Wang Zhen: On the Ideological Transition of the Young Marx from Theism to Atheism
Marx was originally a believer in God and a theist. This is primarily reflected in his high school graduation essays from 1835, such as the specialized treatise on religious issues, "The Union of the Faithful with Christ according to John 15:1–14, Its Ground and Essence, Its Absolute Necessity, and Its Effects," and his German elective essay, "Reflections of a Young Man on the Choice of a Profession." His period of study at the University of Berlin marked the transition in his worldview, during which he gradually shifted from traditional theism toward atheism. This transformation took place around 1839, and its primary marker was his doctoral dissertation, The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature, written between early 1839 and March 1842.
I
Marx’s early theistic thought is inseparable from the influences of history, social reality, and his family. To a certain extent, the history of Western civilization is also a history of a civilization formed on the foundation of Christianity. For millennia, the various nations of Europe generally possessed traditions of religious faith such as Christianity, Islam, or Judaism. This tradition placed every individual in a dense religious atmosphere from birth. Beginning with the Renaissance, religion served as the spiritual pillar for the autocratic rule of the various small German feudal states; Trier, the city of Marx’s birth, possessed an even deeper religious heritage. It was the first city on German soil named by a Roman emperor. In the era of the Carolingian Empire, the Bishop of Trier rose to the rank of Archbishop, exercising secular power for 1,300 years. Goethe once described its character thus: "The city has a most striking feature. It is said to possess more ecclesiastical buildings than any other city of equal size." (Cited in Li Sixiao, "Marx, Religion, and Religious Art," Journal of Peking University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), No. 5, 1986). This long-term accumulation of religious cultural tradition meant that society, the family, and even the individual were inevitably defined and influenced by it.
Germany in the 18th century could be described as a "country saturated with Christianity," where Christian theology permeated almost every field of social life. Marx was born into a family of Jewish rabbis (or doctors of Jewish law). After the 16th century, nearly all the rabbis of Trier were ancestors of Marx (David McLellan, Karl Marx: A Biography, 1995, Palgrave, p. 3). Although Marx’s father later converted to Protestantism for reasons of livelihood, he still retained a belief in the Jewish God. Marx’s mother also hailed from an ancient family of Jewish aristocratic rabbis; though she was later baptized, "it is highly probable that she maintained Jewish customs and habits within the home."
The influence of history, society, and family was immense. Marx received Christian baptism at the age of six, while simultaneously receiving a rigorous education in the Christian religious tradition; at the age of 16, he also performed his confirmation according to tradition. In August 1835, the 17-year-old Marx wrote seven essays (preserved to this day) upon graduating from the Trier Gymnasium [1]. The first edition of the 40th volume of the Collected Works of Marx and Engels in Chinese contains three of these, two of which are closely related to his religious concepts. One is "The Union of the Faithful with Christ according to John 15:1–14, Its Ground and Essence, Its Absolute Necessity, and Its Effects" (hereafter "Effects"), and the other is "Reflections of a Young Man on the Choice of a Profession" (hereafter "Reflections"). These pieces relatively concentratedly reflect Marx’s theistic worldview at that time.
(1) God is a Being Higher than Man
The essay "Effects" discusses the necessity of the union between the believer and Christ. He argues that no nation can shake off the shackles of superstition or escape from external supplements and ignoble elements; every person has a spark of divinity in their heart; and the Word of Christ most reliably explains why one should remain in union with Him, for the believer can do nothing if they leave Jesus (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, 1st ed., vol. 40, p. 819). Marx writes: "We first turn our eyes to God with love, feeling toward Him a most heartfelt gratitude, and fall before Him with a willing heart" (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 40, 1st ed., p. 821). God guides and saves man, so "union with Christ is absolutely necessary; without this union we would be forsaken by God, and only God can save us." In "Reflections," he expresses similar thoughts, arguing that God exists and that God always provides firm revelation within the human heart, so that the people of the world will never be "entirely without guidance" (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 40, 1st ed., p. 3).
