Adhering to Marxism and Adhering to Scientific Atheism
In the primary stage of socialism in our country, under conditions where social thought is pluralistic and fluid, is it legitimate and reasonable to propagate scientific atheism and criticize theism? This is a foundational question that must be answered in order to carry out research on scientific atheism. Some scholars are concerned by the phenomenon in academic and theoretical research where "theism is discussed by many, while atheism is discussed by none"—a situation closely related to the various doubts people harbor regarding this issue. This can be researched and answered from different perspectives; this article will merely share some views on the relationship between adhering to Marxism and adhering to scientific atheism.
I. Adhering to scientific atheism is inherent to adhering to Marxism
In his speech at the meeting celebrating the 30th anniversary of the convening of the Third Plenary Session of the 11th CPC Central Committee [1], Comrade Hu Jintao emphasized: "Marxism is the fundamental guiding ideology upon which our Party and country are founded; it is the fundamental ideological guarantee for the Party and the people to unite as one and always move forward in the right direction." [1] Marxism is a scientific worldview and methodology. The Preamble of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China explicitly stipulates the guiding status of Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, and the Theory of "Three Represents" in our country. Adhering to scientific atheism is inherent to adhering to Marxism. In my view, this is the fundamental basis for our adherence to scientific atheism and our development of research and propagation of scientific atheism.
First, to adhere to dialectical materialism and historical materialism, one must adhere to scientific atheism.
In his speech at the meeting celebrating the 30th anniversary of the convening of the Third Plenary Session of the 11th CPC Central Committee, Comrade Hu Jintao explicitly raised the question of "what is Marxism and how to treat Marxism," [2] listing it as the first among the major theoretical and practical issues explored and answered by our Party during the thirty years of reform and opening up. Regarding the question "what is Marxism," people may hold various understandings, but one point is certain: Marxist philosophy is one of the main components of Marxism and the philosophical theoretical foundation of the scientific system of Marxist thought. Marxist philosophy is dialectical materialism, also known as "dialectical and historical materialism" (this expression does not treat dialectical materialism and historical materialism as two side-by-side parts of Marxist philosophy, but rather highlights the important status of historical materialism within Marxist philosophy. Dialectical materialism is the general name for Marxist philosophy). Although some in academic circles hold different views, in the historical documents of our Party, "Marxist philosophy" and "dialectical and historical materialism" have always been synonymous. Precisely because of this, the Decision [2] adopted by the Fourth Plenary Session of the 17th CPC Central Committee emphasized once again: "Firmly establish the worldview and methodology of dialectical materialism and historical materialism." [3]
To adhere to Marxism, one must adhere to dialectical and historical materialism. Dialectical materialism views the world as a material world characterized by unity in diversity, and "matter is something already existing, something that can neither be created nor destroyed," [4] an objective reality independent of human consciousness. Marxism insists on explaining the world based on the material world itself, without attaching any external components. This fundamental position already excludes the possibility of the existence of any otherworldly Creator and is incompatible with all theistic views. Furthermore, the exposition of the fundamental views of materialism by Marxist classical authors and their criticism of idealism have always been directly linked to adhering to atheism and criticizing theism.
In Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, a major work of Marxist philosophy, Engels proposed the theory regarding the basic question of philosophy, which became our scientific standard for distinguishing between materialism and idealism and a powerful ideological weapon for adhering to materialism and opposing idealism. The classic expression of Engels's thought is:
"The question of the relation of thinking to being, the question which, by the way, had played a great part also in the scholasticism of the Middle Ages: which is primary, spirit or nature?—that question, in relation to the church, was sharpened into this: Did God create the world or has the world been in existence forever?
The answers which the philosophers gave to this question split them into two great camps. Those who asserted the primacy of spirit to nature and, therefore, in the last instance, assumed world creation in some form or other—and among the philosophers, Hegel, for example, this creation often becomes still more intricate and impossible than in Christianity—comprised the camp of idealism. The others, who regarded nature as primary, belong to the various schools of materialism.
