Liu Xuchen: A Pioneering Model of Guiding the Study of Religious History with the Historical Materialist Viewpoint
The Marxist conception of religion is a complete and scientific theoretical system constructed on the foundation of historical materialism. It not only provides profound judgments on the fundamental question of the essence of religion but also offers a sharp weapon for analyzing concrete religious phenomena, religious history, and religious dogmas, demonstrating its powerful vitality. However, some contemporary scholars argue that "Marx's conception of religion is simply the 'opium' theory" or that "in Marx's view, religion is unmitigated ideology," thereby asserting that the studies of religion by classical Marxist authors consist merely of abstract assertions lacking empirical analysis of concrete problems. These arguments undoubtedly narrow and disparage the Marxist conception of religion. In fact, both Marx and Engels placed high importance on combining scientific abstraction with concrete analysis, consciously using historical materialism as the "general result which served as a guiding thread for my studies once it had been won," and religion was no exception. As a co-founder, scientific practitioner, and tireless advancer of historical materialism, Engels’ study of primitive Christianity in his later years can be described as a brilliant model of the conscious application of historical materialism to the study of the history of religious thought. This series of achievements transcended the religious history research of bourgeois idealism and the incomplete religious studies of the Young Hegelians, providing an excellent example for our full application and in-depth interpretation of the Marxist conception of religion. Since the Reform and Opening-up, the domestic academic community has achieved relatively fruitful theoretical results in research on the theoretical connotations, development process, and critical value of Engels’ conception of religion, as well as in specialized studies on Engels’ views on Christianity. Overall, however, most of these past research results have been subsumed within the study of the Marxist conception of religion in a holistic sense; there has been relatively little independent, holistic examination of Engels’ specific research outputs on religion. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct an in-depth reading of the series of articles Engels wrote in his later years on primitive Christianity, to review his answers to a series of important questions and the interlocking logic of the arguments behind them, and to grasp and comprehend Engels’ religious research more deeply, so as to derive methodological and practical insights for the disciplinary construction of Marxist religious studies and the study of scientific atheism.
I. "Created by Man" rather than "Created by God": Engels' Inquiry into the Ontological Origins of Primitive Christianity
The first major foundational problem Engels sought to resolve regarding the interpretation of religious history was: who was the creator of primitive Christianity and its numerous dogmas? This is also one of the core issues in the struggle between atheism and theism, and between the materialistic and idealistic conceptions of religion. Before Engels, the dominant mainstream views in society were essentially idealistic. Christian missionaries adhered to "religious creationism," believing that the founder of Christianity was Jesus Christ—the "Word made flesh" [1] seeking to save the world—and his disciples. Although texts rich in religious dogma, such as the Bible, were written by the disciples, they were essentially seen as the results of the disciples receiving "divine revelation." The Young Hegelian philosopher Bruno Bauer, who was once famous for his biblical criticism, proposed the view that religion was created by people; however, "like all those who struggle against deep-rooted prejudices, he went too far in many places," leading to arguments riddled with errors and omissions and incorrect judgments regarding many basic facts. The above views either stood within the narrative logic of religion, accepting the dogma of "God creating religion" as a self-evident and unshakable premise; or they put the conclusion before the evidence, tampering with basic historical facts to serve the practical needs of biblical criticism at the time, and were thus unable to provide a scientific answer to the question of the creators of primitive Christianity.
Faced with this situation, Engels fully absorbed the research results of his predecessors. Using the sharp weapon of historical materialism, he not only scientifically summarized the essence of religion—that "all religion is nothing but the fantastic reflection in those men's minds of those external forces which control their daily life, a reflection in which the terrestrial forces assume the form of supernatural forces"—but also proposed the assertion that "Christianity, like every great revolutionary movement, was made by the masses," of which he provided a detailed exposition combined with the facts of religious history. Specifically, Engels made the following four judgments to support the "man-made theory."
