Ideology Will Be the Death of Civilization
if theology doesn’t get us first
What do ideology and theology have in common? Both are based on beliefs.
Beliefs are immaterial truths.
The first thing to notice about that definition of beliefs is that they are defined as truths. That’s because beliefs are made true when a person holds a belief. All beliefs are completely, 100%, irrefutably true — for any person who holds a belief. Holding a belief makes it true — for the believer.
When we encounter the word “beliefs” most of us probably think first of sacral/theological beliefs, but there are also secular/ideological beliefs. Asserting that people are ‘equal’ in some moral sense is such a belief. Of course, moral equality can have a religious basis, but it can as well be asserted by someone who is a complete atheist. At the same time, believing the members of some group are somehow inherently superior to all other human beings is also a belief — and one that can be sacral or secular. Believing in the existence of a priori Rights, such as “Natural Rights” or “Human Rights,” Rights that accrue to people merely by virtue of being humans, regardless of any circumstances of their existence, Rights that have been ‘discovered’ to exist, not conceived by people, is another belief that can be purely secular — though, again, some people have found a religious basis for such Rights.
Sacral beliefs are the basis of all theologies. Secular beliefs are the basis of all ideologies. (Karl Marx was, I would argue, a radical equalitarian who hid that belief behind the facade of ‘scientific’ “dialectical materialism.”)
I am not asserting that beliefs are intrinsically bad. They become a problem, however, when they intrude on our ability to negotiate successfully material existence.
For many who might be reading this article, the first example that might pop into their minds are people who use religious beliefs to deny certain findings of science, whether it is the existence of global warming, or the validity of vaccines, etc. I would not argue with any of that. Those are obvious examples of beliefs intruding into our successful negotiation of material existence.
Part of material existence is the existence of the societies in which we live. That is where ideology is failing us as surely as, regarding some people, religion is failing us in those other areas.
Ideology is actually worse, in that it is more ubiquitous when it comes to the governance of society than theology is. Some people do still look to theology for the governance of society, but ideology was expressly developed for the purpose of providing a secular source for governing of the governance of society: answering the question as to why society should be governed a certain way. That process has been one of the defining elements of the Modern era.
Here’s the thing: a non-ideological, non-theological solution exists for determining how the governance of society should be governed. It would maximize the liberty that co-existing human beings can enjoy simultaneously. It requires the existence of a democratic political process. It can be applied to the economy (of any nation), resulting in making the existing economic system self-regulating, with no unemployment or poverty and the opportunity to eliminate taxes/public debt while sustainability would be increased. All of those outcomes are absolutely, positively guaranteed — without imposing any cost on employers, without redistributing anything, without imposing any limit on income/wealth, and without requiring people to act any particular way.
I have been advocating for this approach to the governance of society for some time now. So far, as far as I know not one single person other than myself has advocated for this idea.
The biggest impediment to the acceptance of this idea is ideology. The ‘problem’ is that it is not the product of any ideology.
One might suppose — as I did — that it would therefore have no enemies. Since applying this approach to the governance of society would not represent the triumph of any rival ideology, yet would achieve the goals for society of every ideology (providing a pathway for even the goals of Marxism), there would be no reason for the holder of any ideology to withhold support for it.
I have learned, to my dismay, how wrong I was. The fact that this approach to governance is non-ideological has meant only that is has had no friends. Since it is not the product of the ideology held by anyone, no one has advocated for it.
So here we have a solution to all of the material problems of society. It is not contrary to any ideological position. Yet, no one is advocating for it because it is not the product of any ideology.
Ideology stands in the way of solving all of society’s material problems. Those problems will soon result in the collapse of civilization.