Du Jiwen: Scientific Atheism and Its Social Responsibility
Over the past several decades, the reputation of atheism has suffered, and scientific atheism has repeatedly come under attack. These attacks are often tinged with political emotion—not coming from the religious world, but from certain figures in academia or even political circles. Taking the opportunity of this annual meeting of the China Association for Scientific Atheism (CASA) held in Xinjiang, I would like to discuss this issue. I hope that experts and scholars will offer their corrections if my views are inappropriate.
The accusers list roughly three crimes committed by atheism: first, that it is a remnant of the "Cultural Revolution" and "ultra-Leftism"; second, that it undermines social harmony; and third, that it opposes the policy of freedom of religious belief. While each of these charges could be politically fatal, this article does not intend to respond from the perspective of a legal defense. This is because the leveling of such charges implies a lack of relevant knowledge and a habitual way of thinking that relies on "political labeling" [1] to suppress dissenting opinions. In academic discussion, both of these are negative factors that corrupt the scholarly atmosphere and should be avoided. As for those scholars who claim to study the Marxist view of religion but harbor an irreconcilable hatred toward atheism, their position is even more worthy of scrutiny.
I. Atheism is a Product of Labor and Civilized Human Consciousness, a Fruit of Human Civilization and Reflection
First, it is necessary to clarify what atheism is. As the name implies, atheism is to seek truth from facts; it holds that gods, ghosts, heaven, hell, and any other supernatural forces do not actually exist in the world. It maintains that human destiny is held in human hands. This is a fact and a truth—should it not be spoken, or is it forbidden to be spoken?
Some scholars claim that atheism lacks "scholarship" and that only those without learning talk about it. There is a certain truth to this statement. Atheism expresses a very simple fact. Conversely, theism must be "scholarly" because it must represent things that do not exist as existing, and further represent them as sacred entities to which the general public should submit. Without "scholarship," it truly could not function. For example, how many articles and books have been published to demonstrate the existence of God (ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments)? How many works describe the attributes of God (Truth, Goodness, Beauty, Love, omniscience, and omnipotence)? How many more publications explain the relationship between God and humanity (the Trinity, original sin and redemption, and the idea that believers go to heaven while non-believers go to hell), especially concerning God and society—including politics, science, ethics, and values? From the West to China, from ancient times to the present, several libraries could probably not contain them all. Yet everyone is clear: this kind of scholarship is called "theology." To prevent the public from rejecting God, it is now often given the euphemism of "Religious Studies" [2] or "Academic Theology," and has supposedly become a "prominent school" [3] within contemporary Chinese "academic circles."
Why is it also reasonable to say that atheists lack scholarship? Many scholars today are eager to say that the birth of religion is almost contemporary with the origin of human civilization, using this to show that theism has a long history and is a "treasure" that must not be touched. What about atheism? Labor created man; the process by which humans branched off from animals and became human began with labor—the ability to create and use tools. Accordingly, once labor became the guarantee and driving force for human survival and development, it simultaneously implied a negation of the divine creation of man and nature. This marked the emergence of atheism; productive labor became the first proof of atheistic validity. As for men and women falling in love and procreating to continue the species, this became another proof that atheism stems from human nature. As the saying goes, "appetite and lust are nature" [4]; human nature itself ties atheism firmly to the depths of life, and no one can escape it. The world’s three major religions all have ascetic doctrines because it is precisely "appetite and lust" that create the original obstacles to religious faith. As a result, no religion has ever implemented asceticism perfectly. Recently, the Catholic Pope faced great trouble; because he concealed and shielded the scandal of clergy pedophilia, atheists in the UK wanted to publicly prosecute him for "crimes against humanity." Pedophilia is one of the evil fruits of ascetic doctrines violating human nature. One can gain a more vivid impression of such situations by reading the masterpiece The Decameron or watching the film The Hunchback of Notre Dame. On a more intuitive level, as soon as a baby is born, his or her little mouth searches for the mother's milk rather than seeking a divine gift. This is the most perceptible phenomenon of daily life. Thus, no theoretical demonstration or specialized scholarship is required: as long as one is of sound mind, no one waits for "meat pies to fall from the sky" [5], and no virgin can become pregnant without insemination or have a child placed in her arms simply by praying to Guanyin [6]. In this regard, everyone is an atheist. We call this type "spontaneous" or "instinctive" atheism—it exists in all fields of secular life and runs through a person's entire existence.
Seen in this light, religion is not a natural human need; theism is a burden and a shackle imposed upon humanity. The question is: is its basis real? Is its existence rational? How was this irrational thing without an objective basis produced, and how was it imposed on people such that they accepted it voluntarily or by necessity? These questions required answers, and thus "conscious atheism"—that is, an atheism directed against and in opposition to theism—emerged. The mission of conscious atheism is to expose and critique the absurdity of theism, refute the fallacies of theology, explain the roots of religious belief in ghosts and gods, and point toward the path to overcoming theism. It can be said that it emerged the very day religion was born. The history of conscious atheism is synchronized with the history of the formation and development of religion. In this sense, atheism is also a vast field of scholarship. It must refute all theories of ghosts and gods, reveal the history and functions of their various organizational forms, and simultaneously elucidate the scientific, philosophical, and practical foundations of atheism. It must even demonstrate the characteristics of atheistic and non-religious ways of thinking and living. Therefore, its scope is far broader than theology, and its thought has greater depth. The Encyclopædia Britannica explains "atheism" as a "product of civilization and reflection"—this should be considered an accurate judgment based on extensive scientific research. It is objective and fair: atheism embodies the process of human development from barbarism to civilization, from blindness to reflection, and from incomplete to complete knowledge. It represents the basic spirit of man being human. To express all its "fruits" would be impossible without sufficient knowledge.