These two expressions, idealism and materialism, primarily signify nothing more than this; and here also they are not used in any other sense." [5]
This classic discourse on adhering to materialism and opposing idealism contains the thought of adhering to atheism and opposing theism. First, Engels pointed out that when the basic question of philosophy was explicitly raised in modern times, it was raised from the very beginning in a "sharpened form" that questioned theism, directed "in relation to the church" and against the view that "God created the world." Second, he pointed out that "those who asserted the primacy of spirit to nature" are, "in the last instance," those who "assume world creation in some form or other." This points out the essential connection between idealism and theism (of course, the qualifier "in the last instance" means that idealists are not all people who directly advocate for the doctrine of creation). Within the theoretical system of dialectical materialism, this discourse by Engels holds an extremely important foundational status. This demonstrates that adhering to atheism and opposing theism is determined by the essence of Marxist philosophy and is a scientific spirit inherent to dialectical materialism. Because of this, throughout the classical works of Marxist philosophy, we can see that the exposition of the fundamental views of dialectical materialism is directly linked to the affirmation of atheism and the critique of theism.
For example, in Dialectics of Nature, while using historical materials from the development of natural science to elaborate on the dialectical materialist view of nature, Engels used a biting tone to criticize the view of God dominating nature: "God is nowhere treated worse than by the natural scientists who believe in him." "Before the advance of science, one army corps after another has grounded its arms, one fortress after another has surrendered, until at last the whole boundless realm of nature has been conquered by science and no longer leaves any room for the Creator." [6]
To take another example, in his famous work Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, while elaborating on the basic views of dialectical materialism, Lenin also exposed the internal connection between philosophical idealism and theism, subjecting them to in-depth analysis and criticism together. He stated: "Any philosophy which says that physical nature itself is derivative is the purest clericalism." "If nature is derivative, it goes without saying that it is derived from something that is greater, richer, broader, and more powerful than nature, from something that exists; for in order to 'derive' nature, it is necessary to have something that exists independently of nature. In the Russian language, this thing is called God." [7] Lenin pointed out: the "'scientific clericalism' of idealist philosophy is but a screen for open clericalism," while "the materialist theory of knowledge is an 'all-powerful weapon against religious faith.'" [8]
Furthermore, when Lenin analyzed the roots of idealism in his Philosophical Notebooks, he also linked it to clericalism. He pointed out: "Idealism is clericalism." "Philosophical idealism is a road to clericalism through one of the components of the infinitely complex (dialectical) knowledge of man." "Clericalism (= philosophical idealism)." [9]
These thoughts of the classical authors—in a certain sense, all the arguments made by Marxist classical authors for the fundamental views of dialectical materialism—can be interpreted as expositions of scientific atheism.
Second, to adhere to the Marxist view of religion, one must adhere to scientific atheism and oppose theism.
As a complete scientific system, Marxism includes not only the three main components of philosophy, political economy, and scientific socialism, but also scientific theories in many other areas, which together constitute the whole of Marxism. The Marxist view of religion is one of these components. The Marxist view of religion is the fundamental Marxist perspective on religion; it elucidates fundamental questions such as the essence and laws of development of religion and the attitude of the workers' party toward religion. If the basic question of the Marxist outlook is "what is Marxism and how to treat Marxism," then the answer to "what is religion and how to treat religion" constitutes the basic content of the Marxist view of religion. In the process of forming their new worldview, Marx and Engels gave special attention to the question of religion. The Marxist view of religion was born and developed alongside Marxism as a whole. In the "first document containing the brilliant germ of the new world outlook," [10] the Theses on Feuerbach, and in the first mature work marking the birth of Marxism, The German Ideology, there are numerous discourses on religion. In Anti-Dühring and Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, which systematically elaborate on the Marxist scientific worldview, the question of religion is explained specifically. Adhering to Marxism includes adhering to the Marxist view of religion. To adhere to the Marxist view of religion, one must place it within the whole of Marxism, treating it as an organic component and understanding and applying it in connection with all other parts.