First, parts of the scriptures and epistles of primitive Christianity originated from the works of ancient Greek and Roman philosophers who were real, sensuous human beings. The Bible explicitly states: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16). However, in the works of the Roman poet Persius and the philosopher Philo, which were completed before the appearance of the Gospels and the Epistles, identical passages of text had already appeared. Although Christians also saw the similarities between the Bible and these ancient Greek and Roman works, they, from an apologetic standpoint, were forced to emphasize that others had plagiarized the Bible rather than the Bible plagiarizing others. This view carried a strong ideological coloring and violated the true face of history. Regarding this phenomenon, Engels commented with an ironic tone: "Some passages read as if they had been copied from the New Testament, which was not then written." In his research, Engels also fully absorbed and applied the achievements of bourgeois scholars. He pointed out in his articles: "Bauer has proved that the New Testament Epistles, especially those to the Romans and the Corinthians, are often literally copied from Seneca." It is precisely for this reason that Engels compared the Stoic philosopher Seneca to the "uncle of Christianity."
Second, the scriptures and dogmas of primitive Christianity are heavily interspersed with the cultural traces of the Jewish people, a nation that truly existed in history. First, in the text of the Book of Revelation, the author places the Jews in a very high position. For example, when describing the scene of the saints appearing before the throne of God, Revelation first lists 144,000 Jews from the twelve tribes, followed by other Gentiles who had converted to Judaism. Second, the author of this text calls his fellow believers only "Jews," and when criticizing and condemning members of other sects, points out: "the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan" (Revelation 2:9/3:9). Third, "Jehovah," the God of primitive Christianity, originated from "Yahweh," the unique national god of the Jews. Finally, the primitive Christian scriptures contain numerous condemnations of Gentiles for eating things sacrificed to idols and committing fornication, which were precisely the important issues long debated between Judaism and other religions. After listing many relevant materials, Engels concluded: "All this is composed entirely of pre-Christian, Jewish material, so that here almost everything is pure Jewish ideas."
Third, the dogmas of Christianity originated from the doctrines of ancient Greek and Roman philosophers, particularly those of the Stoic school. Engels believed that the core concepts of Christianity were the popularization and vulgarization of ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, especially Stoic philosophy. For example, the Stoics first proposed the idea of natural law—the belief that there exists a universal law in the universe that governs all things, namely, the Logos. In the Gospel of John in the New Testament, the author directly equates the Logos with God, stating at the very beginning: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). The Stoics first proposed the idea of human equality, holding that all people are the same regardless of their birth, race, status, or wealth. This is very similar to the Christian idea of all people being equal before God. The Stoics first proposed the concept of cosmopolitanism [2]. This concept holds that every person is a member of the human family, and the relationship between the individual and humanity as a whole takes precedence over the relationship with a particular race or state; therefore, a new cosmopolitan concept transcending a single race or country must be established. This is very similar to Christians calling each other brothers and sisters, and so on. Regarding the relationship between Christianity and Stoic philosophy, Bauer conducted extensive research, proving the similarity between Stoic philosophy and Christian concepts. It was in this sense that Engels, when commenting on Bauer, pointed out that his most remarkable research result was that "Philo of Alexandria, the Jew who was still living in the year 40 at a great age, was the real father of Christianity."
Fourth, the history of the development of primitive Christian dogma reflects a process of layered creation and accumulation by real human beings, and cannot reflect a stroke-of-the-pen creation by a supreme deity. If Christian dogma originated from the creation of a supreme God, it should have been perfect from the start; the dogmas reflected in various scriptures would not show traces of moving from lower to higher, from simple to complex, or from isolated to comprehensive, nor would there be contradictions and conflicts between dogmas. However, the facts are exactly the opposite; the developmental history of Christian dogma shows obvious characteristics of gradualism and internal contradiction. Analyzing various titles in the Bible through linguistic methods, Engels pointed out: "the so-called Gospel of John, the Epistles of John and the present work [Revelation]... belong to at least three different authors, a fact which can be clearly proved from their language alone, even if one ignores the totally contradictory doctrines they set forth." In the Book of Revelation, the earliest literature of Christianity, core concepts such as original sin, the Logos, and the offering of repentance with the spirit before God do not appear at all, and so-called Christian morality consists only of the single rule "abstain from carnal lust." This reflects the crudest form of Christianity at its inception: in terms of dogma, "not a word is said about original sin... not a word about the Trinity"; the later systematized and completed dogmas are here "not to be found even in trace."
