thus they need to be honoured for their class. He also mentions that children must follow the class profession that they are born into.
Plato’s Republic details a social system that is quite similar to the one found in ancient India. The hierarchical nature of the social structure, endorsed by religion, continues to exist today as well (in various forms).
However, the main inspiration to analyse dominant ideology comes from Marx and Engels’ “The German Ideology” and partly through the influence of Marxism on the sociology of knowledge. When sociologists refer to religion as being ‘ideological’ it usually refers to the beliefs and practices of the religion supporting powerful groups in society which helps the elites and the ruling class to remain in power.
The very idea that faith is ideological is typically associated with Marxist and radical feminist perspectives.
The Marxist view argues that religion has ideological functions due to two main reasons:
Firstly, it creates false consciousness. It teaches us that social inequality is due to God’s will and thus mystifies the true reason for inequality and misery (being exploited by the bourgeoisie).
Secondly, it becomes “opium for the masses” as it maintains the status quo by keeping the elite in power. Providing comfort through spiritual means for the poor allows them to make a virtue out of poverty and promises them a better life after death if they were to obey all the rules at present. For the poor, it provides the illusion that believing in God is a choice rather than a means of escapism. For example, when the bourgeoisie funded the church, the church fully supported the bourgeoisie ideologically which only further promoted the agenda of the ruling class. This establishes a direct link between the church and the bourgeoisie.
However, neo-Marxists argue that the church in Latin America was independent of the state and the bourgeoisie which implies that the church was not influenced in any way by the elites. This means that the priests had some freedom to interpret Christianity in a way that was pro-poor, anti-elite, and not ideological.
Nevertheless, the feminist view argues that religion is ideological according to Mary Daly and Simone de Beauvoir.
Daly argued that Christianity was a set of ‘patriarchal myths’. She saw the Catholic Church as bad due to it downplaying the role of women in the bible and legitimising the sex role segregation.
De Beauvoir, on the other hand, argued that religion could be used by men to compensate women for their second-class status by providing them with spiritual rewards when they accept inferior social roles such as being a housewife.
To contrast these views, El Saadawi posited that Islam itself has been hijacked by Patriarchy in many countries but may not be necessarily ideological as women are able to fight back. However, this may not be the case in Afghanistan as Afghan women are now restricted from working outside of the home and even denied education. But the curriculum has been altered to focus on religious studies which only further proves the feminist view.
It could also be the case that Marxists and Feminists generally refer to established Churches as the most likely institutions to support elites as they already have the necessary backing and support from the bourgeoisie. These theories could also play a part in how religion plays a part in dominant Ideology.
The Middle East
Ever wondered why the majority of the Middle East has a higher percentage of people following Islam while the west has a higher percentage of people who follow Christianity even though both are Abrahamic religions?
Roughly nine-in-ten people living in the region of Middle East-North Africa are Muslim according to a Pew Research Center study conducted in 2011. But in the past, the Middle East was known to be a majority Christian world.
The Hanging Gardens of Babylon and the tower of Babel were known to be located in Iraq (now a Shia-Muslim-dominated state). Even Mesopotamia, known as the “cradle of civilisation” is located in modern-day Iraq.
Although the Islamic empire in the Middle East was established during the seventh and eighth centuries by the Arab armies, it had taken much longer for Islamisation and for an Islamic society to emerge. During this time period, Non-Muslims were generally allowed to continue practising their faiths, provided that they abided by the laws of their rulers and paid special taxes.
Referencing the earlier portion of this article where it was mentioned that religion can be used to the political advantage of the ruling class can be applied in this scenario as well. Converting to Islam in the seventh and eighth centuries in an Islamic empire in the Middle East would mean that the person would no longer be obligated to pay special taxes to the state. This includes them being part of the ‘ruling class’ as they are no longer obliged to pay taxes due to them practising a different faith.
“God” can be defined in various ways and various forms by different religions. Atheism (believers in the general absence of belief in the existence of God or any Gods) on the other hand also has an example from the past. Vladimir Lenin, the founder of Soviet Ideology placed an emphasis on Soviet atheism due to his personal resentment of religion. The very fact that Soviet ideology employs “scientific atheism’ compared to ‘ideological atheism’ speaks volumes about how much Soviet ideology regards itself as the highest form of science. Here, Lenin deploys his historic materialistic explanation against the idealistic face-lifting of the God concept: God justifies oppression and in no way is an expression of social feelings.
Therefore, from the theories that I have presented, it seems that religion being a part or a subset of dominant ideology will continue to remain in the international society as long as there is classism that divides people into two groups: the elites vs the non-elites. The complexity of religion and ideology along with the complex nature of civilisations only makes it harder to not view religion as being ideological. After all, everything is open to interpretation. Like Sydney J. Harris said, “We believe what we want to believe”. So, will religion ever turn into a mere strategy or technique to reinforce ideological beliefs, by tagging the ideology to an abstract concept of God? That may depend on one’s interpretation of ‘religion’. So, what’s yours?
