Ping Huijiang and Chen Fayang: From Rationality to Culture
Jack David Eller is an American anthropological scholar and a representative figure among atheist academics. His anthropological works include Culture and the Real World, Violence and Culture, Cultural Anthropology: Global Forces, Local Lives, and Introducing Anthropology of Religion. His atheist thought is centrally presented in his books Natural Atheism and Crucial Topics in Progressive Atheism, as well as in a series of articles defending atheism.
In his atheist writings, Eller uses reason and logic as a foundation to refute, one by one, the various arguments put forward by theists, profoundly revealing the falsehoods and fallacies of theism. On this basis, he proposes positive arguments for atheism, indicating the consistency between atheism and rational thinking. Drawing upon his deep knowledge of anthropology, Eller also constructs arguments from the perspective of religious and cultural diversity and relativity. He further overturns the uniqueness and truth claimed by religions, refutes the prejudice, exclusion, and stigmatization directed at atheists by religious groups, and defends the reputation and rights of atheists. Furthermore, Eller emphasizes that atheists should propagate and develop atheism more actively and effectively. He calls on atheists to move beyond pure speculative argumentation and engage in struggle across the fields of language, culture, and daily life, shaking off the control and erosion of religious thought to create a language, culture, life, and an entire world that belongs to atheism.
I. Atheism with Rationalism as its Undercurrent
Eller’s atheist thought possesses distinct rationalist characteristics, yet he is simultaneously aware of the inadequacies of rationalism. He advocates moving beyond a tradition confined to rational argumentation and entering the broader world of culture, language, and life, thereby more effectively promoting the development and evolution of atheism.
(1) Atheism is Rational
In the book Natural Atheism, Eller emphasizes developing arguments from the perspective of reason and logic. His refutations of theism are based on the logic of argumentation, and his positive arguments for atheism are likewise deployed from a rational standpoint. Eller believes that atheism and reason are identical. Reason is inherently the method by which people think and reason: "Reason is the process of drawing conclusions, producing knowledge, and taking action on the basis of facts and evidence." Atheism, then, is the clear conclusion reached through rational analysis and practical verification; it is consistent with rational thinking and a scientific attitude.
The first step in refuting theism is to emphasize the burden of proof, which is a fundamental rule that must be followed in any debate. That is, "the party asserting a claim should bear the responsibility of validating or proving their claim, rather than the questioning party bearing the burden of proof." Regarding the proof of God’s existence, the burden of proof lies with the theists; they should attempt to prove the legitimacy of the claim. This is similar to the burden of proof in a judicial trial: the party accusing the other of a crime or seeking compensation bears the primary burden of proof, while the other party only needs to be able to overturn their argument. Therefore, theists should attempt to prove that God exists; if the argument fails, they should admit that the thesis is wrong or false—that is, admit that God does not exist. Subsequently, Eller reviews several classic arguments for the existence of God in the history of philosophy, such as the "cosmological proof," the "ontological proof," and the "teleological proof," adding new supplements to existing refutations. Eller also refutes, one by one, the empirical and social arguments regarding God, including those relying on the Bible or authoritative discourses, records of "miracles," personal testimonies, the role of religious morality, and the benefits of religion; he points out that none of these are objectively valid arguments. Eller further raises arguments from the perspective of contradictions in religious language, the existence of evil, and sociological and statistical angles, thereby strengthening the refutation of God’s existence and enhancing the persuasiveness of the atheist position. Through a total of twelve different layers of argumentation, Eller ultimately demonstrates that the claims of theism have neither a clear and consistent object nor a rational and coherent argument, and they lack sufficient evidence to be credible. Therefore, the attitude toward theism should be similar to the attitude toward an invalid indictment in a court of law: maintaining a "presumption of atheism."
These twelve steps help atheists cut through religious lies and fanaticism, firm up their own positions and confidence, and construct their own meaning and values. For theists, they also help restore the reason damaged by religion and regain trust in themselves, human nature, nature, and society, thereby stepping into a world that has no god but is unique and real.
(2) Atheism Cannot Stop at Rational Argumentation
In the book Crucial Topics in Progressive Atheism, Eller achieves a major breakthrough in his interpretation of atheism: he argues that an atheism relying solely on rational argumentation is highly insufficient. Refuting theological arguments does not grant atheists victory, because the reason religion succeeds does not lie in its having convinced the masses, but in its having controlled them. Religion often begins with a set of terms describing its beliefs and concepts; thus, demystifying religion also begins with exposing its religious terminology. However, atheists must never stop there, because religion is far more than a few words or terms, and it is not merely a set of beliefs or factual claims.