Engels' answer to the question of the creators of primitive Christianity and its dogmas not only upheld the atheistic view of the "man-made theory" but also identified the specific scholars, texts, and events that constituted the sources of religious elements in the course of historical development. This series of arguments and the process of discourse conform to the epistemology of historical materialism, making the concept of "man-made religion" more concrete and profound, and making an outstanding contribution to correctly understanding the origin of primitive Christianity.
II. Distorted Visions Based on Real History: Engels’ Epistemological Reduction of the Creation of Primitive Christian Visions
The second major foundational problem Engels sought to resolve was: are the many absurd and strange visions in primitive Christianity—viewed by Christians as historical facts and correct revelations of the future—real? There are many miraculous visions in primitive Christian scriptures, such as the scene described in the Book of Revelation: "And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads" (Revelation 12:1-3).
In the process of spreading Christianity, these visions and wonders greatly enhanced the mystery of the religion, making the masses feel an involuntary urge to worship. At the same time, these visions vividly depicted what the world would look like after death: they described the place where Christians go as Heaven and the place where non-Christians go as Hell, becoming important factors prompting the widespread dissemination of Christianity. Therefore, the authenticity and source of these visions became a major issue in the struggle between theism and atheism. Christian missionaries believed that these visions all originated from divine revelation and were contents that would inevitably be realized in the future. "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass" (Revelation 1:1). Free-thinkers of the Middle Ages and some scholars in the Enlightenment proposed the "religious fraud theory," believing that the founders of Christianity were essentially a group of swindlers; they dismissed the various components of Christianity, especially the visions, as fabrications by frauds, believing they could not reflect any real history. These views either used the words in the Bible as evidence to prove the correctness of the content recorded in the Bible, falling into the logical trap of circular reasoning; or they put their stance first, rudely denying the visions altogether, thereby ignoring the valuable content hidden behind them and failing to provide a correct answer to the question of the authenticity of the visions.
Faced with this situation, Engels insisted on using the Marxist "active theory of reflection" to analyze the problem. He pointed out that the objective material world, which exists independently of human consciousness, is the object and source of knowledge; knowledge is the subject's active reflection of the object and a subjective image of the objective world. He further developed this by combining it with the content of the Book of Revelation. Specifically, Engels made the following three judgments.
First, the numerous visions in the Book of Revelation do not exist in real society and are products of the author's fiction.
In The Book of Revelation, the author explicitly states: "I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things" (Revelation 22:8). However, after attending lectures by Professor Ferdinand Benary at the University of Berlin, Engels discovered that "the visions which make up almost the whole of the Revelation are taken, most of them word for word, from the Old Testament prophets and their later imitators." Nor were these visions matters of the future as the text claimed; rather, they were "things which had already happened and were well known to the actual author." Engels pointed out that the reason the author of Revelation presented past events as prophecy was to use the accuracy of the "prophecy" to validate his judgments about the future—namely, "to enable the reader to accept the final prophecy that the Israelites would survive all tribulations and emerge victorious in the end."
Second, within the numerous visions of Revelation, certain specific figurative elements can be traced back to their corresponding material foundations, reflecting the historical conditions of the time.