(2) The Divine is Higher than the Secular
Marx believed that "human morality is always limited, always a secular morality." Once secular things vanish, man's divinity is revealed. He believed that all moral actions spring from a pure source: the love of God and Christ. It is by virtue of this pure source that human morality can transcend the secular and become truly divine. Once a person attains this true (divine) morality, they can ennoble their inner self and possess a calm heart that nothing can conquer. They are thus able to "tranquilly endure the blows of fate, bravely confront the impulses of desire, and fearlessly suffer the torments of all hardship."
(3) The Existence of God is Not a Human Error, Illusion, or Self-Deception
In "Reflections," Marx argues that God gives man a goal and that God’s role is to guide man and point out the path forward. At the same time, he acknowledges that this relationship between God and man can easily give rise to untrue, vain forms of illusion. "Great things... easily inspire us, or what we think is inspiration," but this co-presence of God and man is not itself a human illusion. It was only later that this view underwent a transformation.
II
It should be observed that Marx's theistic thought at this time was already distinct from orthodox religion, especially Christian dogma. One might even say that while Marx believed in God at the time, he already showed the germs of doubting religion or even breaking through its constraints. This is prominently manifested in the following ways:
First, although he believed God exists, his focus often fell upon "man." The role of God's existence for the individual is to make humanity and oneself tend toward the noble. Marx believed that God assigned a common goal to man—to make oneself and humanity noble—but he argued that the means to achieve this goal were to be found by man himself. Thus, God occupies a position in the human world where, after setting the goal for man, He no longer dominates him. Therefore, God requires man to realize his own goals and to master himself.
Furthermore, the role of God's existence regarding relationships between individuals is to link individuals together as a "species" (Gattung). Marx clearly highlighted the status of man as a "species-being." He seemed inclined to ground God in man, showing a tendency to emphasize the existence of "man." For instance, in discussing the metaphor of the vine and the branches, there is a passage: "The branch does not only look at the vine-dresser; if it had feelings, it would cling closely to the vine, feeling its closest relationship with the vine and the other branches growing on it; it loves the other branches because the same vine-dresser tends them and the same vine gives them strength." The "vine-dresser" refers to "God," the "vine" to "Christ," and the "branches" to "oneself and other brothers or believers." This suggests that God is not absolutely central, for the believer does not merely look at God but follows Jesus and feels a close relationship with other brothers, the ultimate result of which is loving one's brother. "Union with Christ... consists in turning our hearts toward our brothers, whom Christ has closely linked with us." Here, the close connection between individuals as the fundamental point is even more clearly revealed.
Second, in discussing the union with Christ, he always attempts to find causes. Marx seeks the reason for the necessity of this union and tries to find that reason within man himself. Unlike orthodox Christians who take union with Christ as an ultimate premise, Marx tries to explore it further as a cause. At the beginning of "Effects," he argues that before studying this question, one should first clarify whether this union "depends on human nature" and whether man can reach the goal of God's creation "through himself."
He deeply believed in the necessity of this union, yet he "urgently" wanted to know: what exactly is this light, and what are its internal causes and essence? Although he could not answer these questions at the time, from the perspective of his intellectual development, this was undoubtedly an important area that captured his interest: seeking the cause of union with Christ in "human" nature, and seeking the cause of God within man.
Third, he emphasized history when explaining religious issues. In "Effects," although Marx's purpose was to demonstrate the union of the believer with Christ, in the process of his argument, he focused on demonstrating the necessity of this union from the perspective of the history of nations and the history of individuals. When using the "Word of Christ"—an abstract argument he called "the most reliable"—he merely repeated a few sentences from the Bible, which appeared less persuasive. Notably, in his demonstration, he phrased it as "the place where Christ expressed the necessity of union with Him most clearly is, of course..." as if Christ were not God, but rather another person in history different from himself; as if Christ were not in his heart, but an individual distinct from himself outside his own body and mind. This is clearly different from the expressions of orthodox Christians. Such expressions are even more evident in his early poetry: "Having discovered the most exalted strategy, and grasped its profound mystery, / I become as great as a God, and clothe myself in darkness like a God..." (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 40, 1st ed., p. 651).