The Marxist view of religion is an atheistic view of religion. Adhering to atheism and opposing theism does not equal the entirety of the Marxist view of religion, and the Marxist view of religion cannot be reduced solely to atheism. However, scientific atheism is the core of the Marxist view of religion. Without scientific atheism, there is no Marxist view of religion.
First, to correctly understand the essence of religion, one must adhere to scientific atheism.
Engels pointed out in Anti-Dühring: "All religion, however, is nothing but the fantastic reflection in men’s minds of those external forces which control their daily life, a reflection in which the terrestrial forces assume the form of supernatural forces." [11] This is a profound revelation of the essence of religion. What is that "supernatural force" that centrally embodies the essential characteristics of religion and controls people's daily lives in fantasy? It is God. In polytheism, it is many gods; in monotheism, it is "one almighty God." [12] The world of religion is the world of God; it is the world constituted by God and his dwelling place. Therefore, to understand the essence of religion is, fundamentally, to reveal the essence of the concept of God.
Second, to correctly understand the laws of development of religion, one must adhere to scientific atheism.
Religion, like all other things, exists as a process of development. Essence and laws are concepts situated at the same level concerning the nature of things. The understanding of the laws of religious development—just like the understanding of the essence of religion—constitutes the primary content of the Marxist view of religion. In the Marxist classics, the core content of the discussions on the processes and laws governing the origin, development, and eventual demise of religion is the revelation of the process and laws governing the emergence, development, and disappearance of the concept of God. In Anti-Dühring, Engels analyzed the historical process by which the "alien natural and social forces" that dominate people’s lives are reflected in their minds in the form of fantasies as gods. Briefly stated, this is the historical process of the formation and development of religion: in the early stages of history, it is first natural forces that are "personified," giving rise to primitive religion and mythology; with social development, "the fantastic figures, which at first only reflected the mysterious forces of nature, now acquire social attributes, become representatives of historical forces"; at a further stage of development, "all the natural and social attributes of the many gods are transferred to one almighty god," and "thus monotheism arose." [19] Engels also pointed out that the reason religion continues to exist in capitalist society is that "it is still the case that man proposes, but God (that is, the alien dominant force of the capitalist mode of production) disposes." In the future, when society takes possession of all means of production—that is, "when man proposes and also disposes—only then will the last alien force which is still reflected in religion vanish; and with it will also vanish the religious reflection itself." [20] This tells us that to understand the Marxist viewpoint on the laws of religious development from emergence to demise, one cannot for a moment abandon the historical analysis of the concept of God, nor can one abandon scientific atheism.
Third, to correctly treat religion with a Marxist scientific attitude, one must persist in scientific atheism.
