Upholding Marxism and Upholding Scientific Atheism

In the primary stage of socialism in China, under conditions of diverse and changing social thought, is it legitimate and reasonable to propagate scientific atheism and criticize theism? This is a prerequisite question that must be answered in order to carry out research on scientific atheism. The phenomenon that has caused concern among some scholars, namely that in academic and theoretical research "theism has its advocates while atheism has none," is not unrelated to the various doubts people harbor on this issue. This can be studied and answered from different perspectives; this article merely offers some views on the relationship between upholding Marxism and upholding scientific atheism.

I. Upholding Scientific Atheism Is an Integral Part of Upholding Marxism

Comrade Hu Jintao, in his speech at the meeting commemorating the 30th anniversary of the Third Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, emphasized: "Marxism is the fundamental guiding ideology for the founding of our Party and the governance of our country, and it is the fundamental ideological guarantee for the unity of the Party and the people and for always advancing in the correct direction." [1]1 The 17th National Congress of the CPC was held in 2007. The report referred to is Hu Jintao’s political report to the Congress. Marxism is a scientific worldview and methodology. The Preamble of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China clearly stipulates the guiding position of Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, and the important thought of Three Represents in our country. Upholding scientific atheism is an integral part of upholding Marxism. In my view, this is the fundamental basis for our adherence to scientific atheism and for conducting research and propaganda on scientific atheism.

First, upholding dialectical materialism and historical materialism necessitates upholding scientific atheism.

In his speech at the meeting commemorating the 30th anniversary of the Third Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee, Comrade Hu Jintao explicitly raised the question of "what is Marxism and how to treat Marxism," [2]2 The “three aspects of harmonious coexistence” in the religious sphere refers to harmony between religion and society, among different religions, and between believers and non-believers. placing it at the forefront of the major theoretical and practical questions our Party has explored and answered during the 30 years of reform and opening up. Regarding the question of "what is Marxism," people may have various different understandings, but one thing is certain: Marxist philosophy is one of the main components of Marxism and the philosophical theoretical foundation of the Marxist scientific system of thought. Marxist philosophy is dialectical materialism, or dialectical materialism and historical materialism (this formulation does not juxtapose dialectical materialism and historical materialism as two parts of Marxist philosophy, but rather highlights the important position of historical materialism within Marxist philosophy. Dialectical materialism is the general term for Marxist philosophy). Although some in academic circles hold different views, in the historical documents of our Party, Marxist philosophy and dialectical materialism and historical materialism are synonymous. For this reason, the "Decision" adopted at the Fourth Plenary Session of the 17th Central Committee of the CPC once again emphasized "firmly establishing the worldview and methodology of dialectical materialism and historical materialism." [3]3 Hu Jintao was General Secretary of the CPC Central Committee and President of China from 2003 to 2013.

Upholding Marxism requires upholding dialectical materialism and historical materialism. Dialectical materialism views the world as a material world of diverse unity, and "matter is something given, something that can neither be created nor destroyed," [4]4 The phrase “谋事在人，成事在神” (man proposes, God disposes) is a classical Chinese proverb adapted by Engels in *Anti-Dühring* to refer to the alien支配力量 of the capitalist mode of production. an objective reality independent of human consciousness. Marxism insists on explaining the world from the material world itself, without adding any extraneous components. This fundamental stance has already ruled out the possibility of any otherworldly creator, and is incompatible with all theistic viewpoints. Moreover, the classical Marxist writers' exposition of the fundamental views of materialism and their criticism of idealism have always been directly linked to upholding atheism and criticizing theism.

In Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, an important work of Marxist philosophy, Engels put forward the theory of the fundamental question of philosophy, which has become a scientific standard for distinguishing materialism from idealism and a powerful ideological weapon for upholding materialism and opposing idealism. The classic expression of Engels' thought is:

"The question of the relation of thinking to being, a question which, moreover, played a great part in the scholasticism of the Middle Ages: what is primary, spirit or nature? — This question, in relation to the church, was sharpened into: Did God create the world, or has the world existed from eternity?"

"The answers which the philosophers gave to this question split them into two great camps. Those who asserted the primacy of spirit over nature and, therefore, in the last instance, assumed a creation of the world in some form or other — and among the philosophers, Hegel, for example, the creation of the world is often more intricate and impossible than in Christianity — comprised the camp of idealism. The others, who regarded nature as primary, belong to the various schools of materialism."

"These two expressions, idealism and materialism, originally signify nothing else but this; and here too they are not used in any other sense." [5]5 The phrase “把宗教上的分野提到首位” (putting the religious division in the forefront) is a reference to Lenin’s critique of those who would elevate religious differences above class struggle.

