Liu Yu: Chen Liang's Atheistic Thought and His Critique of Confucianism
As a representative figure of Utilitarianism [1] within Song dynasty Confucianism, Chen Liang received extensive attention in 20th-century Confucian studies, with the academic community generally regarding him as a representative of ancient Chinese materialism. Compared to contemporary Confucian scholars, Chen Liang’s thought exhibits distinct atheistic characteristics. Chen Liang’s atheistic thought played an important role in correcting the developmental direction of ancient Chinese Confucianism, preventing it from veering toward religious theology.
Currently, academic discussions of Chen Liang’s atheistic thought mostly adopt the perspectives of the "relationship between Heaven and humanity" and the "view of ghosts and spirits." Most scholars believe that Chen Liang’s atheism is primarily embodied in his view of the relationship between Heaven and humanity. For instance, Wang Yousan pointed out that in Chen Liang’s eyes, "matters of Heavenly Mandate [2], ghosts, and spirits were of no consequence, showing a militant atheistic spirit"; Wang Ditang also argued that "regarding the relationship between Heaven and humanity, he opposed the Heavenly Mandate, broke down superstitions regarding it, and emphasized human action... regarding ghosts and spirits, although he did not deny their existence, he did not view them as particularly superior... he emphasized that human resolve can overcome Heaven." Such judgments already acknowledge the atheistic tendencies in Chen Liang’s thought, yet they fail to explicitly point out Chen Liang’s exposure and critique of ancient Chinese Confucianism as a religion (rujiao). Hou Wailu and others directly noted: "For Zhu Xi, the human mind (renxin) must submit to the moral mind (daoxin), and human desires must submit to Heavenly Principle (tianli); this is actually a relatively concealed form of theism. In Chen Liang’s view, humanity and nature are in opposition, but humanity can master and harness nature. The ‘Heaven and Earth’ he speaks of is nature without any appended concepts. It can be said that Chen Liang’s theory was a militant atheism under the historical conditions of that time." Senior scholars like Hou Wailu directly summarized the essence of the debate between Chen Liang and Zhu Xi, arguing that Chen Liang’s emphasis on human desires was actually a rebellion against feudal tradition, reflecting the challenge posed by ancient Chinese atheists to theistic thought. In short, from within the tradition of Confucianism (ruxue), the substance of this atheistic thought lies in its attack on the religious-theological content within Confucian thought—namely, Confucianism as a religion (rujiao).
Using the theory that "Confucianism is a religion" proposed by Ren Jiyu as a theoretical foundation, scholars have engaged in wide-ranging and profound discussions on the relationship between Confucianism as a philosophy (ruxue) and Confucianism as a religion (rujiao). How should we recognize and distinguish between the two? The answer is of great significance for grounding ourselves in the present and promoting Excellent Traditional Chinese Culture. Looking at the developmental trajectory of ancient Chinese Confucianism itself, the internal self-reflection of the tradition and the critiques leveled by atheists against religious theology are sufficient to demonstrate the demarcation between ruxue and rujiao. This article intends to use Chen Liang’s atheistic thought as an entry point to examine the theoretical tendency inherent in his thought—to negate the mystical elements of rujiao and affirm human value—thereby highlighting the scientific components and positive factors of Confucianism within ancient Chinese traditional culture.
I. "The Juncture of Heaven and Humanity is Manifestly Discernible": Chen Liang’s Negation of the Mystical Elements of Rujiao
In the development of the history of Chinese atheism, the relationship between Heaven and humanity has always been a focal point of research, its core proposition being the resolution of the struggle between "Heavenly Mandate" and "Anti-Heavenly Mandate." Historically, the Confucian "Heaven" (tian) carries the meaning of the natural world (the Heaven of Nature) while also being endowed with the meaning of "Lord on High" [3] (the Heaven of Sovereignty or the Heaven of Will). Ever since Dong Zhongshu of the Han dynasty established the rujiao theory of "interaction between Heaven and humanity" [4] and "humanity as the counterpart of Heaven’s numerical order," the meaning of "Heaven of Sovereignty" within the Confucian discourse on Heaven was emphasized. During the Song and Ming periods, the Neo-Confucians [5] made it their business to transform the Confucian classics, attempting in this way to construct a new order for rujiao. For example, Zhou Dunyi, drawing on the Daoist Explanation of the Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate, endowed the ontological "Ultimateless" (wuji) with the status of "Lord on High" to re-establish standards for society. Figures such as Cheng Yi and Zhu Xi elevated "Heavenly Principle" (tianli) as a "metaphysical" (xing'ershang) [6] ontology; in essence, this was still an attempt to combine "Heavenly Principle" with the "Lord on High," thereby highlighting the mystery and transcendence of the "Heaven of Sovereignty." This ensured that all worldly standards of order and rules of conduct were arranged by this volitional "Heaven." These theories all possess a strong theistic character.
