Can an Atheist Be a Fundamentalist? A Political Science Perspective
Power, ideology, and the organization of society have always been central to political analysis. We tend to think of fundamentalism as a phenomenon that’s tightly linked to religious beliefs, driven by an unwavering adherence to sacred doctrines. But what happens when we step away from traditional frameworks and consider whether an atheist can also embody a fundamentalist mindset? Can someone who rejects religious beliefs still hold rigid, uncompromising ideologies, and advocate for a set of values that demand conformity and absolute loyalty? To explore this question, we must understand fundamentalism not only as a religious term but as a sociopolitical one.
Defining Fundamentalism: Beyond Religion
At its core, fundamentalism is a form of extreme ideological rigidity, where a particular set of beliefs or principles is held so fiercely that it becomes non-negotiable. In a traditional religious context, fundamentalism refers to the literal interpretation of sacred texts and the rejection of modern or secular viewpoints. However, if we broaden the definition of fundamentalism, we begin to see that it can manifest in a wide variety of ways—be it political, cultural, or even atheistic.
For instance, the rise of militant secularism or the zealous promotion of atheism in some circles could easily be seen as a form of ideological rigidity, akin to religious fundamentalism. In both cases, individuals or groups fiercely defend their worldview, often drawing lines between themselves and others, seeking conformity and suppressing dissent. Just as religious fundamentalists might look to sacred texts for ultimate truths, so too might political fundamentalists turn to an ideological system—be it Marxism, neoliberalism, or another set of beliefs.
Ideology and Power: The Role of Institutions
One of the key questions here is not just whether an atheist can be a fundamentalist, but whether fundamentalism, regardless of its ideological basis, serves a political function. Fundamentalism can often be a tool of power—especially when it is institutionalized. Historically, fundamentalist ideologies have been tightly linked to power structures, with institutions serving as enforcers of the dogma. Whether in a theocratic society, a totalitarian regime, or a democratic state, the powerful benefit from ensuring that a rigid, unyielding ideology is maintained.
In the case of secularism, certain atheistic movements have tried to exert influence by aligning themselves with state institutions, much like religious groups historically did. The French Revolution’s secularists or the Soviet Union’s promotion of state atheism are examples of how the rejection of religion can be institutionalized and become as rigid and dogmatic as any religious fundamentalism.
These atheist movements sought to create a society where secularism was the ultimate truth, and any other worldview, be it religious or otherwise, was considered dangerous. This suggests that it is not the religious or secular content of an ideology that makes it fundamentalist, but rather its rigidity and its role in maintaining a particular power structure.
Meşruiyet and Authority: How Power Uses Ideology
In any society, the legitimacy (meşruiyet) of the power structures is critical. For institutions—whether political, religious, or social—to maintain their authority, they must convince the public that their rule is legitimate. Fundamentalist ideologies, whether religious or secular, often seek to enforce a particular definition of legitimacy, one that cannot be contested.
An atheist can, therefore, be a fundamentalist when they advocate for a specific form of secularism that demands loyalty and conformity. This kind of belief system doesn’t allow for nuance or pluralism but instead insists on a singular truth. The push for secularism as an uncompromising political force could easily be seen as analogous to religious dogma, particularly when those who hold dissenting views (e.g., religious groups or other ideological challengers) are marginalized, silenced, or persecuted.
In modern political discourse, this process of legitimizing an ideology often involves the control of institutions—media, education, and law—to propagate the “correct” beliefs. For instance, in some authoritarian regimes, whether religious or secular, the state forces conformity through ideologies that, in practice, become fundamentalist. They justify their rule by appealing to a higher truth, whether it’s religious orthodoxy or the authority of scientific progress. In this sense, the “fundamentalism” of both religious and atheist ideologies can be seen as an effort to consolidate power by enforcing a particular worldview as indisputable.
Citizenship, Participation, and Democracy
An important aspect of modern political theory is the concept of citizenship—the rights and responsibilities of individuals within a political system. Citizenship implies participation, which is based on the idea that people can engage in democratic discourse, debate, and decision-making. Fundamentalism, however, often undermines this ideal by discouraging alternative viewpoints, labeling them as heretical or irrelevant.
An atheist who embraces a fundamentalist mindset might reject the idea that religious beliefs (or non-materialistic views) can coexist in public life. This stance effectively shuts down the possibility of true democratic participation by framing dissent as illegitimate. Just as religious fundamentalists insist on the supremacy of their sacred texts, secular fundamentalists might claim the supremacy of reason, science, or a particular secular worldview.
This undermines the concept of deliberative democracy, which is predicated on the idea that citizens, through dialogue, can reach common ground despite their differences. If one’s worldview is treated as the unassailable truth, then participation becomes more about conforming to a dominant ideology than about genuine exchange or respect for diversity.
A modern example of this dynamic can be seen in the cultural wars of many democratic societies. In countries like the United States, debates over issues like same-sex marriage, abortion, or climate change often feature secular fundamentalist groups on one side, adamant in their belief in science or human rights, while religious fundamentalists argue for adherence to divine principles. Both sides can be equally unwilling to allow the other to express their views without significant challenges.
Atheism and Politics: Contradictions or Synergies?
The idea that an atheist might embrace fundamentalism is complicated, but it’s not without precedent. Atheism, in its purest form, doesn’t prescribe a political system or social order. It simply rejects the existence of a deity. Yet, when atheism is politicized and tied to a broader ideological framework—such as Marxism, scientific materialism, or humanism—it can become a source of rigid belief, capable of developing into a form of political fundamentalism.
Consider the example of Soviet Communism, where state-sponsored atheism was enforced not simply as a rejection of religion but as a central tenet of the state’s ideology. Here, atheism wasn’t just about personal belief; it was a political tool used to consolidate power and eliminate rivals. This context reveals how ideologies, whether religious or secular, can morph into rigid, authoritarian systems that demand conformity.
Furthermore, certain secular fundamentalists today advocate for the elimination of religious practices from public life entirely. They may see religion as a threat to social progress and political stability. This form of secularism becomes just as exclusionary as religious fundamentalism, arguing that those who do not align with a strict scientific or rational worldview should be silenced.
Conclusion: Atheism, Fundamentalism, and Political Power
The question of whether an atheist can be a fundamentalist ultimately reveals deeper truths about power, ideology, and governance. Fundamentalism, at its core, is not about the content of beliefs—it’s about the rigid enforcement of a particular worldview, whether religious or secular. Both forms of fundamentalism function to consolidate power, stifle dissent, and marginalize those who challenge the dominant narrative.
As citizens of democratic societies, we must ask: Where do we draw the line between ideological purity and intellectual diversity? Can we truly embrace pluralism in a world where powerful ideologies—be they religious or secular—insist on their version of truth? These questions are vital as we continue to navigate the increasingly polarized world of politics, where the line between fundamentalism and political ideology becomes ever more blurred.