This classic exposition on upholding materialism and opposing idealism contains the ideas of upholding atheism and opposing theism. First, Engels points out that the fundamental question of philosophy, as it was clearly raised in modern times, was from the very beginning put forward in a "sharpened form" that questioned theism, "in relation to the church" and against the view that "God created the world." Second, he points out that those who "asserted the primacy of spirit over nature" are, "in the last instance," people who "assumed a creation of the world," thus revealing the essential connection between idealism and theism (of course, the qualifier "in the last instance" means that idealists are not all directly advocates of creationism). Within the theoretical system of dialectical materialism, this passage from Engels holds an extremely important foundational position. This demonstrates that upholding atheism and opposing theism are determined by the essence of Marxist philosophy and are a scientific spirit inherent in dialectical materialism. For this reason, in the classic works of Marxist philosophy, we can see everywhere that the exposition of the fundamental views of dialectical materialism is directly linked to the affirmation of atheism and the critique of theism.

For example, in Dialectics of Nature, while using historical materials from the development of natural science to expound the dialectical materialist view of nature, Engels criticized the view that God rules over nature with a caustic tone: "God is nowhere treated worse than by the natural scientists who believe in Him." "One army after another lays down its arms, one fortress after another capitulates, until finally the whole infinite realm of nature is conquered by science, and no place is left for the Creator." [6]6 The phrase “无神论无人讲” (no one talks about atheism) refers to a perceived reluctance within Chinese academic and public discourse to actively promote or discuss atheism, despite its theoretical importance.

Another example: in his famous work Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, while expounding the basic views of dialectical materialism, Lenin also exposed the inner connection between philosophical idealism and theism, subjecting them to in-depth analysis and criticism together. He said: "Any philosophy that asserts that the physical world itself is derivative is the purest philosophy of clericalism." "If nature is derivative, then it goes without saying that it can only be derived from something greater, richer, broader, more powerful than nature, from something that exists, for to 'derive' nature, there must be something that exists independently of nature. In Russian, this something is called God." [7]7 Mao Zedong, “On Contradiction” (August 1937). The quotation is from the section “The Particularity of Contradiction.” Lenin pointed out: "The 'scientific clericalism' of idealist philosophy is merely an antechamber to open clericalism," and "materialist epistemology is a 'universal weapon against religious belief'." [8]8 The reference is to the fictional character Sun Wukong (the Monkey King) from the classic Chinese novel *Journey to the West*.

Another example: in his Philosophical Notebooks, when analyzing the roots of idealism, Lenin also linked it to clericalism. He pointed out: "Idealism is clericalism." "Philosophical idealism is a road to clericalism through one of the infinitely complex (dialectical) aspects of human cognition." "Clericalism (= philosophical idealism)." [9]9 Friedrich Engels, “The Festival of Nations in London” (late 1845 – early 1846), in *Marx and Engels on Religion* (Progress Publishers, 1975). The quotation is from a passage contrasting atheism with pantheism.

In a certain sense, the arguments of the classical Marxist writers on the fundamental views of dialectical materialism can all be interpreted as expositions of scientific atheism.

Second, upholding the Marxist view on religion necessarily means upholding scientific atheism and opposing theism.

Marxism, as a complete scientific system, includes not only the three main components of philosophy, political economy, and scientific socialism, but also many other scientific theories, which together constitute the whole of Marxism. The Marxist view on religion is one of its constituent parts. The Marxist view on religion is Marxism’s fundamental perspective on religion; it elucidates the essence and laws of development of religion, the attitude of workers’ parties toward religion, and other fundamental issues. If the basic question of the Marxist outlook is “what is Marxism and how to treat Marxism,” then the answer to “what is religion and how to treat religion” constitutes the basic content of the Marxist view on religion. Marx and Engels paid special attention to the question of religion during the formation of their new worldview. The Marxist view on religion was born and developed together with Marxism as a whole. In “Theses on Feuerbach,” which Engels called “the first document in which is deposited the brilliant germ of the new world outlook,”[10]10 The “Three Plenary Sessions” (三中全会) refer to the Third Plenary Session of a Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, often a landmark meeting for major policy shifts. The reference here is to the Third Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee in 1978, which launched the reform and opening-up policy. and in *The German Ideology*, the first mature work marking the birth of Marxism, there are extensive discussions of religion. In the works that systematically expound the Marxist scientific worldview, *Anti-Dühring* and *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy*, religion is given special treatment. Upholding Marxism includes upholding the Marxist view on religion. Upholding the Marxist view on religion, in turn, requires placing it within the whole of Marxism, treating it as an organic component, and understanding and applying it in connection with all other parts.