Atheists are often rationalists who tend to emphasize empirical experience and cognition, thinking that once they have "proven" God does not exist, their work is done. But this is not the case, because religious discourse is not just about uttering propositions, stating facts, or conveying information; it is intended to change, motivate, and manipulate believers. Another misconception of rationalists is that the function of words lies in their meaning—assuming that a speaker must understand the meaning to use the words—but this view is also inaccurate. People often have only a vague concept of what words mean: "Most Christians and other theists have very vague concepts of God, and many even take 'unknowability' as one of the qualities of their God."
Atheists should not despise those vague, fluid, and incomprehensible religious ideas, because the vagueness or error of these discourses does not prevent religious language from functioning. "A prominent feature of religious language is that it can be effective even when not understood; indeed, not being understood can make it even more powerful." Take, for instance, the use of Latin in Christianity. Although most medieval Christians did not understand Latin, and only the pastors understood this "high" and "secret" church language, this actually elevated the status of Latin. Other religions also have special ritual idioms containing various esoteric and mysterious words, phrases, and tones; believers may not understand them at all yet still believe in their divine efficacy. In some cases, even the pastors or monks themselves do not understand the religious language because they are using a dead language; yet these secret languages and oral rituals are still considered important and effective. It is evident from this that if atheists only commit themselves to pointing out errors in religious arguments or the vagueness of their terminology, they cannot form a powerful influence truly capable of countering religion.
II. Atheism from an Anthropological Perspective
Eller is a renowned anthropologist, and his atheist thought exhibits clear anthropological characteristics, with cultural diversity and relativity being themes he mentions repeatedly. Religion itself embodies cultural diversity and relativity; therefore, for Christianity or any specific monotheistic faith, it is not only atheism that poses a threat, but any other religious faith also poses an enormous threat to it. In refuting the proofs for theism, Eller points out that Christians cannot prove the existence of a mysterious, world-creating spiritual entity; and even if such a spiritual entity existed, it could not be proven whether it was the Christian God, or a deity of Hinduism, Islam, or another religion. For followers of other religions and non-believers, the Christian Bible and authoritative writings are merely ideas and expressions within a specific cultural system, not persuasive universal authority or objective evidence. Regarding many of the claims of Christianity, not only do atheists disagree, but many theists who believe in other religions also disagree. Furthermore, followers of other religions have equal confidence in their own deities and faiths, and they also have deep religious experiences. "This means that the power of faith is a quality of the believer, not a sign of the truth of the belief." Ultimately, "countless religions allow well-informed atheists to gain the breakthrough insight that religion is part of humanity’s brilliant imagination—a cultural creation, not a description of reality."
"Culture is like a pair of glasses; it shapes the way we see the world, and thus shapes the way we interact with the world... People usually do not see their own culture; rather, they see the world through it, viewing the world as a world distorted by culture." The anthropological perspective and method allow people to discover the "glasses" of different cultures, and subsequently realize that they themselves were originally wearing certain cultural glasses. As a part of culture, religion—like other aspects of culture—wants to be seen as real and self-evident; but when people observe it from the perspective of anthropology and cultural diversity, they find this is not the case.
(1) Tolerance
Tolerance is a cultural proposition that Americans cherish and take pride in. It maintains that people are free to think and believe what they wish to think and believe, and can take actions such as propaganda, parades, and assemblies to manifest their views; as social citizens with equal rights, people should not suffer discrimination or persecution because of differences in their personal philosophies. Eller discusses social tolerance from historical and cultural perspectives, pointing out that religion is not the source of the concept of tolerance. Tolerance actually originates from the secular world, from the reality of cultural diversity, and from people's aversion to and correction of religious persecution.
