Li Yong and Deng Ying: From Criticism to Reconstruction: The Theoretical Path of Yun Daiying's Atheist Thought
I. The Historical Background and Formative Logic of Yun Daiying’s Atheist Thought
(1) The Driving Force of the Socio-Historical Background Yun Daiying grew up during the late Qing Dynasty and the early Republican period, a time when Chinese society was in a critical stage of historical transformation. Domestically, there was chaotic warfare among warlords and economic destitution; internationally, the country faced imperialist aggression. Under the pressure of internal strife and foreign threats, old and new cultures clashed violently. The ideological sphere was saturated with a mixture of religious theology and superstitions regarding ghosts and deities, posing a serious obstacle to ideological progress.
First, there was the dual influence of "old superstition" and "foreign superstition." As a feudal remnant, the power of the old culture remained immense; religious theology, secular superstition, and thoughts of ghosts and spirits long occupied the spiritual realm of the Chinese people, hindering intellectual and cultural advancement. Yun Daiying once noted: "Nowadays, whether in the marketplaces or the wild countryside, whomever one meets—be they a loyal and honest gentleman or a peddler chasing profit—if forced to speak of ghosts, they can invariably recount what their ears have heard and eyes have seen, answering volubly with whatever comes to their lips." To awaken the minds of the Chinese people and break "old superstitions," the New Culture Movement introduced advanced ideas of democracy and science from the West. However, sophistical theism cloaked in the garb of "science"—namely, Spiritualism [1]—flowed in alongside them. Because "old superstitions" such as feudal superstition and the worship of ghosts and gods were deeply rooted, the "foreign superstitions" that took advantage of this opening spread rapidly across this fertile soil. With the support of the Beiyang Government, emerging religious organizations represented by the Spiritualist Society (灵学会) were established one after another. Under the banners of "new science" and "super-science," they brazenly propagated the theories of the immortality of the soul and the existence of ghosts and gods, publishing periodicals such as the Spiritualism Series and Spiritualism Monthly, which profoundly affected the process of Chinese ideological liberation.
Second, there was the intertwined influence of the religiousization of Confucianism and religious aggression. Around the time of the Hundred Days' Reform (1898) in the late Qing Dynasty, Kang Youwei and others advocated "using the divine way to establish teachings" [2] under the guise of "invoking antiquity to reform the system." They proposed "venerating Confucius as the national religion," establishing Confucian temples, and pairing Confucius with Heaven, emulating Christian rituals. This made the tendency to elevate Confucian ethics from secular morality to religious morality increasingly evident. After the Revolution of 1911, an adverse current of "venerating Confucius and restoring the old" rose again. Kang Youwei continued to advocate "fixing Confucianism as the national religion," suggesting "teaching through the Way of Man, while also preserving ghosts and gods." This further blurred the boundary between secular and religious morality, endowing Confucianism with a flavor of religious theology. It became a reactionary wave obstructing the development of democratic and scientific thought and influenced the country's developmental trajectory. Simultaneously, to seize economic interests in China, imperialist powers unleashed a frenzied wave of aggression. They did not only employ military oppression and political constraints but also colluded with warlord forces to use Christianity as a tool for cultural aggression against China. At this time, the spread of Christianity in China was no longer merely poisoning the minds of the Chinese people as a religious theology; it had ascended to being "a tool for foreigners to soften China."
Facing a situation where the spiritual intellect of the Chinese people was severely poisoned and the nation’s survival was at stake, opposing ghosts, gods, and religious superstition and disseminating science and atheist thought became the unshakable responsibility of Yun Daiying as a progressive figure and patriotic activist.
(2) The Journey of Ideological Transformation and Becoming a Marxist Before Yun Daiying established his Marxist faith, he was influenced by various modern ideologies, among which anarchism and utopian socialism had the most profound impact. After entering Chung-Hua University in 1913, Yun began to encounter anarchism. He read many works by anarchists and frequently exchanged correspondence with them, clearly stating his affirmative stance toward anarchism: "I have believed in Anarchism for seven years; I am confident that I understand the truths of Anarchism and have studied them meticulously." Yun was most deeply influenced by Kropotkin’s anarcho-communism, aspiring to the ideal life of a mutual-aid society through the improvement of moral character. In 1917, he founded the Mutual Aid Society (互助社) with the tenet of "pooling ideas and efforts, helping oneself and others," a name also "taken from the meaning of Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution." In reality, however, Yun’s attitude toward anarchism was always to "take its essential meaning." He once said, "I do not talk about Anarchy with those who advocate it, for they are mostly vehement and radical; strictly speaking, I fear they are merely academic and specious." The purpose of the Mutual Aid Society he formed was simply to "serve the state and serve society."
In addition to anarchist thought, before becoming a Marxist, Yun Daiying was also influenced by reformism and utopian socialism. For a long period, Yun hoped to save the nation through moderate means such as education and the reform of social customs. He advocated the theory of "saving the nation through education" and devoted himself to educational undertakings after graduating university. He also advocated "saving the nation through morality" and "saving the nation through integrity," regarding "how to enable a kind of benevolent force to be cultivated in society" as the "sole method for saving the nation that people of ambition should uphold." While emphasizing that the fundamental method for solving social problems was "discovering the truth and cultivating the people's virtue," he also pointed out that all violent revolutions and assassinations "are not fundamental methods" and that "Daiying does not approve of their use," thereby rejecting violent revolution. These understandings led Yun to accept utopian socialist ideas such as Villageism [3] and Work-Study Mutualism. In his diary of November 1919, he wrote: "In my talk with Xiangpu, we both very much approved of organizing a 'New Village' in the future," and he proposed relevant expectations for such a village. In February of the following year, upholding the hope of "having an opportunity to experiment with a life of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'" and "having a good foundation for promoting Work-Study Mutualism," he founded the Liqun Book Society (利群书社). He also proposed that "hereafter, I plan to establish the foundation of collective undertakings and communal living through rural primary education, gradually becoming a large capital collective to conquer the capitalists and realize socialism."
