Scientific Atheism and Marxism: Commemorating the 10th Anniversary of the Founding of "Science and Atheism" Magazine
Scientific Atheism and Marxism: Commemorating the Tenth Anniversary of the Founding of Science and Atheism
Marxism is the guiding ideology of China's ideological sphere and serves as the main body of the Core Socialist Value System [1]. Logically, as an important integral part of Marxism, scientific atheism should receive sufficient attention and should not be neglected to the point where "no one speaks of it." However, the severity of both history and current reality compels us to reflect deeply: what exactly is the cause of this?
There are two primary 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 since we have Marxist propagation and education, there is no need to expend effort or energy on scientific atheism, and consequently, no need to emphasize its role within the Core Socialist Value System. This is a major epistemological issue involving the relationship between Marxism and scientific atheism that merits further exploration.
I. The Evolution of Atheism and Its Epistemological Foundation
Research in religious anthropology indicates that the earliest humans were natural, spontaneous atheists. Labor created humanity; labor allowed humans to experience the relationship of the unity of opposites between man and nature, which contained within it an unconsciousness regarding 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 ideological form [2], conscious atheism also emerged. In its antagonistic struggle against theism, atheism has undergone three distinct evolutionary forms: ancient naive atheism, modern atheism, and modern Marxist atheism. Various forms of skepticism, deism, and pantheism can also be classified 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 modern Marxist atheism is naturally and closely linked to dialectical materialism.
II. What is Scientific Atheism?
Perspectives on this question are not entirely uniform. Since the modern scientific revolution, atheism has undergone significant development. In particular, the 18th-century French militant atheism and the 19th-century German Feuerbachian humanistic atheism reached new heights in their critiques of religious theism and idealism. Can these, then, be called "scientific atheism"? I fear they fall somewhat short. Although they applied the research findings of modern science to prove that no deities or supernatural forces exist within the world of human survival or the dimensions of time and space already understood by humanity—and although the various mental hallucinations and religious miracles appearing in human thought began to receive preliminary explanations—they remained limited. As Engels said: "One regiment after another laid down its arms, one fortress after another surrendered, before the onslaught of science, until finally the boundless domain of nature was conquered by science and left 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 consistent, thorough materialism [3].
The "scientific atheism" we speak of should primarily possess three qualities: 1. Full application of contemporary scientific research findings; 2. A penetrating scientific explanation 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 conception of nature and history, the unity of materialism and dialectics, and the unity of ontology and epistemology. Scientific atheism is an inherent meaning within the subject matter 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 that links Marxist philosophy with scientific atheism. The essential boundary between science and superstition lies in this: science is the cognition of the laws of the objective world, proceeding from the various forms of existence and motion of the material world; thus, it can accept the test of practice and can only continuously improve and develop through that testing process. Superstition, by contrast, propagates supernatural and super-material forces, which cannot accept the test of practice. The invented representatives of these super-material forces can only be God (in various guises) or deified human beings. Believing only in the power of matter and the power of humanity, and never in the power of the divine, is the substance of the distinction between science and superstition. This is precisely the basic starting point of the Marxist philosophical worldview, the core of scientific atheism, and the "red thread" [4] running through it from beginning to end.
III. Marxist Principles and Education in Scientific Atheism
Since Marxist atheism is scientific atheism, why can the study of general Marxist principles not replace education in scientific atheism? This is because Marxist principles provide only the worldview foundation for scientific atheism; they cannot fully encompass, be equated with, or even replace the latter.
Facts compel us to reflect. It is not difficult to find that among some university students who have studied courses on Marxist principles, the influence of superstitious thought still exists. Some believe in the miracles of planchette writing [5], some talk enthusiastically about horoscopes, some are half-doubting and half-believing regarding "pseudo-qigong" [6], and some believe that certain "masters" might truly be different from ordinary mortals. Some students majoring in Religious Studies have even cultivated "religious sentiments," and some master's and doctoral students fell into the quagmire of "Falun Gong" and were 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 of education in scientific atheism, the understanding of the Marxist worldview remains superficial and ungrounded, often failing to withstand the deceptions and assaults of theism. Therefore, education in scientific atheism cannot be bypassed.
We must continuously persist in and improve education in scientific atheism because its object of study—religious theism—will never abandon its stubborn penetration into social life. It constantly changes its forms, such as the trend of shifting from the mystical to the secular or the ethical; it constantly adds new content, such as encroaching into the fields of natural science and the philosophy of science; and it endlessly trumpets the high-pitched tune of "ultimate concern," exerting a non-negligible influence on individual psychology and giving rise to one challenging question after another. These issues cannot be answered or resolved by general education in Marxist principles alone; they require the in-depth research of a scientific atheism that advances with the times.
The necessity of persisting in and improving education in scientific atheism is also dictated by its practical quality. At the beginning of the last century, Lenin cautioned us: "Engels long ago advised the leaders of the modern proletariat to translate the militant literature of the late eighteenth century for wide distribution among the people. To our shame, we have not yet done this (this is one of many proofs that it is much easier to seize power in a period of revolution than to know how to use this power correctly). Sometimes people attempt to justify this slackness, inactivity and lack of skill by all sorts of 'pious' reasons, such as saying that the old atheist literature of the eighteenth century is outdated, unscientific, naive, and so forth. There is nothing worse than such pseudo-learned sophistry, which serves as a screen for either pedantry or a complete misunderstanding of Marxism. There is, of course, much that is unscientific and naive in the atheist writings of the eighteenth-century revolutionaries. But nobody prevents publishers from abridging these writings and providing them with brief postscripts pointing out the progress made by mankind in the scientific criticism of religion since the end of the eighteenth century, mentioning the latest relevant publications, and so forth. It would be the greatest and worst error a Marxist could commit to think that the millions of the people (especially the peasants and artisans), who have been condemned by all modern society to darkness, ignorance and superstition, can extricate themselves from this darkness only along the straight line of a purely Marxist education. These masses should be supplied with the most varied atheist propaganda material, they should be made familiar with the facts from the most diverse spheres of life, they should be approached in every possible way, so as to interest them, rouse them from their religious slumber, shake them up in all sorts of ways and from all angles." (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 insufficient to follow only the "straight line of a purely Marxist education"? Two meanings can be grasped here: first, "purely Marxist education" cannot replace education in scientific atheism, as previously stated; second, education in scientific atheism should be vivid, concrete, closely linked to actual life, and keep pace with social development. It "must not be conducted on the basis of abstract, purely theoretical, unchanging propaganda," but rather "it must be linked with the concrete practice of the class struggle, which is being conducted in fact at the present time and which, more than anything else, serves to educate the 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 propagate the Party’s religious policy and actively guide religion to adapt to socialist society. We must unswervingly popularize scientific knowledge, especially that which is closely related to the masses' daily lives—such as natural science, medicine and health, scientific fitness, and matters of birth, aging, illness, and death—to help people master scientific thought and methods and strive to form a social trend of loving, learning, and using science."
Over the past ten years, the magazine Science and Atheism has performed much fruitful work in the fields of atheist propaganda and education, brilliantly fulfilling the mission of popularizing and elevating Marxist atheist thought. Recently, with an eye toward long-term sustainable development, it has made a timely shift toward becoming an academic journal, placing its focus on the study of theoretical issues and promoting the disciplinary construction of scientific atheism and the cultivation of talent. I believe these efforts will certainly evoke high concern and active support from relevant departments and individuals. With an ever-increasing number of enthusiastic readers and contributors, the magazine will surely be run better and better!
About the Author: Yu Qiming is a Professor at Minzu University of China.