Elucidating the attitude of the workers' party toward religion is a vital component of the Marxist view of religion. The Marxist view of religion is the important theoretical foundation upon which our Party and state formulate the principles and policies for religious work and guide our success in religious affairs. Religion possesses long-term, complex, mass-based, ethnic, and international characteristics. To treat religion with a Marxist scientific attitude, an understanding of religion itself is insufficient; one must also correctly understand the complex, intertwined relationships between religion and factors such as the economy, politics, culture, and ethnicity. In the process of the Marxist party leading revolution, construction, and reform, the question of how to treat religion must be examined within the overall context of the Party’s cause; it must submit to and serve the Party’s central work, through which correct principles and policies are formulated. Marxism has always opposed "declaring war on religion," opposed "placing religious distinctions in the first place," [21] and opposed reducing the attitude toward religion to mere atheistic propaganda. Our Party has formulated basic principles for religious work, such as "comprehensively implementing the Party’s policy of freedom of religious belief," "managing religious affairs according to the law," "adhering to the principle of independence and self-management," and "actively guiding religion to adapt to socialist society." [22] This scientific attitude and policy regarding religion are established upon a scientific understanding of the essence and laws of religious development, rather than being mere expedients [7] focused on local or temporary needs. As Lenin pointed out: "It would be a profound error to think that the 'moderation' of Marxism towards religion is due to 'tactical' considerations, the desire 'not to scare anybody away' and so forth." [23] The Marxist views of religious essence and religious development, which take dialectical materialism and historical materialism as their philosophical worldview foundation and scientific atheism as their core, are the indispensable ideological basis for our correct understanding and implementation of the Party's principles and policies on religious work. While resolutely opposing "declaring war on religion," Lenin also emphasized that Marxism "is absolutely atheistic and positively hostile to all religion," [24] and stressed that "we must combat religion — that is the ABC of all materialism, and consequently of Marxism." [25] This enlightens us: if we depart from scientific atheism and the Marxist view of religion, we cannot truly understand the Party’s basic principles and policies on religious work; we would fall into blindness in our work and commit various deviations.
II. Critiquing Theism is an Inherent Requirement for Persisting in Scientific Atheism
Some people do not oppose persisting in atheism, but they do not approve of critiquing theism. They worry that critiquing theism violates the policy of freedom of religious belief and affects social harmony, wishing to restrict research on atheism to a scope that does not critique theism. This is a significant reason why "atheism is spoken of by no one."
Although, in principle, any affirmation is a negation—to approve of one viewpoint simultaneously means opposing its opposite, and "breaking" and "establishing" are two inseparable aspects of the same process—in specific matters, generally speaking, establishing is not directly equivalent to breaking. Within a certain scope, people can present a viewpoint positively without critiquing the opposing view. For example, it is feasible within certain limits to argue for materialism based on social practice and scientific development without directly critiquing idealism. Can we then set limits on the study of scientific atheism, researching and propagating scientific atheism without critiquing theism?
In my view, the particularity of the research object and basic conclusions of scientific atheism dictates that one cannot persist in scientific atheism without opposing theism, and one cannot research or propagate scientific atheism without analyzing and critiquing theism. To demand that persisting in atheism be limited to positive research and propaganda while forbidding the critique of theism is tantamount to canceling the research and propaganda of scientific atheism itself.
What is the particularity of scientific atheism regarding its research object and basic conclusions compared to other disciplines? This particularity is directly embodied in the word "non" (无, wú). Aside from this, it is difficult to find another discipline named as a "non-..." [8] Any science has its own determined research object. As Mao Zedong pointed out: "The study of a particular contradiction peculiar to a certain sphere of phenomena constitutes the subject matter of a specific branch of science." [26] The objectivity and determinacy of the object are both the basis upon which a discipline distinguishes itself from others and the basic condition for that discipline to become a science and occupy a place in the system of human knowledge. A basic premise for all social sciences to qualify as sciences alongside natural sciences and receive equal attention is that they all have their own specific objective objects; if a theory lacks an objective, determined object, it has no right to exist as a science. The study of scientific atheism is no different.
What, then, is the research object of scientific atheism?
The research object of scientific atheism is not God. In the eyes of scientific atheism, that thing called "God" fundamentally does not exist in the material world; it is an illusion. This is precisely the most fundamental viewpoint of scientific atheism. One cannot take a "nothingness"—that is, a non-existence—as a research object. If scientific atheism were to declare God its research object, its entire content would be to prove the illusory nature of its object, which is to prove that it has no real object and thus is not a science at all.