Combining religious concepts and history, Eller points out that religion itself is tolerant neither of atheism nor of other religious beliefs; there is no foundation for tolerance in the sources and doctrines of religion. For example, the Bible nowhere mentions that believers should tolerate non-believers; instead, it is full of harsh punishments and warnings for those who do not believe in God or who believe in other gods. For instance, the Book of Deuteronomy states that if relatives or friends entice you to serve other gods, you should stone them to death; the Book of Leviticus records a man sentenced to death for cursing the name of God; the Book of Revelation describes God conducting a final judgment on the world, where those who believe in God and do good may ascend to heaven, while various sinful people, including non-believers, will enter the lake of fire and go to hell. Islam regards non-monotheists as idolaters, and mentions in the Quran capturing, besieging, and killing idolaters, and that Allah’s curse will fall upon non-believers. The Hindu classic Bhagavad Gita contains a passage that sounds like an opening toward "other faiths," mentioning people who believe in different deities, but it also points out that their worship is wrong and they will pay a price for it. In short, "no religious tradition is truly tolerant at its roots, nor do they welcome difference. Every religion sets a proper or correct way of thinking, feeling, and acting. Although there may be some degree of freedom at specific points, there is absolutely no situation where it is considered acceptable to reject the faith or decide for oneself after choosing some other teaching or thought." The cruel history of religious wars, religious persecution, opposition to blasphemy, opposition to heresy, and opposition to pagans are all direct results of intolerant religious beliefs. In periods when religion prevailed or even ruled the world, religious personages not only failed to practice tolerance but condemned it. Religious figures advocated flogging, expulsion, exile, deprivation of civil rights, and confiscation of property for heretics; they advocated using force to compel conversion or even sentencing them to death and mass slaughter. Christianity also worked hard to use every available tool to combat and eliminate heresy; it was simply that it could never thoroughly eradicate all unorthodox thought. The sparks of heresy became more numerous and more defiant, and ultimately, they could only grudgingly accept coexistence with one another to avoid mutual extermination.
Religion itself does not possess the wisdom of tolerance; rather, the secular world, based on experience and reason, understood that persecution had lost its efficacy and that tolerance was a safe and rational choice. Therefore, the concept of tolerance originates from experience and reason, from secular society, and from the continuously developing consciousness of freedom and consensus. Eller discusses tolerance not to critique the history of religious intolerance, but to point out that atheists in the United States still suffer from exclusion and oppression, and that their situation is one of intolerance. In contemporary America, atheists are not publicly expelled, persecuted, or murdered as they were in the past, but neither are they considered fully equal "good citizens" in this society. There are still those who publicly condemn atheists and even argue that atheists are unqualified to hold any public office in the United States. Atheists are excluded for pointing out the errors of theism and are marginalized and stigmatized because they do not share the faith of the majority. This clearly contradicts the concept of tolerance in a modern civilized society that the United States professes to be.
(2) Morality
Atheists have historically been slandered as dissolute and immoral; terms such as indulgence, anger, sadness, loneliness, apathy, and even "demonic" have been thrust upon them. These stigmas are absurd and lack any basis in reality, yet they rely on certain plausible-sounding pretexts to cause great harm to atheists.
Religious believers accuse atheists of lacking morality, arguing that ethics and morality are laws established by God for the world; since atheists do not acknowledge God, they therefore have no ethics or morality. Some anti-atheists claim that "atheists do not have a moral code like the Bible, nor a spiritual police to enforce such a code, therefore morality is impossible"; others argue that "atheists are actually secret theists who, while disparaging God, ultimately and secretly derive their codes of conduct from religion." In response, Eller points out that atheism does not actually suffer from the moral problems claimed by theists, because religion is not the sole basis for morality—even for theists themselves. "It is generally believed that morality has four foundations: religion, culture, nature, and reason; but religion is actually just one field of culture, so in the final analysis, morality has three foundations (culture, nature, and reason), and religion cannot be placed on equal footing with them." Culture includes knowledge and skills, beliefs, norms, values, morality, and so on; it can be divided into different fields and aspects, of which religion is only one. All aspects of culture are derived from and dependent upon the economic realities of a secular society. Many religions have formal moral codes with specific lists of behaviors and associated punishments, but not all religions are particularly concerned with morality; moreover, religious moral codes are flawed—sometimes too general, sometimes too specific. Religious convictions sometimes even run contrary to morality; for instance, Christian "theodicy" [7] may justify social and natural disasters—but if these disasters and sufferings are all acts of divine justice, then people should neither sympathize with the victims nor provide aid, which clearly contradicts human moral sentiments and behaviors of friendship and mutual assistance. Furthermore, having a set of moral codes is a far cry from possessing true moral character, as evidenced by the high rates of crime, deviance, and various anti-social behaviors among theists. Meanwhile, there is no clear evidence to suggest that atheists are more immoral or commit more "bad deeds" than theists.
