Chen Fayang: Problems and Countermeasures in American Atheism Research
I. The Necessity of Researching American Atheism In recent years, the ideological struggle between China and the United States has become increasingly acute. Since September 2019, the United States has successively passed the "Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2019," the "Tibetan Policy and Support Act of 2019," the "Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019," and the "Hong Kong Autonomy Act." It has utilized ideological issues to make wanton accusations regarding China’s internal affairs, attempting to impose American worldviews, religious views, and cultural views upon the Chinese people. This has muddled public perceptions of issues such as religion and human rights, bringing a severe shock to the thinking of people of all ethnic groups. This has affected the image of Marxism in the hearts of the Chinese people, posed a serious threat to China’s ideological security, and presented a stern challenge to our ideological work.
General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out that ideological work is an extremely important task for the Party. The intensifying ideological struggle between China and the U.S. requires us to actively respond to the challenges the United States poses to our ideology. To meet this challenge, we must "know ourselves and know the enemy" [1] as if engaging in warfare. Only in this way can we achieve victory in the Sino-American ideological struggle. This requires us to understand American ideology, the state of mind of the American people, and their true attitudes toward the U.S. government. It is well known that although the United States is the most developed capitalist country in the world today, its mainstream ideology is deeply influenced by the worldview, cultural outlook, values, historical outlook, view of ethnicity, and view of the state derived from various religions, including Christianity. The vast majority of people believe in various religions such as Protestantism, Catholicism, and Islam, and are thus theists. However, there are also atheists in the United States. According to statistics, atheists account for 2% to 14% of the U.S. population, and more than 95% of its eminent scientists do not believe in God. Furthermore, these American atheists still face discrimination; for example, those who publicly declare themselves atheists in the U.S. lack the "right to be elected" (eligibility for office). A 2007 Gallup poll showed that Americans would rather elect a Black person, a Jew, a woman, a Hispanic, a Mormon, a Muslim, or a homosexual as president than an atheist. In fact, 53% of respondents stated they were unwilling to vote for an atheist. It is evident that American atheists do not enjoy the full freedom and democracy advertised by U.S. media. The fact that their democratic rights, such as the right to stand for election, remain unrealized indicates that their human rights are not fully protected. Therefore, research into American atheism and atheists helps us understand the true state of American ideology. The sharpening of the Sino-American ideological struggle requires us, on the one hand, to maintain ideological security, strengthen the promotion and research of atheism, help the masses establish an atheist consciousness, form a correct worldview, firm up their communist faith, and consolidate the guiding position of Marxist thought in our country. On the other hand, it requires us to "know ourselves and know the enemy" by understanding the ideological conditions in the United States, which necessitates a comprehensive and systematic study of American atheism. To study American atheism, one must first understand the current state of research on the subject.
II. Current Status of Research on American Atheism (1) Research by Chinese and Foreign Scholars on the Origins, Emergence, Meaning, and Classification of American Atheist Thought Currently, Chinese and foreign scholars are increasingly researching American atheist thought. Regarding the origins of atheist thought, Louis Dupré has explored the intellectual sources of modern atheism, arguing that eighteenth-century Deism paved the way for atheism. Concerning the emergence of atheism, Michael Martin, a philosophy professor at Boston University, provided a detailed discussion of the emergence and development of atheism in modern history and thought in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism.
Regarding the meaning of atheism, Armin W. Geertz argues that atheism is a natural cognitive strategy. David Eller contends that atheism is not a belief system, but rather refers to the lack of belief in gods; it refers to a psychological state of self-existence, self-enjoyment, self-reliance, and self-confidence manifested in terms of power, well-being, and talent. George H. Smith also believes that atheism refers to a lack of religious belief—the absence of belief in the existence of a god or divine being. Kerry Walters asserts that atheism is the non-belief in God or other deities, whether this non-belief is theoretical or practical, passionate or intellectual, intense or calm. Kai Nielsen views atheism as a critique and denial of the primary supernatural belief system involving God or spirits saving the soul, involving not only decisions on how to live but also how to intellectually understand the world in which one lives. Leo Apostel maintains that atheism implies the absence of a suitable object of worship. With the exception of Leo Apostel and Armin W. Geertz, the aforementioned scholars all believe that atheism opposes or denies the existence of supernatural forces such as God, deities, ghosts, and divine objects. Among them, David Eller, George H. Smith, and Kerry Walters all hold that atheism refers to the lack of belief in divine objects, God, or other deities. The differences in their definitions lie in whether the nature of atheism is a theory, a psychological state, a lack of religious belief, or if "not believing in God" is itself a form of belief; there is also disagreement on whether an atheist can believe in a god.