The Marxist view on religion is an atheistic view of religion. Upholding atheism and opposing theism does not exhaust the entire content of the Marxist view on religion; the Marxist view on religion cannot be reduced merely to atheism. However, scientific atheism is the core of the Marxist view on religion. Without scientific atheism, there would be no Marxist view on religion.

First, correctly understanding the essence of religion requires upholding scientific atheism.

Engels pointed out in *Anti-Dühring*: “All religion, however, is nothing but the fantastic reflection in men’s minds of those external forces which actually govern their everyday life, a reflection in which the terrestrial forces assume the form of supernatural forces.”[11] This is a profound revelation of the essence of religion. What is this “supernatural force” that, concentratedly embodying the essential characteristics of religion, fantastically governs people’s everyday life? It is the deity. In polytheism, there are many deities; in monotheism, there is “one almighty god.”[12] The world of religion is the world of deities, the world constituted by deities and their dwelling places. Therefore, understanding the essence of religion fundamentally means revealing the essence of the concept of the deity.

Second, correctly understanding the laws of development of religion requires upholding scientific atheism.

Like other things, religion exists as a process of development. Essence and law are concepts of the same order concerning things. The understanding of the laws of development of religion, together with the understanding of the essence of religion, is a main component of the Marxist view on religion. In the classical Marxist works, the discussion of the process and laws of the origin, development, and extinction of religion has as its core content the revelation of the process and laws of the emergence, development, and extinction of the concept of the deity. In *Anti-Dühring*, Engels analyzed the historical process by which the “alien natural and social forces” that govern people are fantastically reflected in their minds as deities. Briefly put, this is also the historical process of the formation and development of religion: in early history, natural forces were first “personified,” giving rise to primitive religion and mythology; with the development of society, “the fantastic figures, which at first only reflected the mysterious forces of nature, now acquire social attributes, become representatives of historical forces”; at a further stage of development, “the whole natural and social attributes of the many gods are transferred to one almighty god,” and “thus monotheism arises.”[13] Engels also pointed out that in capitalist society, religion continues to exist because “it is still true that man proposes, God disposes (that is, the alien支配力量 of the capitalist mode of production).” And in the future, when society has taken possession of all the means of production, that is, “when man proposes, man also disposes, then and only then will the last alien force which is still reflected in religion vanish, and with it will also vanish the religious reflection itself.”[14] This tells us that understanding the Marxist view on the laws of development of religion from its origin to its extinction cannot for a moment be separated from a historical analysis of the concept of the deity, nor from scientific atheism.

Third, correctly treating religion with a Marxist scientific attitude requires upholding scientific atheism.

Elucidating the attitude of workers’ parties toward religion is an important component of the Marxist view on religion. The Marxist view on religion is an important theoretical foundation for our Party and state in formulating guidelines and policies for religious work and in guiding our religious work. Religion has the characteristics of long-term nature, complexity, mass character, ethnic character, and international character. To treat religion with a Marxist scientific attitude, knowledge of religion itself is insufficient; it is also necessary to correctly understand the complex interweaving of religion with economic, political, cultural, ethnic, and other social factors. In the process of the Marxist party leading revolution, construction, and reform, the question of how to treat religion must be examined within the overall context of the Party’s cause, must serve and be subordinate to the Party’s central work, and must lead to the formulation of correct guidelines and policies. Marxism has always opposed “declaring war on religion,” opposed “putting the religious division in the forefront,”[15] and also opposed reducing the attitude toward religion to atheistic propaganda. Our Party has formulated basic guidelines for religious work, such as “fully implementing the policy of freedom of religious belief,” “managing religious affairs according to law,” “adhering to the principle of independence and self-management,” and “actively guiding religion to adapt to socialist society.”[16] This scientific attitude and these guidelines and policies toward religion are based on a scientific understanding of the essence and laws of development of religion, not on expedient measures serving partial or temporary needs. As Lenin pointed out: “It would be a great mistake to think that the seemingly ‘mild’ attitude of Marxism towards religion is due to so-called ‘tactical’ considerations, to the desire ‘not to scare people away,’ and so forth.”[17] The Marxist view on the essence of religion and the development of religion, which takes dialectical materialism and historical materialism as its philosophical worldview foundation and scientific atheism as its core, is the indispensable ideological basis for correctly understanding and implementing the Party’s guidelines and policies on religious work. While resolutely opposing “declaring war on religion,” Lenin also emphasized that Marxism “fully inherits” the “historical tradition of materialism, which is absolutely atheistic and resolutely hostile to all religion,”[18] and stressed that “we must combat religion. This is the ABC of all materialism, and consequently of Marxism.”[19] This enlightens us: without scientific atheism and the Marxist view on religion, it is impossible to truly understand the basic guidelines and policies of the Party’s religious work; one will fall into blindness in practice and commit various deviations.