In this regard, theism and atheism involve only the question of factual truth—which is closer to truth and which tends more toward fallacy. There is no necessary connection to a person's moral character or political tendencies. Some scholars today loudly proclaim the moral attributes of religion, believing that all religious believers perform good deeds, even to the point of advocating for the use of religion to maintain social order and coordinate interpersonal relationships. This is consistent neither with history nor reality, and it is logically unsound. Similarly, to say that atheism is evil, lawless, or must manifest as political progress is equally inconsistent with the facts and logically flawed—because politics, morality, and belief in ghosts and gods are completely different domains. However, once theism is organized—including the construction of ideological systems and the establishment of church organizations—the situation changes fundamentally. It is further endowed with ideological significance and acquires social functions. Pure theism belongs to religious concepts and is limited to the spiritual level; as organized religion, it possesses the function of social indoctrination and forms social groups, where spiritual power is transformed into material power.
The dual organization of theism—both spiritual and material—forced the content of atheism's response to become more complex. It moved far beyond the scope of who told the truth or who possessed the truth, and further involved worldviews, outlooks on life, systems of values, and almost all areas of real life, including morality, politics, society, and law. This type of atheism reached its climax in the West starting from the Renaissance, through the Enlightenment, to the Young Hegelians, following the rise of the nascent bourgeoisie against feudal theocracy and the great development of modern science. Because the atheism of this period had a distinct character of anti-feudalism and critiquing theology, people generally call it "militant atheism." And because it fully utilized the scientific achievements of the time, using the scientific spirit and method as weapons and promoting scientific development, it is also called "scientific atheism."
II. Types of Atheism and the Characteristics of Marxist Atheism
The concept of "atheism" was imported from the West, specifically in reference to Christian theism. Traditionally, Christianity recognizes only one God and denies any deities worshipped by other religions, causing Western atheism to take on a specifically anti-monotheistic quality. Christianity held a dominant position in Western thought and culture for at least 1,500 years, and its legacy persists; in the last 20 years, under the vigorous cultivation of the United States, it has shown signs of reasserting its power. Consequently, atheistic trends directed against Christianity have also persisted throughout history, rising and falling in various forms and contents—such as deism, pantheism, skepticism, agnosticism, and even nominalism (a branch of theology) have all become variants of atheism. Current Western atheism, on one hand, defends science—for example, by opposing Intelligent Design and strengthening scientific research into religious mystical experiences; on the other hand, it defends democracy and adheres to the constitutional principle of the separation of church and state, opposing both the entry of religion into schools and the use of religion as a mobilization for war or a pretext for violence. However, the strongest force is the call for the rationalization of human nature through the process of social secularization, leading to the rise of so-called secular humanism and the New Atheism movement. We also call these "scientific atheism." Their slogan is not "combat with religion," but rather the advocacy of a non-religious life. They believe that a non-religious life relies on human intelligence and talent to seek happiness, which highlights human nature more than relying on external forces like God and is better suited to the independent and free development of the individual.
Broadly speaking, Marxist atheism also belongs to the category of scientific atheism, yet it is more thorough and more scientific—it is the advanced form of scientific atheism. As for Marx himself, his complete escape from the Christian domination of family and school occurred during the period when he participated in the Young Hegelian left-wing movement and broke with Hegelian idealist philosophy. Engels recalled the situation of those years in this passage: "Because of the practical necessity of struggling against existing religion, the bulk of the most determined Young Hegelians were driven back to English and French materialism... Then came Feuerbach's The Essence of Christianity... One must oneself have experienced the liberating effect of this book to get an idea of it. Enthusiasm was general; we all became at once Feuerbachians. How enthusiastically Marx greeted the new aspect and how much—in spite of all critical reservations—he was influenced by it, one may read in The Holy Family." This "new aspect" was humanistic atheism—it overturned the delusion that God created man, demonstrating instead that man created God; following this, the entire worldview was turned upside down. This was the highest achievement of the French Enlightenment and the end of German classical philosophy. As everyone knows, Marx then moved from the critique of Feuerbach’s abstract anthropology toward the study of man as "the ensemble of the social relations." [7] Specifically, the discovery of the historical materialist [8] conception of history and of surplus value urged him to move from the critique of religion and the exposition of atheism toward the creation and leadership of the scientific socialist movement—from a thinker he became a great revolutionary. In this regard, the Marxist critique of religion also shifted from a primary critique of feudalism to a primary critique of the Christianity that maintains the capitalist system and bourgeois interests; its atheism is integrated into its entire theoretical system and the practice of scientific socialism. Therefore, we can say that there is no Marxist view of religion or atheism that exists outside the Marxist totality. Anyone who speaks grandiosely of a Marxist view of religion and atheism in isolation from the Marxist totality is fragmenting Marxism. Likewise, to abstract the study of Marxism and intentionally bypass the Marxist critique of religion—especially to purge its atheist worldview when expounding and researching the Marxist view of religion—is a base emasculation of the Marxist view of religion. Personally, I do not believe the essence of the Marxist view of religion is atheism; rather, atheism is the cornerstone and starting point of its entire religious perspective. This is because atheism is only a component, or a general attribute, of its religious view, not its unique characteristic—just as the doctrine of class struggle is a component of scientific socialism (anyone attempting to excise it from class society is a revisionist), yet it is not the unique characteristic of Marxism, nor was it a Marxist discovery.
