In Defense of Atheism

Kai Nielsen (1926–2021) was a Canadian Marxist research scholar and contemporary advocate of atheism. He wrote extensively in the fields of ethics, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of religion. Since the translation and publication of his work *Marxism and the Moral Concept: Morality, Ideology, and Historical Materialism*, it has drawn widespread attention from domestic academic circles. In fact, Nielsen also held unique insights in the philosophy of religion, with major representative works including *Contemporary Critiques of Religion* (1971), *An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion* (1982), *Atheism & Philosophy* (1985), and *God and the Grounding of Morality* (1991). Nielsen grew up in a vaguely Protestant background, converted to Catholicism in his late adolescence, studied anthropology and philosophy during his graduate years, and was influenced by philosophers such as Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Peirce, Dewey, and Marx. This diverse religious experience gave Nielsen a personal encounter with and profound reflection on the philosophy of religion. He repeatedly debated with theologians over fundamental questions such as whether God exists. In Nielsen’s view, although God has been pronounced dead by Nietzsche and the world is increasingly moving toward secularization, people have not consciously become secularists, replacing a Christian or Jewish worldview with a secular one. Both believers and non-believers remain deeply perplexed by the religious concepts that dominate Western culture. Nielsen considered it necessary to clarify these perplexities in order to defend atheism.

凯·尼尔森（Kai Nielsen）（1926-2021）是加拿大马克思主义研究学者、当代无神论倡导者。他在伦理学、分析哲学、宗教哲学等领域著述颇丰，其著作《马克思主义与道德观念：道德、意识形态与历史唯物主义》自翻译出版以来，引起国内学界的广泛关注。事实上，尼尔森在宗教哲学方面也有独到见解，主要代表作有《当代宗教批判》（Contemporary Critiques of Religion,1971）、《宗教哲学导论》（An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion,1982）、《无神论与哲学》（Atheism & Philosophy,1985）、《上帝与道德的根基》（God and the Grounding of Morality,1991）等。尼尔森在模糊的新教背景下成长，青春期后期皈依天主教，研究生期间学习人类学和哲学，受到克尔凯郭尔、尼采、皮尔斯、杜威、马克思等哲学家的影响。多样化的宗教经历使得尼尔森对宗教哲学产生了切身的体验和深刻的反思。他多次与神学家就上帝是否存在等一系列基本问题进行辩论。在尼尔森看来，尽管上帝被尼采宣判死刑，世界越来越走向世俗化，但人们并未自觉地成为世俗主义者，用世俗的世界观取代基督教或犹太教的世界观。不管是信仰者还是不信仰者，仍然对西方文化中占主导地位的宗教概念深感困惑。尼尔森认为有必要对这些疑难予以澄清，以此捍卫无神论。

In the essay collection *Atheism & Philosophy*, Nielsen devotes himself to defending atheism in a coherent and comprehensive manner, and to discussing what it means to be an atheist. Nielsen argues that for those with a scientific background and sound philosophical training, it is impossible to carefully consider religious belief and then accept theism. We must critically examine the external world and engage in reflective endorsement, rather than credulously accepting unverified principles under the spell of emotivism. Although there are some judgments or beliefs considered common between atheists and theists—such as respecting all people, endorsing reasonable arguments, avoiding mutual slaughter and religious hatred, respecting evidence, and supporting integrity and tolerance—this is no reason to conflate theism and atheism. In these essays, whether accessible or academically dense, Nielsen, as a secularist, begins with some widely accepted but still erroneous or misleading definitions of atheism in Western society, then moves toward more adequate formulations. He devotes himself to exploring fundamental questions concerning the truth, justification, and coherence of religious belief, clarifying specious conceptual propositions, in order to better excavate the substantive implications of atheistic thought and identify the forms of life worthy of our loyalty.