As can be seen from the above, before becoming a staunch Marxist, Yun Daiying’s thought displayed a pluralistic and complex state, yet its foundation was patriotism and its essential characteristic was democratism. In other words, patriotic thought was the background color of Yun Daiying’s ideas, running through his entire intellectual career. He once remarked: "I often look back to when I was thirteen or fourteen; what I imagined was only the personality of 'striking the oar midstream' [4] and 'clearing the dust while grasping the reins' [5]." Before seeking communism, Yun’s mainstream thought was democratism. This was not only because he published numerous articles such as "New Atheism," "Skepticism," "Material Realism," and "On Belief" to oppose feudal ritual teachings and superstitious ideas—becoming a "warrior charging at the front of the New Culture Movement"—but more importantly because he had already recognized the irrationality of social exploitation, advocated democracy and equality, and held the proposition of building a bourgeois democratic republic. In his 1914 debut work, "On Obligation" (义务论), he not only expressed that "happily, the Republic is now established," but also profoundly exposed that the "Theory of Power," which led to the inequality of the wealth gap between people, was the "source of contention under heaven," advocating that everyone should fulfill their respective obligations and powers. In his 1916 work "The Origin of Sharing" (原分), Yun further analyzed that the fundamental reason for the chaotic situation after the 1911 Revolution lay in the lack of clarity regarding the relationship between rights and obligations. He emphasized that "rights are natural and equal, sacred and inviolable things" and "each person has rights they ought to enjoy." These constituted a "bourgeois democratic political and ethical outlook aiming to build a democratic republic ideologically and ethically." In his 1917 diary, he offered suggestions for the status quo in which the Republic of China existed in name only, stating: "I humbly submit that a Republic should esteem simplicity and discard vanity." In 1920, he specifically wrote the article "The Ninth Year of the Republic of China," expressing his sincere hope that the Republic could truly achieve independence and democracy. It can be said that Yun Daiying actually transitioned from being a democrat to becoming a Marxist.
However, this transformation did not occur overnight. The period from March 1920 to early 1921 was a time of rapid ideological shift for Yun: he began to doubt and abandon many of the "isms" he had previously believed in, though he did not break with them completely; he began to understand and accept Marxism, preparing himself to eventually become a member of the Communist Party of China.
On one hand, as the Liqun Book Society faced difficult operating conditions, his educational career met with obstacles, and the Beijing Work-Study Mutual Aid Corps was declared a failure, Yun began to question ideas and measures like anarchism, utopian socialism, and reformism, though he had not yet discarded them entirely. In his 1920 article "How to Create a Young China?", Yun rejected anarchism, pointing out: "If we walk the path of being plundered day by day yet talk of anarchism, this is merely the heterodox way of 'cutting one's own flesh to feed a tiger' or the deceptive talk of 'jumping into a well to save another.'" Yet he simultaneously said: "The world should not only be Democratic but also Anarchic; I truly and deeply believe these words." In October of the same year, in the article "Dreams of the Future," he admitted that "the New Village of individualism was wrong." In "On Socialism," published the following month, he attributed the failure of the New Village movement to its "altruistic instinct failing to meet appropriate stimulation" and being "too negligent of outward development," while internal success was also "destroyed and frustrated by partial forces of evil, rendering it unable to continue to exist." At the same time, he pointed out: "I believe in the necessity of class revolution just as truly as the necessity of the New Village." In "A Respectful Word to Teachers and Students of Higher Normal Colleges" (April 1920), he still stated that education was a "tool for transforming the world," showing he had not yet escaped reformist thought. Yun broke more thoroughly with Work-Study Mutualism; in his 1920 work "How to Create a Young China?", he stated: "We must know that although work-study is a good thing, it is ultimately not an easy task for those with insufficient living capacity; do not follow it blindly or act rashly." In his June 1921 "Letter to Wang Guangqi," he further analyzed that "economic pressure and insufficient capacity were the reasons for the failure of the Work-Study Mutual Aid Corps," indicating he had already abandoned Work-Study Mutualism.
On the other hand, through the practice of struggle, Yun Daiying saw the power of the working class and gradually began to encounter and accept Marxism. At the end of 1919, commissioned by New Youth (新青年), he translated and published Kautsky’s The Class Struggle (Das Erfurter Programm), and the following year he translated parts of Engels's The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. In May 1920, when editing a book list for the Young China Association Series, Yun placed the book Marx and His Doctrine at the top of 26 sets of books, which also included titles like The Materialist Conception of History and Bolshevism. This fully reflected his ideological inclination at the time. In March 1920, in "How to Create a Young China?", Yun publicly stated that he did not hold an absolute negative attitude toward Marxist class struggle and violent revolution: "I think as long as a person is reasonable, he may not believe political activity or bloodshed are necessary means; but if he encounters a time when political activity or bloodshed is clearly a concise and powerful means of transformation—even clearly the unique and unavoidable means—there is no reason not to approve of adopting the means of political activity or bloodshed." In "On Socialism," published in November of the same year, he further stated: "Driven by the stimulus of class war, the capitalists can certainly be overthrown, and private property can certainly be broken." It is evident that the transformation of Yun Daiying’s thought during this period provided sufficient ideological and theoretical preparation for him to eventually become a member of the Communist Party of China.