What are the characteristics of Marxist atheism? First, proceeding from historical materialism, one must explain religion through history, rather than explaining history through religion. This points out the social basis for the emergence of religion and digs out the roots of theism. Simultaneously, it draws a clear line against "culturalism"—the tendency to overstate the role of religion and "pan-culturalize" it (i.e., explaining religion through "culture" and explaining "culture" through religion). Second, through the analysis of capitalism provided by the theory of surplus value, it discovered the true subject and driving force of the socialist movement: the proletariat, which represents the advanced productive forces. Thus, atheism was incorporated into the scientific socialist movement, forming an organic part of it. Third, by inheriting and developing the finest achievements of human thought regarding atheism—especially the continuous contributions of science—it compels atheism to become increasingly rich, substantial, and persuasive, while simultaneously clearing away the obstacles of religious theology for the continued development of science. Thus, Marxist atheism possesses three most distinct characteristics: the theory of historical materialism, the practice of the scientific socialist movement, and a scientific spirit consistently applied throughout.
Lenin inherited Marxist atheism and made important developments to it. In practice, this atheism was an intellectual weapon for the "criticism by weapons" [9] against Russian theocracy, and a primary measure to prevent and eliminate the erosion of the workers' party by religion. In theory, Lenin—specifically from a philosophical basis, namely from the perspective of materialism and dialectical epistemology—analyzed and critiqued the fallacies of religion in terms of thinking methodology. In particular, his exposure of the epistemological roots from which religion arises—targeting Plato and Aristotle (who were revered as philosophical foundations by Christian theology) and Neo-Kantianism (widely utilized by modern and contemporary theology)—was a pioneering feat that also developed the epistemology of dialectical materialism. For various reasons, Lenin's contributions in these areas have been almost entirely excluded from the horizon of the "Marxist view of religion." The resulting loss has made our research appear impoverished and lacking in active constructiveness. To draw everyone's attention, I cite a passage from Lenin here for your consideration:
"Human knowledge is not (or does not follow) a straight line, but a curve, which endlessly approximates a series of circles, a spiral. Any fragment, segment, or section of this curve can be transformed (transformed one-sidedly) into an independent, complete, straight line, which then (if one does not see the wood for the trees) leads into the quagmire, into clericalism (where it is anchored by the class interests of the ruling classes). Rectilinearity and one-sidedness, woodenness and petrification, subjectivism and subjective blindness—voilà the epistemological roots of idealism. And clericalism (= philosophical idealism), of course, has epistemological roots, it is not groundless; it is a sterile flower undoubtedly, but a sterile flower that grows on the living tree of living, fertile, genuine, powerful, omnipotent, objective, absolute human knowledge." [10]
Inquiring into how humans can think correctly without making errors (or making fewer errors) is also one of the finest traditions of the Chinese Party. It has played a massive, irreplaceable role in ensuring our correct understanding of Chinese history, our judgment of the nature of society, and our assessment of the current situation. The fallacies of religious theology provide rich material for studying why human cognition makes mistakes and how to correct these mistakes to move toward correct understanding. Lenin proposed this task during the struggle against the "religious mist"; it should naturally be a subject within the study of Marxist atheism.
The term "atheism" (wushenlun) did not exist in Chinese history because China is traditionally a country where polytheism and atheism coexist. "People-centeredness" (yi ren wei ben) [11] and "the people are precious" (min wei gui) [12] are traditional concepts that have permeated three thousand years of history; the parallel processes of "creating gods" and "abolishing gods" constitute the specific characteristics of Chinese religion. The elevation of conscious atheism to a philosophical level began with the emergence of the concepts of qi [13] and dao [14]; they completely excluded the mystical side of "Heaven" (tian) and the "human-heaven" view. By the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods [15], with the "contention of a hundred schools of thought," religion held no independent status. Since the Han and Wei dynasties, there was indigenous Daoism and imported Buddhism; these stood alongside Confucianism as the "Three Teachings," existing in a tripod-like balance and eventual convergence, forming a relatively stable cultural structure prior to the Opium War. Among them, Daoism viewed "immortals" (shenxian) as the highest achievement of "human" cultivation. Buddhism placed "heavenly deities" (tianshen) within the ranks of all living beings in the world, without any special privileges; even the Buddha of the highest rank was an "Awakened One" accessible to everyone, not a Creator. Therefore, there has never existed a god who created the world and man in our country; we do not recognize the world or man as the creation of any god. In legend, there is Pangu who separated heaven and earth and Nüwa who created humans and mended the sky, but these are myths concerning the ancestors of the Huaxia [16] people—they are absolutely not objects of faith. Great floods also occurred in antiquity, but the one who controlled the waters and saved the people was Great Yu, not an Ark given to Noah by God. Fire was the invention of Suiren, who drilled wood—it was not a spark stolen by Prometheus from Zeus in heaven. What is emphasized is human nature; there have been long-standing debates over whether human nature is good or evil, but there is absolutely no recognition that humans are born with sin, nor is there a search for redemption by a Savior. Precisely because of this, there was no Western-style theology or an atheism that specialized in refuting theology. The oldest religious behaviors were divination to observe "Heaven’s Mandate" or "Heaven’s Luck," which expanded into physiognomy, palmistry, calculating the "eight characters" [17] of birth, observing celestial phenomena, and fengshui—these parts, akin to shamanism and now criticized as ignorant superstition, were termed by ancient opponents as "hating the false and delusional" (ji xuwang). Theories with genuine philosophical significance included the "immortality of the soul" (shen bu mie lun) advocated by Buddhism and its critics' "mortality of the soul" (shen mie lun)—here "soul" (shen) refers only to the spirit. Conceptions of ghosts and demons were common, collectively called "theism regarding ghosts" (you gui lun), which was opposed by "atheism regarding ghosts" (wu gui lun). Other illicit idol worship was called "excessive sacrifices" (yin si), and illicit religious organizations were called "evil cults" (xie jiao), and so on; none of these fell under the Western concept of atheism. The emergence of the Chinese concept of atheism is directly related to the introduction of Christianity. The first to use it was likely Zhang Taiyan in his "On Atheism" (Wushenlun), which was sharply directed at monotheisms like Christianity. Later, it was used by May Fourth Movement [18] figures such as Chen Duxiu and Hu Shi, who further categorized contemporary Chinese "spiritualism" (similar to today's "special functions" [19]) and other ignorant superstitions as forms of theism. They used the word "atheism" to negate all of these along with the "God" of monotheism. The atheism we usually refer to primarily follows this tradition of the May Fourth era.
