Žižek and the Religious Concept in the Humanities

Introduction

Slavoj Žižek, one of the most provocative thinkers of our time, proposes a radical rethinking of the religious concept, taking it beyond traditional theological or sociological approaches. His works challenge established notions of religion, ideology, and subjectivity, compelling us to view these phenomena from a completely different angle. Žižek does not merely analyze religion; he uses it as a prism to deconstruct contemporary social, political, and economic structures, making his ideas especially relevant for the humanities.

Žižek's philosophical framework is deeply rooted in Hegelian dialectics and Lacanian psychoanalysis, allowing him to consider religion not as a set of dogmas or beliefs but as a dynamic force shaping reality. He follows Marx, who criticized religion not as the "opium of the people" but as the "soul of the soulless world," emphasizing its role in creating illusory consolation amid real suffering [Marx, 1844]. However, Žižek goes further, arguing that religion, especially Christianity, contains revolutionary potential capable of undermining the existing order. This "theological turn" in contemporary thought, as noted by Wilson Brissett, enables the use of theological categories to critique liberal political and philosophical traditions, particularly concerning subjectivity and ethics [Brissett, 2009]. Žižek, alongside Agamben and Badiou, turns to the figure of the Apostle Paul, seeing in him an innovator in the theory of universal subjectivity capable of overcoming cultural and temporal limitations [Brissett, 2009]. For Žižek, the religious concept becomes not an object of study but a tool for rethinking fundamental questions of human existence and social organization.

Detailed Exposition

Reduction of Religious Phenomena to a Secular Basis

Is it possible to speak of religion without mentioning God? This seemingly paradoxical question lies at the heart of many contemporary debates about the place of the religious in the humanities, especially within critical thought. Traditionally, the Marxist approach, as noted by Mitchell Harris, viewed religion as the "opium of the people," a formulation made by Marx in 1844 [Harris, 2009]. This position implied that religion was nothing more than an illusory consolation distracting oppressed masses from real social and economic problems. In this reading, religious phenomena were reduced to their secular, materialist basis, whether economic relations or class struggle. Religion was perceived as a superstructure entirely determined by the base.

However, this approach, despite its apparent clarity, misses something fundamental. If religion is merely "opium," why does it continue to exert such a powerful influence on human consciousness and social structures even under conditions of secularization? Why does it not disappear but transform, taking new forms? Žižek, like some other thinkers, proposes revisiting this reductionist logic. He does not merely criticize it but shows that the very attempt to reduce the religious to the secular often overlooks the internal contradictions and dynamics of the secular itself. Daniel Pérez Gámez, referring to Žižek, emphasizes that the task is not to "turn theological questions into secular questions" or "resolve superstitions into history," but rather to pay attention to the "internal struggle and internal contradiction" of the "secular basis" itself [Gámez, 2014, p. 391]. This means that secularity is not a neutral ground free from ideological or quasi-religious structures. On the contrary, it is permeated by them.

Such a perspective allows us to see that religion does not merely reflect or mask social processes but actively shapes them. It is not a passive product but rather a dynamic agent. In this sense, the reduction of the religious to the secular becomes problematic because it ignores the "symbolic efficacy" of religion—its ability to create meanings, organize communities, and motivate actions. Žižek, for example, often refers to Christianity to show how its conceptual structures continue to influence contemporary thought even when people consider themselves atheists. He argues that many secular ideologies, including some forms of Marxism, implicitly borrow and reproduce theological patterns.

Take, for example, the concept of the "empty signifier." For Žižek, God can be understood not as a transcendent entity but as a symbolic void that allows society to constitute itself. This void is filled with various social meanings, ideologies, and projects. Even in the absence of belief in a personal God, the very structure of "God" as the highest authority or guarantor of meaning continues to function. This is not merely a metaphor; it indicates that religious modes of thought are deeply rooted in our culture and consciousness.