The research object of scientific atheism is the concept of "God." Both "theism" and "atheism" are human concepts belonging to the realm of social consciousness. Spontaneous, naive atheistic concepts and conscious, systematized science based on atheism belong to different levels of social consciousness. The latter can form its own concepts, categories, and propositions through the study and synthesis of the former; in this sense, scientific atheism takes atheistic concepts as its research object. However, where do atheistic concepts come from? They have no reflected object in an ontological sense; from the very beginning, they appeared in the field of social consciousness as the opposite of theistic concepts. They are a reflection of theistic concepts in a negative form, always fundamentally oriented toward opposing theism. Had theism never appeared, there would be no atheistic concepts at all. Therefore, beyond studying atheistic concepts, in a deeper or more fundamental sense, scientific atheism takes the object of atheistic concepts as its own object—that is, it takes theism as its research object.
Why can the concept of "God" also become an objective research object? Because the distinction between the subjective and objective exists at different levels. This distinction is absolute within a certain range—namely, within the scope of the basic question of philosophy concerning the relationship where matter is primary and consciousness is derivative. One cannot confuse things in the realm of thought with the objective matter they reflect. Beyond this specific range, the distinction between objective and subjective is relative. All ideological concepts belong to the subjective realm in the divide between matter and consciousness, but whether a certain concept exists and how it exists is an objective fact within the field of social thought. It does not change according to the researcher's will; it can only be grasped and reflected accurately by proceeding from facts [9] and based on actual materials in social life. In reality, many disciplines in the social sciences take the mental activities of human beings and their products as their research objects; this does not mean their objects lack objectivity. There has never been an actual "Sun Wukong" [10] (Monkey King) in the world who was part-human and part-monkey with vast magical powers, but the fact that a vivid Monkey King who "wrought havoc in heaven" exists in the spiritual life of the Chinese people is an indisputable fact. As a research object of mythology, it possesses objectivity. Therefore, while myths are not science, the study of myths can be a science. [27] God does not exist, but the existence of various concepts concerning "God" is absolutely certain. It is these concepts that constitute the objective research object of scientific atheism, providing it with the basic premise to become a science, while "atheism" is the fundamental conclusion reached through scientific research.
Seen in this light, as a science, scientific atheism must take theism as its research object. Only when theism appeared in human social life did atheism arise to oppose it. The emergence and development of theism are the historical and logical premises for the emergence and development of atheism. This historical and logical internal connection between atheism and theism shows that a scientific atheism that does not study or critique (and for scientific atheism, study necessarily manifests as critique) theism simply cannot exist. As Engels pointed out: "Atheism is only a negation... as a mere negation of religion, it refers to religion all the time; without religion, it itself would not exist." [28] If critiquing theism is not permitted, then atheism is being asked to abolish its own research object, thereby abolishing scientific atheism itself. To whatever extent the critique of theism is restricted, the scientific study of atheism is restricted to that same extent, which runs counter to the scientific spirit of seeking truth from facts, being selfless, and pursuing truth without hesitation.
III. Persist in Using Marxism to Guide the Research and Propaganda of Scientific Atheism
The discussion above demonstrates that to persist in Marxism and implement the Party’s basic principles and policies on religious work, one must persist in scientific atheism and oppose theism.
Another aspect of the relationship between persisting in Marxism and persisting in scientific atheism is that the research and propaganda of scientific atheism must adhere to Marxism as a guide and follow the Party’s basic principles and policies on religious work without deviation.
First, the study of scientific atheism must persist in taking dialectical materialism and historical materialism as its guiding ideology and theoretical foundation.