Regarding the classification of atheism, Jeanne Diller and others believe atheism can be divided into global atheism and local atheism. Michael Martin refers to the original meaning indicated by the Greek root as "negative atheism," meaning nonbelief, while referring to the common dictionary definition—the denial of God, the afterlife, divine providence, the immortality of the soul, and biblical authority—as "positive atheism." Kerry Walters also divides atheism into positive atheism (active disbelief in God) and negative atheism (the absence of belief in God); he further divides positive atheism into radical atheism (the belief that faith in God is not only wrong but harmful) and moderate atheism (the belief that faith in God is incorrect but not necessarily harmful). Thus, both Michael Martin and Kerry Walters believe atheism can be divided into positive and negative forms. Conversely, David Eller argues there is no distinction between positive and negative atheism, but only between "complete atheism" and "incomplete atheism." Incomplete atheism refers to not grasping or accepting the full implications of atheism. In 2009, Martin Hägglund, a professor of comparative literature at Yale University, researched radical atheism. In his book Radical Atheism: Derrida and the Time of Life, he systematically introduced the radical atheism of Jacques Derrida, a French philosopher and representative of Western deconstructionism. This book garnered the attention of Michael Naas and Samir Haddad that year, who evaluated Hägglund’s views and offered different insights. Michael Naas provided a useful supplement to Hägglund’s views, suggesting that the most notable achievement of radical atheism is that its proposition is entirely compelling and correct, and comfortingly, it leaves something for people to look forward to, making everything worth anticipating. In addition to the aforementioned classification studies, George H. Smith divided atheism into implicit atheism and explicit atheism. Implicit atheism refers to non-belief not caused by an active rejection of theistic belief, while explicit atheism refers to non-belief resulting from a clear and active rejection of theistic belief. Leo Apostel divided atheism into irreligious atheism and anti-religious atheism, subdivided into pre-theistic atheism and post-theistic atheism. Some scholars also divide atheism into speculative atheism and feigned atheism, or into overt atheism and covert atheism (covert atheism referring to believing in one's heart that there is no God but not speaking or writing it aloud). In the past two years, some scholars have mentioned "analytical atheism" and "militant atheism." Among them, Ståhl Tomas, in the article "Analytic Atheism: Assessing Whether Cognitive Motivation Enhances the Association Between Analytic Thinking and Religious Disbelief," argues that when people engage in analytic thinking with cognitively rational goals, there should be a stronger correlation between analytic thinking and religious disbelief. Eric Steinhart, in his book Believing in Dawkins, analyzes the thought of Richard Dawkins, arguing that Dawkins is famous for "militant atheism" and that his works are filled with fragmented outlines of this "spiritual atheism."
(2) Research by Chinese and Foreign Scholars on American Atheist Thought in Different Periods
Research on Modern and Contemporary [2] American Atheism Han Feng believes that Einstein’s view of religion was essentially materialistic atheism; Yu Qiming believes that eminent scientists, including Einstein, have gained an increasingly profound understanding of atheist thought; Shi Mengnan analyzed Einstein’s views on God and faith, pointing out that his God was the God of Spinoza—that is, Nature—and analyzed whether Einstein was an atheist.
Research on Contemporary American Atheism First, research on the causes and manifestations of the rise of contemporary American atheism. Shang Quanyu provided a preliminary analysis of the reasons for the flourishing of the "New Atheism" in the United States; Chen Weihua believes the reasons for the rise of the New Atheism in the contemporary West include macro-trends in Western society, the struggle against religious fundamentalism and theocracy, and the need for social identity and the expression of political demands.
Regarding the manifestations of American atheism: M. Brewster’s book Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America's Nonbelievers records the experiences of more than 20 Americans of different ages, races, and educational backgrounds who converted to atheism. Chen Weihua believes that atheism exists independently as a cultural phenomenon in Western societies, including the U.S., and has developed into a relatively systematic and distinctive system of thought, even manifesting as a possible way of life.
In addition to manifestations, Jason Megill defends atheism by denying God as the source of the meaning of life; Andrew Johnson defends the New Atheism by examining whether New Atheists show respect for religious beliefs when criticizing them; Donovan O. Schaefer suggests that major unexpected events provide space for dialogue between religious deconstructionism and post-adaptationist evolution, offering enlightenment for understanding new, post-secular atheism.