Correctly understanding the relationship between Heaven and humanity is both the basic starting point of ancient Chinese philosophy and one of the primary marks of the divide between ancient Chinese theists and atheists. Chen Liang’s atheistic thought was built upon the foundation of his materialistic epistemology. He negated the mystical and unknowable rhetoric regarding the relationship between Heaven and humanity, emphasizing that "the juncture of Heaven and humanity is manifestly discernible and knowable." For Chen Liang, investigating the "manifestly discernible" juncture of Heaven and humanity essentially meant recognizing the physical laws of the natural world. Chen Liang pointed out that "the principles of Heaven, Earth, and the myriad things have never been anything but manifest," emphasizing that the investigation of the juncture of Heaven and humanity must use scientific understanding to examine the changes in the natural world. This is the bedrock of Chen Liang’s materialistic epistemology. Therefore, in Chen Liang’s view, "the movement of the Yin and Yang of Heaven and Earth, the mechanism of the opening and closing, the coming and going—the trouble is only that people lack a keen eye and a stiff shoulder. The Yangtze and the Yellow River rushing a thousand li in one torrent is not something to be marveled at." The rotation of Heaven and Earth and the changes in the myriad things of nature are not strange; these are natural phenomena. "Whether it rains or not is not something human power can effect." These natural phenomena are not controlled by human power. Upon this foundation of materialistic epistemology, recognizing concepts such as "Heaven," "the Way" (dao), and "Heavenly Principle" from an atheistic standpoint was Chen Liang’s primary task in dismantling the religious-theological components of rujiao.
First, Chen Liang used materialistic epistemology to understand "Heaven" (the natural world), thereby negating the divinity and mystery of Confucian sages and classics. In his essay "Yang Xiong Surpasses the Various Philosophers," Chen Liang highly praised Yang Xiong, stating: "By using numbers to illuminate principle, this is how Xiong connected himself to the sages. How could he not surpass the various philosophers!" He believed the reason Yang Xiong could "surpass the various philosophers" was his ability to "illuminate principle through numbers" (yinshu mingli). What does this mean? Chen Liang pointed out: "Fuxi first drew the Eight Trigrams, using images to illuminate principle, and taught the later sages to set up the lines and establish the images, deducing the meanings and arranging the prose to develop the images of the Book of Changes, making them glorious, great, and impossible to obscure... Confucius and Mencius were those who developed them to the greatest extent. Yang Xiong feared that the people of the world would not be able to fully understand these transformations, so he followed the natural numbers of Heaven and Earth, meditating deeply on the obscure and subtle, and wrote the Tai Xuan, to elucidate the infinite wonders of physical principles and the ultimate reaches of the Way of Heaven and the affairs of humanity. The people of the world only know it as numbers, but how could they know the refinement of his investigation of principle reached such a point!" "Illuminating principle through numbers" means following "the natural numbers of Heaven and Earth" to reach the realm of "elucidating the infinite wonders of physical principles." That is to say, one must examine the natural changes of the myriad things in Heaven and Earth and discover the natural laws therein. It was from this simple materialistic epistemology that Chen Liang examined the Confucian sages like Confucius and Mencius, believing that the reason they were respected and praised by later generations was their ability to develop such materialistic understanding to formulate rules for human society. Not only this, but Chen Liang’s praise of Yang Xiong for "surpassing the various philosophers" and exceeding thinkers since Confucius and Mencius was credited to Yang Xiong’s ability to interpret the Book of Changes and other Confucian classics through a naturalistic understanding.