III. The Belief Core of Religion and Its Ideological and Social Nature
People are often quite vague in their use of nouns and concepts, using them intentionally or unintentionally in interpretations and writings; the differences can be vast. "Religion" is one such term. It is said that the definitions of religion at home and abroad are too numerous to count. Recently, Comrade Li Shen investigated its etymology; here I will only discuss three current understandings. First, it refers to religious concepts, including ghosts/spirits (souls), gods (God), the world beyond (heaven and hell), and supernatural forces (fengshui, "eight characters," physiognomy, divination, "special functions," etc.)—this is also the scope covered by "theism." Second, religious behavior, which refers to the behavior manifested by religious concepts, such as sacrifices, prayers, worship, rituals, festivals, and related group activities; these often possess local and ethnic characteristics, and some have transformed into folk customs. These two categories of "religion" embody "faith" itself; they belong to the pure category of faith or may have cultural significance, but they do not possess ideological or social attributes. In this regard, if someone says that religion possesses "mass character," "ethnic character," or "long-term character" and will not disappear even in communist society, I would not object, because their emergence is largely constrained by psychological, physiological, or even pathological states, as well as the influence of traditional customs. Third, religious concepts and behaviors are ideologized and organized as social groups—that is, "religion" in the full sense of having social performance. This is constrained by the social base and obeys the historical laws of social development; theism is thus endowed with social functions beyond its faith. Summing up these three forms of religion in the popular context, they all share "theism" as a commonality; theism is the core of all religions. Concepts like Feuerbach’s "religion of love," today’s "religion of morality," Einstein’s religion which banished a personal god and exhorted priests to become teachers, and Zhang Taiyan’s religion established on "Yogacara philosophy"—all of these have extracted the core of theism and belong to the category of atheism. They completely change the original meaning of religion—to incorporate atheism into the concept of religion is like a "circular square" or "white blackness"; it is a logical contradiction that this article does not adopt. Some people refer to the workers' party guided by Marxism as a "religion," but that is a political maneuver not worth discussing.
Regarding the aforementioned religious organizations with social character and the countless sects that exist, religion does not possess permanence, but only "historicity"; it does not possess an inherent national character, but only "mutability." There are numerous examples of this in both history and current reality. The most influential "religion" of antiquity was Zoroastrianism (Xianjiao [20]), which emerged around the 7th or 6th century BCE. It was one of the intellectual sources of Christianity and may have also influenced Buddhism. Its birthplace was Persia (Iran), it flourished in Central Asia, and it entered China during the Northern and Southern Dynasties. Its founder, Zoroaster, is translated in Chinese as "Suluozhi," but is commonly known in the West as "Zarathustra"; thus, the book written by Nietzsche, Sayings of Suluozhi, is also translated as Thus Spoke Zarathustra. What was the outcome of a religion with such immense influence? After the 7th century CE, it essentially perished from Persia and Central Asia; in China, it vanished after the Song Dynasty. It is said that today there are only a very small number or scattered believers in places like India. From this, we can see that its faith was not limited to the Persian people—the Persians who once believed in it discarded it long ago; the Chinese could accept it, and likewise could abandon it.
Furthermore, it is said that religion has its own independent laws of emergence and development and cannot be fostered or abolished by administrative means—this is not necessarily true either. The homeland of Buddhism is India, but after the 11th century, it was basically driven out of the country. At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, Buddhist scholars in China and abroad hoped for its rebirth in India, but to this day it has not gained momentum. It seems it never became the national religion of India, yet it continues to survive and prosper in the Han-Tibetan and Pali language systems. Central Asia was once the most developed region for Buddhism; from the 3rd or 2nd century BCE to the 7th or 8th century CE, it was basically within the Buddhist sphere of influence. Later, however, it became the exclusive domain of Islam. Buddhism was essentially eliminated through administrative and even violent means (see A.K. Warder, Indian Buddhism, translated by Wang Shian, Commercial Press, 1987 edition); even the stone Buddhas in Afghanistan, which remained as slight vestiges, were recently demolished by human explosives.
Today, the rate at which religious groups emerge and perish has clearly accelerated. Religions characterized as "New Religious Movements" almost all possess this attribute of impermanence. As for Christianity, it has spread throughout the globe and is striving to become the state religion of relevant countries or the ethnic religion of relevant peoples. Is it not so? Since the Opium War, there has been a desire to Christianize China. From the implementation of the "China for Christ" [21] project at the beginning of the last century to the entry of "theology" into our higher education institutions and national research institutes today, it is clear that Christianity is by no means content to remain in Western countries as a Western religion. Rather, it expects other nations and peoples to change their non-Christian traditions and uphold Christianity as a state or ethnic religion. Conversely, there is a consensus that European Christianity is in decline; a single pedophilia scandal can strip the Pope of his "holy light" and bankrupt the church. Huntington wrote a book lamenting this, asking, as Americans of Anglo-Saxon Protestant faith: "Who are we?" The overall prospect is clear.