Eller emphasizes: "Morality, in the sense of regulating and constraining behavior, is actually a natural, evolution-based phenomenon." For instance, all social animals and many non-social animals have standardized behaviors and "rituals" or postures that trigger or cease aggression; many species exhibit "selfless" behaviors such as sharing and self-sacrifice in group life, and the stronger the learning capacity of these species, the more moral behaviors they exhibit. Therefore, one can see the origins of morality from the perspective of nature and evolution. The universality of morality, like the universality of language or culture itself, further proves the evolutionary and genetic unity of humanity. The numerous languages developed by humans demonstrate a powerful inclination to acquire language, though this inclination must be nurtured by social experience; similarly, the universality of morality indicates that humans are born with a powerful inclination to acquire morality, which also must be nurtured by experience.
Another foundational source of morality is reason. "Even without religion, and even without an inherited predisposition toward morality, reason itself still guides people to engage in normative and socially beneficial behavior based on principles and intersubjectivity (i.e., an awareness of others' feelings)." Humans do not need any religion to tell them that evil acts such as killing cause damage to others, to oneself, and to the social order. Reason does not need to rely on God or His rewards and punishments, yet it can and does achieve most of the moral principles found in great religions. In fact, because morality always involves a voluntary choice of action from among possible alternatives, it is possible for atheists to be more moral than theists—because when they act according to morality, they do so more for the sake of morality itself than out of obedience to a powerful deity.
(3) Language
Eller believes that religion and language share several similarities: first, both are acquired after birth—just as no one is born with a specific faith, no one is born speaking a specific language. Second, there are many different languages in the world, just as there are many different religions. Third, a person acquires a specific language or religious faith often because they grew up among people who speak that language or profess that religion. However, there is a key difference between language and religion: speakers of a language do not claim their language is "correct"; they do not consider English to be "true" and Spanish to be "false." But members of a religion believe their religion is correct and others are false or erroneous. Religious language is a distinct subset of language that combines specific vocabulary unique to religion with secular language. Each religion has its own set of special vocabulary—for example, Messiah, baptism, and sacrament are Christian religious terms, while Nirvana, Anatta (non-self) [8], and Bodhisattva are Buddhist concepts. Simultaneously, each religion has its own language, thus many different religious languages exist concurrently; believers of the same religion speak one language, while the languages of other religions are like foreign tongues to them. Eller reminds atheists that they must never underestimate the role of religious language, because a language is a way of thinking, and this way of speaking and thinking invades every field of social life.
In a society like the United States where Christianity is dominant, Christian language has long since permeated the entire cultural system. People have a habit of speaking and thinking in a Christian way, and atheists are no exception. American atheists also exhibit a tendency to equate Christianity with religion itself; they take Christian terms like "God," "Heaven," or "Sin" very seriously. They "allow Christianity to set the agenda, define the questions, and provide the language of debate," and atheists speak the language of Christianity "with the same fluency and naturalness as believers." But this is clearly a dangerous practice, as atheists unintentionally participate in Christian language and, in doing so, promote and perpetuate Christian influence. Eller believes that atheists should stop using Christian discourse so as to loosen the grip of Christian language on their thoughts. Atheists should also impress upon Christians that they are talking about Christianity rather than all religions, and should demote the status of Christianity to being merely one of many religions, rather than the unique or most important one.
Regarding how to reject Christian language, Eller provides some specific suggestions. For example: one should not use the word "religion" to mean Christianity—when discussing Christianity, one should use the term "Christianity." One should not capitalize "God" as Christians do, but rather use "the Christian god." One should not say "the Bible" or "scripture," but rather "Judeo-Christian writings." Words like "heaven, hell, sin, devil, angel, soul, prayer" should not be used as ordinary vocabulary, but should be specified as "the Christian concepts of heaven, hell, sin, etc." Like foreign religious terms, Christian terms should be italicized to maintain a sense of distance. One should avoid everyday idioms with heavy Christian overtones, such as "God bless you," "spirit," or "belief." The core essence lies in being aware of the existence of Christian language and its erosion of daily language, actively treating it as one of many religious languages, and avoiding the unconscious use of religious language that reinforces the spread and influence of Christianity. Moreover, simply rejecting and avoiding the use of religious language is not enough; atheists also need to use their own terms to express atheistic meanings and concepts. Atheists can "borrow everyday language with some modifications and additions," "appropriate words from religion or reclaim words occupied by religion," and "introduce new terms," just as religion, philosophy, and biology have their own professional terminologies. In short, what atheists need is a distinct atheistic discourse—speaking an atheistic language rather than a religious one.