Balbinder Singh Bhogal, in his analysis of Hegel's influence on the conceptualization of religion, shows how European thought, especially during the colonial era, created the abstract concept of "religion in general," which was then used to classify and control the "others" [Bhogal, 2012]. This "production of religion as a universal category" was simultaneously a racial project. According to Bhogal, Hegel confronted difference through an intellectual project conceptualizing history as the evolution of religion, which aligned well with colonial administrators seeking to control their territories. This underscores that even the concept of "religion" as an object of study is not neutral but laden with historical and ideological meanings.

The reduction of religious phenomena to a secular basis not only simplifies the complexity of religious experience but also conceals the quasi-religious structures operating within the secular itself. Žižek urges us not simply to discard religion as "opium" but rather to analyze its internal logic and its influence on the formation of subjectivity and social reality. He proposes seeing religion not only as a source of delusions but also as a repository of certain truths that can be reinterpreted critically.

In this context, even atheism, according to Žižek, is not a simple negation of religion. On the contrary, it can be a form that allows one to see the hidden mechanisms and ideological functions of religion. This is not atheism that merely rejects God but rather "religious atheism," which accepts the ethical and social aspects of religion without metaphysical belief. Such an approach avoids the trap where secularity itself becomes a new religion with its dogmas and rituals.

The critique of reduction aims not to overlook the "real processes" that shape both religious and secular phenomena. Žižek, as noted by Geoff Boucher, argues that radical leftists need a "politics of universal Truth," modeled on Paul's transformation of the Hellenistic world [Boucher, 2016]. This is not a call to return to theology but rather to use theological concepts to rethink contemporary political and social problems. He suggests not simply discarding the religious but rather "reading" it to understand how it continues to shape our reality.

Ultimately, the question of reducing religious phenomena to a secular basis leads us to a deeper understanding of how ideology functions in the modern world. If we cannot simply dismiss religion as "opium," then we need to understand how it continues to shape our views of the world, ourselves, and others. This understanding becomes especially important as we move to consider political theology and its role in leftist thought, where religious categories unexpectedly regain their relevance.

Political Theology and Its Role in Leftist Thought

If in the previous section we discussed the reduction of religious phenomena to a secular basis, now we should ask: what if this reduction not only fails to exhaust the religious but, on the contrary, conceals its political power? This is where political theology enters the scene, which might seem alien to leftist thought but paradoxically gains new life within it. Radical leftists, traditionally oriented toward materialist explanations of the world, find that to articulate their goals and critique the existing order, they sometimes lack the conceptual apparatus offered precisely by theology.

Slavoj Žižek, for example, has repeatedly asserted that radical leftists need a "politics of universal Truth," modeled on Paul's theology and its transformation of the Hellenistic world [Boucher, 2016]. This sounds paradoxical since Paul appears distant from revolutionary materialism. However, Žižek sees in his teaching more than just religious doctrine: he sees a matrix for forming a universal subject capable of transcending existing social and cultural limitations. In light of the global resurgence of religious radicalism after 9/11, Žižek also insists that political theology provides conceptual resources for understanding historical materialism today [Boucher, 2016]. This is not a call to return to faith but rather to rethink how religious structures continue to shape our political imagination.

However, this approach is not without criticism. Some scholars, such as Boucher, see in Žižek's and other leftist thinkers' turn to political theology nothing but an ideological conception of politics [Boucher, 2016]. In their view, this leads to mystified notions of social antagonism and class struggle, embedding them at the heart of progressive theory. After all, if we begin to speak of a "politics of universal Truth," do we not risk sliding into dogmatism, which has always been inherent in religious systems and from which leftist thought has long tried to distance itself?

Nevertheless, the interest in theological categories in contemporary philosophy is not accidental. Thinkers like Agamben, Badiou, and Žižek turn to Paul to reflect on questions of subjectivity, power, ethics, and secularity [Brissett, 2009]. Theology, it turns out, offers unique lines of critique of key concepts in liberal political and philosophical traditions. For example, the question of subjectivity, so important for leftist thought, finds new meaning through Paul's assertion that "there is neither Greek nor Jew." This is not merely a declaration of equality but a proclamation of universal accessibility to the true event that transcends cultural and temporal limitations [Brissett, 2009].

