What's the Difference between Ideologies and Religions?

[ZethaPonderer 2,196]

I found this fascinating analysis blog online by Michael J. Altman and would like to see an interesting discussion between the two.

https://michaeljaltman.net/2011/04/25/is-there-a-difference-between-ideology-and-religion/

I know a lot of people do wish to get rid of religions in general due to the unnecessary violence it can spread, but how is it any different than people clinging on to political ideologies e.g. Fascism, Socialism, Communism, and Capitalism which have also spread their fair share of unnecessary violence among humanity?

I'm confused. Is there a difference between the two? If there isn't or they share a positive synergy then wouldn't it be also rational for the people who oppose religions to also get rid of political ideologies as well? Normally, the way how I see it is that when people cater to a Religion they adopt a "Way of Life" that not a lot of people will agree to in order to worship a diety or this "Creative Force" that is the cause of everything in the Universe. Basically, Religions are a manifestation of the beliefs people have held in the long run the way how I come to understand that is.

Whereas Ideologies, well Google seems to sum it up better than I can, "a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy" and even in archaic terminology "the science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature", but it would be a lot more interesting to see a different perspective of what really constitutes an ideology if these definitions don't hold up. So if what Google is defining is true, then it must mean that people don't have to face unnecessary persecution when clinging on to ideologies since it's all about "ideals". If my ideals are different than yours then must we fight to the death to prove which ideals hold up true? I'm confused. 

Please bear in mind I'm not trying to offend anyone. Just want to see differing thought-provoking perspectives here since I'm a curious little gnat . At least, I'm thinking like how an open-minded person should think, but am I overthinking it or am I getting too open-minded? I don't even know anymore.

[Hazard Time 1,127]

A religion on its own is not a credible threat, since it's simply an answer to various philosophical questions as well as unexplained phenomena that claims interference from supernatural forces, both benign and malignant.  However, in the interests of converting others, many religions become ideologies, which are different insofar as they become a system of beliefs which claim to be objectively correct, and all those who refuse to accept these beliefs are morally reprehensible.

If we look at it from that perspective, religion is not as bad as some anti-theists would argue.  The root problem lies with the ideologue, plagued with basic human arrogance and the belief that his group is objectively correct based on his own subjective points.

[K.Rool Addict 718]

With a religion, the members are tasked to blindly follow a preestablished ideology in the name of a "God" or Godlike figure, without question as their "faith" or lack thereof would then be considered in need of improvement.

An ideology, is merely a way of thinking. Some people follow ideologies like it is a religion, but that is really on their part, whereas in a religion you are practically forced into following their specific ideology. All religions have their own ideologies, but all ideologies do not have a respective religion. It's kinda like an "all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares" kinda deal here  

 

Edited June 9, 2017 by K.Rool Addict

[ZethaPonderer 2,196]

Ok so this is how it must be looked at, "Not all Ideologies are Religions, however Religions are Ideologies". Am I understanding this right or is there a logical fallacy being committed here? So the question should be, "When does a Religion become an Ideology?" I know that Ideologies are strictly "man-made" ways of thinking figuring out how should they live their lives based on that way of thinking, but with Religion it's not exactly clear cut whether the ideology people follow in that Religion is strictly "man-made" as a typical Ideology since a lot of people look up to the people who founded this religion as people who's knowledge was far beyond that of their respective time. Case in point, the Abrahamic Religions with their many messengers and prophets who claim knowledge of the unknown which might as well be considered "divine knowledge" from the God of Abraham. 

From what I've come to understand is that none of these Prophets and Messengers of the Abrahamic God were simply ordinary men as they had "knowledge" that even a deranged psychotic mad-man would not possess since they are still limited for whatever knowledge they can grasp physically in this world to make their well-crafted delusions (I would love to be proven wrong on this perspective). Basically, Prophets of the Abrahamic God can see the future. I have yet to see proof if these Prophets were really madmen. If the Abrahamic Religions are really fairy tales as some people may say then I must admit from that line of thinking there is one critical flaw I need to nitpick. It is far too boring to be considered a fairy tale making it really speculative. Fairy Tales are meant to be exciting and adventurous like Lord of the Rings. Or are there other depictions of Fairy Tales that don't fit in those categories.  Consider me skeptical if the Prophets of the Abrahamic God really were "mad" as some people make them out to be?