Finally, before God, Marx is full of confidence in humanity; before perfection, Marx is full of the confidence to pursue it. In describing the relationship between man and God, he used a soul-shaking phrase—the "humiliated sovereign" [2]. It means nothing else than: "the base attempt to strive for earthly luxury and fame crowds out the desire for knowledge, and the thirst for truth is extinguished by hypocritical sweet words." Therefore, man is fundamentally unworthy of being God's creation, yet man has indeed become God's creation, thereby insulting the "holy" God. He believed that the reason God sent His own son—Christ—to announce the oracle to us was that God wanted to elevate us, his creatures, to be like Himself. His slightly later early poetry also reflects this point: faced with the whole treacherous world, / I will throw down the gauntlet without mercy, / Letting this colossus of a world collapse, / It cannot quench this flame itself. // Then I will be like God, / Wandering through the ruins of the universe; / My every word is action, / I am the creator of earthly life. (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 40, 1st ed., pp. 668-669.) Although this was a poem written to Jenny, it demonstrated that deep in his heart, he had rejected the traditional Christian image of humility and servitude before "God." Instead, he maintained independence and dignity, even manifesting the courage and spirit to overtake God. This stemmed from his optimistic attitude toward human nature and his faith in the perfection of human nature. In other words, Marx believed that in terms of "human nature," man ought to be equal to God.
Perfection was a very important category in Marx's thought during this period. In the essay "Reflections" [3], Marx argued that the common goal assigned to humanity by the Deity is to ennoble mankind; meanwhile, the compass for a person's choice of profession is "the welfare of humanity and our own perfection." He took perfection as the goal of his pursuit: "If we have chosen the position in life in which we can most of all work for mankind, ... our happiness will belong to millions, our deeds will live on quietly but perpetually at work, and over our ashes will be shed the hot tears of noble people." Some scholars believe that here "a youth of just 17 years old seems to have already written his own epitaph" (Yang Shi: The Liberation of Man—Rereading Marx, Sichuan People's Publishing House, 1996 edition, p. 6). This assessment is appropriate. Striving to realize "the welfare of humanity and our own perfection" formed the driving force of Marx’s theoretical activities; it was the red thread running through his entire life and the best interpretation of his lifelong endeavors.
III
In October 1836, Marx transferred from the University of Bonn to the University of Berlin to continue his legal studies. His studies at the University of Berlin became a turning point in his life. During this period, he pursued rationality and universality, and his worldview shifted toward atheism. This change is vividly reflected in his doctoral dissertation, The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature, completed in March 1842.
History has seen various types of atheists, each with its own specific starting point and connotation. Marx's atheism also has its specific content. We regard the period of Marx's doctoral dissertation as the establishment of his atheistic stance. This is due to the following considerations: Marx’s thought underwent a very obvious change during this period; if he previously held passion for religion, he now adopted an almost opposite attitude toward "God" and religion. "Establishment" serves as a marker; it does not imply that his atheism was fully enriched or mature. Why Marx adopted this stance can be understood from the following aspects:
First, unlike before, he now believed that God is a delusional hypothesis of the people; one cannot believe that "God" can guarantee human virtue. This point was influenced by Epicurus. Based on this delusional nature of God, he expressed his view through excerpts: "Not the man who denies the gods worshipped by the multitude, but he who affirms of the gods what the multitude believes of them, is truly impious." He specifically examined certain views of Plutarch. Plutarch believed that Epicurus was wrong to eliminate the relationship between man and God, as it led to human unbelief. Plutarch argued that if people abandoned reverence and fear of God, they would do evil as they pleased because they were not afraid of punishment, and thus human virtue could not be guaranteed. Marx argued that Plutarch was "completely incapable of philosophical criticism" and that one cannot believe "God" can guarantee human virtue.