In this context, political theology becomes a tool for deconstructing liberal narratives about freedom and autonomy. If liberalism promises freedom through individual self-determination, then theological categories, as interpreted by Žižek and others, may point to deeper, collective, and even transcendent dimensions of freedom. This allows questioning the very foundation of the liberal subject, which, as we will see later, is largely shaped by the Christian tradition. Political theology for leftist thought is not merely an exotic interest but an attempt to find new conceptual tools for analyzing and transforming society. It reveals how religious structures, even in a secular world, continue to shape our ideas of justice, equality, and liberation. However, as Boucher notes, there is a danger here: might this attempt become a new form of ideology that, instead of clarifying social antagonisms, mystifies them? [Boucher, 2016].

The question arising from this discussion concerns not only how leftist thought can use theological categories but also how these categories shape the very concept of subjectivity. If Paul proclaims a universal subject free from ethnic and cultural differences, how does this relate to contemporary notions of personality, identity, and place in the world? And how can this "universal Truth" be articulated without sliding into dogmatism often associated with religious teachings? These questions lead us to the next step in our investigation, where we will consider how the concept of subjectivity is formed through theological categories.

The Concept of Subjectivity through Theological Categories

If in the previous section we discussed political theology as a way of understanding secular processes through religious categories, now we should focus on a more subtle aspect: how theological categories themselves become tools for rethinking fundamental concepts such as subjectivity. This is not merely a transfer of terms but an attempt to use their critical potential to uncover hidden mechanisms of liberal thought. Wilson Brissett notes that "theological categories provide unique lines of critique of key concepts in liberal political and philosophical traditions" [Brissett, 2009]. This means that religion here acts not as an object of study but as an analytical apparatus allowing a new look at familiar secular constructs.

One of the most vivid examples of this approach is the turn to the figure of the Apostle Paul, seen in thinkers like Agamben, Badiou, and Žižek. Brissett emphasizes that "the renewed attention to Paul focuses on his role as an innovator in the theory of universal subjectivity—summed up for Badiou in Paul's statement that there is now neither Greek nor Jew" [Brissett, 2009]. What does this mean? By proclaiming the universality of faith, Paul effectively destroys the then-existing social and ethnic boundaries. He offers a model of subjectivity not tied to a specific identity—be it ethnic affiliation, social status, or cultural context. This "universal subjectivity" becomes a starting point for critiquing the liberal understanding of the individual, which, despite its claims of universality, often remains attached to certain cultural and historical assumptions.

Žižek, in turn, uses this Pauline gesture to deconstruct ideological constructions. For him, Paul is not merely a religious figure but a revolutionary who offers a radically new form of subjectivity capable of transcending existing symbolic orders. This subjectivity is not the result of self-determination or free choice in the liberal sense but rather an act of fidelity to some "event of truth" that surpasses individual consciousness. In this sense, as Daniel Pérez Gámez notes, Žižek does not simply "turn theological questions into secular questions" or "resolve superstitions into history," but rather seeks to "focus our attention on the 'internal struggle and internal contradiction' of the 'secular basis,' which should be understood not in terms of the state but in terms of 'the entire existing mode of production and interaction so far'" [Gámez, 2014, p. 391]. That is, Žižek looks in religious phenomena for something that allows a critical understanding of the very structure of secular society.

