Scientific Atheism and Marxism: Commemorating the 10th Anniversary of the Founding of "Science and Atheism" Magazine
Scientific Atheism and Marxism: Commemorating the 10th Anniversary of the Founding of Science and Atheism Magazine
The guiding ideology in our country’s ideological sphere is Marxism, which constitutes the main body of the Core Socialist Values system. In principle, scientific atheism is an important component of Marxism and should receive sufficient attention, rather than being neglected to the point where "no one speaks of it." However, the harsh realities of history and the present force us to engage in deep reflection: what exactly is the reason for this?
There are two major reasons. One is the concern held by some that conducting education in scientific atheism will interfere with the freedom of religious belief. Much has already been written on this point to clarify that propagating atheism is not contradictory to the freedom of religious belief; therefore, I will not address it here. Another pivotal reason is the belief held by some that, given the existence of Marxist propaganda and education, there is no need to exert effort or energy on scientific atheism, and thus no need to value its role within the Core Socialist Values system. This is a major epistemological issue involving the relationship between Marxism and scientific atheism, and it warrants further exploration.
I. The Evolution of Atheism and Its Epistemological Foundation
Research in religious anthropology shows that the earliest humans were natural, spontaneous atheists. Labor created humanity; labor allowed humans to experience the unity of opposites between humanity and nature, which contained within it an unconsciousness toward deities. The emergence of the concept of deities occurred after entering the Homo sapiens stage, representing a major development in the history of human evolution. However, following the appearance of deities as an ideational form, conscious atheism also emerged. In its antagonistic struggle against theism, atheism has undergone three distinct evolutionary forms: ancient naive atheism, modern atheism, and contemporary Marxist atheism. Various forms of skepticism, deism, and pantheism can also be categorized as special manifestations of atheism.
From an epistemological perspective, atheism is generally linked with materialism. Ancient naive atheism corresponds to spontaneous materialism; modern atheism corresponds to metaphysical materialism; and contemporary Marxist atheism is naturally and closely linked to dialectical materialism.
II. What Is Scientific Atheism?
Viewpoints on this question are not entirely consistent. Since the modern scientific revolution, atheism has seen great development. In particular, the militant atheism of 18th-century France and the humanist atheism of Ludwig Feuerbach in 19th-century Germany reached new heights in their critiques of religious theism and idealism. Can these, then, be called "scientific atheism"? I fear they may fall short. Although they applied the research results of modern science to prove that in the world of human existence—within the time and space already understood by humanity—no deities exist and no supernatural forces exist, their explanations remained preliminary. The various mental hallucinations and religious miracles that appear in people's minds began to receive primary explanations. As Engels noted: "Under the onslaught of science, one battalion after another laid down its arms, one castle after another surrendered, until finally, the infinite realm of nature was conquered by science, leaving no room for the Creator." (Dialectics of Nature, People's Publishing House, 1971 edition, p. 179.) However, they failed to provide a thoroughly scientific explanation of the origins, roots, development, extinction, essence, and social function of religious theism. This is because their worldview was not yet a consistently thorough materialism.
The scientific atheism we speak of should primarily possess three qualities: 1. The full application of contemporary scientific research results; 2. A penetrating scientific elucidation of the phenomenon of religious theism; 3. A philosophical foundation in dialectical materialism and historical materialism. Therefore, only Marxist atheism is qualified to be called "scientific atheism."
Marxist philosophy is the worldview foundation of scientific atheism, embodying the unity of the view of nature and the view of history, the unity of materialism and dialectics, and the unity of ontology and epistemology. Scientific atheism is an inherent implication of Marxist philosophy. Precisely because it possesses such a worldview foundation, scientific atheism can become a fearless and thorough atheism.
"Never believing in divine powers that cannot be tested by practice" is the bond linking Marxist philosophy and scientific atheism. The essential boundary between science and superstition lies in this: science is the understanding of the laws of the objective world, proceeding from the various forms of existence and motion in the material world. It is therefore subject to the test of practice, and can only be continuously improved and developed through the process of practical testing. Superstition, by contrast, propagates supernatural and super-material forces, and is therefore not subject to the test of practice. The fabricated representatives of super-material forces can only be God (diverse deities) or deified human beings. Believing only in the power of matter and the power of humanity, and never in the power of gods, is the substance that distinguishes science from superstition. This is precisely the basic starting point of the Marxist philosophical worldview, the core of scientific atheism, and the "red thread" [1] running through it from beginning to end.
III. Marxist Principles and Education in Scientific Atheism
Since Marxist atheism is indeed scientific atheism, why is it that the study of general Marxist principles cannot replace education in scientific atheism? This is because Marxist principles are merely the worldview foundation of scientific atheism; they cannot fully encompass, be equated with, or even replace the latter.