II. Criticizing Theism Is an Integral Part of Upholding Scientific Atheism

Some people do not oppose upholding atheism, but they do not approve of criticizing theism. They fear that criticizing theism would violate the policy of freedom of religious belief and affect social harmony, hoping to confine the study of atheism within a scope that does not criticize theism. This is an important reason why “no one talks about atheism.”

Although in principle any affirmation is a negation—endorsing one viewpoint simultaneously means opposing the viewpoint antithetical to it, and breaking down and building up are two inseparable aspects of the same process—on specific issues, generally speaking, building up is not directly the same as breaking down. Within a certain scope, people can also positively expound one viewpoint without criticizing the opposing viewpoint. For example, it is feasible within a certain scope to demonstrate materialism on the basis of social practice and the fruits of scientific development without directly criticizing idealism. Then, can we set limits on the study of scientific atheism, studying and propagating scientific atheism only without criticizing theism?

I believe that the particularity of the object of study and basic conclusions of scientific atheism determines that upholding scientific atheism cannot but oppose theism, and that studying and propagating scientific atheism cannot but analyze and criticize theism. If one demands that upholding atheism be confined to the scope of positive study and propagation without criticizing theism, that would be tantamount to abolishing the study and propagation of scientific atheism.

What is the particularity of scientific atheism that distinguishes it from other disciplines in terms of its object of study and basic conclusions? This particularity is directly embodied in the character “wu” (无, “non-” or “without”). Apart from it, it seems difficult to find another discipline named with “wu…”. Every science has its own definite object of study, as Mao Zedong pointed out: “The study of a particular contradiction peculiar to a particular field of phenomena constitutes the object of a science.”[20][n] The objectivity and definiteness of the object is both the basis for a discipline’s distinction from other disciplines and the basic condition for that discipline to be able to become a science and occupy a place in the system of human sciences. The basic premise for the various social sciences to be qualified to exist as sciences alongside the natural sciences and receive equal attention is that they all have their own specific objective objects; a doctrine, if it has no objective and definite object, has no right to exist as a science. The same applies to the study of scientific atheism.

So, what is the object of study of scientific atheism?

The object of study of scientific atheism is not gods. From the perspective of scientific atheism, that which is called “god” simply does not exist in the material world; it is illusory. This is precisely the most fundamental viewpoint of scientific atheism. People cannot take some “non-being” (无), i.e., something that does not exist, as the object of their study. If scientific atheism were to declare that it takes gods as its object of study, then all its content would be devoted to demonstrating the illusory nature of its own object, that is, demonstrating that it itself has no real object and therefore is not a science at all.

The object of study of scientific atheism is the concept of “god.” “Theism” or “atheism” are both concepts of people, belonging to the realm of social consciousness. Spontaneous, naive atheistic concepts and conscious, systematized science that takes atheism as its fundamental viewpoint belong to different levels of social consciousness. The latter can form its own concepts, categories, and propositions through the study and summation of the former. In this regard, scientific atheism takes atheistic concepts as its object of study. However, where do atheistic concepts come from? Atheistic concepts have no object of reflection in the ontological sense; from the very beginning, they emerged in the realm of social consciousness as the antithesis of theistic concepts. They are a reflection of theistic concepts in a negative form, always fundamentally directed at opposing theism. If theism had never emerged, there would be no atheistic concepts at all. Therefore, besides studying atheistic concepts, on a deeper level or in a fundamental sense, scientific atheism takes the object of atheistic concepts as its object, that is, it takes theism as its own object of study.

Why can the concept of “god” also become an objective object of study? Because the distinction between subjective and objective operates at different levels. Within a certain scope—that is, within the scope of the fundamental question of philosophy, regarding the relationship where matter is primary and consciousness is derivative—the distinction between matter and consciousness, objective and subjective, is absolute; one cannot confuse things in the realm of thought with the objective matter they reflect. Beyond this certain scope, the distinction between objective and subjective is relative. All ideas and concepts belong to the subjective realm in the division between matter and consciousness, but whether a certain idea or concept exists, and how it exists, as a fact in the realm of social thought, also possesses objectivity, independent of the will of any researcher, and can only be grasped from reality, based on actual materials in social life, and reflected as they are. In fact, many disciplines in the social sciences take people’s spiritual activities and their products as their objects of study; this does not mean their objects lack objectivity. There has never been a half-human, half-monkey, all-powerful Sun Wukong in the world, but the fact that there is a vivid, havoc-wreaking Handsome Monkey King in the spiritual life of the Chinese people is beyond doubt. As an object of study in mythology, it possesses objectivity. Therefore, mythology is not a science, but the study of mythology can become a science.[21][n] Gods do not exist, but the existence of various concepts about “gods” is absolutely true. It is precisely these concepts that constitute the objective object of study of scientific atheism, enabling it to possess the basic premise for becoming a science, while “atheism” is the fundamental conclusion it draws through scientific research.