This "critique of the critique of religion," as Pérez Gámez calls it, allows Žižek to consider religious phenomena not as "imaginary representations that need to be unveiled in the real world" but as "real processes that have taken religious form" [Gámez, 2014, p. 391]. This fundamentally changes the perspective: religion ceases to be an illusion to be exposed and becomes a way of manifesting deep social and ideological conflicts. For example, Žižek analyzes how Christianity, especially Protestantism, served as a matrix for forming the modern capitalist subject, echoing Max Weber's classic works. However, Žižek goes further, showing how these religious forms continue to function in secular society even when their religious content seems lost. Theological categories become tools for revealing "fetishistic negation" in modern society. Žižek often says that people "know that God does not exist, yet they act as if He does." This is not mere hypocrisy but a deeply rooted ideological mechanism where belief is maintained at the level of practice even if consciously denied. This phenomenon, according to Žižek, manifests not only regarding God but also other ideological constructs such as freedom, democracy, or the market.

Lacan's concept of the "Big Other," actively used by Žižek, also helps understand how religious authorities shape individual consciousness. God as the "Big Other" is not merely a transcendent being but a symbolic instance guaranteeing meaning and order. Even in secular society, this function of the "Big Other" does not disappear but transfers to other instances: the state, science, public opinion. Žižek shows how this need for a symbolic guarantor, inherited from religious thinking, continues to determine our subjectivity and relations with power.

In this context, Žižek criticizes secularism for its naivety. Secularism, trying to completely rid itself of religious structures, often fails to notice how they continue to operate at the unconscious level, shaping our ideas of morality, ethics, and politics. As Jeff Boucher notes, Žižek argues that radical leftists need a "politics of universal Truth," modeled on Paul's transformation of the Hellenistic world through theology [Boucher, 2016]. This is not a call to return to religion but rather an acknowledgment that certain theological structures of thought possess critical potential that can be used to rethink contemporary political challenges.

Žižek proposes not simply studying religion as a social or cultural phenomenon but using its categories to analyze the very structure of subjectivity in the modern world. He shows how religious concepts such as sin, redemption, faith continue to shape our understanding of ourselves and the world even if we consider ourselves fully secular. This perspective reveals that the crisis of the symbolic order we observe today often manifests as religious fundamentalism, a reaction to the loss of universal orientations.

Ultimately, Žižek calls for a "religious atheism" that does not deny the ethical and social aspects of religion but frees them from metaphysical belief. This allows, for example, reinterpreting the image of Christ not as a divine figure but as a symbol of radical rupture with the existing order, as a "christology of between" [Jung, 2024]. Such an approach opens the way to understanding how religious concepts, even in their secularized forms, continue to influence our identity and collective actions, which is especially relevant in conditions of globalization and cultural exchange. However, to fully understand how these concepts were formed and transformed, it is necessary to turn to their historical roots, particularly the influence of Hegel and colonialism on the conceptualization of religion.

The Influence of Hegel and Colonialism on the Conceptualization of Religion

If in the previous section we discussed how theological categories shape subjectivity, now we should ask where these categories come from and how they become universal. After all, the concept of the subject as we understand it today is neither timeless nor universal. It is historically conditioned, and in its formation, not only internal philosophical debates but also external factors such as colonialism played a colossal role. It is in this context that Žižek, following other critics, draws attention to how Hegel and the colonial era shaped the modern understanding of religion, making it a tool for classification and control.

Balbinder Singh Bhogal, in his article "Sikh Dharam and Postcolonialism: Hegel, Religion and Žižek" [Bhogal, 2012], convincingly shows that the modern concept of "world religion," for example Sikhism, was constructed by Europeans. This is not merely an act of naming but a way of conceptualizing the "other" through an abstract understanding of religion in general. Bhogal argues that this regime of naming and categorization stems directly from Hegelian philosophy and the colonial era. During this period, as he writes, "the production of religion as a universal category is simultaneously understood as a racial category" [Bhogal, 2012]. That is, the universalization of religion went hand in hand with racial hierarchy, where European Christianity often served as the standard, and other religions were seen as less developed or "primitive."