On one hand, Chen Liang negated the divinity of the sages to eliminate the idol worship inherent in rujiao. The process of deifying Confucius began as early as the Han dynasty; the offering of sacrifices in Confucian temples and the veneration of the Confucian religion all treated Confucius as the spokesperson for the "Lord on High" in the human world, establishing his identity as the "religious leader" of rujiao. The Neo-Confucians contemporary with Chen Liang—such as Zhu Xi—further deified Confucius, lamenting that "had Heaven not produced Zhongni [Confucius], all of antiquity would have been like a long night." It is evident that for these Neo-Confucians, Confucius was no longer merely a sage who surpassed ordinary men, but an unattainable "God." Consequently, Confucius’s words became dogmas that the followers of rujiao had to execute. Chen Liang, however, pointed out: "In the past, the sages used the Way to appraise the changes of ancient and modern times, selecting a hundred chapters that approximated the Way to serve as instructions for ten thousand generations. Their logic was precise and detailed, and they provided a full account of roots and branches, waiting for the gentlemen of later generations." Chen Liang believed Confucius did not possess divinity; the reason Confucius could become a sage was his ability to set social rules based on natural and social laws, making pioneering contributions to the order of human society.
On the other hand, Chen Liang negated the mystical color of the Confucian classics to break the authoritative and sacred status granted to them by rujiao. Chen Liang wrote "Introductory Remarks on the Classics" to discuss the main themes of classics such as the Book of Documents, the Book of Songs, the Rites of Zhou, and the Analects, while emphasizing their practical and functional effects. Chen Liang pointed out: "The efficacy of precise logic reached its peak with Yao, and was then manifest in the hearts of the various sages. Thus, the Canon of Yao was finalized without doubt. From this, it can be said that the editing of the Book of Documents was not the subjective will of the sage, but the public property of the world." In his view, the Confucian classics did not arise from the subjective will of the sages but were compiled and edited by the sages according to the actual conditions of society at the time; they were works consistent with social reality. As mentioned earlier, Chen Liang praised Yang Xiong for "illuminating principle through numbers" with the intent of negating the mystical elements of the Book of Changes. He argued: "Since there is the Supreme Ultimate, there is Yin and Yang; therefore, the Changes uses Yin and Yang to illuminate principle. Since there are Yin and Yang, there are the Five Elements; therefore, the Great Plan [7] uses the Five Elements to illuminate the method of governance. The transformations of Yin, Yang, and the Five Elements can be researched but never exhausted, yet scholars still have lingering doubts. Thus, Yang Xiong’s illuminating of principle through numbers was a necessity of his time, an inevitability of affairs." In his view, the concepts of "Yin and Yang" and the "Five Elements" were not mystical or unknowable; they were symbols used by the ancient sages to describe the world’s operations and changes. That Yang Xiong could discover the principles of governance hidden behind these classics was to truly grasp the purpose for which the sages wrote and edited them. Taking the Book of Songs as an example, Chen Liang emphasized that "the Sage’s intent regarding the Songs was to enable the world to return to the correctness of nature and emotion, and to achieve a balance applied in daily use." He pointed out that the sage’s purpose in editing the Book of Songs was to regulate how people manage themselves within specific practical affairs, suppressing and modulating human biological instincts and natural emotions. Following objective laws and arising to serve social reality—this is the original meaning and value of the Confucian classics.
Secondly, Chen Liang provided an atheistic interpretation of "the Way" (dao) to restore the essence of the Way of the Confucian sages. Later generations often referred to Zhu Xi and others as daoxuejia (scholars of the Way) precisely because they were influenced by Daoist religious theory, elevating the status of the "Way" and treating it as a sovereign similar to "Heaven," asserting that the human order was arranged by this "Way." Chen Liang thought otherwise, arguing that the Confucian "Way" held no supreme, sacred status. Chen Liang pointed out: "If the principle of a grand and upright source is not reached through actual things and affairs, then the learning of Confucius and Mencius is truly pedantic and impractical, and it is not the fault of contemporary rulers for not using it." This emphasized that if the "Way" is profound and sacred, it becomes completely severed from human society, which clearly contradicts the purpose of Confucianism. In Chen Liang’s view, the "Way" is not a mystical thing: "The Way does not emerge from beyond form and material force (qi), but resides constantly within things and affairs." This indicates that the "Way" cannot exist apart from concrete objects. Specifically, "Is there any other object for the Way? It is simply getting the correctness of pleasure, anger, sorrow, joy, love, and hate. Is there any other task in practicing the Way? It is simply examining the origins of pleasure, anger, sorrow, joy, love, and hate." When applied to the specific level of life practice, the "Way" requires a person to constantly regulate their own natural emotions, ensuring that "aroused" emotions align with their social attributes. Chen Liang further pointed out: "The Way in the world is applied evenly in daily use; those who have obtained the correctness of their nature and emotions are certainly aware of it." Through his elucidation of the theme of the Book of Songs, Chen Liang further concluded: the significance of the Book of Songs and other Confucian classics is to transmit such a "Way," using the Confucian method to guide people in self-cultivation, enabling them to "become human" (cheng ren). Chen Liang said: "If the theories of the worldly Confucians are not broken, the Way of the Sages will never be illuminated, and the chaos of the world will never cease. How tragic!" This was clearly a critique of the "learning of the mind and nature" (xinxing xue) [8] practiced by contemporary Confucian scholars. He believed the mystical interpretations of the classics by the Neo-Confucians obscured the true Way of the Sages, whose ultimate goal was to teach people to "become human"—that is, to achieve a socialized personality.