Thus, as a science, scientific atheism must take theism as its object of study. Only after theism emerged in human social life did atheism opposing it arise. The emergence and development of theism are the historical and logical premises for the emergence and development of atheism. This historical, and also logical, internal connection between atheism and theism shows that a scientific atheism that does not study or criticize (for scientific atheism, study necessarily manifests as criticism) theism is fundamentally impossible. As Engels pointed out: “Atheism is merely a negation,” “Atheism, as the mere negation of religion, always has reference to religion; without religion it does not exist itself.”[22][n] If criticism of theism is not permitted, that would require atheism to abolish its own object of study, thereby abolishing scientific atheism itself. To the extent that criticism of theism is restricted, to that extent the scientific study of atheism is restricted, and this deviates from the scientific spirit of proceeding from reality in everything, being selfless, and pursuing truth without any scruples.

III. Upholding the Guidance of Marxism in the Study and Propagation of Scientific Atheism

The discussion above in this article shows that upholding Marxism and implementing the Party’s basic policy and principles on religious work require upholding scientific atheism and opposing theism.

Another aspect of the interrelationship between upholding Marxism and upholding scientific atheism is that carrying out the study and propagation of scientific atheism must adhere to the guidance of Marxism and follow the Party’s basic policy and principles on religious work, without deviation.

First, the study of scientific atheism must adhere to dialectical materialism and historical materialism as its guiding ideology and theoretical foundation.

Atheism has its own long history. Both in China and in Europe, many atheists and atheist doctrines have appeared; their common point is the assertion of “no gods,” but their theoretical foundations, research methods, and specific propositions each differ. Marxism is atheist, but not all atheism is Marxism. Marxism is scientific atheism, but not all atheism is scientific atheism. Research in scientific atheism should take dialectical materialism, especially historical materialism, as its theoretical foundation, take social practice and the history of science as the summation of practice as its basis, proceed from objective reality, including historical materials reflecting theistic thought and actual conditions, place theism under the social-historical conditions that gave rise to it, study it in connection with the economy, politics, and culture of society, and scientifically reveal the essence and laws of development of “gods” or theism. Research in scientific atheism cannot depart from the broad avenue of human civilization; it must not reject but should actively absorb all beneficial intellectual achievements of history and the present. Lenin once pointed out that the militant materialism of Communists should attach importance to absorbing and utilizing the achievements of the old atheists of the 18th century, should form an alliance with modern natural scientists inclined toward materialism, and should, to a certain extent, form an alliance with progressive elements among the bourgeoisie. Even regarding some biased bourgeois scholars, while criticizing their erroneous views and denouncing them as “priest-ridden lackeys with academic degrees,”[23] Lenin did not neglect their works that “refuted religious prejudices and myths”[24] and called for their translation and publication. But at the same time, Lenin particularly emphasized that one should uphold dialectical materialism, “to be a conscious adherent of the materialism represented by Marx, that is, to be a dialectical materialist.”[25] Because, “any natural science, any materialism, if it lacks solid philosophical foundations, is incapable of waging a struggle against the onslaught of bourgeois ideas and the restoration of the bourgeois world outlook.”[26]

Second, to deepen research in scientific atheism, it is necessary to uphold the Marxist view of religion and build a Marxist science of religion.

Theism is not equivalent to religion; vulgar superstitious activities and antisocial cults are also theism, but religion is the most important, most influential, and therefore most worthy of study among theistic phenomena. Research in scientific atheism is inseparable from the study of religion; there is an overlapping relationship between their objects of study.

Some idealists and old materialists have also done a great deal of work in the study of religion, and their achievements can serve as reference and inspiration for our research in scientific atheism, but their views of religion are unscientific. Only the Marxist view of religion can guide us in conducting research in scientific atheism. Feuerbach made important contributions to the study of Christianity; his *The Essence of Christianity* “straightforwardly placed materialism back on the throne,” liberated people’s thought, and strongly influenced the young Marx and Engels, so that “for a time they both became Feuerbachians.”[27] However, from the very beginning of founding his new world outlook, Marx began to criticize Feuerbach’s view of religion; in his *Theses on Feuerbach* he pointed out in several places the defects of Feuerbach’s view of religion. In his later years, in *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy*, Engels, while “paying a debt of honor,” that is, “fully acknowledging” that “during our stormy period, Feuerbach’s influence on us was greater than that of any other philosopher after Hegel,”[28] also deeply analyzed and criticized the historical idealism manifested in Feuerbach’s view of religion. He pointed out: “As soon as we come to Feuerbach’s philosophy of religion and ethics, his true idealism comes to light.”[29] He sharply criticized: “Feuerbach’s attempt to found a true religion on a fundamentally materialist view of nature is like regarding modern chemistry as true alchemy. If a religion without a god can exist, then alchemy without the philosopher’s stone can also exist.”[30] If the view of religion of such a great materialist as Feuerbach is like this, then other non-Marxist views of religion are even less usable as guiding theories for research in scientific atheism.