From early 1921 until the founding of the Coexistence Society (共存社) in July, Yun Daiying completed his transition from a democrat with pluralistic, complex, and conflicting ideas to a Marxist possessing communist convictions. The primary catalyst for this accelerated transformation was the great debate over whether socialism was suited to China’s national conditions. During this debate, Liu Renjing explicitly expressed his disapproval of Yun’s anarchism and New Village Movement [6] ideas, offering sincere criticism of views in Yun’s article "A Dream of the Future" (未来之梦). Chen Duxiu likewise criticized the piece, and Lin Yunan expressed his own leanings toward violent revolution to Yun. Although Yun did not respond directly to these criticisms at the time, they clearly delivered a major shock to his thinking. In April 1921, in "A Letter to Shen Zemin and Gao Yuhan," Yun stated his complete agreement with Shen’s view that "the problem of education, like all other problems, cannot be solved until the entirety of social problems are reformed," indicating that Yun had thoroughly shed the influence of reformist thought. In July 1921, Yun traveled to Nanjing to attend the annual conference of the Young China Association (少年中国学会). At this time, the association was deeply divided, with intellectuals possessing nascent communist ideas engaged in a fierce struggle against right-wing elements advocating reformism. Initially, Yun adopted a mediatory stance, but once he realized a split was inevitable, he resolutely advocated for it. In "A Letter to Yang Zhongjian" written in November 1921, Yun recalled and elaborated on this shift in position: "Privately, I have recently come to hope very much that the Association becomes a Bolshevik-style [7] organization; this is a major change in my thinking since the annual conference, which I shall state in another article shortly." This demonstrated that Yun had accepted class struggle, recognized the dictatorship of the proletariat, and hoped to establish a Bolshevik-style party in China. The Coexistence Society, founded in July 1921, took as its principal aim "to seek the realization of class struggle and laborer-peasant politics through active and earnest preparation, in order to achieve the goal of perfect human coexistence." This fully demonstrated that Yun had achieved a great transformation of his worldview and established his faith in Marxism.
Alongside the trajectory of Yun’s ideological transformation, his atheist thought also underwent a transition from the superficial to the profound. Looking at early works related to atheism such as "New Atheism" (新无神论), "Skepticism" (怀疑论), "My Outlook on Life" (我之人生观), "Material Realism" (物质实在论), and "On Faith" (论信仰), Yun already held a materialist atheist view and used it to analyze religious issues before establishing his Marxist faith. However, his atheist thought at that time was not yet mature; it was contradictory and had not broken through the constraints of historical idealism. After establishing his Marxist faith, Yun wrote the specialized article "My View on Religion" (我的宗教观), using historical materialism to analyze the essence, origin, and laws of development of religion. At this point, his Marxist scientific atheism gradually reached maturity.
(3) Reflection on and Transcendence of "Old Atheism"
"Old atheism" is the term used in contrast to the "new atheism" advocated by Yun Daiying. Its core logic can be summarized as denying the existence of God based on the principle of "not believing in that which is unknown." In other words, it posits that because the existence of God cannot be explained by human common sense, one must conclude that God does not exist.
However, Yun criticized this reasoning as being too simplistic and mechanical, ignoring that the logic of "unknown" could simultaneously lead to "belief." Specifically, he questioned the validity of the logic of old atheism from two dimensions: the "refined" and the "vulgar." From the "refined" dimension, modern Western philosophers have divided all things in the world into the "conceivable" and the "unconceivable" based on the scope of cognition. Conceivable things refer to those humans can explain through common sense, while unconceivable things refer to those they cannot. They generally believe that God belongs to the category of the unconceivable. For example, Kant believed that although the presence or absence of God transcends the scope of cognition, "observing the arrangement of the world, where everything fits together so well, one cannot but acknowledge the handiwork of God manifested therein." Spencer proposed that "though Heaven is unknowable, one cannot say it certainly is not." Thus, starting from the same premise of God’s unknowability, modern Western philosophers did not directly reach the conclusion of "disbelief" like the old atheists, but rather inclined toward "belief." This proves that "not knowing God" logically holds the two possibilities of "disbelief" and "belief." Therefore, the old atheists' rebuttal—"because I do not know, I do not believe"—is untenable in the face of the theistic thought of modern Western philosophers. From the "vulgar" dimension, people in the empirical world, whether "superior men" [8] or commoners, are all able to speak volubly on the idea of there being a God. Even Edison believed that believing in ghosts and gods was not entirely without merit. Regarding God, though they also lack detailed knowledge, they still believe in and discuss God’s existence. Therefore, this overly mechanical and primitive atheist view, which derives "disbelief" directly from the "unknown," is insufficient to convince the world against the universal recognition of theistic ideas. From this, it is evident that old atheism "disregards all legends, ancient and modern, refined or vulgar, and the descriptions of all nations, arbitrarily assuming that ghosts and gods are false and baseless talk." While its general direction was correct, its reasoning was too mechanical, primitive, and shallow; it was fundamentally "not permitted by the laws of logic" and could not achieve a powerful strike against theism.
Yun Daiying realized that building a scientific system of atheism required transcending the limitations of traditional atheism. He used dialectical materialism and the materialist conception of history to reconstruct the theoretical foundation of atheism through a more systematic philosophical method.