Finally, building upon his atheistic interpretation of the "Way" (道), Chen Liang launched a fierce attack on the Daoxue [9] scholars' concept of "Heavenly Principle" (天理), declaring the fundamental position of ancient Chinese atheists. Li Shen pointed out: "Viewing Heaven as Principle did not abolish the divinity of God; rather, it integrated the awe of Heaven or God into every aspect and moment of life. Simultaneously, Zhu Xi piously maintained the concept of 'interaction between Heaven and mankind' (天人感应) that had persisted since the Han dynasty" [10]. Although the controversy between Chen Liang and Zhu Xi focused on the debate between "Heavenly Principle" and "human desire" (人欲), it indirectly reflected Chen's opposition to Confucian asceticism. In a letter to Zhu Xi, Chen noted: "Recent scholars claim that the Three Dynasties [11] acted solely by Heavenly Principle, while the Han and Tang acted solely by human desire, and that the latter survived only when they happened to align with Heavenly Principle. If we believe this, then for fifteen hundred years, Heaven and Earth were merely a makeshift patchwork, and the human heart was just scraping by to fill the days—how then could the myriad things flourish and the Way endure forever?" [12] He opposed the use of "Heavenly Principle" as an absolute authority to suppress or even eliminate basic human desires, emphasizing the rationality and necessity of "human desire." Consequently, Chen advocated that "righteousness and profit should be pursued together, and the Kingly Way and the Hegemon’s Way should be employed simultaneously" [13]. This constitutes the core of his utilitarian thought and reflects his emphasis on practical efficacy. By opposing the absolute authority of "Heavenly Principle" and emphasizing the rationality of "human desire," Chen actually highlighted the subject status of human beings at the level of practical philosophy. This reflects the fundamental position of ancient Chinese atheists on the relationship between Heaven and mankind: an emphasis on human value and agency.
In short, based on a materialist epistemology, Chen Liang analyzed metaphysical Confucian concepts such as "Heaven," the "Way," and "Heavenly Principle" from an atheistic perspective. In his view, these metaphysical concepts must exist within concrete objects—the so-called "Way does not exist apart from concrete vessels" (道不离器). Chen opposed the Confucian preoccupation with mystical elements in order to challenge the absolute authority of the Confucian "Mandate of Heaven" (天命). Chen did not believe in "fate" (命); he criticized contemporary scholars for "ultimately lacking sufficient faith in fate [to ignore it], and thus having no leisure to rest content in righteousness" [14]. Such insights also drove Chen’s opposition to superstitious thought. In his "Preface Presented to the Diviner Xuan Dian," Chen expressed great skepticism toward the predictions of "diviners" (术者), concluding: "Whether they hit the mark or not is unknowable; can the movements of Heaven truly align with human intentions?" [15] Chen’s negation of the theological authority of "Heaven" within the "boundary between Heaven and mankind" is precisely what demonstrates his focus on practical philosophy. Chen stated: "That which fills the universe is nothing but matter (物); that which occurs in daily life is nothing but affairs (事)" [16]. He believed the formation of the universe resulted from objective matter rather than the will of "God" (上帝); therefore, "metaphysical" concrete objects are what Confucian scholars ought to focus on.