Engels noted that during the period when Revelation was composed, Christians were suffering under the persecution of Roman authorities, and the hearts of believers were filled with dread. To bolster their faith while avoiding official censorship, the author used various fantastical visions to refer to real people, events, and things, making a series of predictions. He conducted an in-depth analysis of the number "666," which appears multiple times in the text, using the correspondence between numbers and letters in the Cabala [3] to deduce that it referred to the Greek "Nero Caesar." He further used Hebrew letters to spell "Nero Caesar" to obtain the number "616," which also appears in some textual variants, providing a cross-verification of his research's reliability. Engels further pointed out that the "woman arrayed in purple and scarlet" described in Revelation is a metaphor for Rome, the great city that rules over the kings of the earth, while the "seven kings" refer to Roman rulers. The date of Revelation's composition can be inferred from the phrase "five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come" as being during the reign of Galba, between June 68 AD and January 69 AD. Using these methods, Engels "translated" the veiled meanings the author of Revelation intended to convey: that Nero would return around 70 AD; that the reign of terror he would execute would last 42 months, or 1260 days; and that after this period, God would appear, defeat the Antichrist Nero, destroy the great city with fire, and bind the devil for a thousand years.
Third, the formative process of the visions in Revelation manifests the subjective initiative exercised by their creator on the basis of historical facts.
Engels argued that the various visions recorded in Revelation were precisely distorted reflections of the social reality, psychology, and ideological state of the time. Engels noted, "What Christianity looked like in 68 [AD] we can see as in a mirror in this work," as "it reflects the conceptions of the time with the most naive fidelity and in the corresponding habitual language." However, this appearance and these conceptions were distorted. "As for manufactured religions... they cannot do without deception and falsification of history in their founding; and Christianity, as Bauer showed in his critique of the New Testament, demonstrated remarkable achievements in this regard from the very beginning." Engels believed that facing the historical fact of primitive Christianity’s existence and development, one cannot flippantly negate it entirely as previous researchers had; instead, one must resolve questions such as: "Where did those notions and thoughts, which were linked into a system in Christianity, come from, and how did they achieve world dominion?"
Engels' answer to the question of the authenticity of the visions in primitive Christian scripture both exposed the essential illusory and fictional nature of these visions and restored their material basis and formative process from an epistemological perspective. This analysis provides important content for the scientific propagation of atheism today.
III. The Victor of Darwinian Competition: Engels' Praxiological Explanation for Primitive Christianity Achieving Dominance
The third major problem Engels sought to solve was: why was primitive Christianity able to defeat other popular religions of the time in the struggle for existence and achieve dominance? St. Augustine, the famous Roman-era theologian living during that period, believed it was primarily because God continually manifested "miracles" through a divine plan and grace. Theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther attributed it to the sacrificial spirit of missionaries under God’s inspiration and the translation and dissemination of the Bible, which led more people to accept Christianity. Although Bruno Bauer provided a wealth of valuable material, "the idealism of this German philosopher prevented him from making clear observations and precise explanations. Often at the critical moment, he had to substitute empty words for facts," to the point of wiping away the authentic historical components of primitive Christianity along with the rest. These views either credited the dominance of primitive Christianity to the non-existent entity of God or engaged in arbitrary analysis at key junctures while setting historical facts aside, failing to provide a scientific answer.
Confronted with this situation, Engels pointed out that because value evaluations are subjective, the process of religious influence and expansion cannot be understood through pure speculative analysis. The reason primitive Christianity triumphed was that its ideological doctrines were highly adapted to the economic, political, and social conditions of the Roman Empire. Specifically, Engels made the following three judgments:
First, the cosmopolitan concept of the "equality of all people" in primitive Christianity adapted to the needs of the "unified" Roman Empire in extending its rule.