Second, one must oppose God because God opposes man. Since Marx believed that the idea of God is nothing but a delusional hypothesis, once this delusional concept becomes fixed, it in turn distances itself from man and "opposes man." Therefore, for man to live a true life, he must oppose "all gods." Marx wrote: "Philosophy, as long as a drop of blood shall pulse in its world-subduing and absolutely free heart, will never grow tired of answering its adversaries with the cry of Epicurus: 'Not the man who denies the gods worshipped by the multitude, but he who affirms of the gods what the multitude believes of them, is truly impious.' Philosophy does not make a secret of it. The confession of Prometheus: 'In simple words, I hate all gods'—this is its own confession, its own maxim against all heavenly and earthly gods..." This is Marx's citation of Epicurus and Prometheus, which can also be understood as a manifestation of the atheistic spirit of Marx.
Third, "God" originates from human cognitive abilities that have yet to be improved. In the process of criticizing "God," Marx praised Epicurus, regarding him as the great Greek philosopher of Enlightenment and a militant atheist. Contrary to the view that celestial bodies are gods, Epicurus believed it was precisely treating celestial bodies as gods—as blessed and indestructible—that caused confusion in the human mind. Ancient people imbued natural celestial bodies with mystical meaning and attached "divinity" to them because they lacked the ability to understand nature. Thus, they imagined an existence beyond human power; this was the archetype of God. Using atoms and the void, Epicurus sought to exclude superstition and worship of celestial bodies, thereby freeing self-consciousness, calming the soul, and achieving the pleasure of "freedom from pain in the body and from trouble in the mind."
Fourth, opposing religion through philosophy. When exploring the relationship between Socrates and Christ, Marx on the one hand explained that religion is unified in philosophy, but on the other hand explained that philosophy and religion have their own distinct objects and contents and are two different fields. In his critique of religion, he established an antithesis to religion—philosophy. He believed there was an "eternal separation" between religion and philosophy; philosophy opposes religion while also opposing religious interference in philosophy (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 40, 1st ed., p. 189).
He believed that "the first basis of philosophy is a bold and free spirit" (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 40, 1st ed., p. 112); it recognizes no authority but rather exists to test authority. If religion and God represented an authority or social norm at the time, they too needed to be tested before philosophy. Because philosophy pursues the universal, it is rational; whereas religion demands obedience to authority and is irrational. Religion occupied a dominant position for a long time in Western history, especially in the Middle Ages, where it held supreme authority in social life and everything else was subservient to it; thus, it largely degenerated into a spiritual dominion over man. In his doctoral dissertation, Marx expressed a spirit of pursuing freedom and a refusal to be bound. In this way, Marx’s treatment of religion actually carried the connotation of opposing authority: "Whatever cannot stand the test of my criticism must be abandoned, even if such a view represents a recognized authority." (H.E. Sigerist, To Work for Humanity—as cited in History of Marxist Philosophy, Beijing Publishing House, Vol. 1, p. 98).
IV
It is not enough merely to see Marx’s attitude toward God and religion; one must further understand the various factors why Marx was so, as the latter is even more important. Just as some praise God and others disparage God, who is right and who is wrong? If the former praises God because they see beauty and hope through "God," while the latter disparages because they see man’s existing ugliness and despair through "God," then in fact their attitudes toward "God" share a fundamental commonality: gravitating toward beauty and moving away from the un-beautiful and the defective. In that case, the question of whether "God" should be praised or disparaged appears no longer important; it gives way to another more real and meaningful question: What is God?
If we ask: Why did Marx undergo the transition from theism to atheism? The key lies in: first, he shifted the problem of God’s existence to thinking about the concept of God; second, in the contrast between religion and philosophy, he adopted a pro-philosophy and anti-religion stance. If we ask further: Why did Marx transform the problem of God’s existence into a problem about the concept of God? It is because he placed self-consciousness in a very important position. If we ask even further: Why did Marx value self-consciousness so much? This is because: first, the influence of Hegelian philosophy, especially the philosophy of self-consciousness of the Young Hegelians; second, self-consciousness itself possesses two characteristics: on one hand, self-consciousness is the manifestation of the subject’s agency; on the other hand, realized self-consciousness is rationality and universality.