Atheism has its own long history. In both China and Europe, many atheists and atheist schools of thought have emerged; while the assertion that "gods do not exist" is their common ground, their theoretical foundations, research methods, and specific propositions each differ. Marxism is atheism, but not all atheism is Marxism. Marxism is scientific atheism, but not all atheism is scientific atheism. Research into scientific atheism should take dialectical materialism and, in particular, historical materialism as its theoretical foundation. It should use social practice and the history of science (as the summation of practice) as its basis. Starting from objective reality—including historical data and the contemporary situation reflecting theistic thought—it must place theism within the socio-historical conditions from which it arose, studying it in connection with the economy, politics, and culture of society to scientifically reveal the essence and laws of development of "gods" or theism. Research into scientific atheism cannot depart from the main road of the development of human civilization; it must not reject, but rather actively absorb, all beneficial intellectual achievements from history and the present. Lenin once pointed out that the militant materialism of Communists should attach importance to absorbing and applying the achievements of the old 18th-century atheists, should form an alliance with modern natural scientists who lean toward materialism, and should to a certain extent form an alliance with progressive elements among the bourgeoisie. Even regarding certain biased bourgeois scholars, while Lenin criticized their erroneous views and denounced them as "graduated flunkeys of clericalism," [11] he did not overlook those of their works that "refuted religious prejudices and myths," [12] and he called for the translation and publication of such works. Yet at the same time, Lenin emphasized with particular force that one must persist in dialectical materialism and "be a conscious adherent of the materialism represented by Marx, that is, he must be a dialectical materialist." [13] This is because "no natural science and no materialism can hold its own in the struggle against the onslaught of bourgeois ideas and the restoration of the bourgeois world outlook unless it stands on solid philosophical ground." [14]
Second, to deeply carry out research into scientific atheism, one must persist in the Marxist view of religion and construct a Marxist religious studies.
Theism is not equivalent to religion; crude feudal superstitious activities and anti-social cults are also forms of theism, but religion is the most important and influential form of theism, and thus the most worthy of study. Research into scientific atheism is inseparable from the study of religion; their objects of study overlap.
Some idealists and old materialists have also done a great deal of work in the study of religion. Their achievements can serve as references and lessons for our research into scientific atheism, but their view of religion is unscientific. Only the Marxist view of religion can guide us in conducting research into scientific atheism. Feuerbach made important contributions to the study of Christianity; his The Essence of Christianity "placed materialism back upon the throne" without ceremony, liberating people's minds and exerting a powerful influence on the young Marx and Engels, who "became at once Feuerbachians." [15] However, from the very beginning of the creation of his own new world outlook, Marx began to criticize Feuerbach's view of religion. In his Theses on Feuerbach, he pointed out the defects of Feuerbach’s view of religion in several places. In his later years, in Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, while "paying a debt of honor"—that is, "freely acknowledging" that "during our Sturm und Drang period, Feuerbach had a greater influence on us than any other philosopher since Hegel"—Engels also deeply analyzed and criticized the historical idealism manifested in Feuerbach's view of religion. [16] He pointed out: "As soon as we come to Feuerbach's philosophy of religion and ethics, his real idealism comes to the fore." [17] He sharply criticized: "Feuerbach's desire to establish a true religion on the basis of an essentially materialistic view of nature amounts to treating modern chemistry as true alchemy. If a religion without God can exist, then alchemy without the philosopher's stone can also exist." [18] If the view of religion held by such a great materialist as Feuerbach is like this, then other non-Marxist views of religion even less can be used as guiding theories for research into scientific atheism.
As a fundamental perspective on religion, the "view of religion" is not equivalent to "religious studies" (zongjiaoxue), which conducts specific empirical research on religion; likewise, the Marxist view of religion is not the same as religious studies guided by Marxism. There are different views of religion, and there are religious studies built upon these different foundations. To deeply conduct research in scientific atheism, we must construct a Marxist religious studies. The Marxist Theory Research and Construction Project, initiated by the Party Central Committee in 2004, took the construction of a disciplinary and textbook system for the philosophy and social sciences guided by Marxism as one of its primary tasks; the construction of religious studies was included therein. This decision itself reflects a spirit: we must persist in using the Marxist stance, viewpoint, and method to conduct research across all social sciences, building and developing every social science (including religious studies) on the basis of the scientific Marxist world outlook. In his later years, addressing the phenomenon of some young writers using the materialist conception of history as a "set phrase" or a "label," Engels criticized them for using it "as a pretext for not studying history," and clearly put forward the requirement that "the whole of history must be studied anew." [19] He pointed out: "The conditions of existence of the different formations of society must be examined in detail before the attempt is made to deduce from them the political, civil-law, aesthetic, philosophic, religious, etc., views corresponding to them." [20] The Marxist view of religion is a guide for researching religious issues, not a set phrase, and it cannot be used as an excuse for not studying specific religious problems. Scientific conclusions regarding various religious issues can only arise from reality through detailed research. The construction of a Marxist religious studies must rely on such "detailed research" and cannot use set phrases to construct a system. Scientific atheism should be a basic idea and basic content of Marxist religious studies; a religious studies that does not persist in scientific atheism and does not analyze and criticize theism cannot be a Marxist religious studies.