(4) The Theoretical Bedrock and Core Framework of New Atheism
First, the fundamental position of atheism is material realism. Taking material realism as his foothold, Yun criticized idealistic theism. He believed that theism belongs to the objective school of idealism, which does not recognize the reality of matter and regards God as a "universal mind" controlling the development of the universe, "claiming that all external objects and the internal mind are phenomena of God." Yun criticized the fantastical nature of idealistic theism, explicitly proposing that "I believe matter must be real." He pointed out that while we cannot directly see external objects, humans can only produce perception through the stimulation of external objects; therefore, external objects necessarily exist. There is a distinction between reality and illusion in external objects: the realm of reality is objective material reality, which does not change based on human subjective will; the realm of illusion is entirely subjective activity. Because the realm of reality necessarily has stable objects of perception, "the real can be disassembled and assembled, has causes and results, while the illusory is the opposite in every way." Therefore, if a certain thing can make everyone feel the same, or make one person have consistent sensory experiences at any time—not changing as the subject changes—then we can determine that this thing is objective reality, independent of human will.
Second, the dialectical materialist epistemology: the unity of doubt and the quest for knowledge. Starting from a dialectical materialist epistemology, Yun used the infinity of skepticism, the ascending nature of cognition, and the knowability of truth as theoretical tools for his new atheism. Based on skepticism, he believed that "evolution in all aspects of the world originates from doubt," and that doubt is the "only tool for promoting the evolution of the world." Therefore, regarding any matter, we cannot arbitrarily say "believe" or "disbelieve." "My opinion is that for all principles and matters, one should maintain an attitude of doubt; however, for doubted matters, one should investigate; the results of the investigation must still be viewed with an attitude of doubt." Yet Yun’s view of doubt differed significantly from that of modern Western philosophers. He did not treat doubt as an end, "but as a path or means for people to pursue truth." For example, Pyrrho believed that even if humans continually doubt what they know, cognition cannot move further because truth cannot be investigated and attained by man; therefore, one must rely on God. Yun, however, emphasized the infinity and ascending nature of cognition, believing that the scope of human cognition "is by no means fixed and unchanging" and "expands gradually along with the evolution of civilization." Although truth is often limited, conditional, and relative—and there are still "unconceivable" things outside the scope of human cognition, and truths known today may not be the actual truth—truth is also unconditional and absolute. These "unconceivable" things are merely governed by general scientific principles that have not yet been discovered, unknown to people today only for the time being. Therefore, we cannot arbitrarily attribute them to God. With the continuous progress of human intellect and the development of science, "it is not absolutely impossible for man to desire to know all things in the world." "What was thought to have a god in the past can partly be explained by science today. How can we know that what we think has no god today will not be further explained by science in the future, or even entirely explained by science?" The process of humans reaching truth is a never-ending transformation and development from relativity toward absoluteness. Thus, Yun started from doubt but did not ultimately follow the path of the Ancient Greek philosopher Pyrrho "from doubt to agnosticism and then to the worship of God." Instead, he discarded theism, "unearthed the knowability of human cognition from doubt, and ultimately found the target and destination of doubt and cognition—benefiting humanity."
Third, the use of the materialist conception of history to explain historical laws and the social roots of religion. In the article "How to Create a Young China?", Yun explicitly pointed out: "On one hand, I strongly believe in the materialist conception of history, which says that morality evolves along with the evolution of the economy." Yun’s materialist conception of history was also closely linked to his revolutionary practice. In the article "The Materialist Conception of History and the National Revolution," written against Dai Jitao’s opposition to using the materialist conception of history to guide the National Revolution, he provided a specialized discourse on the subject. He pointed out: "Anyone who does not study history through idealistic cognition, who does not acknowledge that all changes and evolutions in history are due to divine will or the work of one or two heroes—but instead conducts a comprehensive study of all objective facts to discover their definite material causal relationships—is a 'historical materialist.'" Yun used the materialist conception of history not only to analyze revolutionary problems but also to negate the theistic view that takes the objective laws of social and historical development as products of a universal spirit. He recognized that the mode of production of material goods is the decisive force in social development, providing an important theoretical basis for revealing the reasons for believing in God and the essence of theism.
II. The Main Content of Yun Daiying’s Atheist Thought: From Deconstruction to Reconstruction
Yun Daiying’s system of atheist thought is profound and systematic, primarily covering the two dimensions of "destruction" and "construction." "Destruction" is the critique and deconstruction of theism; "construction" is the establishment of a genuine moral driver and a system of life values on the basis of eradicating the space for the existence of theism.
(1) "Destruction": The Critique and Negation of Theism
First, the negation of the existence and ontology of God. Yun upheld a thorough view of doubt, advocating that humanity should maintain a continuous and consistent attitude of doubt. In this process, he identified "four obscuring obstacles" (四蔽障害) that hinder humanity from approaching absolute truth: the obstacle of custom, the obstacle of faith, the obstacle of the senses, and the obstacle of emotion. Among these, faith in God is the concrete manifestation of the obstacle of faith. Therefore, only by adhering to skepticism and questioning the existence and essence of God can one break through the obstacle of faith and infinitely approach the absolute truth.
For one, the negation of God’s existence. Yun firmly believed that the operation of the universe follows specific laws. For instance, the theory of biological evolution reveals the internal laws of the upward development of organisms, and social and economic development also presents a series of objective laws. These all confirm that there are inevitable laws behind the development of things. Theists often attribute these laws to the governance of a conscious and purposeful God; this view actually regards the entire world as a world of consciousness, excessively exaggerating the role of consciousness. Yun used examples such as "steam power driving mechanical wheels and electricity transmitting messages" to illustrate that cosmic activities include both conscious and unconscious actions. Therefore, theism's attribution of the laws of cosmic operation to God's actions is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable. He explicitly pointed out: "I can only say that what governs this law is an Unseen Power; I cannot say it is a Supreme Being (上帝)." In his view, this "law" is actually a natural law—the internal, inevitable, and natural connection between things—not the manifestation of the will of "God" (上帝); hence, God does not exist. Furthermore, Yun acknowledged the infinity and ascending nature of human cognition. As natural scientific knowledge continues to progress, the evidence for the non-existence of heavenly gods will become increasingly conclusive.