Second, research on the life experiences, current living conditions, and dilemmas of contemporary American atheists. Beyond studying atheist thought, the academic community has also researched the life experiences of American atheists. Joseph Langston and others, through analyzing the relationship between Credibility Enhancing Displays (CREDs) in domestic upbringing, the importance of religion, choice, and conflict, reached conclusions for predicting the age of atheism (the age at which an individual becomes an atheist). When demographic factors, parental qualities, religious variables, kinship variables, and institutional variables are controlled, CREDs become an accurate predictor for the age of atheism. Wei Jianwu and Ren Dingcheng argue that Western atheism has undergone an evolutionary process: from being a "thought crime" used to accuse dissidents, heretics, heathens, and non-believers, to becoming a clear advocacy for individuals, organizations, and even states, and finally to becoming a subject of dialogue between atheists and theists.
Regarding the current living conditions of American atheists, academia has researched their lifestyles, views on happiness and the means of obtaining it, self-conception and humor styles, death awareness management, factors influencing worldview defense, moral and religious spirit, and the quality of their moral character. Among them, Madalyn Murray O'Hair argued that the lifestyles adopted by all American atheists indicate they are materialists; Shana M. Horning pointed out that atheists tend to utilize material functions to achieve happiness and are more likely to use humor as a coping mechanism compared to individuals with low religious devotion; Kenneth E. Vail and others maintain that atheists managing death awareness in an environment saturated with notions of the afterlife have heightened their worldview defense consciousness.
Regarding the existential plight of American atheists, Roy Speckhardt, Executive Director of the American Humanist Association, reflected on presidential candidate Michele Bachmann’s slander that atheists are not patriots in his article "A Godless Fourth of July." Samuel R. Weber and others explored the psychological confusion of non-religious believers (including atheists), arguing that the healthier an individual’s psychology, the more certainty their belief system possesses. Zhang Yingshan investigated why American atheism and materialist philosophy face such significant pressure and resistance. Prothero’s paper reflected on how some pastors and missionaries who abandoned their religious faith faced rejection and opposition from their families and communities. William Lane Craig, in his book Will the Real God Please Stand Up: A Debate on Gratitude, Greed, and Goodness [3], discussed the relationship between atheists and theists, noting that the two groups usually do not speak to one another. Melanie E. Brewster and others, in their article "It’s Like Herding Cats: Atheist Minority Stress, Community Connectedness, and Psychological Outcomes," utilized minority stress theory to conduct a detailed analysis of the situation of 522 atheists across the United States. They concluded that American atheists experience marginalization, which may take the form of discrimination or stigmatization due to their lack of religious belief, or both. These negative experiences may worsen the mental health status of atheists. Dena M. Abbott was the first to explore the experiences of atheists of color, finding that their trajectory toward establishing an atheist identity is similar to previously proposed identity development models. The psychology of atheists of color undergoes four stages: experiencing discrimination from anti-atheists, exploring atheism in violation of traditional cultural expectations, the objective existence of strategic management (concealing one's atheism), and benefiting from the sense of connection and freedom brought by an atheist identity. Van der Veer A. Maurits studied the situation of American atheists in his article "Atheism in American and British Newspapers: De-legitimizing Non-belief and the Non-believer." He argued that atheists in the United States belong to the most "disliked religious group," that atheism is described negatively by print media, and that atheism as a concept suffers more severe negation than atheists as individuals.
In addition to the aforementioned research, the academic community has also studied atheism within American culture; the relationship between belief in God and actual physical health; the correlation between levels of atheism and social health [4]; and the relationship between dogmatism and openness among non-religious personnel. Research has also been conducted on how "science-atheism" associations in real life influence American Christians' attitudes toward science; the attitudes of atheists toward Mitt Romney in presidential elections; and atheism within the American animal rights movement. Comparisons have been made between the IQ of non-religious personnel (atheists and agnostics) and those who identify as religious believers. Among these scholars, Phil Zuckerman convincingly analyzed the close relationship between levels of atheism and social health, refuting the view that religious belief is "innate." Philip Schwadel, in "The Political Activities of the Nonreligious," explored the political activities of atheists, arguing that they are quite liberal, energetically participate in political struggles, and pay close attention to political news. David Speed argued that a lack of belief in God is unrelated to established global health statuses, suggesting that belief in God does not necessarily mean better health. Corey Lee Wrenn argued that atheists constitute the largest portion of participants in the animal rights movement, and that the reason atheists and agnostic vegetarians adopt vegetarianism is largely due to their concern for other animals. Gould argued that Sam Harris is not the only atheist providing substitutes for what people lose after abandoning religious faith, but he pointed out that what we need now is a rational approach to spirituality. In reviewing Lee Smolin’s book The Life of the Cosmos, J.J. Radic pointed out that people face two choices: either unconditionally believe in his hypothesis (to save atheism) or believe in a volitional, rational, and omnipresent deity.