Third, in carrying out the research and dissemination of scientific atheism, one must follow the Party’s basic principles and policies concerning religious work.
Our Party, guided by Marxism and proceeding from China’s reality, has formulated basic principles and policies for religious work. These principles and policies are the manifestation of the Sinicized Marxist view of religion in practical work. To persist in using Marxism to guide the research and dissemination of scientific atheism, one must earnestly study the Sinicized Marxist view of religion and implement the Party’s basic principles and policies for religious work.
The Party Central Committee has proposed to "comprehensively implement the Party's basic principles for religious work, and strive to achieve harmonious coexistence between religion and society, between different religions, and between religious believers and non-believers, as well as those who believe in different religions." [21] Whether persisting in scientific atheism and opposing theism is consistent with these three "harmonious coexistence" requirements proposed by the Party Central Committee, and whether it will affect social harmony, is a question that must be considered and answered in order to comprehensively implement the Party's basic principles for religious work.
Social harmony is always established upon a certain foundation. Maintaining and strengthening this foundation promotes social harmony; weakening and damaging it destroys social harmony. What, then, is the foundation for achieving harmonious coexistence between religion and society, between religions, and between believers and non-believers? Is it theism, or atheism, or a specific kind of theism from a particular religion? It is none of these. If the foundation of harmonious coexistence were a common religious belief (or lack thereof), it would mean that social harmony in this respect is fundamentally impossible, because no such foundation exists in reality. The foundation of religion-related social harmony lies precisely not in the presence or absence of religious belief, but in other areas. The reason social harmony is an essential feature of socialism with Chinese characteristics is determined by the socialist economic system, the political system, and the fundamentally consistent common interests of the people of all Chinese ethnic groups built upon the socialist system. This is the most fundamental economic and political foundation for our construction of a socialist harmonious society. The ideological foundation for building a socialist harmonious society is a socialist culture of harmony, with the socialist core value system as its fundamental content. As the report to the 17th National Congress of the CPC emphasized, we must "consolidate the common ideological foundation for the united struggle of the whole Party and the people of all ethnic groups throughout the country" by building the socialist core value system and enhancing the attractiveness and cohesive force of socialist ideology. [22] The economic, political, and ideological foundations for achieving the three types of "harmonious coexistence" in religion are exactly the same. The reason our country can achieve harmony in the religious sphere is that although religious believers and non-believers, and those who believe in different religions, have differences in their ideological beliefs, their fundamental interests are identical. They all support the socialist system, the leadership of the Communist Party of China, and the guiding position of Marxism; they all pursue the common ideal of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and they all take Chinese national culture as their common spiritual home. Compared to the differences in religious belief, this is a "great sameness amid differences." Compared to this "great sameness," differences in religious belief are "small differences within the great sameness." Constructing a socialist harmonious society does not mean refusing to recognize contradictions or avoiding them; rather, it means correctly handling contradictions. The report to the 17th National Congress pointed out that building a socialist harmonious society "is a historical process and a social result of correctly handling various social contradictions on the basis of development." [23] The relationship between the two sides of any contradiction is one of both opposition and unity. To deny opposition when seeing unity, or to deny unity when seeing opposition, is metaphysical thinking. Materialist dialectics, conversely, requires "grasping the opposite in the unity of opposites," [24] not denying opposition while seeing unity, and not forgetting unity while seeing opposition. To correctly handle contradictions regarding religious issues, one must unify the two sides of the contradiction—where differences or oppositions exist—by seeking great sameness while preserving small differences. While proposing the requirement to strive for the three types of "harmonious coexistence" in religion, Comrade Hu Jintao also stated: "We Chinese Communists are atheists and do not believe in any religion." [25] This clearly pointed out the existing differences in ideological belief, and with the scientific spirit of dialectical materialism, it indicated that persisting in scientific atheism and the requirement to achieve "harmonious coexistence" in religion are dialectically unified.