II. "The Survival of the Way Rests with Man": Chen Liang’s Affirmation of Human Value and Agency
Chen Liang’s negation of Confucian mysticism was, in fact, intended to liberate humanity and restore the "humanistic" essence of Confucianism. Marx pointed out: "Atheism is a negation of God, and through this negation, it asserts the existence of man" [17]. Engels also emphasized that truth should not be sought in a phantom "beyond," outside of time and space, or in some "God" poised deep within or opposite the world, but rather in the human chest right at hand. Chen’s critique of Confucianism highlights human value and capability, which is both an expression of the humanistic essence of Confucianism and a brilliant spark of ancient Chinese atheistic thought.
In ancient Chinese Confucian thought, earthly disasters and upheavals were viewed as punishments imposed by "Heaven." This doctrine of "interaction between Heaven and mankind" fettered human development. Particularly under the constraints of the "Heavenly Principle" of Song and Ming Daoxue scholars, followers of Confucianism were like ascetic monks, forced to act according to religious moral standards and behavioral norms. Contrary to Zhu Xi’s view of the "Heaven-man relationship"—that "man has long been unable to overcome Heaven; the disasters and upheavals of past and present are all the work of Heaven" [18]—Chen Liang emphasized human agency and value, stressing the subjective initiative (主观能动性) humans exert in practice.
In other words, Chen Liang’s "investigation of the boundary between Heaven and mankind" meant "encompassing the changes of Heaven and Earth as matters that can be investigated... even within a single moment or a minute calculation, there is the most profound principle and infinite utility. It opens up thought, manifests enterprises, connects this heart to Heaven, Earth, and the myriad things, so that all weaving, closing, and opening originate from the self" [19]. This means giving full play to human subjective initiative and using human practical ability to explore the laws of nature, thereby utilizing these laws in the practice of transforming the world. Chen argued: "To say that the survival of the Way is not something man can intervene in is an error" [20]. By "intervene" (预), Chen absorbed the atheistic ideas of Liu Zongyuan [21], who argued that "Heaven and man do not intervene in each other," thereby emphasizing that the Confucian "Way" depends on human activity for its existence—i.e., "the survival of the Way rests with man." This was Chen’s response to Zhu Xi’s claim that "the Way's presence in the world has never perished... it is all the work of the Mandate of Heaven, which human wisdom and strength cannot reach" [22].
Proceeding from the premise that "the survival of the Way rests with man," Chen further argued that historical and social development is not the work of "Heaven," but that humans are the core driving force. According to Wang Yinglin’s Records of Hard-won Knowledge (Kunxue jiwen): "'The trend of the world's great momentum cannot be changed by the spirits of Heaven and Earth, but only by man.' This was Chen Liang’s essay for the imperial examinations; it stands shamelessly among the great authors of antiquity" [23]. That Chen made such a statement in the examination hall demonstrates his full affirmation of the human capacity to transform the world. In his debate with Zhu Xi, Chen pointed out: "The reason man stands alongside Heaven and Earth as one of the 'Three Powers' [24] is not because Heaven and Earth rotate alone while man rests. If man does not stand, Heaven and Earth cannot rotate alone; if one discards Heaven and Earth, there is nothing to constitute the Way" [25]. He emphasized the core role of man among the Three Powers (Heaven, Earth, and Man). Furthermore, interpreting the line from Xunzi—"[The Way] does not exist because of [the sage-king] Yao, nor perish because of [the tyrant] Jie"—Chen noted: "If one says the survival of the Way is not something man can participate in, then one could discard man to find the Way, and the words of the Buddhists would not be false. If every man could be a Yao, the Way would be glorious and great throughout the world! If every man were no different from Jie, human relations could not be cultivated, Heaven and Earth could not stand, and the Way would have long been discarded" [26]. Using Yao and Jie as examples, he argued that the quality of the "Way" comes from human action; man is the deciding factor in social development. If the "Way" could function apart from man, one would lapse into the Buddhist view that "everyone can become a Buddha." Based on this, Chen lamented: "I dare not have expectations of the prominent scholars of this generation. What I deeply resent is that words are discarded because of the person, and the Way is bent because of the person, leaving the gentlemen of later generations to cry at the end of the road for fifteen hundred years. Even if I die, I shall not close my eyes in peace!" [27] He particularly detested the Daoxue view of "discarding man for the Way," sighing: "The Way dies out without harming the constant rotation of Heaven and Earth, yet I alone stand tall with insight—is this not too high and lonely? It is natural that I cannot be convinced in my heart" [28]. The "I" here refers to the Daoxue scholars who indulged in metaphysical abstractions. Chen opposed using the "Way" (or the Confucian "Heaven" or "Heavenly Principle") to fetter human thought; in his view, the Way does not determine man; man determines the Way. This discourse directly exposed the flaw of the Daoxue scholars using concepts like the "Way" and "Heavenly Principle" to restrain human thought. Thus, Zhu Xi remarked: "In terms of what my humble mind agrees with, nothing exceeds this passage; yet in terms of what it disagrees with, nothing is more extreme than this passage" [29]. It is clear that Zhu Xi was highly dissatisfied with the contents of Chen Liang’s letter.