(4) Realms of Life
Eller believes that the lifestyle of American atheists is largely a Christian lifestyle; people are surrounded, occupied, and permeated by a religious way of life that is taken for granted, invisible, yet omnipresent. Whether or not people believe in religion, they experience it at every moment, and some religious content has become so universal and routine that people are unaware of its religious nature.
Eller reviews the history of religious colonization of African indigenous peoples by early Christian missionaries: "Missionaries quickly realized that full understanding of doctrine was neither possible nor necessary; they found that controlling life was more important than persuading people, as the former essentially led to the latter. Thus, the goal became—and remains—to make religion omnipresent yet invisible." To achieve this goal, religion adopted a series of means, including taking control of the economy and labor and reshaping them in Western, colonial, and Christian ways, and subsequently extending from economic affairs to all aspects of family and personal life—such as demanding adjustments in the division of labor and status between men and women, requirements for dress and hygiene, house construction and home furnishing, and the rituals of daily life, birth, marriage, and death. Eller emphasizes that in American society, the colonization of the realms of life by Christianity is similar to its religious colonization of indigenous societies, but more enduring and profound. He analyzes in detail the specific manifestations of Christianity's intrusion into daily life, including: First, significant life events—from birth, coming of age, and marriage to illness and death, major life events are never without Christian rituals and the intervention of religious figures. Second, religion occupies a vast amount of space, not only through various temples, churches, and religious meeting places, but also by erecting religious statues in public spaces, giving religious names to public venues and addresses, and squeezing into private homes. Third, the arrangement of festivals such as the Common Era calendar, Christmas, and Easter, and even how believers arrange their personal time, is under the projection of religion. Fourth, various art forms—such as songs, stories, music, dance, architecture, sculpture, and painting—have all been captured by religion, repeating religious stories, images, and language over and over again. Fifth, religion shapes people's daily habits, such as eating habits, habits of prayer and confession, naming habits, habits of clothing and wearing accessories, requirements for body care, tattoos or piercings, and requirements for standing, sitting, and gesturing.
Recognizing the colonization of the everyday life world—realms such as daily behavior, space, and habit—by religion is the first step toward liberating atheists from religious attraction and control. Eller argues: "Contemporary American atheism, like atheism through most of history, is a series of arguments about and against religion. The extremely limited results it has achieved suggest that the direction of its efforts is wrong, because the key to victory is not debate, but dominance, possession, destruction, and ultimately, achieving institutionalization and naturalization." Eller emphasizes that atheism must transform from a traditional, argumentative atheism into a de-religionized [9] atheism. This requires stripping religious language from everyday speech, liberating art from religious influence, eradicating religion from its infiltration of society and daily life, and developing atheism into a more inclusive worldview and life philosophy. All public institutions must be thoroughly secularized; education, medicine, science, and especially government, must be separated from religion.
III. An Atheism That Dares to Struggle
Eller's atheistic thought possesses a distinct spirit of struggle. In the United States, atheists are a group that is excluded, marginalized, and even stigmatized. Social pressure forces many atheists to hide their positions; this, in turn, leads to the perception that atheists are very few in number or even non-existent. These limited members are also viewed as silent cowards who grumble in private but lack the courage for public action. To break this state of being unobserved, unacknowledged, and unrespected, atheists must find their own voice and use active measures to manifest their existence and promote their ideas.
Eller believes it is desirable for atheists to adopt an outspoken and active posture. Even as a minority group, atheists should bravely speak out rather than remain silent. This is not only to defend their rights as American citizens but also to safeguard cultural diversity, science, freedom, and tolerance. An important path to achieving active engagement is the establishment of atheist groups and organizations, existing and speaking out publicly in a collective form. This is analogous to the civil rights organizations in American history that fought for the interests of marginalized groups such as Black Americans and women; although not every Black person or woman participated in those organizations, the organizations signaled the existence and social rights of the entire group. Similarly, atheist organizations should actively participate in social affairs and public life, continuously expanding their membership, strengthening their social influence, and issuing manifestos on behalf of the atheist community. They should attract and influence the general public through numerous methods such as propaganda, education, marches, social activities, and litigation.