Hegel, for his part, proposed an intellectual project in which history was understood as the evolution of religion. This concept, according to Bhogal, fit well with the tasks of colonial administrators seeking to control their colonies [Bhogal, 2012]. If religion is a stage in the development of spirit, then European civilization, having reached the highest form of religious consciousness (Christianity), gained legitimate authority to govern those still at earlier stages. Hegel's philosophical system did not merely describe the world but actively participated in its formation, providing intellectual justification for colonial expansion and domination.

Žižek, analyzing this dynamic, does not merely criticize the reduction of religious phenomena to a secular basis but insists on the necessity of understanding them as real processes that have taken religious form. Daniel Pérez Gámez, commenting on Žižek's work "Living in the End Times," notes that Žižek does not seek to "turn theological questions into secular questions" or "resolve superstitions into history" [Gámez, 2014, p. 391]. On the contrary, he calls for attention to the "internal struggle and internal contradiction" of the "secular basis," which should be understood not in terms of the state but in terms of "the entire existing mode of production and interaction so far" (Marx, cited in Toscano, 2010: p. 13) [Gámez, 2014, p. 391]. This means that religion is not simply an illusory superstructure that can be discarded to reach the "real" economic or social base. Religious forms themselves are part of this "real" base; they actively shape social relations and modes of production.

This critique of the reduction of religion to a secular basis allows Žižek, as Pérez Gámez notes, to develop a kind of "sociology of religions" analyzing specific manifestations of relations between capitalism and various religious traditions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity, and Judaism [Gámez, 2014, p. 391]. Here we see how Žižek expands Weber's idea of the Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism, showing that capitalism not only uses or adapts religious forms but is itself shaped by them and shapes them in response.

Moreover, Žižek criticizes the illusion of the "secular state," which he sees as an abstraction embodied in the general principle of the rule of law. He cites Confucius, who 2,500 years ago asserted that "good governance consists in the ruler being a ruler, the minister a minister, the father a father, and the son a son" [Gámez, 2014, p. 391]. This idea, regardless of its original meaning, in its concrete manifestation in human societies often leads to corporatism, where "everyone occupies their place." This, Žižek points out, was the basis of absolute monarchy and fascism in the 20th century [Gámez, 2014, p. 391]. Even seemingly neutral or "moral" principles can have profound political consequences leading to anti-democratic forms of governance.

Wilson Brissett, in his article "Subjectivity, Revolution, Invention" [Brissett, 2009], also notes that the turn to religion in contemporary theory, especially in the works of Agamben, Badiou, and Žižek on Saint Paul, is a significant step for the humanities. Theology regains relevance in philosophical debates because theological categories provide unique lines of critique of key concepts in liberal political and philosophical traditions. In particular, the renewed attention to Paul focuses on his role as an innovator in the theory of universal subjectivity, expressed in his assertion that "there is neither Greek nor Jew" [Brissett, 2009]. This destruction of cultural and temporal boundaries allows Paul to proclaim the accessibility of truth to all, which Brissett sees as an important point for understanding contemporary subjectivity.

However, as Jeff Boucher notes in "An Ideological Conception of Politics—Critique of Žižek on Political Theology" [Boucher, 2016], Žižek, proposing a "politics of universal Truth" modeled on Pauline theology, risks sliding into an ideological conception of politics. Boucher argues that this leads to mystified notions of social antagonism and class struggle at the heart of progressive theory. Although Žižek makes an important contribution to the critique of ideology, his theoretical position contains a significant problem: the idea that ideology and politics are structurally identical allows him to discuss problems of socialist strategy but may also lead to oversimplification of complex social processes.

We see that the conceptualization of religion, especially in its universal forms, is inseparably linked to historical and political processes such as colonialism and the formation of the capitalist subject. Hegel provided the philosophical apparatus for this conceptualization, and Žižek, in turn, deconstructs it, showing how religious forms become part of the very structure of society rather than merely its reflection. This brings us to the question of how these historically formed concepts of religion and subjectivity influence identification in conditions of globalization and what role Christianity plays in this process.