Chen Liang believed that the Confucian tendency to "discard man for the Way" was a form of imprisonment; thus, he expressed strong dissatisfaction with Zhu Xi’s warning to practice the "self-discipline of a pure Confucian" (chunru zilu). He said: "I believe that those who study should study to become a complete human being (成人, chengren), and 'Confucian' is merely one of the larger gates. If the Secretarial Office does not teach the Way of being a complete human being, but instead teaches the self-discipline of a pure Confucian, is it because they estimate our capacity stops there?" [30] Chen opposed Zhu Xi’s use of Confucian cultivation to forcibly fetter individual thought, arguing that this was inconsistent with the essence of the "Way of the complete human being" in Confucianism.
Specifically, Chen Liang opposed the "learning of the mind-nature" (心性学说) concerning morality and destiny, emphasizing instead a practical philosophy of utility. He criticized the mind-nature theories of his time: "I have begun to realize that the Confucian scholars of this age, who consider themselves students of 'rectifying the heart and making the intentions sincere' [31], are like people with palsy who know nothing of pain or itching" [32]. Chen’s dissatisfaction with the obsession with "rectifying the heart" stemmed from the perspective of practical philosophy. Chen pointed out: "Since the theories of morality and destiny arose, ordinary, incompetent people have hidden among them, taking 'seriousness and stillness' as their essence and 'slow walking and soft speech' as their application, striving for inscrutability to cover their lack of substance... deceiving one another until the reality of the world is entirely discarded, eventually leaving all affairs unmanaged" [33]. He believed the Daoxue theories of morality and destiny caused people to detach from the "seeking of reality" (求实) in social practice, leaving scholars knowing only how to "sit in quietude" for self-cultivation without knowing how to participate in practical affairs. This "quiet sitting" (静坐) was intended to reflect on one's moral shortcomings through "self-restraint" (克己); however, once detached from concrete practice, it degenerated into a religious ritual for Confucian devotees, leading to the self-imprisonment born of awe for "Heavenly Principle," which hindered long-term individual development.
As previously mentioned, in his attack on the "Heavenly Principle" of the Daoxue scholars, Chen Liang affirmed the rationality of human desire. Facing Zhu Xi’s assertion that "before the Three Dynasties, there was no profit or desire," Chen countered: "Today the Classic of Poetry and Book of Documents record things so cleanly; this is just the 'correct and great' version. I believe that as long as there is a human heart, there are many things that are not clean. Reforming the Way only on the surface does not fully encompass the heart of the Sage. The Sages established it before, and descendants were sheltered behind it; furthermore, it was washed clean by Confucius, which is why it appears so clean" [34]. In his view, everyone has desires, which belong to the natural attributes of biological instinct. The fact that human desire is not reflected in Confucian classics is because those classics were edited and processed by Confucius; one cannot use them to conclude that people before the Three Dynasties had no desire for profit. Chen’s words were not intended to praise human desire, nor to advocate for its unrestrained satisfaction. The fundamental divergence between Chen Liang and the Confucian "religion" lay in how to treat desire. For Chen, human desire is the foundation of cultivation; one should rationally guide desire to achieve morality. The Confucian "religion," however, emphasized using the absolute authority of "Heavenly Principle" to suppress or eliminate desire to reach the "other shore" of the ideal personality. Chen emphasized: "A person is just this person; qi is just this qi; talent is just this talent... therefore, the 'vast, overflowing qi' (浩然之气) is simply the 'blood and qi' that has been tempered a hundred times" [35]. That is, he denied the mystery of "vast, overflowing qi," believing it was simply a temperament formed by humans constantly regulating their passions and improving themselves. In the Ming dynasty, Guo Shiwang wrote in his preface to the Collected Works of Chen Longchuan: "Tongfu [Chen Liang] said: 'The vast, overflowing qi is simply the blood and qi tempered a hundred times.' These words strike at the very disease of Mencius; could one still call them unrefined?" [36] Guo Shiwang praised Chen’s interpretation for striking at the "ailment" of Mencius’s theory. This case reflects Chen Liang’s affirmation of human natural attributes and his critique of the religious color of Confucianism that uses "Principle" to fetter man.