Before being conquered by the Roman Empire—from the Italian Peninsula and Greek city-states to the Kingdom of Macedonia, Syria, Egypt, and North Africa—"we see almost everywhere a complete division of society into distinct estates, a variety of social gradations." For instance, in Athens, a typical Greek city-state, the archon Solon divided citizens into four ranks based on property, each with different political and military rights and obligations, alongside further distinctions between citizens, resident aliens, and slaves. This differentiation in status, rank, and position naturally created barriers and divisions in human identity. Engels pointed out that Roman rule and occupation, by changing the political order and old social conditions, exerted a "leveling effect of an astonishing degree," simplifying the differences between people. Specifically, this simplification manifested on three levels: Politically, the Roman Empire abolished the former internal estates of various nations, replacing them with the simple distinction of whether one was a citizen of the Roman Empire (with the exception of the still-preserved system of slavery). Economically, the Roman Empire required all people to indiscriminately accept tax extraction in the name of the state. Legally, the Roman Empire abolished the original legal systems of various nations, requiring that "verdicts be rendered everywhere by Roman judges according to Roman law." The Roman conquest stripped the people living in its controlled territories of their particularity and endowed them with the universality of being ruled and oppressed by the Roman Empire. This "equality of oppression" diluted other levels of difference among the oppressed masses, giving them a sense of "common suffering" and an inclination toward mutual aid. This was perfectly adapted to the Christian doctrine that made no distinction between race, wealth, or status—where everyone is equal before God and has the right to enjoy God's grace and mercy. As Engels wrote in Anti-Dühring: "Christianity knew only one equality for all, the equality of original sin, which was quite consistent with its character as the religion of the slaves and the oppressed."
Second, the primitive Christian doctrines of "the sin is within me" and "the salvation of the soul" catered to the tendency of the general populace during the Roman Empire—who were unable to seek material salvation—to turn instead toward seeking ideological consolation, thereby winning the conviction of the masses.
Engels pointed out that Roman rule divided extremely complex social gradations and nationalities into three classes: the wealthy, large landowners, and usurers; the propertyless freemen; and the vast masses—the slaves. Yet, regardless of their class height or wealth, they were all in a position of "universal rightlessness" before the Roman authorities. During the period from Tiberius to Nero, there were instances of authorities arbitrarily sentencing wealthy people to death to confiscate their property; in the provinces, propertyless freemen faced endless labor and competition with the slave class; while the slave class remained under the control and enslavement of their masters. In the face of Roman aggression and rule, many resisted and fought, with the Spartacus Uprising, the Jewish uprisings, and the Catiline Conspiracy being among the more famous examples. However, because the disparity in power was too great, these uprisings and struggles could not avoid defeat. The failure of uprisings by residents in various regions led to the destruction of the most resistant and revolutionary elements of each nation, "if not before the conquest, then during it, or even often in the struggles following it." Meanwhile, the thinkers who should have guided the masses toward progress failed to uphold their responsibility for popular education. They either chased material gain, living solely by teaching the contents of books, or attached themselves to the wealthy to justify their actions. Faced with the profound real-world suffering brought by Roman rule, everyone from the general populace to the upper nobility had to accept this position of universal rightlessness and the fact that the status quo could not be improved, ultimately leading to widespread despondency and spiritual decadence. In this context, primitive Christianity explicitly stated that "the sin is within me," arguing that many real-world sufferings stemmed from "original sin," which could not be escaped through one's own actions or efforts. This provided a rationalizing explanation for the miserable conditions of the masses that aligned with their own level of understanding. On this basis, primitive Christianity further pointed out that anyone could achieve salvation of the soul through faith in Jesus Christ, who sacrificed himself for humanity. This easily understood formula of "sin-atonement" resonated among the people, providing them with ideological consolation.
Finally, the simplified, popularized, and mass-oriented rituals and doctrines of primitive Christianity aligned with the cognitive level of the religious populace at the time.