All of this proves that religion indeed has no essence of its own, nor a history of its own; its essence and history lie entirely in its sociality. Its laws are governed by the laws of social-historical development. To understand religion, one must go deep into its social foundation. How are religious concepts and behaviors ideologized so as to manifest their sociality? This requires the support of many empirical sciences; this article can only provide a brief sketch. Existing major world religions can be divided into monotheism and polytheism; here, let us use Christianity as the example for monotheism and Buddhism for polytheism.
The core of Christian faith is undoubtedly God, honored as the only deity. This is also the sole object of its theistic reference that is not subject to dispute. The corresponding religious behaviors are prayer, sacrifice (sacrifice to God later alienated into donations to the church), and other speech and conduct directly related to God. All of this existed before Christianity was organized. We regard the Bible as the completion of the organization of Christianity. It has circulated for nearly two thousand years and is still honored by believers as the only authoritative text. There are many works introducing and appreciating it, and the resulting theologies are countless and still proliferating. In the last decade or so, so-called "extra-ecclesial theology" [22] has also emerged in our country, which, along with so-called "religious studies," has become quite popular in the "field of religious culture." But none of this can serve as the basis for understanding Christianity. To trace the source, one must start with the Bible.
The characteristic of the Bible is that it expands the faith centered on "God" into a system of doctrine expressed in the form of myths and legends. It carries the entire complex ideology of Christianity and has become the original text upon which theologians of various generations have developed all kinds of Christian thought. This has attached or added countless things to the simple belief in God that have little to do with faith. Here, I will briefly examine only those parts that are particularly closely related to our real life.
The opening of the Old Testament of the Bible is "Genesis," which is mainly about God's creation of the world and humanity. Note: that the world and humans are creations of God is a common point of monotheistic religions; they can all be called the "Creator" (zaowuzhu), the only difference being the name of the deity. The Chinese translation for the name of the Christian God is "Shangdi" or "Tianzhu," while his original name is "Jehovah." The natural world He created is allegedly for the sake of settling human existence and allowing humans to manage it. As for the purpose of creating humans, it is unclear. Some say God created the world and humans only to display "God's life and authority" and to "make the earth God's kingdom." Regardless, this establishes the fundamental relationship between God and man: God is the Father, and humans are God's children, so believers address each other as brothers and sisters; God is the Lord, and human is God's servant, so believers constantly speak of the "Lord" and place themselves in humility; God is the shepherd, and humans are the pastured lambs, while church pastors are specialized personnel who shepherd people on behalf of God; the lamb needs to rely on the shepherd forever; God is the grantor of grace, and humanity is the recipient of grace. Humans must forever be grateful for God's grace, which is concretized through confession to clergy and making donations. This forms the first layer of Christian doctrine.
As everyone knows, the ancestors of humanity created by God were Adam and Eve, who lived in the Garden of Eden in heaven. The ancestors did not follow God's instructions and secretly ate the fruit from the "tree of knowledge of good and evil." They acquired "wisdom," their "eyes were opened," and they knew the shame of nakedness. This angered God, who immediately drove them to the earth. He not only "cursed" Eve as a woman but also burdened the entire human race with "original sin." From then on, God viewed humanity as criminals, and humanity became enemies with God. Once, God grew angry and determined to destroy all His creations, so He sent a great flood to submerge everything in the world. At the last moment, He suddenly showed mercy and preserved Noah's family, allowing them to be saved by the ark. God's hatred for humanity is so deep and heavy that it compels Christian faith to regard human "redemption" as the sole priority of life. The common phrase in a believer's humility, "I am a sinner," originates from this; using donations to redeem sins and selling indulgences became a direct source of wealth for the church and the clergy. Thus, the theories of "original sin" and "redemption" became the second layer of basic Christian doctrine. Among the scholars currently pushing for the Christianization of China, there is a faction that totally negates traditional Chinese culture, primarily on the grounds that Chinese people have been "blindly arrogant" since ancient times because they did not know they were sinful.
These two fundamental doctrines explain one principle: man is a creation of God, and God absolutely cannot tolerate man possessing wisdom, especially the ability to distinguish between good and evil, right and wrong, and beauty and ugliness. The nature of man is sin; human life can only crawl on the ground, with "dog-like obedience and angel-like patience" (in the words of Heine), rather than straightening one's back and raising one's head to live with self-respect and independence. From the perspective of us Chinese laity, God is used to keep the people ignorant; only by "not thinking" or "lacking thought" can the piety of faith be guaranteed.
Obviously, this type of doctrine has already exceeded the scope of theism and the original meaning of faith. It is a unique system of worldview, outlook on life, and values added to the object of theistic belief. It reflects specific social relations and secular interests, and it provides more space for the social character of the Christian religion to adapt.
"Exodus" contains the famous "Ten Commandments of Moses," which includes these words: "I am Jehovah your God... You shall have no other gods before me... For I, Jehovah your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love me and keep my commandments." It is also recorded: "You shall not permit a sorceress to live... Whoever sacrifices to any god, except to Jehovah only, he shall be utterly destroyed."