Facts force us to reflect. It is not difficult to discover that among some university students who have studied Marxist principle courses, the influence of superstitious thought remains. Some believe in the miracles of planchette writing [2]; some speak with great interest about zodiac signs; some are half-skeptical and half-believing regarding pseudo-qigong; some believe that certain "masters" might truly be different from ordinary people; and some students majoring in religious studies have even cultivated "religious feelings." Some master's and doctoral students have even fallen into the quagmire of "Falun Gong" and been unable to extricate themselves.
It appears that education in Marxist principles cannot replace education in scientific atheism; the two should be closely integrated and mutually reinforcing. Scientific atheism is an important component of the Marxist worldview. Without the nurturing influence of education in scientific atheism, the understanding of the Marxist worldview remains superficial and ungrounded, often unable to withstand the allure and assaults of theism. Therefore, education in scientific atheism is a stage that cannot be bypassed.
We must continuously persist in and improve education in scientific atheism also because its object of study—religious theism—will never abandon its stubborn penetration into social life. It constantly changes its forms, such as shifting from mystification toward secularization and moralization; it constantly adds new content, such as encroaching into the fields of natural science and the philosophy of science; it endlessly trumpets the high-flown rhetoric of "ultimate concern," exerting a non-negligible influence on individual psychology and giving rise to one challenging question after another. These are issues that general education in Marxist principles cannot answer or resolve; they require the in-depth, "advancing with the times" research of scientific atheism.
Persisting in and improving education in scientific atheism is also necessitated by the practical quality of scientific atheism. At the beginning of the last century, Lenin admonished us: "Engels long ago advised the leaders of the modern proletariat to translate the militant literature of the late 18th century and spread it widely among the people. To our shame, we have not yet done this (this is one of many examples proving that it is much easier to seize power in a revolutionary period than to use that power correctly). Sometimes people use various 'fine-sounding' reasons to defend our weakness, inactivity, and incompetence, for instance, saying that the old atheist literature of the 18th century is out of date, unscientific, naive, etc. There is no worse sophistry than this pseudo-erudition, which covers up either pedantry or a total lack of understanding of Marxism. Of course, there is much that is unscientific and naive in the atheist works of the 18th-century revolutionaries. But nothing prevents publishers from abridging these works and adding brief postscripts pointing out the progress humanity has made in the scientific critique of religion since the late 18th century, citing the latest relevant works, etc. It would be the greatest and worst mistake for a Marxist to think that the millions of the masses (especially peasants and artisans), who are condemned by all of modern society to ignorance and prejudice, can extricate themselves from this state only through the straight path of purely Marxist education. They should be given various atheist propaganda materials, told facts from various aspects of actual life, and influenced by every means to arouse their interest, awaken them from their religious dreams, and rally them from all sides in every possible way." (Lenin, "On the Significance of Militant Materialism," in Collected Works of Lenin, Vol. 4, People's Publishing House, 1990 edition, p. 648.)
Why is it that "only through the straight path of purely Marxist education" is insufficient? Two meanings can be grasped here: first, that "purely Marxist education" cannot replace education in scientific atheism, as previously stated; second, that education in scientific atheism should be vivid, concrete, closely linked to actual life, and keep pace with social development. It "should not be conducted on the basis of abstract, purely theoretical, unchanging propaganda," but "should be raised concretely, on the basis of the class struggle actually going on at present, which is most effective for educating the broad masses." (Lenin, "The Attitude of the Workers’ Party to Religion," in Collected Works of Lenin, Vol. 2, People's Publishing House, 1986 edition, p. 380.) "We must comprehensively and accurately publicize the Party’s religious policy and actively guide religion to adapt to socialist society. We must unremittingly popularize scientific knowledge, especially that which is closely related to the daily lives of the masses, such as natural science, medicine and health, scientific fitness, and issues of birth, aging, illness, and death, helping people master scientific ideas and methods and striving to foster a social atmosphere of loving, learning, and using science." [3]
For ten years, Science and Atheism magazine has performed much fruitful work in the fields of atheist propaganda and education, excellently practicing the task of popularizing and elevating Marxist atheist thought. Recently, with an eye toward long-term and sustainable development, it has made a timely shift toward becoming an academic journal, focusing its emphasis on the study of theoretical issues and promoting the disciplinary construction of scientific atheism and the training of personnel. I believe these efforts will certainly evoke the deep concern and active support of relevant departments and figures, gaining an increasing number of enthusiastic readers and authors. The magazine will surely go from strength to strength!
About the Author: Yu Qiming is a professor at Minzu University of China.