Engels pointed out that among the three classes of the Roman Empire, the first two might still seek release from reality through sensory pleasures bought with money. However, the slave class—lacking money, power, independent opinion, and freedom—could only seek ideological consolation through religion to avoid falling into total despair. Because the slave class constituted the vast majority of the Roman Empire's population, any religion’s doctrine could only spread widely if it matched the cognitive level and material needs of the slave class. Engels conducted a deep analysis of the differences in doctrine and ritual between all past religions and primitive Christianity. He noted that in all previous religions, religious ceremonies such as sacrifices, pilgrimages, and dietary laws were matters of great importance. "Only by participating in sacrifices and pilgrimages, and in the East, by observing extremely tedious rules regarding diet and purification, could one prove one's membership." This high emphasis on religious ritual increased the barriers and antagonism between people, making it more difficult for the general populace to practice religion and even causing ancient Eastern societies to decline. Compared to other religions like Judaism and Islam, primitive Christianity abolished all cumbersome rituals and stipulated that all nations were equal before God. This simplification of the steps for practicing faith and the egalitarian tendency to welcome all people suited the cognition of the oppressed people of the time. It provided a highly feasible path for all oppressed individuals seeking to escape a world of suffering and find release from reality. Thus, primitive Christianity absorbed a massive number of believers from among the lower classes, laying a solid foundation for its later development into a world religion.
In his answer to why primitive Christianity achieved dominance, Engels clarified how this social consciousness adapted to and reacted back upon the social existence of the time, transforming into a dominant social force. This series of arguments and the process of discourse can be called a classic example of using the materialist conception of history, particularly the method of class analysis, to examine specific problems.
IV. Contemporary Implications
Engels' late-period series of studies on primitive Christianity is a body of important literature that inherits the achievements of Western religious criticism and atheistic research while applying the materialist conception of history to analyze specific religious issues. It holds significant meaning for advancing the disciplinary construction of Marxist religious studies and the study of scientific atheism.
(1) We should attach importance to Engels' late-period series of studies on primitive Christianity from the perspective of the integrity of Marxist theory, particularly by fully recognizing the scientific and systematic nature of the Marxist view of religion.
As a co-founder, scientific practitioner, and restless promoter of Marxism, Engels’s study of primitive Christianity can be described as a foundational model for guiding the study of religious history through Marxism—specifically historical materialism. It serves as an invaluable primary source for deeply understanding and experiencing the basic principles of Marxism and for guiding religious work under new circumstances. It is regrettable, however, that contemporary scholarship matching the importance of this work remains rare. This is manifested in several ways: First, compared to the religious thought of other classical Marxist writers, specialized research by the academic community into Engels’s relevant discourses remains relatively scarce. Second, it has been over 150 years since Engels’s relevant discourses were first proposed. In recent years, a vast array of new materials, perspectives, and insights regarding the history of primitive Christianity has emerged from overseas academic and Christian circles. Yet, domestic scholarship basically remains at the stage of summarizing and restating Engels’s discourses; it lacks both the translation and critical analysis of overseas research on Engels, and a deep exploratory analysis of the methodological principles embodied in his research. Third, a small number of scholars hold a proprietary attitude toward individual judgments within Engels’s discourses and have proposed new viewpoints based on the knowledge systems of other disciplines. While this attitude of treating Marxism with a developmental perspective rather than being confined to the texts of classical writers is certainly positive, their argumentative processes and logic are often extremely vague, failing to produce forceful evidence to prove their points. Adhering to the integrity of Marxist theory requires us to conduct research using methods that unify logic with history, and macro-level research with micro-level research. In this regard, Engels set a definitive example for us. We should provide a just evaluation of the historical status of Engels’s research and, on this basis, more accurately understand the Marxist view of religion.