Commitments or commandments of this kind add an absolute external exclusivity and expansiveness to Christianity, as well as an absolute internal closedness and cohesiveness. Both are intended to ensure a high degree of unity in thought and faith and to maintain high concentration in the church organization. The actual manifestation is a hostile attitude toward heathens, which becomes the internal basis for launching religious wars; internally, it implements extreme ideological despotism, serving as the classic basis for persecuting heresy and establishing the Inquisition. Based on this, the large-scale burning and killing of witches in the name of the "devil" alone was popular for two or three hundred years, peaking from the 15th to the 18th century, and only officially ending in England and Scotland in the 19th century. Russell estimated that as many as millions of people were persecuted because of the commandment "You shall not permit a sorceress to live." As for the implementation of "Whoever sacrifices to any god, except to Jehovah only, he shall be utterly destroyed," its effect is inevitably a disposition toward war. The so-called "Crusades," wars against Muslim countries, occurred eight times and lasted nearly 200 years (1095–1291). In a "slip of the tongue" by the U.S. President, the recent Iraq War was also declared a "Second Crusade." [23] As for the sectarian strife within Christianity itself—from the unified Catholic Church splitting off the Orthodox Church, and later the Reformation splitting off Protestantism—there has not been a single split that was not fully bloody. For example, in the 17th century, "during the time of Cromwell, the Protestants in England massacred at least 30,000 Irishmen. To cover up their bestiality, they fabricated a myth, saying this was in retaliation for the massacre of 30,000 Protestants by Irish Catholics." This hatred continues to this day, with shadows still looming. When Christianity was spreading to the Qing Dynasty, the so-called Rites Controversy [24] occurred. After the Opium War, Christianity changed into a cultural tool for Western imperialism to invade China. "Missionary cases" [25] were constantly manufactured, leading to the Eight-Nation Alliance’s bloodbath in Beijing. Shortly after the Xinhai Revolution, Western Christianity launched another movement to "Occupy China for Christ," which triggered a nationwide "Anti-Christian Movement." [26] Behind all of this is Christianity borrowing the power of colonialism to execute its doctrines of expansion and exclusivity—the final forms of the practice of expansionary exclusivity being cultural aggression and bloody war.
Its "closedness" lies in the strict control of believers, using every possible means from ideological brainwashing to organizational punishment. "Atheism" is the greatest crime, and "heresy" cannot escape the death penalty; the enslavement of science is also common knowledge. Of course, it is difficult for religious trials involving lives to exist openly in the West now, but that does not mean other monotheisms are not continuing to use them. The "awe-inspiring" power possessed by doctrinal threats and enticements is not uncommon in today's open world; its degree of terror can make everyone feel in danger. Some scholars flatteringly call this the "cohesiveness" of a nation or state and treat it as a virtue that today's Chinese culture should also imitate—one truly wonders what kind of thinking this is.
The New Testament has some changes, especially those esteemed by "Protestantism." For example, the Old Testament emphasizes revenge: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is its famous line; the New Testament does the opposite: "If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." The Old Testament says: "Love your neighbor and hate your enemy," but the New Testament says: "Love your enemies"—thus "tolerance" and "love" became the loudest and most heart-winning slogans of the Protestant "Gospel." Among them, "love your neighbor as yourself" is regarded as a Golden Rule of morality alongside the Confucian "Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you." Aside from the test of practice—"judging them by their deeds as well as their words"—we might as well look at what the actual content of the original text is. Since the Gospel of Matthew is the first book of the New Testament, let us use this book as an example:
"Jesus said to him, 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.'"
The "first" thing, which also serves as a premise, is to love God; this love of yours should not be selfish or limited to self-interest, but should simultaneously be extended to others and shared with them. Thus, if you love God, you should also have others love God. If you do not wish to go to hell, but instead love the idea of entering the eternal life of heaven, you should also make others understand this sort of doctrine and believe in this religion. In this way, "loving thy neighbor as thyself" is equivalent to proselytizing; it becomes an emotional investment in missionizing. By the same logic, one can understand the true meaning of "loving your enemies" and why this is called "the sum of all principles" in Christianity. There is a song now—"Let the World be Filled with Love"—which represents a wish of us ordinary people, but it has a fundamental difference from the "universal love" of Christianity. This is not an arbitrary judgment of mine; there are scriptures to prove it. Jesus said:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it."
"And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life."
Scholars researching religious ethics should not overlook this kind of content in the New Testament of the Bible. If we assume "a man's foes shall be they of his own household," and that for the sake of loving God, even the relationships between one’s own parents, children, brothers, and sisters must be alienated, how can one speak of the universality of its love? If the relationship of brothers and sisters can only exist within the church, or if one acknowledges God as the only Father, does that "love" not equate to declaring all non-Christian believers to be enemies? The assertion that "a man's foes shall be they of his own household" is itself hair-raising. The best way to "love your enemies" is to have your relatives, friends, and neighbors all convert to Christianity and believe in God.
In the New Testament, exclusivity and closed-mindedness have not only failed to disappear but have been strengthened—strengthened to the point of hating the family and abandoning loved ones, where a path to life exists only through wholehearted attachment to Christianity. For the sake of faith, even death is life; a temporary death is exchanged for eternal life. Corresponding to this is the increased command that believers must missionize and preach. Jesus said:
"All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world."
The Gospel of Mark also repeats this admonition:
"Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. ... So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following."
Some of our current scholars who are keen on promoting Christianity as a "universal religion" likely draw from these kinds of admonitions—as a believer, whether you are willing or not, you must simultaneously carry out the work of a missionary. In this way, if the entire body of believers and their scholars truly fulfill this, the ideological restrictions would become so tight that "not a needle can penetrate, nor water splash through" [27]; it would be strange indeed if it did not stagnate or die. I believe there is great justification for why people call the Middle Ages the Dark Ages, even though some contemporary scholars describe the "light" of the Middle Ages in glowing terms to rehabilitate its image.
The atheism that arose in the West since the Renaissance was directed primarily at Christianity, seeking liberation from the enslavement of Christian divine right and the shackles of medieval theology. Its results were the development of science and democracy, the demise of feudalism, and the establishment of bourgeois civil society. However, this new type of society was still built on the foundation of class antagonism. Although Christianity underwent a rebirth through reform, what changed was its class attribute (this word "class" is not my own imposition; this is precisely how it is described in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, which is touted by some Chinese theologians). The doctrine did not change; the Bible remained the same Bible. Only the objects of enslavement and service changed—people moved from enslavement by "divine right" to enslavement by "capital," and theology shifted from serving divine right to serving capital. Thus, in order to struggle against a religion of this social nature, Marxism emerged.