The view of religion, as the fundamental viewpoint on religion, is not equivalent to the science of religion that conducts concrete empirical research on religion; the Marxist view of religion is not equivalent to a science of religion guided by Marxism. There are different views of religion, and there are also sciences of religion built on the basis of different views of religion. To deepen research in scientific atheism, it is necessary to build a Marxist science of religion. The Party Central Committee’s Marxist Theory Research and Development Project, initiated in 2004, made the construction of a system of disciplines and textbooks for philosophy and social sciences guided by Marxism one of the project’s main tasks, and the construction of the science of religion was also incorporated into it. This decision itself embodies a spirit: it is necessary to persist in using the Marxist stand, viewpoint, and method to conduct research in each social science, and to build and develop each social science (including the science of religion) founded on the Marxist scientific world outlook. In his later years, targeting the phenomenon of some young writers treating historical materialism as a “cliché” and “label,” Engels criticized them for using historical materialism “as an excuse not to study history”[31] and explicitly put forward the requirement to “study all history anew,” pointing out: “It is necessary to study in detail the conditions of existence of the various forms of social organization, and then to try to derive from these conditions the corresponding views on politics, private law, aesthetics, philosophy, religion, etc.”[32] The Marxist view of religion is a guide for studying religious issues, not a cliché; it cannot be used as an excuse not to study concrete religious issues. Scientific conclusions on various religious issues can only emerge from proceeding from reality through detailed research. Building a Marxist science of religion must rely on such “detailed research”; it cannot use clichés to construct a system. Scientific atheism should be a basic idea and basic content of the Marxist science of religion; a science of religion that does not uphold scientific atheism, does not analyze and criticize theism, cannot be a Marxist science of religion.

Third, conducting research and propaganda on scientific atheism must follow the Party’s basic principles and policies on religious work.

Our Party, guided by Marxism and proceeding from China’s actual conditions, has formulated basic principles and policies on religious work. These principles and policies are the embodiment of the Sinicized Marxist view of religion in practical work. To persist in using Marxism to guide research and propaganda on scientific atheism, it is necessary to earnestly study the Sinicized Marxist view of religion and implement the Party’s basic principles and policies on religious work.

The Party Central Committee has proposed: “Comprehensively implement the Party’s basic principles on religious work, strive to achieve harmonious coexistence between religion and society, harmonious coexistence among religions, and harmonious coexistence between religious believers and non-believers, and among believers of different religions.”[33] Is upholding scientific atheism and opposing theism consistent with the requirement of the three “harmonious coexistences” proposed by the Party Central Committee? Will it affect social harmony? This is a question that must be considered and answered in order to comprehensively implement the Party’s basic principles on religious work.