Second, he negates the essence of God. God is in fact a product of human imagination; humans, due to their own imperfection, conceive of a perfect god who possesses consciousness and purpose. Yun Daiying argues that this logic is itself dubious because non-omniscient and non-omnipotent humans cannot create an omniscient and omnipotent being, even in fantasy. He states: "If those individuals are not omniscient, then the heavenly god they imagine can by no means be omniscient. If those individuals are not omnipotent, then the heavenly god they imagine can by no means be omnipotent; this is very easy to understand." Furthermore, Yun Daiying further questions the attributes of God’s omniscience, omnipotence, and perfection from the differing perspectives of polytheism and monotheism. Regarding polytheism, different religions have different gods; which one is truly the omniscient and omnipotent being is itself a matter of dispute. Regarding monotheism, Yun Daiying conducted a deep analysis of the Christian God. When Christ is viewed as a subjective existence, people’s love and worship for Christ is actually a love and worship for the ideal self. When Christ is viewed as an objective existence, Christ is also not absolutely perfect. For example, we can still find egoistic traits in Christ; for another, "When were true love and greatness ever the monopoly of Christ?" The morality upheld by Christ was already presented in ethical form in Greece and various Eastern nations five hundred years before his appearance, and "while Jesus’s individual personality certainly has points of merit, at most it is only equal to our country’s Kong-Meng or Cheng-Zhu" [9]. Additionally, Jesus was originally a "citizen of a fallen nation," and "Jesus’s 'City of the Great King' [10] had long ago fallen into the hands of heathens and foreign races." Therefore, whether Christ is a subjective or objective existence, there is significant room for doubt regarding his essence.
Next, he reveals the deep-seated reasons for believing in God. In My Views on Religion, Yun Daiying deeply analyzed six major causes for the origin of religion: arising from terror, from hope, from misrecognition, from misunderstanding, from aesthetic feeling, and from imagination. These six causes can ultimately be categorized into two groups: "instinctive emotion" and "intellectual ambiguity." Among these, instinctive emotion is innate to humans, while intellectual ambiguity is rooted in the insufficient development of human cognitive levels caused by the limitations of the level of material production at a certain stage. This reflects "Yun Daiying’s emphasis on explaining the causes of religion’s emergence from human cognition of society and nature, reflecting his correct grasp of the basic viewpoints of historical materialism." He points out in his analysis that because the level of development of productive forces was extremely low and intellectual levels were extremely backward, primitive people could not explain natural phenomena such as the sun, moon, wind, clouds, lightning, and thunder. Feeling terror toward the laws of the universe and nature, they imagined an omnipotent god to guide them in avoiding disasters. Although modern people have greatly improved their level of cognition compared to primitive people, they still face unsolved mysteries such as the origin of all things; thus, it is possible for them to continue attributing these to the existence of God due to misrecognition. in Yun’s view, these people either lack intellect or possess a simple intellect; they lack clear thinking, do not reflect on the foundation of religion’s existence, and fail to recognize the essential laws of the development of things and the upward and infinite nature of human cognition—thus blindly believing in God without precise study. As per Yun Daiying’s view of the God of Christianity, "Belief in God is a narrative forced by man as an explanation for inexplicable facts."
Although Yun Daiying, in summarizing the reasons for believing in God, did not explicitly analyze the social roots of theism or clearly point out that the source of theistic fantasy lies in the objective material world, he did clearly state in the article that belief in God is an "irrational belief." While it appears to provide comfort to those in pain, it actually "vainly causes people to forget the exigency of rational material correction." Therefore, we can consider that Yun Daiying had already recognized that theism serves the purpose of obscuring the injustice and unhealthiness of the world caused by economic and class oppression. That is, the socio-historical roots of the emergence of religion exist in the socio-historical conditions composed of various objective factors, which is actually a supplementary discourse on the social roots of religion.
Thirdly, he exposes the essential face of theism. Yun Daiying clearly points out that God is in fact a product of human subjective imagination. In Skepticism, he categorically stated: "From what I know, the so-called heavenly god of religion is surely not the ontological entity of a heavenly god, but merely emerges from the imagination of a few individuals." From the perspective of material realism, the key to distinguishing whether matter possesses objective reality lies in judging whether the thing is a "true realm" (zhēnjìng) or a "phantom realm" (huànjìng). The existence of God cannot bring everyone to agreement, nor can it provide a consistent sensory experience for one person at all times; therefore, God as an object of perception is unstable and illusory. It must be a phantom realm rather than a true realm, entirely subjective rather than an objective reality.
Yun Daiying not only believed that all objects of theistic belief and worship are products of psychological fantasy and do not objectively exist, but further recognized that this fantasy does not come from nowhere; rather, it is a reflection of the natural and social forces manifested in the objective material world. After becoming a Marxist, Yun Daiying published numerous articles in service of the Anti-Christian Movement [11] of that time, profoundly analyzing the essential characteristics of Christianity under the background of imperialist aggression. He thus called Christianity a "tool for foreigners to soften China" and a "weapon for imperialism to threaten and coerce us," whose power "is built entirely upon the economic," using economic superiority to proselytize. It is evident that Yun Daiying saw the essence of religion as a tool for class exploitation and oppression in class society. It is precisely because of these external forces dominating people’s daily lives that people "rely on religion to seek comfort," conceiving an ideal god to obtain spiritual and emotional sustenance. God is actually the ideal self shaped by humans in an imperfect and unhealthy society. Therefore, the substance of theism is that man created God, rather than God creating man.