The reason I treat Buddhism as a polytheistic religion is that it has no single sacred scripture; regarding its Tripitaka (Three Baskets) of Sutras, Vinaya, and Abhidharma, the texts in Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese, and Tibetan are too numerous to count. Its temples may be found all over the world, but they are not subordinate to one another and each follows its own path. The deities it worships, as well as its scriptures, pagodas, and masters (Living Buddhas), vary immensely. This shows that while it is classified as a world religion, it is not unified ideologically, in faith, or in organization. Its only commonality is the insistence on karma and reincarnation—that one reaps what one sows—and a lack of recognition or even opposition to a unique God capable of creating the world and man. In theory, it advocates the "doctrine of dependent origination" and opposes "monocausalism." One of its great characteristics is that wherever it flows, it integrates, including incorporating various deities and ghosts into its belief system. Therefore, internally it dispels heterodox views and externally opposes "outside paths" [28]; overall its doctrine is mild and its form of development is peaceful. Yet one absolutely cannot deny that it simultaneously possesses the exclusivity and closed-mindedness inherent to religion; its sociality is equally capable of leading to religious discrimination and religious conflict. The Sutra of Forty-Two Chapters, the earliest Buddhist scripture to reach China, defines the human body as an "instrument of suffering" and the family as a "cage," regarding the abandonment of wife and children to become a monk as "noble"—such is its pessimism and world-weariness. The famous Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra views the icchantika [29] as enemies, and the Bodhisattva Precepts determines that killing those who slander or oppose the Mahayana is not a sin. Though these are extreme examples, they may reflect that the historical struggle between Buddhism and other religions was also extremely cruel. However, after Buddhism entered the Chinese heartland, both its doctrine and its precepts underwent fundamental changes. Ethically, it had to adapt to Confucian concepts; the proposition that even the icchantika possess Buddha-nature and can become Buddhas became the mainstream view. Meanwhile, precepts were formulated independently, and both Mahayana and Hinayana rules were transformed. Buddhism in Japan was again different from China; it once possessed armed forces and experienced sectarian wars. Tibetan Buddhism once served as an important bond linking many ethnic groups such as the Han, Tibetan, Mongol, and Manchu, but the long-term system of the "integration of religion and politics" [30] caused it to become a historical reaction. Democratic Reform [31] liberated a million serfs and gave Tibetan Buddhism a new life; however, to clear away old influences and thoroughly realize the democratic principle of the separation of church and state, there is still interference from hostile forces to this day. These are all dictates of the social nature of religion—things added on from outside the faith.
IV. The Historical Role and Current Tasks of Scientific Atheism
Looking at the West, the existence of scientific atheism as a way of thinking is centrally reflected in the fact that scientific rationality has already occupied a dominant position in the field of modern human thought; religion itself is placed under the scrutiny and judgment of scientific rationality. Its existence as a lifestyle is reflected in the degree and speed of social secularization, which squeezes religious life to a point where it must change thoroughly or even become untenable. Religious sentiment, religious ethics, and religious morality are being replaced by interpersonal sentiment, human ethics, social morality, and even legal statutes. The era when religion encompassed all disciplines and commanded all lifestyles began to collapse as early as 200 years ago; today, the remaining territory left to it is meager. The rapid advances in science, education, and philosophy make religious theology appear all the more small and insignificant. Some vestiges have already entered museums or are preserved as cultural relics; some religious gestures and holidays increasingly circulate as traditional customs. The status and role of God have basically been replaced by the status and role of Man. In recent decades, religion has indeed shown patterns of resurgence to varying degrees in different regions, but a brief analysis reveals that this is primarily not its theism at work, but rather its social functions being artificially elevated and strengthened—its theism is being used by certain countries and groups as a means to seek political power and economic benefits, representing a backward step for civilization and a historical reaction.
This type of situation urgently requires a comprehensive assessment and exploration, and it must be closely linked with the overall situation of international relations and the social changes in the relevant countries—for instance, why have international terrorism, religious extremism, and ethnic separatism become global problems? Why is there always religious participation in localized wars and social unrest, both past and ongoing, and why do they occur so frequently? We do not have the capacity to make a comprehensive estimation and analysis here, but in examining the social functions of religion, this is an absolutely indispensable background. Even the current status of religious and theistic activities in our own country can illustrate some issues quite well.
Reform and opening up have allowed our country to achieve significant overall development. The strengthening of productive forces and national power is unprecedented, the improvement of people's livelihoods is unprecedented, the prosperity of culture is unprecedented, and the degree of freedom for citizens is unprecedented. At the same time, "dregs have floated to the surface" [32], and overseas infiltration has become rampant. The growth of cults like "Falun Gong," the emergence of separatist forces like "Tibetan Independence" and "East Turkestan Independence," and the expansion of overseas Christianity into the fields of culture, education, and remote areas are all dynamic shifts rarely seen before. In this aggressive situation, a considerable number of Party-member intellectuals and Party or government cadres treat religion as a spiritual factor for maintaining social stability and preventing crime; they treat all forms of theism as untouchable forbidden zones, while atheism is treated as an unpardonable sin. The term "religion" has truly become so sacred as to be inviolable. This makes one wonder what time and place we are in, and who it is that "commands the ups and downs" [33] of this world.
In fact, the spirit of the CPC Central Committee’s requirement to strengthen the research, publicity, and education of atheism has always been clear and unwavering. To clear away ideological obstacles, it has recently been specifically emphasized that research, publicity, and education on atheism is a long-term task, which is not contradictory to implementing the Party's policy of freedom of religious belief. I would like to begin by discussing this point.