III. Problems in the Study of American Atheism
While these studies by Chinese and foreign academia have laid a solid theoretical foundation for further research into American atheism, the following deficiencies remain:
(1) From the perspective of the research subjects Apart from a handful of scholars such as Chen Weihua, Zhang Yingshan, Han Qi, Shang Quanyu, Yang Junfeng, and Xi Wuyi, very few people in the domestic [Chinese] academic community study American atheism. many of these individuals primarily translate the works of foreigners; even fewer have conducted independent research by going deep into the United States to understand the current state of its atheism. Beyond the scarcity of domestic researchers, it remains a matter of debate whether foreign scholars studying American atheism are religious themselves, whether their understanding is objective, and whether it accords with the actual conditions of American atheists. Furthermore, existing researchers have not maintained consistent efforts or deeply advanced their studies in this field, and subsequent research results have failed to emerge.
(2) From the perspective of research content There is a relatively large body of research on "New Atheism" in contemporary America, but relatively little coverage of the developmental evolution of American atheism since the founding of the country, the representative figures of various schools, or the formation and influence of their intellectual viewpoints. Existing research does not provide a clear understanding of the evolution of American atheism since the founding of the United States. There is also relatively little research on the influence exerted by American Marxists on the formation, evolution, and development of American atheism.
(3) From the perspective of research methodology Research is not systematic, comprehensive, or profound. That is, domestic scholars lack a comprehensive and deep understanding of the current state of American atheism research and have not conducted in-depth investigations or interviews with American atheists. No relevant analysis of questionnaires or interview materials has been found in existing domestic research results.
(4) From the perspective of research conclusions and outputs First, current research lacks depth and comprehensiveness in analyzing the reasons for the difficulties encountered in the development of American atheism; it fails to explore the measures taken by American atheists to deal with these difficulties and fails to make predictions regarding the developmental trends of American atheism. Second, regarding the current research outputs, apart from a small number of individual papers, there are no specialized monographs on the study of American atheism.
IV. Proposals Regarding the Study of American Atheism
The study of American atheism is related to the ideological struggle between China and the United States. It helps us "know ourselves and know the enemy" [5] in this struggle and helps us adopt highly targeted measures with effective results against the ideological struggle initiated by the United States. Therefore, it is imperative to strengthen the study of American atheism. Addressing the aforementioned problems, the following research proposals are made:
(1) From the perspective of the research subjects The academic community should attract more domestic and foreign scholars to focus on American atheism by holding specialized research conferences. By establishing research directions related to American atheism, we should attract master's students, doctoral candidates, and postdoctoral fellows to commit themselves to the study of American atheism.
(2) From the perspective of research content Emphasis should be placed not only on the study of "New Atheism" in contemporary America but also on the developmental evolution of atheism since the country's founding, the representative figures of various schools, and the formation and influence of their thoughts. Research should focus on the influence exerted and conditions provided by American Marxism for the formation, evolution, and development of American atheism; the reciprocal relationship and mutual influence between American Marxists and American atheists; and the understanding of the current ideological status and living conditions of American atheists, alongside cause analysis and the provision of countermeasures.
(3) From the perspective of research methodology We should conduct systematic, comprehensive, and in-depth research on American atheism. This should involve not only text reading and literature review but also deep insights into the actions and thoughts of farmers, workers, business owners, and students among atheists across the United States through telephone interviews, field interviews, and questionnaire surveys. We should draw on the methodologies of American atheism researchers and, like them, utilize existing theories from ethics, psychology, sociology, and religious studies, such as minority stress theory and moral foundations theory.
(4) From the perspective of research conclusions and outputs First, based on comprehensive and systematic research, we must correctly analyze the reasons for the predicaments faced by American atheism, propose specific measures for American atheists to respond to these challenges, and make scientific predictions on developmental trends. Second, regarding research outputs, we should not only value the writing of papers but also organize, systematize, and refine research results into monographs or research reports to further advance the study of American atheism.
In conclusion, the increasingly fierce ideological struggle between China and the United States requires us to strengthen our research on American atheism. The problems existing in current research—few research subjects, incomplete content, simple methods, and scarce outputs—require us to expand our research force, broaden research content, innovate research methods, and produce more research results.
Online Editor: Tong Xin Source: Science and Atheism, Issue 2, 2022