Furthermore, Chen Liang's emphasis on human value and role was manifested in his vigorous promotion of human subjective initiative. Chen did not believe in the Mandate of Heaven, emphasizing instead the importance of "human planning" (人谋). History records that he "once examined the traces of success and failure in ancient military operations and wrote the Reflections on Antiquity (Zhuogu lun)" [37]. Through his investigation of historical figures in this work, Chen praised the role of heroes in history. He believed that "heroic men can do what the wise cannot," pointing out that heroic figures are the core factors in transforming the world and driving history forward—the so-called "Great changes in the world are opportunities for merit and fame. If one meets such an opportunity but there is no one to control it, can the great change ever be settled?" [38] Chen also praised Emperor Guangwu of Han, stating that his "feat of restoration far exceeded the ancients; though there was the Mandate of Heaven, it was also due to human planning" [39]. He believed the Guangwu Restoration resulted from the full exercise of human planning. Thus, Chen particularly admired ancient military strategists because, in his view, the outcome of war was closely related to human strategy rather than being dictated by the Mandate of Heaven. This reflects the atheistic character of Chen Liang’s thought in opposing the Mandate of Heaven and emphasizing human planning.
In summary, Chen Liang’s critique of the Confucian "religion" and his advocacy for "becoming a complete human being" demanded the realization of human role and value at the level of practice. This was both an expression of Chen’s utilitarian thought and an atheistic philosophy that sought to liberate man from the Confucian "religion" by negating God to assert the existence of man.
Unlike the medieval West, where ecclesiastical power held primacy over royal authority, Confucian religious thought consistently appeared within the vision of the ruling class as a mere adjunct to Confucianism, utilized by rulers as a tool to consolidate feudal governance. Confucianism itself is not a religion, nor did the Confucianism of ancient China ever develop into a complete religion. As a school of "humanics" (philosophy of man), the positive significance and core mission of Confucianism remained the exploration of how a person becomes "fully human." On one hand, the individual must improve their own quality and morality through self-cultivation; on the other, they must actively participate in practical activities to manifest their personal value—this is what Confucianism stresses as "forming a trinity with Heaven and Earth" [40]. Generally speaking, Confucianism possesses both the dimension of "inner sageliness" and "outer kingliness" [41]; these constitute the core content of Confucian thought and represent the essence of fine traditional Chinese culture.
The establishment of Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism pushed the "inner sageliness" dimension of Confucianism to the extreme. Neo-Confucian scholars constructed a system of "moral metaphysics," establishing norms for human speech and conduct from the perspectives of ontology and "practice-theory" (gongfu lun [42]), requiring individuals to restrain themselves using morality as a yardstick. At its core, this remained an essential manifestation of Confucianism’s humanistic nature. However, it is undeniable that Confucian thought, including Song-Ming Neo-Confucianism, was exploited by feudal rulers in ancient Chinese society. These rulers deified royal authority through the form of a state religion and utilized "Confucian religion" (Rujiao) to maintain their rule, causing Confucian thought to devolve into a "man-eating ritual system" [43] that imprisoned the individual. Ren Jiyu pointed out: "The establishment of the Song-Ming Neo-Confucian system marked the completion of the movement to deify Confucianism in China." [87] By deifying Confucius, establishing idol worship, and propagating an ideal spiritual realm (an "afterworld") of "preserving heavenly principle and extinguishing human desire," Confucianism inevitably drifted toward becoming a religion. Wang Yousan noted: "They did not explicitly speak of God’s will or the Mandate of Heaven, but instead used 'Principle' (li) or 'Mind/Heart' (xin) to replace the sovereign status of God or Heaven. In reality, whether it be crude theology or idealistic speculative philosophy, both affirm the existence of a supreme ruler outside of matter; this ruler is described by some as a personal god and by others as a supra-material spirit." [88] It can be said that the development of ancient Confucianism was limited by the level of scientific understanding at the time and influenced by the convergence of Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism. It was within this social climate that the Confucian religion emerged and gradually grew in strength.