What is "freedom of religious belief"? This concept is also Western. It was originally a slogan of the Western bourgeois revolutions against feudal theocratic political rule, demanding liberation from religious shackles. Later, it became an important principle for their national constitutions. Marxism regards it as one of the outstanding achievements of the development of human civilization, and the political party of the working class takes it as a basic policy for handling religious issues; today, it has become a citizen's right stipulated in our country's Constitution. Its original meaning is to ensure that religious belief becomes a matter entirely of individual choice, free from interference by any individual or organization and independent of external forces such as politics and the economy. Therefore, freedom of religious belief itself includes the freedom to not believe in any religion and to hold atheistic views, thereby unifying it with—rather than contradicting—the various freedoms citizens enjoy under the Constitution, especially the right to freedom of thought and speech. Since the United States promulgated the International Religious Freedom Act, used specifically to promote the development of religious forces in non-governmental organizations in countries other than the U.S., for some Chinese people, religious freedom has become the "First Freedom," and atheism has become the primary enemy of "religion." However, the International Religious Freedom Act is only legislation the U.S. provides for the "international" community; the U.S. itself is not included. Because, like Europe, the U.S. has not only driven religion out of the field of education and restricted its freedom, but also possesses increasingly powerful non-religious organizations and atheistic trends of thought.
Historically, China never had a "religious problem." In the realm of belief, as to which god to believe in, or not believe in, or even what kind of god to create or discard, there was no force that intervened violently. Radical anti-theists and devout believers could coexist peacefully; religious discrimination rarely occurred, there was no religious persecution, and even fewer religious wars. As everyone knows, Emperor Wu of Liang was an emperor famous for his devotion to Buddhism, while his subordinate Fan Zhen was a stalwart who opposed Buddhism by writing the treatise On the Destructibility of the Soul (Shénmièlùn). The Emperor once mobilized over 60 princes, officials, and eminent monks to write articles to "encircle and suppress" him on the grounds that Fan Zhen had "violated the scriptures and rebelled against the Dao." As a result, besides leaving such a noteworthy record in the history of Chinese thought and culture, Fan Zhen’s physical and mental well-being were not affected in the least; he continued his career as an official and even seemed to receive important appointments. The so-called "Three Wus and One Zong" [34] incidents, which are most resented by Buddhists, did involve conflicts between Buddhism and Daoism; however, in Chinese historiography, these were merely reactions caused by the fact that the expansion of Buddhism had seriously threatened the stability of the state. They were political measures, not religious motives. That is to say, the reality of a lack of freedom of religious belief did not exist in Chinese history, and therefore there was no necessity to cry out for "freedom of religious belief."
Nevertheless, the state's management of religion has always remained strict. There are at least three boundaries that religion may not cross: first, it must not harm the lives, health, or property of the people. Second, it must not endanger social order or the public interest, including the spreading of fallacies to deceive the masses [35], assembling crowds to create disturbances, or the illicit accumulation of wealth and sexual exploitation. Third, it must not threaten national security, particularly through collusion with officials, interfering in politics or state affairs, or plotting rebellion. Whenever these three lines were crossed, matters were largely resolved through administrative means, including suppression. Precisely because of this, the separation of church and state and the separation of religion from education have been the historical norm in our country. Religion emerged as a prominent and serious issue starting with the spread of Christianity in China following the Opium War: religious conflicts of an unprecedented nature occurred, manifested as the continuous "Missionary Cases" [36], culminating in the Boxer Movement and the Eight-Nation Alliance’s [37] bloodbath in Beijing.
Entering modern history, Chinese religion was endowed with strong political connotations from the outset, becoming one of the drivers of the Chinese people’s national democratic revolution. The reason the May Fourth Movement was guided by "Science" and "Democracy," followed by the nationwide "Anti-Christian Movement" and "Anti-Religion Movement," was related to this broad historical context. Therefore, "freedom of religious belief" within the Chinese context places particular emphasis on strictly limiting religious interference in politics and its entry into the field of national education.
The Communist Party of China inherited the Marxist view of religion and possesses a newer perspective on the issue of religious belief: First, whether or not to believe in a religion is a civil right, and no power is permitted to interfere. Second, theism does not conform to reality; as a political party responsible to the people, the Party has an obligation to speak the truth and conduct atheist propaganda and education. This legal respect and protection for citizens is unified with the mission of serving the people and being responsible to them, particularly embodying the consistency between freedom of religious belief and the dissemination and research of atheism. Third, beginning with Mao Zedong’s Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan, the religious issue has been integrated into the overall tasks, general policy, and line of the Chinese revolution and construction. Various forces that use the name of religion to engage in reactionary political activities are struck down without hesitation, while a sincere attitude of respect is adopted toward the beliefs of the masses. This is because [Mao] believed that through the process of revolution and construction, and through education and self-education, the masses would resolve the issue themselves; he opposed "taking another's job into one's own hands" [38]. As the saying goes: "He draws the bow but does not release the arrow, poised as if to leap" [39].
Theism is a matter of the subjective spiritual world; from the perspective of historical materialism, its causes and solutions must be sought within the social roots that breed it. Therefore, Marxist atheism must be built upon the foundation of believing in and relying on the masses, playing its role by practically improving the material and cultural conditions of the people and raising their scientific spirit and level of understanding. In this regard, atheism is not passive, nor is it limited to opposing various forms of theism. More importantly, it is active: it aims to establish a correct way of thinking and attitude toward life, and to build a lifestyle distinct from religious life—one that uses humanity’s own minds and hands, adopts scientific and educational methods, and creates a healthy, beautiful, happy, harmonious, and freely developing way of life that is also full of humanistic care and warmth. In this way, scientific atheism inevitably becomes an organic component of the scientific socialist movement, linking together with the future ideal of communism.