(2) Persist in using historical materialism to deeply guide the study and writing of contemporary religious history, and consolidate the discourse power of Marxism in the field of religious studies
Adherence to Marxism as guidance is the fundamental hallmark distinguishing religious studies in New Era China from all other types of religious studies; it is also the basic principle for perfecting disciplinary system construction, promoting academic system innovation, and strengthening the construction of the discourse system. However, for a period since the 1990s, a trend toward "de-Marxization" appeared in Chinese religious studies and religious history research. This is manifested, first, in the dilution of basic Marxist positions, viewpoints, and methods in research, moving instead toward flaunting Western religious studies' value propositions such as "de-ideologization," "bracketing belief" [4], and "value neutrality." For example, some scholars proposed "changing the view that 'religion is ideology,'" arguing for "all-dimensional and multi-level reflection on traditional and realistic religious issues from a culturological perspective." Second, some proposed a "re-recognition" and "re-evaluation" of the essence and role of religion, one-sidedly emphasizing its positive functions while ignoring the complex socio-political factors contained behind it. For example, some scholars re-interpreted the Marxist "opium of religion" [5] theory, arguing that religion is "merely a palliative for a distressed and difficult life" and "exists more as the emotion, consciousness, and ultimate concern of ordinary people." They intended to use this to "eliminate the misunderstanding or even hostility toward Marxism held by atheistic religions and the general public" and proposed that "we can no longer artificially strengthen the isolation and opposition between Marxism and religion." Third, regarding major issues associated with religion in modern Chinese history, there are muddled understandings and even erroneous positions. For example, a large number of books argue that missionaries came to China "merely with a dedicated zeal for spreading the Gospel," while ignoring the basic historical fact that imperialism utilized Christianity and other foreign religions—with the assistance of certain missionaries—to invade China. Objectively, this has the effect of "applying powder and mascara" [6] to the history of colonial and imperialist aggression against China. Facing these various forms of chaos, we should persist in understanding and writing religious history from a Marxist position, viewpoint, and method, follow the relevant laws of religious work, and more deeply study and properly handle relevant issues in the religious field.
(3) Proceeding from the perspective of the "Two Combinations," deepen research into atheistic thought within fine traditional Chinese culture
Engels attached great importance to the critical examination and absorption of historical religious research and atheistic thought. In his late studies of primitive Christianity, he enumerated, identified, utilized, and sublated [7] the views of numerous religious researchers or schools—such as Bruno Bauer, Ernest Renan, Lucian, the Tübingen School, and Ferdinand Benary—viewing them as providing "very valuable material." Lenin also noted in his article "On the Significance of Militant Materialism": "Engels long ago advised the leaders of the modern proletariat to translate the militant atheist literature of the late eighteenth century and spread it widely among the people." Since ancient times, China has been a multi-ethnic and multi-religious country, accumulating rich resources for religious study and a historical legacy of atheism through long-term debates on the relationship between "Heaven and man" (i.e., whether "Heaven’s Mandate" [8] exists) and "form and spirit" (i.e., whether ghosts and gods exist), as well as the struggle against feudal superstition. The thoughts of Confucius, Laozi, Xunzi, and others during the Pre-Qin period already contained significant traces of atheism. During the Han dynasties, Wang Chong in his Lunheng (Balanced Discourses) proposed important views such as "the Way of Heaven is natural and non-action" (天道自然无为), using logical speculation to conduct a rational critique of theology and the Daoist "arts of the immortals" (神仙方术) popular at the time. Fan Zhen of the Southern and Northern Dynasties proposed in his Shenmie Lun (On the Destructibility of the Soul) that "when the form withers, the spirit is extinguished" (形谢而神灭), providing a full and profound discourse on the relationship between the body and the spirit. Figures such as Han Yu and Liu Zongyuan of the Sui and Tang dynasties; Zhang Zai, Wang Anshi, and Ouyang Xiu of the Song and Yuan dynasties; and Wang Fuzhi and Huang Zongxi of the Qing dynasty were all representatives of atheistic thought in their respective eras, leaving behind a rich variety of atheistic literature for posterity. Although these documents inevitably contain certain defects and limitations due to the constraints of cognitive levels, era conditions, and social systems, they are models of "Chinese people telling Chinese stories in Chinese discourse," making them more easily understood and accepted by the people of all ethnic groups in our country. We should further study the deep-level compatibility between Marxist atheism and the atheistic intellectual resources within fine traditional Chinese culture, use Marxism to carry out the creative transformation and innovative development of these resources, and better push forward the research and dissemination of scientific atheism in the New Era.
(About the Author: Liu Xuchen is a Master's student at the School of Marxism, Tsinghua University) Online Editor: Tong Xin Source: Science and Atheism, Issue 6, 2024