Since its founding by Confucius, Confucianism has manifested the awakening of the ancient Chinese humanistic spirit. Early on, it dealt a fatal blow to the shamanistic beliefs of human society. The exploration of natural knowledge and the cognition of "man" advocated by Confucianism objectively promoted the dissemination of scientific knowledge and culture among the masses. Since Confucius emphasized "respecting ghosts and gods but keeping them at a distance" [44], the content of Confucianism has undergone continuous self-correction and innovation. Whenever Confucianism was sacralized into an unquestionable faith, a group of people of insight would emerge to conduct academic reflections, which fundamentally prevented Confucianism from developing into a total religion. "The reason Confucianism ultimately failed to become a religion... also lies in the attacks on religious theology by atheist Confucian scholars such as Wang Anshi" [89]. Chen Liang’s attacks on the religious-theological elements within the Confucianism of his time—especially within the thought of "Learning of the Way" (daoxue [45]) scholars like Zhu Xi—played exactly such a role. Chen Liang realized: "The ways of Confucianism and Buddhism are two distinct paths; if this one is right, that one is wrong" [90]. He perceived that "Taoists and Buddhists wearing Confucian robes and caps had slipped through the gates of Confucianism" [91], recognizing that religious-theological elements had been mixed into Confucian thought. Consequently, he spared no effort in his critique of the Confucian religion. In particular, the debates between Chen Liang and Zhu Xi embodied the challenge posed by ancient Chinese atheists to theists. This challenge struck directly at the theological color of the Confucian religion, aiming to oppose a volitional "Heaven," remove the mysticism under the system of "Heavenly Principle," and dissolve ascetic clericalism, thereby liberating man from the shackles of a surreal God.
It is worth noting that Chen Liang’s atheist thought possesses a degree of incompleteness; he did not completely negate the authority of the "Mandate of Heaven" (tianming) in Confucianism. Zhou Guitian argued that the mainstream of Chen Liang’s thought remained an idealistic theory of the Mandate of Heaven [92], while Li Shen observed that Chen’s Confucian thought still contained religious elements such as faith in "Heaven" and the offering of prayers [93]. For instance, in interpreting the Western Inscription (Ximing [46]), Chen Liang wrote: "Being apprehensive and cautious is to fear Heaven and respect one's parents; being broad-minded and physically composed is to delight in Heaven and serve one's parents" [94]. Furthermore, his actions—such as composing papers for rain rituals on multiple occasions, praying and pleading to gods for rain—demonstrate that he was not entirely without "awe for the Mandate of Heaven." Although superstitious elements remained in Chen Liang’s thought and his atheism was incomplete, these flaws do not obscure the brilliance of his overall contribution, nor do they hinder his status in the history of ancient Chinese atheist thought. He recognized that the Confucian religion was inconsistent with actual social life and dedicated himself to criticizing the irrational components of Confucian religious thought and correcting traditional Confucianism. His attacks on the religious theology within Confucian thought demonstrate the mettle of an ancient Chinese atheist.
Conclusion
In short, Chen Liang conducted reflections from the perspective of his materialist epistemology to re-investigate the "boundary between Heaven and man." His actual goal was to demonstrate that the "relationship between Heaven and man" is not mysterious or inscrutable. Chen Liang analyzed concepts such as "Heaven," "the Way," and "Heavenly Principle" from an atheist standpoint to attack the Confucian religion and its religious-theological elements. His objective was to liberate man from theological constraints and affirm the value and role of man in social practice. Ancient Chinese atheists, represented by Chen Liang, dedicated themselves to making corrections from within Confucianism, which to a certain extent prevented its total religionization and had a positive impact on the history of Chinese Confucianism. As Ren Jiyu said: "What the Confucian religion brought us was disaster, shackles, and a tumor, rather than any fine tradition." [95] Today, as we vigorously promote fine traditional Chinese culture, we must not "stop eating for fear of choking" [47]. Instead, we must strive to weed out the religious-theological elements from Confucian thought and excavate its excellent components, aiming to provide ideological nourishment for the prosperity and development of culture in the New Era.