If atheists are to establish organizations and engage in active dissemination, what kind of message should they spread? While atheists often privately criticize the errors of religion or the "folly" of theists, such messages are unsuitable for public propaganda as they cause atheists to encounter greater hostility and attacks. Atheists need to convey diverse, positive messages to the world and pay attention to rational and effective methods of dissemination. Eller believes that direct debate with theists yields poor results. Lectures and debates are also not ideal methods; they often trigger defense and resistance, sometimes even devolving into shouting matches—an observation supported by his own experiences debating theists on television programs. Atheism is a result or a conclusion, not the process by which a person reaches that result. Therefore, the goal of dissemination is not to turn theists into atheists directly, but rather to adopt indirect procedures—for instance, by teaching rationality and critical thinking, allowing people to learn to think independently and thus arrive at atheistic conclusions on their own. One effective method of dissemination is education. The "education" mentioned here is not merely scientific education but should also include training in rationality and critical thinking, political education, historical education, civic education, and cultural diversity training. People do not necessarily have to attend formal courses, but these values and principles should be integrated into the messages atheists transmit. Thus, "atheists are not spreading the miracles of atheism, but the miracles of history, civil society, tolerance, and diversity; the miracles of science and reason." Regarding the dissemination of ideas, schools and courts are important competitive venues; workplaces, communities, newspapers, bars, and even various shared living spaces can become cultural battlegrounds in the struggle for discourse power [10].
Atheists should also remain sensitive to religious language and the phenomenon of the "religionization" of daily life. Atheists must find ways to eliminate the colonization of religious factors rather than unconsciously immersing themselves in religious language and habits. Simply identifying Christian language or refusing and avoiding its use is insufficient; atheists also need to use their own terminology to express atheistic meanings and concepts, creating a language and culture belonging to atheism. Borrowing everyday language, appropriating words derived from religion, and introducing new vocabulary are all methods that can be used to create an atheistic language. Eller once pointed out that the term "evangelism" is a word occupied by Christianity; its original Greek meaning is "to deliver good news," and atheism can also use it for dissemination. He even compiled six items of positive "good news" similar to an atheist gospel. The first of these is: "We are here, and we are not leaving." Eller believes this is the first and most critical message that must be conveyed: to tell Americans that atheists exist, that they are always around, and that they will exist forever. Because religious influence in the United States is so massive, many people do not even know what an atheist is or that there are atheists in America; many atheists also feel lonely and helpless because they do not know others like themselves are also atheists. The existence of an atheist community is undoubtedly "good news" that inspires them.
Through the de-religionization of language and the spheres of life, religious content that originally occupied space, time, language, art, the body, and politics will be cleared away. Atheism will provide new content to fill these positions, such as using scientific concepts or natural solar terms [11] to redefine time, using non-religious weddings and funerals to redefine the life cycle, and creating new events, rituals, or customs, as well as new culture and art, and even a new life and society. Eller admits he has proposed a grand and extremely difficult vision to achieve, but regardless, atheists must transcend the level of speculative argument and enter the broader world of culture and life to engage in unremitting struggle against the religion existing therein. He also calls out in his writing: "As Marx said, we have spent enough time describing the world; the responsibility now is to change it. We have a world to win." [12]
IV. A Continuously Developing Atheism
Rationalism, the anthropological perspective, and the courage to struggle are prominent characteristics of Eller’s atheistic thought. Furthermore, his atheist thought has another feature—development and evolution.
Promoting the development and evolution of atheism was the starting point and purpose of Eller's writing, as well as a true reflection of his own atheistic thought. Eller hoped through his works to encourage atheists and allow atheism to be better understood and accepted, thereby strengthening its role in culture and politics. He also hoped to push atheism in new theoretical directions; atheists should not be limited to rational demonstration, nor should they be content with publishing evidence of God's non-existence over and over, repeating critiques of fundamentalism, or recurrently denouncing religious violence and suffering. Atheism needs to develop new themes and new ideas. Atheism should not merely expose and criticize the negative impacts of religion; it should also provide positive content that can bring vitality and meaning to life. Eller also hoped to transcend the shackles that bind atheism and develop it within a broader context. Judging by his theoretical works, he largely realized his desire to promote the evolution of atheism.