The way how I expressed myself here on understanding the Abrahamic Religions comes from how I've been taught under Shia Islamic Theology.

[K.Rool Addict 718]

1 hour ago, ZethaPonderer said:

Ok so this is how it must be looked at, "Not all Ideologies are Religions, however Religions are Ideologies". Am I understanding this right or is there a logical fallacy being committed here? So the question should be, "When does a Religion become an Ideology?" I know that Ideologies are strictly "man-made" ways of thinking figuring out how should they live their lives based on that way of thinking, but with Religion it's not exactly clear cut whether the ideology people follow in that Religion is strictly "man-made" as a typical Ideology since a lot of people look up to the people who founded this religion as people who's knowledge was far beyond that of their respective time. Case in point, the Abrahamic Religions with their many messengers and prophets who claim knowledge of the unknown which might as well be considered "divine knowledge" from the God of Abraham. 

From what I've come to understand is that none of these Prophets and Messengers of the Abrahamic God were simply ordinary men as they had "knowledge" that even a deranged psychotic mad-man would not possess since they are still limited for whatever knowledge they can grasp physically in this world to make their well-crafted delusions (I would love to be proven wrong on this perspective). Basically, Prophets of the Abrahamic God can see the future. I have yet to see proof if these Prophets were really madmen. If the Abrahamic Religions are really fairy tales as some people may say then I must admit from that line of thinking there is one critical flaw I need to nitpick. It is far too boring to be considered a fairy tale making it really speculative. Fairy Tales are meant to be exciting and adventurous like Lord of the Rings. Or are there other depictions of Fairy Tales that don't fit in those categories.  Consider me skeptical if the Prophets of the Abrahamic God really were "mad" as some people make them out to be?

The way how I expressed myself here on understanding the Abrahamic Religions comes from how I've been taught under Shia Islamic Theology.

 

^ If you expect me to respond to that, then you are crazy. I'll end up typing a freaking 10 page essay xDD

Maybe later, but for now:

 

Making the "Fairy Tale" too boring could have been a tactic to make it more believable/ relatable tho  That's all you'll get out of me at the moment /)^3^(\

[Jeric 46,835]

16 hours ago, K.Rool Addict said:

With a religion, the members are tasked to blindly follow a preestablished ideology in the name of a "God" or Godlike figure, without question as their "faith" or lack thereof would then be considered in need of improvement.

I get what you are saying here, and I think I agree with the general thought, but I do dispute two things in the language. 

Some religious types blindly follow religion, yes. However if a religious individual practices certain Philosphical tenets, they aren't blindly following anything at that point. Though proof will always be out of reach, you can apply logic and reason in an Ontological argument in favor of Faith, and that makes it not a true blind journey. 

The scientist in me also would like to point out the irony in the fact that few 'laypersons' actually use scientific experimentation to validate the published findings of actual scientists. That almost makes the average person who would promote advanced scientific theory as blind as a religious layperson in a few key areas. There is a lot of trust given to scientists with no first hand verification that they are correct. 

I need only to point to the fMRI reading crisis to show ... whoopsie. Science got something wrong that actually went to the field and was practiced on normal people. 

That isn't to say I discount Science. I don't. I just place it above my religion when it comes to answering questions about the natural world. 

Anyway, you can have a religion with an ideology ... I do. 

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 40,298]

Ideologies are fairly malleable, whereas religion is generally set in stone, though most religious text seems to be ignored by the followers regardless. Of course religion can change too depending on who is writing the books, but often the words and rulings of those books are protected by the followers, even if said texts are severely outdated and antiquated. 