Social harmony is always built on a certain foundation. Maintaining and strengthening this foundation can promote social harmony; weakening and damaging it will undermine social harmony. So, what is the foundation for achieving harmonious coexistence between religion and society, among different religions, and between religious believers and non-believers as well as among believers of different religions? Is it theism, or atheism, or some form of theism of a particular religion? None of these. If the foundation for harmonious coexistence were some common religious belief or non-belief, that would mean social harmony in this respect is fundamentally impossible to achieve, because such a foundation does not exist in reality. The foundation for social harmony related to religion lies precisely not in the presence or absence of religious belief, but in other aspects. The reason social harmony is an essential attribute of socialism with Chinese characteristics is determined by the socialist economic system, political system, and the fundamentally identical common interests of all Chinese peoples built upon the socialist system. This is the most fundamental economic and political foundation for building a socialist harmonious society. The ideological foundation for building a socialist harmonious society is the socialist harmonious culture whose fundamental content is the socialist core value system. As the report of the 17th National Congress of the CPC emphasized, by building the socialist core value system and enhancing the appeal and cohesion of socialist ideology, we must “consolidate the common ideological foundation for the united struggle of the entire Party and the people of all ethnic groups in the country.”[34] The economic, political, and ideological foundations for achieving the three aspects of “harmonious coexistence” in the religious sphere are the same. The reason China can achieve harmony in the religious sphere is that although there are differences in ideological belief between religious believers and non-believers, and among believers of different religions, their fundamental interests are identical; they all support the socialist system, the leadership of the CPC, and the guiding position of Marxism, pursue the common ideal of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and take Chinese national culture as their shared spiritual home. Compared with the differences in religious belief, this is the great commonality amidst difference. Compared with this great commonality, differences in religious belief are minor differences within the great commonality. Building a socialist harmonious society does not mean denying contradictions or avoiding contradictions, but correctly handling contradictions. The report of the 17th National Congress of the CPC pointed out that building a socialist harmonious society is “a historical process and social result of correctly handling various social contradictions on the basis of development.”[35] Any two sides of a contradiction are both a unity of opposites and a relationship of struggle. Seeing only unity while denying opposition, or seeing only opposition while denying unity, are both metaphysical ways of thinking; dialectical materialism requires “grasping the opposite in the unity of opposites,”[36] not denying opposition when seeing unity, nor forgetting unity when seeing opposition. To correctly handle contradictions in religious issues, it is necessary to unify the two sides of the contradiction that have differences or opposition, seeking the great commonality while reserving minor differences. Comrade Hu Jintao, while putting forward the requirement to strive for the three aspects of “harmonious coexistence” in the religious sphere, also said: “We Chinese Communists are atheists and do not believe in any religion.”[37] This clearly points out the differences in ideological belief and, with the scientific spirit of dialectical materialism, indicates that upholding scientific atheism and realizing the requirement of “harmonious coexistence” in the religious sphere are dialectically unified.

Upholding scientific atheism and opposing theism is an inevitable requirement for upholding the guiding ideology of Marxism, and thus conducive to consolidating the common ideological foundation for the united struggle of the entire people and realizing social harmony. However, the Marxist view on religion and the Party’s basic policy on religious work are both wholes containing multiple aspects. Upholding scientific atheism, as a manifestation of implementing the policy of freedom of religious belief, must also be placed within this whole and grasped in connection with its other parts. If it is extracted from this whole and exaggerated in isolation, it will also violate and deviate from the Party’s basic policy on religious work. Two points are discussed here:

First, the significance of atheist propaganda cannot be exaggerated, nor should it be elevated to an undeserved primary position.

Lenin once warned that “the proletarian party runs the danger of exaggerating the struggle against religion” and “must not risk making war on religion in the political arena.”[38] Both Engels and Lenin believed that “declaring war on religion is a foolish act.”[39] If atheist propaganda is placed in the primary position, it exaggerates the differences in religious belief between religious believers and non-believers, placing these differences above their common economic, political, and ideological-cultural foundation, which would harm social harmony. Lenin pointed out that proclaiming “Down with religion” is “a shallow, bourgeois, narrow culturalist view.”[40] Exaggerating the work of atheist propaganda, in terms of its ideological roots, exaggerates the status and role of religion in social life, thus deviating from historical materialism.

Second, the research and propaganda of atheism must be unified with respect for others’ freedom to believe in religion.

The legal basis for propagating atheism and opposing theism is Article 36 of China’s Constitution, which stipulates that “Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief.” It is a manifestation of “comprehensively and correctly implementing the Party’s policy of freedom of religious belief, respecting both the freedom of the masses to believe in religion and the freedom of the masses not to believe in religion.”[41] Therefore, it must be unified with the other manifestation of the policy of freedom of religious belief, namely, “respecting the freedom of the masses to believe in religion.” Freedom to believe in religion is a right granted to religious believers by the Constitution, a right equal to that of not believing in religion and upholding atheism. Propagating atheism is the exercise of one’s own rights; when exercising this right, citizens cannot interfere with others’ right to believe in religion. The Party Central Committee requires “adhering to political unity and cooperation, and mutual respect in belief,”[42] and “mutual respect” means that each side can adhere to its own views while disagreeing with others’ views, but also respects and does not interfere with others’ right to adhere to their own views.

In the new century and new stage, as China’s social structure and pattern of social interests undergo complex changes, people’s ideological concepts are becoming increasingly diverse, and the influence of religion in the lives of some of the masses has strengthened. At the same time, the use of religion by hostile foreign forces to infiltrate our country has intensified. Under these new historical conditions, the inherent complexity of religious issues has become further prominent. Correctly handling complex religious issues concerns social harmony and the unity of the people, and is linked to the grand project of building a moderately prosperous society in all respects. Conducting research and propaganda on scientific atheism requires in-depth study of the Marxist view on religion, proceeding from objective reality, analyzing specific situations concretely, and comprehensively understanding and implementing the Party’s basic policy on religious work.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1]1 The 17th National Congress of the CPC was held in 2007. The report referred to is Hu Jintao’s political report to the Congress. *Selected Important Documents Since the 17th National Congress* (Part 1), Central Party Literature Press, September 2009, 1st edition, p. 796.