Eller's atheistic thought began by using rational speculation to reveal the falsehoods and errors of religious arguments, subsequently focusing on demonstrating the unity of atheism and rationality. Later, recognizing the deficiencies of rationalism, he called on atheists not to stop at argumentation but to be vigilant against and resist the erosion and control of language, thought, and the spheres of life by religion. This itself constitutes the development and evolution of atheistic thought. He called for the establishment of atheist organizations, the active and public dissemination of atheism, and reflections on specific matters such as what content should be spread and how. He personally spared no effort in practicing the dissemination of atheism in real life. This propelled the development and evolution of the practice of atheistic dissemination. He indeed placed atheism within a broader context, correcting the narrow perception among American atheists that equated religion solely with Christianity and atheism solely with opposition to Christianity or religious belief. He emphasized that religion is not only a belief system but also an institutional system, a mode of language and thought, and a whole pattern of life under its umbrella. To resist it, atheists must spare no effort in identifying and eliminating religious factors from every link, filling the gaps with atheistic content, and constructing an atheistic system of language, meaning, and values. From rational debate to the struggle for discourse power, and finally to the reconstruction of the meaning of life, Eller set higher demands for atheists and provided a new route for the development of atheism.
Eller's atheistic thought also has its limitations and deficiencies. On one hand, the content he seeks to pack into atheism is excessively vast, placing an unbearable burden upon it. While atheism is certainly rational, scientific, and natural—and can be active, struggling, and pioneering—it is, after all, not a complete worldview and methodology [13] and cannot be used to guide every sphere of life. Atheism is primarily a position and viewpoint regarding the adherence to reason and science and the opposition to theology and superstition. Even if it is equated with rational and scientific thinking, or—as he later hoped—developed into "a-credulism" or "non-credulism," it is insufficient on its own to bear the grand vision of liberating thought, developing culture, creating the meaning of life, or even changing the world. These alone are not enough to support such a monumental mission of transformation. On the other hand, although Eller recognized the limitations of rationalism and Western-centrism, he could not entirely escape their influence. For example, while Eller suggested forming atheist organizations to actively spread ideas and promote social change, he particularly identifies with "collective irrationality," believing that religion is collective and irrational while atheism tends toward the independent thinking of the rational individual—to the extent that he doubts whether atheists can form an effective collective. Furthermore, when examining cases of de-religionization, he mentioned the communist attempts in the Soviet Union and China as well as the 16th-century religious reforms of Henry VIII in England, yet he chose the latter for analysis. His reasoning was that the relationship between atheism and communism in the Soviet Union and China was too close and did not last long enough, whereas England's de-religionization had more obvious and lasting effects. However, were it not for his natural affinity for Anglo-American culture and his unfamiliarity with and rejection of communism, the modern, democratic, and ongoing atheistic discourse would clearly offer more reference value for examining a regime's de-religionizing transformation of the social sphere than a 16th-century imperial reform from the distant past.
In summary, Eller’s atheistic thought synthesizes a vast array of knowledge across history, religion, science, philosophy, and anthropology; at the same time, it is closely integrated with the developmental evolution of atheism and the circumstances and actions of atheists, possessing both theoretical innovation and practical inspiration. His work presents the ideological conflicts and struggles between religious forces and atheists from multiple dimensions, depicts the developmental status of American atheism and the lived reality of atheists, and exposes the immense influence of religious belief and its constituent organizations on American politics, culture, economic activity, and even individual philosophies of life. His theory is of great value for our understanding of American culture and our research into the development and dissemination of atheism within different cultural systems. In particular, Eller’s examination and dissection of religious culture from an anthropological perspective has broadened the path for the development of atheism. Atheists can not only launch arguments and struggles from the conventional perspectives of rationalism, the spirit of science, objective reality, and secular experience, but can also conduct analysis from anthropological and cross-cultural perspectives. By transcending the cognitive limitations of a specific cultural circle, they can link ideas, culture, and real life into a holistic chain, thereby conducting a systematic critique of religious belief and its entire cultural and organizational control apparatus. This holds significant enlightened meaning for our research into the theoretical innovation of atheism, and for our reflections on how to more effectively oppose superstition, propagate science, enhance the public’s rational thinking and spiritual strength, and form a correct worldview in real life.
(Author profiles: Ping Huijiang is a lecturer at the School of Marxism, China West Normal University; Chen Fayang is an associate professor at the School of Marxism, China West Normal University.)
Internet Editor: Tongxin Source: Science and Atheism (科学与无神论), Issue 1, 2024