[Yellow Diamond 7,564]

An interesting question, and one which I came across recently. The simplest distinction is that a religion begins with the presumption of the supernatural; ideologies, on the other hand, emerge from a secular, materialist premise. Religions may adopt ideological components (e.g., Christendom; Islamic Government) -- just as some ideologies become religious in the nontheistic sense (e.g., cults of personality; state worship). An ideology, however, won't typically invoke a deity (beyond an abstraction, anyway); instead, ideologies appeal to natural rights grounded in social norms and articulated by philosophy.

[ZethaPonderer 2,196]

50 minutes ago, Kyoshi said:

Ideologies are fairly malleable, whereas religion is generally set in stone, though most religious text seems to be ignored by the followers regardless. Of course religion can change too depending on who is writing the books, but often the words and rulings of those books are protected by the followers, even if said texts are severely outdated and antiquated. 

Wait a minute from that line of reasoning there must be a logical fallacy being committed here from the line of thinking K. Rool Addict wants me to understand which I've come to agreement, "Not all ideologies are religions, however religions are ideologies". If religions are ideologies then it's impossible to live up to the line of thinking since it becomes contradictory if what you say is true Kyoshi. If religion is generally set in stone while ideologies are fairly malleable then how can these two have a positive synergy? Am I thinking too hard here? Idk, but its fun to speculate.  

1 hour ago, Yellow Diamond said:

An interesting question, and one which I came across recently. The simplest distinction is that a religion begins with the presumption of the supernatural; ideologies, on the other hand, emerge from a secular, materialist premise. Religions may adopt ideological components (e.g., Christendom; Islamic Government) -- just as some ideologies become religious in the nontheistic sense (e.g., cults of personality; state worship). An ideology, however, won't typically invoke a deity (beyond an abstraction, anyway); instead, ideologies appeal to natural rights grounded in social norms and articulated by philosophy.

So Ideologies can be defined as "A Way of Life through Man-Made Philosophy" while Religions can be defined as "A Way of Life through a 'Seemingly' Man-Made Philosophy that is derived from a Supernatural Phenomenon". Am I following this right under your line of reasoning Yellow Diamond? Because I see both of these things are defined as "Ways of Life" people live up to and adopt.

The big question that is unfortunately the harshness of reality is which ideology is true to live up with: Capitalism? Fascism? Libertarianism? Communism? Socialism? Because the many wars that have been fought in Modern Times have been all about people proving their ideals are better than the opposer's ideals e.g. The Cold War: Capitalism vs Communism.

So, Ideologies are no different than Religions? If this is the case then wouldn't it make more sense to also get rid of ideologies just as much as religions since they share a positive synergy and both sides seem to be equally prone to causing unnecessary violence towards Humanity? If some people do follow their ideologies like religions then what exactly is the ratio of that? Is the ratio higher or lower?

Either way, I just find Ideologies to be always changing which can get annoying if you don't adapt to the change. I don't think this seems to be the case with Religion since it gives followers that adhere to it a constant philosophical view on how they should live their lives no matter how much life changes around them due to this "Creative Force" they worship and submitting themselves to the belief that this "Creative Force" is All-Knowing at least from an Abrahamic Religious perspective though I can't say the same for those who believe in multiple "Creative Forces". (correct me if I'm wrong here and please state reason).

[Invincible 2,090]

It's true that you can see both as similar and sometimes they do overlap, however it's not that simple.

First off, a religion is just system of rules made to define the relationship between a person and a deity (or multiple deities). An ideology is a system of rules and concepts designed to illustrate how to govern or how to live - in essence, a relationship between a person and culture.

I don't think it's fair to say they are the same. An atheist is a person to whom a definition of religion does not apply, but can be just as ideological about, say, communism.

A follower of Christianity can be really moderate and just hold a general belief in the holy Trinity for instance, without really understanding it or just being very secular.

The problem is that ideology requires you to narrow your viewpoint and filter information through a certain lens. If an idea fits your ideology it is accepted. If it does not, it will be attacked and ousted in certain ideologies, adapted and changed in others.

It's a fascinating topic but I don't think you can do it justice by defining religion and ideology as logically equivalent.