Finally, he criticizes the social harms of theism. Yun Daiying primarily launched his critique of theism across three dimensions: the numbing effect of religion as an "irrational comfort," its obstruction of the development of science and intellect, and its use as a tool for class oppression and national aggression. Yun Daiying severely criticized religion for using a false "theory of comfort" to paralyze the human mind, diverting people’s sights from the imperfect and unhealthy real world toward God to seek solace. This "irrational comfort" easily "leads people to laziness and leads them astray," even causing people to forget the "exigency of rational material correction," thereby obstructing the development of human society and civilization. Therefore, what humanity needs is not an irrational belief that makes people lazy, such as theism, but rather to analyze the existence of God from the height of materialism, using reason to conquer emotion, carrying out material corrections, and striving to break the imperfection and unhealthiness of the real world. As Yun Daiying said, "If humanity can truly understand the biological worldview and the economic view of history thoroughly, and everyone strives for a strategy of long-term stability, it may well be the fundamental solution to all problems."
Theism also seriously obstructs the evolution of human intellect and the progress of scientific research. First, Yun Daiying believed: "If one must, like the religionists, establish a firm belief for it, then in the future it will surely become a burden to the evolution of one's intellect." People who hold theistic beliefs often have dogmatic faith in God; even if God and the Tao [12] conflict, they will abandon the Tao to follow God. In this way, it inevitably affects people’s spirit of skepticism, thereby obstructing the evolution of human intellect. Second, from a historical perspective, theism and science are inherently mutually exclusive and incompatible. As Yun Daiying said, "The worst flaw in believing in miracles is that it slackens and obstructs the progress of scientific research."
Furthermore, theism can become a tool for class oppression and foreign aggression. In analyzing the aggressive policies of imperialism, Yun Daiying pointed out that imperialist countries, for the needs of their own capitalist development, implement economic aggression against weak nations through military force and political power. Meanwhile, to tame them into forgetting hatred and resistance, they often coordinate this with a "policy of conciliation" (huáiróu zhèngcè), implementing cultural aggression. Yun Daiying believed that theistic thought is precisely one of the important means of this "policy of conciliation," mainly manifested in two aspects: First, theism as an "irrational belief" provides psychological comfort to weak nations currently suffering aggression, oppression, and national crises of survival and development, causing them to forget or even abandon resistance in action, thereby consolidating the achievements of imperialist aggression. For example, "propagating the superstitions of God, Jesus, heaven, and hell makes weak nations pay no attention to the immediate personal suffering they endure, while hoping to cultivate themselves and follow the Tao to seek future happiness in the ethereal." Second, theistic organizations often collude with imperialism, carrying out actions that seem beneficial to society—under the pretext of conveying divine will and promoting divinity—but are in fact "hypocritical benevolence" built on the foundation of exploitation. Using the charitable works of God as a cover, they cloak their shameless conduct in a mantle of legitimacy and rationality, destroying the national spirit of weak nations. For instance, although Christianity advocates "saving the nation through personality" and has done many public welfare undertakings that seem beneficial to society, mission schools "completely disregard student psychology and teaching methods," and Christian hospitals disregard the interests of patients; they are "primarily deceiving people into becoming their followers." Just as "we acknowledge that roast pig is delicious, but we cannot burn down the house to obtain this roast pig," imperialism uses "roast pig-like" Christian charities to cover the fact that it has already set fire to the "house" upon which the Chinese nation relies for survival, causing great harm to the national spirit of the Chinese people.
In summary, through his critique of theism, Yun Daiying revealed the irrationality and harm of theism from philosophical and social levels, laying the theoretical foundation for establishing atheistic thought based on science and reason. The next section will explore how he constructed a positive ethical system and values of life on the basis of "breaking" (pò).
(II) "Establishing": The Construction of Moral Motivation and Life Value
On the basis of criticizing theistic thought, Yun Daiying further explored how to construct a moral system and the meaning of life within an atheistic framework. His thoughts on "establishing" (lì) [13] mainly include opposing fideism, exploring the source of the concept of human goodness, revealing the roots of intellect, and reinterpreting the purpose and value of life.
First, he discarded fideism (xìnyǎng zhǔyì) and advocated the fusion of love and wisdom. Although Yun Daiying admitted that belief to a certain extent functions to inspire the human heart toward goodness, pointing out that belief can "make the timid brave, the weak strong, the scattered diligent, and the restless tranquil—the great achievements recorded in history are too numerous to list." However, he resolutely opposed using belief as the sole or primary moral motivation. He believed that belief is essentially a state of "knowing it is so but not knowing why it is so." Furthermore, "the alignment of belief with intellect is a matter of chance"; conflict is more common, as intellect often desires to break the shackles of belief, while belief often attempts to block the expansion of intellect. If one discards intellect because of belief, it is no different from cutting off the source of cultural progress; "such functions merely guide us into a realm of confusion, ignorance, and delusion," becoming a "hindrance to the courageous advancement of virtue," thus possessing "absolutely no value for preservation."
At the same time, as one form of belief, Yun Daiying conducted a more profound analysis of the drawbacks of belief in God. He proposed that, besides belief in God, there also exist other forms of belief such as "belief in legal sanctions, belief in social sanctions, and belief in the sanctions of conscience," and the efficacy of these three beliefs is not inferior to the belief in the sanctions of God. More importantly, these beliefs are direct reflections of current social customs and habits; compared to the eternally unchanging sanctions of God, they are essentially more reasonable. Therefore, Yun Daiying believed that belief cannot become a protective talisman for theism: for those lacking intellect or possessing simple intellect, rather than believing in God, it is better to believe in more reasonable laws, social norms, and conscience. For those with a certain level of intellect, they must strive even harder to discard belief and seek other moral motivations.