Identification in Globalization and the Role of Christianity

After examining how Hegel and colonialism shaped our understanding of religion, especially through the lens of abstract categories, the question arises: how do these historical and philosophical frameworks affect contemporary identification in the context of globalization? Žižek, as we know, does not merely criticize but proposes rethinking the role of religion, especially Christianity, in this context. He sees in Christianity more than just a system of beliefs but rather a matrix for forming subjectivity and social order.

Globalization, with its drive toward universalization and erasure of boundaries, poses a challenge to religions of identification. On the one hand, it pushes toward finding common denominators, a kind of "realocentric religious pluralism," as described by Dae-in Chon [Jung, 2024]. This approach seeks points of contact between different confessions, which, according to Chon, may lead to weakening the uniqueness of each religion. After all, if all religions are reduced to some common denominator, they risk losing their "transcendent form" and, consequently, their specific identity [Jung, 2024].

Žižek, however, offers a different view of Christianity in the age of globalization, which Chon calls a "christology of between" [Jung, 2024]. This is not an attempt to dissolve Christianity into universal pluralism but rather a call for its active participation in solving real-world problems. Instead of remaining a transcendent, detached form of religion, Christianity should become "participatory," that is, engaged and involved [Jung, 2024]. This means that God, who "was one of us," through theological reconstruction, should be understood as actively present in worldly affairs rather than as a detached observer.

Žižek's approach to Christianity is closely linked to his critique of the reduction of religious phenomena to a secular basis. Daniel Pérez Gámez notes that Žižek does not simply call to "turn theological questions into secular ones" or "resolve superstitions into history" [Gámez, 2014]. On the contrary, he insists on the need to pay attention to the "internal struggle and internal contradiction" of the "secular basis" itself, which should be understood not in terms of the state but in terms of "the entire existing mode of production and interaction so far" [Gámez, 2014]. This means that religious phenomena are not merely "imaginary representations" to be exposed but rather "real processes that have taken religious form" [Gámez, 2014].

This "critique of the critique of religion" allows Žižek to analyze various religions—Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity, and Judaism—not as abstract systems of belief but as concrete manifestations of relations between capitalism and these religions [Gámez, 2014]. In this sense, his approach can be seen as a kind of "sociology of religions" investigating specific expressions of these connections.

However, as Pérez Gámez notes, Žižek also criticizes the "mirage of the real process of abstraction" embodied in the principle of the rule of law [Gámez, 2014]. He refers to Confucius, who said that "good government consists in the ruler being a ruler, the minister a minister, the father a father, and the son a son" [Gámez, 2014, p. 13]. This idea, according to Žižek, in its concrete realization in human societies leads to corporatism, where "everyone occupies their place." This, in turn, is the basis of absolute monarchy or fascism and is directly opposed to democracy [Gámez, 2014]. Žižek shows that ignoring or silencing the transitivity between "purely moral" or fundamental propositions and their concrete political consequences is one of the greatest mistakes [Gámez, 2014].

For Žižek, identification in globalization is not reduced to searching for a universal religious language that would level differences. On the contrary, he calls for a deep understanding of the specificity of each religion, especially Christianity, through the prism of its active participation in social and political processes. This participation should be based on the "christology of between," which recognizes the immanence of the divine in human experience and its ability to influence real problems.

In this context, Žižek, as noted by Wilson Brissett, is among those thinkers who turn to theological categories to understand contemporary issues such as subjectivity, authority, ethics, and the relationship of religion to the secular [Brissett, 2009]. He sees theology as a unique tool for critiquing key concepts of the liberal political and philosophical tradition. For example, Žižek, along with Agamben and Badiou, turns to the figure of the Apostle Paul, seeing him as an innovator in the theory of universal subjectivity, who proclaimed that "there is neither Greek nor Jew" [Brissett, 2009]. This points to the possibility of transcending cultural and temporal limitations and achieving universal fidelity to the true event.