Persisting in scientific atheism and opposing theism is an inevitable requirement for upholding Marxism as the guiding ideology; it is therefore conducive to consolidating the common ideological foundation for the united struggle of the people across the country and achieving social harmony. However, the Marxist view of religion and the Party’s basic principles for religious work are an integrated whole comprising many aspects. Persisting in scientific atheism, as a manifestation of implementing the policy of freedom of religious belief, must also be placed within this whole and understood in connection with its other parts. If it is extracted in isolation from this whole and exaggerated, it will violate and deviate from the Party’s basic principles for religious work. Two points are offered here:
First, one must not exaggerate the significance of the dissemination of atheism, nor elevate it to an unmerited position of primary importance.
Lenin once warned that "the party of the proletariat... risks exaggerating the importance of the struggle against religion" and told them "not to venture upon a political war against religion." [26] Both Engels and Lenin believed that "to declare war on religion is a foolish act." [27] If the dissemination of atheism is elevated to a primary position, it exaggerates the differences in religious belief between believers and non-believers, placing these differences above their common economic, political, and ideological-cultural foundations, which would damage social harmony. Lenin pointed out that the call to "down with religion" is a "superficial, narrow bourgeois cultural view." [28] To exaggerate the work of atheistic dissemination is, in terms of its ideological and cognitive roots, to exaggerate the status and role of religion in social life, and thus to deviate from the materialist conception of history.
Second, the research and dissemination of atheism must be unified with respect for the freedom of others to believe in religion.
The legal basis for propagating atheism and opposing theism is Article 36 of our country's Constitution, which stipulates that "citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief." This is an embodiment of "comprehensively and correctly implementing the Party's policy of freedom of religious belief; respecting both the freedom of the masses to believe in religion and the freedom of the masses not to believe in religion" [69]. Therefore, it must be unified with the other manifestation of the policy of freedom of religious belief: "respecting the freedom of the masses to believe in religion." To freely believe in religion is a right bestowed upon the religious masses by the Constitution, and it is a right equal to that of not believing in religion and adhering to atheism. Propagating atheism is the exercise of one’s own rights; in exercising this right, a citizen cannot interfere with the rights of others to believe in religion. The Party Central Committee requires "adhering to political unity and cooperation, and mutual respect in matters of belief" [70]. "Mutual respect" means that each side can persist in its own views and disagree with the views of others, while simultaneously respecting—and not interfering with—the right of others to persist in their own views.
In the new stage of the new century [29], as complex changes occur in our country's social structure and the pattern of social interests, people’s ideological concepts have become increasingly diverse, and the influence of religion in the lives of a portion of the masses has strengthened. At the same time, the infiltration of our country by external hostile forces utilizing religion has continuously intensified. Under these new historical conditions, the inherent complexity of the religious question has become further highlighted. Correctly handling complex religious issues relates to social harmony and the unity of the people, and is linked to the grand undertaking of building a moderately prosperous society in all respects [30]. To do a good job in the research and propagation of scientific atheism, we must deeply study the Marxist view of religion, proceed from objective reality, analyze specific situations specifically, and comprehensively understand and implement the Party’s basic principles for religious work.