Yun Daiying proposed: "Wisdom (zhì) and love (ài) are the indestructible moral driving forces of all time." Regarding love, it covers a broad range including the love between father and son, brothers, husband and wife, universal love, and kindness; the emotion of love is the source of moral behavior. Therefore, by striving to stimulate and cultivate natural love in all aspects, one can develop good moral conduct even if the whip of belief is discarded. Regarding wisdom, he drew on the concept of the "unity of knowledge and action" (zhī xíng hé yī), believing that the reason people do not do good is rooted in their not yet having recognized the true essence of morality. Once humanity reaches a realm of true wisdom, there is no need to borrow the constraints of belief, much less the constraints of divine power; they will naturally practice morality.
From the above, it can be seen that while breaking the foundation of the existence of theism, Yun Daiying constructed a new system of moral motivation for humanity. For those whose intellect is not yet sufficient to recognize morality, although they have lost their belief in God, they can constrain their behavior through belief in laws, social norms, and conscience. Meanwhile, their intellect should be inspired through education and their deep love cultivated, so that love and wisdom together become the inexhaustible driving force guiding and spurring human behavior.
Next, he analyzed the internal origins of the concept of human goodness. Theism often requires individuals to practice "kindness and merit" (行善积德), arguing that the concept of good or the pursuit of morality originates from divine command rather than being rooted in human experience and sympathy. Yun Daiying, however, held a different view. First, the essence of "goodness" is a moral right pursued by humanity in the quest for personal happiness. Human moral behavior does not stem from divine will or the urgings of faith; rather, humans "seek welfare for the sake of survival, and practice morality for the sake of seeking welfare." It is a natural result of pursuing one's own interests and a "means of obtaining happiness." Therefore, "goodness" is not a moral obligation for humanity, but a moral right: "As long as one desires to survive for one day, one should do good for one day to seek happiness." Second, as a moral right, goodness is not bestowed by God. Regarding the source of "goodness," Yun believed there were no more than two causes: the first is the result of repeated experience, where humanity gradually distinguishes good from evil through continuous practice—under the influence of the "experience of ancestors over thousands of years," the "experience of contemporaries," and "one's own experience," people gradually realize that treating others with kindness is a conducive factor for success; the second is the function of psychological sympathy, an innate instinct of humanity in a social environment that "exists naturally and develops naturally." It is an inherent characteristic, not something following divine will or an extra-experiential existence.
Third, he sought the roots of human intellect. Theism typically asserts that human intellect originates from divine revelation. Yun Daiying conducted an in-depth analysis of this, arguing that this concept stems from two causes: first, "incorrect, delusional, and biased prejudices which, being logically untenable, can only rely on the theory of divine revelation to deceive the world." That is, such knowledge is inherently incorrect and illogical, so it must rely on revelation as an explanation. Second, knowledge obtained through unconscious experience or reasoning. "This knowledge suddenly surges up from the unconscious psychological side—or 'the subconscious'—and we ourselves do not know why, so we marvel at it as miraculous and attribute it to divine revelation." Yun countered that attributing everything to divine revelation is actually a manifestation of a lack of intellect. For example, religionists advocate fasting rituals, leading believers to think that the mental clarity and spiritual vitality felt after fasting are the merits of revelation. From a scientific perspective, however, this is actually the physiological effect of fasting itself, yet religionists attribute this effect to God's revelation. This is a powerful proof of the ignoble means used by theists to exploit the lack of intellect among the people to deceive them and consolidate religious authority.
Finally, he re-examined the purpose and value of life by denying the sacred purpose of life and the unique value of human beings. Teleological creationism often dominates people's perception of life's purpose and value. Yun Daiying offered a powerful rebuttal to this. He first questioned the purpose of existence assigned to humans by creationism. Regarding why humans exist, "theologians believe that humanity exists to carry out divine commands," arguing that since man was created by God, the creation must have been for a specific purpose. Yun, however, argued that so-called "creation" is merely a religious claim. Since the Creator himself does not exist, the teleology of creation is even more untenable. He believed that a true life should be purposeless. This is because a so-called "purpose" is a result of volitional activity, and volitional activity is not innate to human beings but is acquired through post-natal psychological evolution. Therefore, human conception and birth are purposeless. Furthermore, Yun opposed the unique value assigned to life by creationism. Regarding the value of existence, Christianity holds that God created man and that man shares in God's spirituality. But Yun argued that humans are not unique existences in nature; humans exist without purpose, just as cattle, dogs, sheep, and pigs exist without purpose. Human existence itself has no unique value, just as the existence of cattle, dogs, sheep, and pigs has no value. Religious creationism often endows humanity with a value that transcends all things in the world; in Yun’s view, this actually stems from human arrogance.
In summary, at the "constructive" level, Yun Daiying not only reconstructed faith, goodness, intellect, and the meaning of life, but also laid the foundation for an atheistic moral system through scientific and rational methodology. His thought demonstrates the practicality and theoretical innovativeness of Sinicized Marxist atheism, providing profound philosophical and intellectual inspiration for modern society.
III. Historical Evaluation of Yun Daiying’s Atheist Thought
As an important developmental result of the atheist trend in modern China, Yun Daiying’s atheist thought not only had a profound influence at the time but also possesses value that cannot be ignored today. However, limited by the historical context, his thought inevitably contains certain limitations.
(1) The Value of Yun Daiying’s Atheist Thought
As an outstanding leader during the May Fourth New Culture Movement [14] and the Great Revolution [15] period, Yun Daiying’s atheist thought made remarkable contributions to the anti-feudal and anti-Confucian movements, as well as the Anti-Christian Movement [16] and other revolutionary practices of that time.