During this period, Marx used universality, rationality, philosophy, and self-consciousness to judge and analyze God and religion. How did this turn in Marx occur? We can analyze it from both internal and external causes:
(1) External causes. First, regarding the progression of Western thought, after the Middle Ages, Western Europe experienced the awakening of humanism during the Renaissance, accompanied by the development of empirical science; rationality was then carried forward during the Enlightenment. The humanist spirit, the rationalist spirit, and the development of natural science increasingly displayed great power, forming the historical and cultural background for the rise of atheism. Second, social aspects. During his illness as a university student, Marx read the works of Hegel and most of his disciples from beginning to end. This contact with Hegel and such rational philosophy, combined with the reform movement in the religious field launched by the German Young Hegelians, pushed forward the transformation of Marx’s thought. The Young Hegelians scrutinized the world with a critical eye; in particular, their philosophy of self-consciousness became Marx’s conviction during this period and the theoretical basis for his evaluation of religion. Third, school education. Although compulsory religious courses still existed in schools at that time, the Trier Gymnasium where Marx studied was much more liberal. Historically, this school was originally a Jesuit school, but to oppose religion and the clergy, it was later transformed into a small college. At the time, from the principal to the teachers, the Trier Gymnasium was influenced by the French Enlightenment spirit, all of which provided Marx with a humanist and rationalist upbringing. Fourth, family environment. Marx’s father, Heinrich Marx, loved the ideas and works of the Enlightenment; he was "a real Frenchman who could recite the works of Voltaire and Rousseau" (Auguste Cornu, The Life of Marx and Engels I, trans. Liu Pikun et al., Sanlian Press, 1963 edition, p. 83), and he was a deist, unlike traditional religious believers. His father read Voltaire and Racine with him, while Marx’s neighbor at the time and later father-in-law, Baron von Westphalen, gave him Homer and Shakespeare to read—these remained his favorite authors throughout his life. These works, to varying degrees, challenged traditional religious beliefs.
(2) Internal causes. External causes can only truly take effect when they are internalized. Marx's shift toward atheism also had deeper internal causes.
- Transforming the question of "God's existence" into "the idea of God." Does God exist? If God exists, then what is the significance of critique? If God does not exist, how is it possible to critique something that has no existence? Therefore, if the discussion were based purely on the question of whether God exists or not, critique would seemingly fall into a dilemma regardless. How did Marx resolve this issue? Using reason as a yardstick and the philosophy of self-consciousness as a foundation, Marx made a pivotal turn in his evaluation of God: he transformed the question of God’s existence into the question of the idea of God. This internal transition is inseparable from the influence of Epicurus.
First, he raised the question of "God’s existence" as a means to challenge the proofs for said existence. In his secondary school graduation essay, Marx regarded "God" as an existence that stands above man, guides man, and provides man with revelation. In the Dissertation, however, he did not treat God's existence as a prerequisite for exploring problems; rather, he reflected on the very question of God's existence and explicitly raised the issue of proving it. Marx argued that "God" in an ontological sense—that is, as a philosophical category viewed from the level of being—should possess universality. Yet he recognized that all proofs of God's existence could only be proofs of the "real existence" of a particular god. This suggests that the "existence" of "God" is a specific existence: "Where the rational state begins, there God ceases to exist," just as a particular state marks the end of existence for foreign particular gods. The "existence of God" contradicts reason and universality; since Marx believed in and affirmed the latter, he consequently abandoned the former. Furthermore, Marx argued that all proofs of God’s existence and ontological proofs are empty tautologies. "Whatever I really (actually) represent to myself is a real representation for me." He believed that this method of proving God's existence actually proved its non-existence. In this way, Marx questioned the existence of God at the level of ontological proof, thereby turning to the other side of the issue—the question of the idea of God.
Second, he turned to the question of the idea of God. Marx argued that all proofs of God's existence are human hypotheses because they are, in essence, proofs of the existence of the self-consciousness of human nature. Proofs of God's existence demonstrate that self-consciousness is an immediate existence: "whatever I really represent to myself is a real representation for me," which precisely shows that "God" is merely a form of human mental representation rather than a real existence. From the following excerpts by Marx, we can clearly see the internal mechanism of his intellectual transition:
"The gods exist, because the internal idea of them is evident (the general idea of the gods refers to the consensus of all. — Marx’s original note). But the gods are not such as the many [in their primitive thinking about the gods] imagine them; for the many have not preserved the original ideas of the gods."