However, as Chon warns, such active participation in "real problems" may lead to the weakening of Christianity if it loses its "transcendent form" [Jung, 2024]. The question is how to preserve this "between"—that is, the dialectical tension between the immanent and the transcendent, between involvement in worldly affairs and maintaining a unique religious identity. Essentially, Žižek proposes not to abandon the transcendent but to rethink it as something manifested in the very midst of worldly events, as God who "was one of us."

Ultimately, Žižek calls on us not merely to observe globalization and its impact on religion but to actively shape this influence, using religious concepts for critical analysis and transformation of social reality. He offers Christianity a path that allows it to remain relevant and influential in the age of globalization without losing its essence. But how successfully can such a "christology of between" be realized under conditions where religions constantly face pressures of secularization and universalization, and does it risk ultimately dissolving into secular activism?

Criticism and Limitations

Žižek's approach to the religious concept, despite its provocativeness and heuristic value, is not without certain limitations that are important to consider when applying it in the humanities. One key critical remark concerns his tendency toward an "ideological conception of politics," as noted by Jeff Boucher [Boucher, 2016]. Žižek often asserts that radical leftists need a "politics of universal Truth," modeled on Pauline theology. However, according to Boucher, this position, while seeming a desperate attempt to find new resources for leftist thought after the collapse of historical communism, leads to mystified notions of social antagonism and class struggle. If ideology and politics are structurally identical, as Žižek suggests, this may hinder the analysis of concrete social conflicts, reducing them to abstract ideological confrontations instead of exploring their material and historical roots.

Another limitation relates to the universalization of religious categories, especially Christian ones, for analyzing all forms of religiosity. Although Žižek explores Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism, his main analytical apparatus often relies on Christian theology and Lacanian psychoanalysis, which itself is deeply rooted in Western thought. Balbinder Singh Bhogal rightly points out that European conceptualization of religion, especially during the colonial era, created the abstract notion of "religion in general," which was then used to classify and control the "others" [Bhogal, 2012]. If Žižek uses these same universalized categories, albeit critically, does he not risk inadvertently reproducing the same colonial logic that sought to subordinate the diversity of religious experiences to a single Western framework? This calls into question the applicability of his conclusions to non-Western religious traditions that may have entirely different internal structures and functions.

Finally, Žižek's critique of secularism, while insightful in revealing its hidden quasi-religious structures, can sometimes be perceived as underestimating the real achievements of secular thought in human rights, freedom of conscience, and rational knowledge. If secularism cannot completely rid itself of religious modes of thought, this does not necessarily mean its total failure. Perhaps it points to a deeper anthropological need for symbolic order that secularism tries to satisfy by other means. The question that remains unanswered is how to distinguish productive use of religious categories for critiquing ideology from their regressive reproduction, which may lead to new forms of dogmatism or political authoritarianism.

Conclusions

• Žižek considers religion not as faith in the transcendent but as a fundamental structure shaping social reality and subjectivity, allowing a critical understanding of its role beyond traditional theological frameworks.
• For Žižek, atheism is not a simple negation of religion but rather a form that reveals hidden ideological functions and mechanisms of religious thought, even in a secular context.
• Žižek's concept of the "empty signifier" applies to understanding God as a symbolic void which, filled with various social meanings, constitutes social order and individual consciousness.
• Žižek analyzes Christianity, especially Protestantism, as a key matrix for forming the modern capitalist subject, expanding and reinterpreting Max Weber's ideas.
• Žižek's idea of "religious atheism" implies accepting the ethical and social aspects of religion without metaphysical belief, opening the way to a "christology of between" as active engagement in addressing real problems of globalization.
• Žižek criticizes secularism for its inability to fully rid itself of religious modes of thought and action, showing how quasi-religious forms continue to function in modern society.
• How the "christology of between" can preserve Christianity's uniqueness while actively participating in worldly affairs without dissolving into secular activism or universal religious pluralism remains an open question.