First, it broke the shackles of feudal thought. Through preaching, founding periodicals, writing articles, and correspondence, Yun utilized the weapons of science and reason to spread atheist thought. He criticized the imprisonment of people's minds by feudal superstition and the worship of ghosts and gods, shaking the foundations of traditional religious concepts in Chinese society and effectively checking the spread of theism. This thought inspired the Chinese people to recognize the social essence and harms of religion, sparking an intellectual tide in pursuit of science, intellect, and truth, and providing important momentum for the development of the scientific spirit during the May Fourth Movement.
Second, it opposed imperialist cultural aggression. During the Great Revolution period, imperialist powers implemented cultural aggression in China through Christianity. As a leader of the Anti-Christian Movement, Yun wrote articles such as Christianity and Saving the Nation Through Character, Why We Oppose Christianity, Jesus, Confucius, and Revolutionary Youth, and Opposing Imperialist Cultural Aggression, profoundly exposing the reality that Christianity was merely a tool for foreigners to "soften" China. He played an irreplaceable role in promoting national spirit and anti-imperialist thought, making an indelible contribution to the awakening of the Chinese people from the religious fog and the advancement of the revolutionary struggle.
Third, it laid the foundation for the Sinicization of Marxist atheism. Contemporaneous Marxists often helped people escape the bonds of religious theology and superstition by criticizing religious theism; for example, "Qu Qiubai [17] provided a powerful intellectual weapon for recognizing and opposing religious theism by exposing and criticizing its essence." Yun Daiying, however, not only criticized religious theism but also criticized old traditional atheism, "taking the essence and discarding the dross" [18]. This undoubtedly added depth to his atheist thought. Yun’s criticism and reflection on old atheist thought fundamentally broke away from the relatively weak and shallow critiques of theism offered by mechanical materialism, effectively preventing a counter-attack by theist thought and more firmly laying the foundation for the Sinicization of Marxist scientific atheism. Furthermore, after completing his critique of theism, Yun reconstructed a theoretical system of moral motivation and the meaning of life for humanity within an atheist framework, achieving the complete process of his Marxist atheist theoretical system from deconstruction to reconstruction. This was innovative and practically valuable both then and now. This contribution not only enriched the intellectual treasury of the Chinese proletariat but also provided precious intellectual resources for later Marxists.
(2) The Limitations of Yun Daiying’s Atheist Thought
Despite the undeniable contributions of Yun Daiying’s atheist thought, his theory still possesses limitations in terms of logical consistency and contemporary applicability.
First, logical contradictions. In his early years, Yun was influenced to a certain extent by empiricism, positivism, and Kantian idealism, and had not fully "digested and absorbed" Marxist atheism, leading to inconsistencies in his atheist thought. For example, while emphasizing that God is a "product of human fantasy" when denying theism, he simultaneously suggested that we cannot determine whether the power controlling the operation of the universe is conscious or unconscious. This discourse indicates a "blurred" quality in his materialist stance, which in turn caused his atheist thought to fall into logical dilemmas and made his understanding of the origins and essence of theism appear "incomplete" compared to Marxists of the same period. For instance, in his early efforts to reveal the roots of religion, Yun did not clearly propose the social roots of religion; when discussing the essence of religion, he did not, like Li Dazhao [19], explicitly propose that religion is "essentially an expression of unequal relations" and "entirely a reflection of the material and economic conditions of human society." It should be noted that later, in the construction of his Marxist atheist theoretical system, Yun moved beyond this "incompleteness." Furthermore, while repeatedly affirming the correctness of atheism when criticizing theism as "arbitrary and superstitious," Yun also advocated "not going so far as to absolutely oppose the existence of God," which reflects the limitations of his skepticism and weakened his defense of atheism. Yun firmly believed that God is merely a product of human fantasy—"the more we are willing to study rationally, the more we see that the existence of God is arbitrary and superstitious"—but on the other hand, he stated he would "not absolutely oppose the existence of God" and held a "skeptical" attitude toward God's existence, believing that "I still think both belief and non-belief are improper arbitrariness." This excessive emphasis on skepticism has remained a point of controversy.
Second, the fierce critique of Christianity lacked dialecticism. Under the historical conditions of the time, Christianity was utilized by imperialism and became a tool for cultural aggression, leading Yun to launch a strong assault against it. However, some of his rhetoric failed to fully embody Marxist dialectical thinking and could easily be interpreted as the "demonization" of religion.
Third, insufficient adaptability to contemporary society. Yun Daiying’s atheist thought was deeply influenced by the concept of class struggle, and his theory focused on breaking down religious obstacles to the revolution. However, with the disappearance of the exploiting classes and the establishment of a socialist society, the struggle between atheism and theism is no longer the primary manifestation of class struggle, but has become a difference between advanced and backward thinking; that is, "the struggle between atheism and theism, generally speaking, is no longer a reflection of acute class struggle, but is basically a reflection of advanced and backward ideas among the people. Because the exploiting classes have been eliminated." Therefore, the content of Yun Daiying’s atheist thought needs to be updated to a certain degree to adapt to the development of contemporary society.
In conclusion, as an important early revolutionary leader of the Communist Party of China, Yun Daiying was a pioneer in the development of Marxist atheist thought in China. His atheist thought not only strongly criticized the imprisonment of society by feudal superstition and religious ideas but also provided a theoretical basis for the spread of atheism through scientific and rational means, promoting the popularization of the scientific spirit and the liberation of thought. Despite the shortcomings in logical consistency and contemporary adaptability due to historical limitations, his contribution to the Sinicization of Marxist atheism is indelible. Researching the values and limitations of Yun Daiying’s atheist thought not only helps in achieving a more comprehensive understanding of his theoretical system but also provides profound enlightenment for the promotion and education of atheism in modern society.