"The man who denies the gods worshipped by the many is not impious, but he who affirms of the gods what the many believe of them is impious." "For the many’s proclamations about the gods are not preconceptions, but false assumptions. ... The many are entirely accustomed to their own virtues..." (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, 1st ed., Vol. 40, p. 29) [4]
The internal meaning of these passages excerpted by Marx in his Notebooks on Epicurean Philosophy is highly coherent. They reveal two important reasons why Marx opposed "God." First, God is a "false conceptual hypothesis" of the "many." Because the idea of gods is evident, gods exist; but the gods are not as the many imagine, because the many are entirely accustomed to indulging in their own virtues, and their idea of the gods is a false hypothesis. God is a false hypothesis made by the many to satisfy their own virtues. Thus, rather than saying Marx resolutely opposed God, it is better to say he opposed man—specifically, man’s idea of the gods. Second, abandoning the gods people worship is not blasphemy; agreeing with people's views on the gods is blasphemy. When Marx uses the mouth of Prometheus to say "Not he is impious who denies the gods of the crowd, but he who affirms of the gods what the crowd believes," we can see that Marx, at least at this time, did not oppose "God" per se, but resolutely opposed the "opinions" of the many regarding the gods. He did not even intend to "blaspheme," because the one who does not oppose the opinions of the many is the truly impious one. That is to say, Marx believed that only by "opposing God" could one be non-blasphemous; or rather, he believed that opposing God is by no means blasphemy, whereas failing to oppose God would mean agreeing with the many’s ideas (opinions) of the gods. To face these opinions—these false hypotheses—without opposing them would instead be blasphemous.
Here, Marx reveals his starting point for dealing with religion: he judges "God" and the religion centered on the idea of "God" not from the sense of "ontology," but from the sense of "ideas." Such a critique is actually a critique of the "false hypotheses" made by the "many [who] are entirely accustomed to their own virtues."
- In the contrast with religion, he chose philosophy. Reason and faith, philosophy and religion, are issues that have long been debated in the West. On this issue, Marx held a clear position of favoring philosophy and distancing himself from religion; his interest in philosophy was markedly higher than his interest in religion. In a letter to his father, he wrote: "Without philosophy I cannot move forward," yet when he mentioned religion, his interest was much more indifferent. This innate interest in philosophy prompted him to lean toward being a philosopher rather than a theologian or a preacher. He even attributed the most fundamental force for saving humanity to philosophy, believing that the task of philosophy is the pursuit of universality: "it is philosophy, not religion, that possesses the saving power in the ultimate sense."
Of course, Marx also pointed out that philosophy has its own one-sidedness. But facing the deficiencies of philosophy, Marx still chose it without hesitation. Using philosophy as the standard to judge religion—this position laid the keynote for his entire subsequent theory of religion.
"God" possesses particularity and locality, which conflicts with the spirit of rational universality. Through investigation, Marx concluded that what people call the existence of "God" can only be the existence of a specific "God." The god of one nation does not exist for a foreign nation, and the evidence for a god's existence is also the evidence for its non-existence. These all express that "God" possesses particularity and locality. Upholding reason and the pursuit of universality constituted an important aspect of Marx's early judgment of religion.
"God does not recognize self-consciousness as having the highest divinity" (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 40, 1st ed., p. 190), which contradicts "self-consciousness." Marx valued man himself; under the influence of the Young Hegelians, this necessarily led to an infatuation with the philosophy of self-consciousness. Since man (man's self-consciousness) should possess "the highest divinity" and "there should be no god placed alongside man's self-consciousness," and since God does not recognize self-consciousness as having the highest divinity, Marx chose self-consciousness and did not choose "God."
Marx turned to atheism during this period, but this transition was not entirely thorough. It was only in 1845 and 1846, when Marx established the historical materialist conception of history and its theory of ideology and conducted a truly scientific analysis of religion, that he gradually overcame this lack of thoroughness.