[2]2 The “three aspects of harmonious coexistence” in the religious sphere refers to harmony between religion and society, among different religions, and between believers and non-believers. Ibid., p. 809.

[3]3 Hu Jintao was General Secretary of the CPC Central Committee and President of China from 2003 to 2013. *Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Several Major Issues Concerning Strengthening and Improving Party Building Under the New Situation*, People’s Publishing House, September 2009, 1st edition, p. 12.

[4]4 The phrase “谋事在人，成事在神” (man proposes, God disposes) is a classical Chinese proverb adapted by Engels in *Anti-Dühring* to refer to the alien支配力量 of the capitalist mode of production. *Selected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 4, p. 347.

[5]5 The phrase “把宗教上的分野提到首位” (putting the religious division in the forefront) is a reference to Lenin’s critique of those who would elevate religious differences above class struggle. *Selected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 4, pp. 224–225.

[6]6 The phrase “无神论无人讲” (no one talks about atheism) refers to a perceived reluctance within Chinese academic and public discourse to actively promote or discuss atheism, despite its theoretical importance. *Selected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 4, p. 309.

[7]7 Mao Zedong, “On Contradiction” (August 1937). The quotation is from the section “The Particularity of Contradiction.” *Complete Works of Lenin*, Vol. 18, People’s Publishing House, 2nd edition, 1988, p. 239.

[8]8 The reference is to the fictional character Sun Wukong (the Monkey King) from the classic Chinese novel *Journey to the West*. Ibid., pp. 356–357.

[9]9 Friedrich Engels, “The Festival of Nations in London” (late 1845 – early 1846), in *Marx and Engels on Religion* (Progress Publishers, 1975). The quotation is from a passage contrasting atheism with pantheism. *Complete Works of Lenin*, Vol. 55, People’s Publishing House, 2nd edition, 1990, p. 311.

[10]10 The “Three Plenary Sessions” (三中全会) refer to the Third Plenary Session of a Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, often a landmark meeting for major policy shifts. The reference here is to the Third Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee in 1978, which launched the reform and opening-up policy. *Selected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 4, p. 213.

[11] *Selected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 3, pp. 666–667.

[12] *Selected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 3, pp. 666–667.

[13] *Selected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 3, p. 667.

[14] *Selected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 3, p. 668.

[15] *Selected Works of Lenin*, Vol. 2, p. 248.

[16] Hu Jintao, “Speech at the National United Front Work Conference,” in *Selected Important Documents since the 16th National Congress* (Part II), Central Party Literature Press, 1st ed., 2008, p. 555.

[17] *Selected Works of Lenin*, Vol. 2, p. 250.

[18] *Selected Works of Lenin*, Vol. 2, p. 247.

[19] *Selected Works of Lenin*, Vol. 2, p. 250.

[20] *Selected Works of Mao Zedong*, Vol. 1, p. 309.

[21] See Tian Xinming, “Why Are the Philosophical and Social Sciences a Science?” *Higher Education Theoretical Front*, No. 11, 2002.

[12] *Selected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 3, pp. 666–667.

[13] *Selected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 3, p. 667.

[14] *Selected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 3, p. 668.

[15] *Selected Works of Lenin*, Vol. 2, p. 248.

[16] Hu Jintao, “Speech at the National Conference on United Front Work,” in *Important Documents since the 16th National Congress* (Part II), Central Party Literature Press, 1st ed., 2008, p. 555.

[17] *Selected Works of Lenin*, Vol. 2, p. 250.

[18] *Selected Works of Lenin*, Vol. 2, p. 247.

[19] *Selected Works of Lenin*, Vol. 2, p. 250.

[20] *Selected Works of Mao Zedong*, Vol. 1, p. 309.

[21] See Tian Xinming, “Why Are Philosophy and Social Sciences Sciences?” *Journal of University Theoretical Front*, No. 11, 2002.

[22] “Engels to Eduard Bernstein” (July 1884), in *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 10, People’s Publishing House, 1st ed., 2009, p. 522.

[23] *Selected Works of Lenin*, Vol. 4, p. 649.

[24] *Selected Works of Lenin*, Vol. 4, p. 650.

[25] *Selected Works of Lenin*, Vol. 4, p. 652.

[26] *Selected Works of Lenin*, Vol. 4, pp. 651–652.

[27] *Selected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 4, p. 222.

[28] *Selected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 4, p. 212.

[29] *Selected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 4, p. 233.

[30] *Selected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 4, p. 234.

[31] *Selected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 4, p. 691.

[32] *Selected Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 4, p. 692.