在论文集《无神论与哲学》中，尼尔森以一种连贯和综合的方法致力于为无神论辩护，并讨论成为无神论者意味着什么。尼尔森认为，对于具备科学背景和良好哲学训练的人来说，仔细思考宗教信仰然后接受有神论是不可能的。我们必须对外在世界进行批判性地思考，进行反思式地认可，而非在情感主义的迷惑下轻信未经验证的原则。尽管在无神论者和有神论者之间，有一些被认为是共同的判断或信念，例如尊重所有人、赞同合理的论点、避免自相残杀和宗教仇恨、尊重证据、支持正直和宽容等，但这并不是混淆有神论和无神论的理由。在这些或通俗易懂或学术气息浓厚的论文中，作为世俗主义者的尼尔森从西方社会一些已被广泛接受但仍存在各种错误或误导性的无神论定义开始，转向更充分的表述，致力于探究关乎宗教信仰的真实性、正当性和连贯性等基本问题，澄清似是而非的概念性命题，以更好地挖掘无神论思想的实质性意蕴，明确值得我们忠诚对待的生命形式。

In Nielsen’s view, the uncertainty of the modern concept of God makes the distinction between belief and unbelief increasingly problematic. In different eras, people of different identities have understood and interpreted God in various ways. Especially in an age of accelerating scientific and technological progress and cultural diversity, as the world gradually undergoes “disenchantment,” the complexity of religious responses and the diversity of skeptical philosophies both preclude a simple definition of belief in God. Some religious believers hold that theism and atheism are both rational choices, like two sides of a coin, and should both be regarded as part of a complete, comprehensive society. Believers and non-believers share the cognitive division of labor in society. In response to such views, Nielsen opposes the evidence for God’s existence, arguing that revelation and religious experience are in fact unreliable. He points out that the core of Western theistic religious systems, primarily represented by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, lies in the affirmation of the reality of one and only one God. These religious believers firmly believe that there is a God who created the universe out of nothing, and that this God has absolute sovereignty over everything he created, including humanity. According to believers, only by unquestioningly accepting the decrees issued by God can one fully understand one’s own life. All atheists uniformly reject such a set of beliefs, holding that there is insufficient evidence to prove God’s existence. From a philosophical perspective, Nielsen systematically argues from the falsity of the concept of God, the impossibility of grounding morality in belief in God, and the need to break free from the spell of religious ideology, emphasizing that even in a world without God, life is undeniably endowed with positive purpose and meaning, thereby refuting the empty justifications of theists.

在尼尔森看来，现代上帝概念的不确定性使得信仰和不信仰之间的区别越来越成问题。在不同的时代，不同身份的人对上帝的理解和阐释各有不同。特别是在科学技术加速进步和文化多样性的时代，随着世界的逐渐“祛魅”，宗教反应的复杂性和怀疑哲学的多样性都排除了对上帝信仰的简单定义。一些宗教徒认为，有神论和无神论都是理性的选择，恰如硬币的两面，都应当被看作一个完整的、全面的社会的一部分。信仰者和非信仰者共同分享社会上的认知分工。针对此类观点，尼尔森反对上帝存在的证据，认为启示和宗教经验实际上并不可靠。他指出，以基督教、犹太教、伊斯兰教为主要代表的西方有神论文化宗教体系的核心在于：对有且只有一个上帝的真实性的肯定。这些宗教信徒坚信，有一个上帝从虚无中创造了宇宙，这位上帝对他创造的一切拥有绝对的主权，当然也包括人类。根据信徒的说法，只有毫无疑问地接受上帝制定的法令，才能充分地理解自己的生活。而所有的无神论者都一致否定这样一套信仰，认为没有足够的证据证明上帝存在。尼尔森立足于哲学视角，从上帝概念的虚假性、道德无法建立在对上帝的信仰上、摆脱宗教意识形态的魔咒等方面进行系统的论证，强调即使在一个没有上帝的世界里，生活也是无可置疑的具有肯定的目的和意义，以此驳斥有神论者空洞的辩解。

I. The Falsity of the Concept of God

一、上帝概念的虚假性

Atheism means denying the reality of God or spiritual beings. Based on this, discussion of atheism is simultaneously discussion of theism. Theists regard God as an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being, believing that God possesses pure spirit and a supernatural, self-sufficient eternal power. Religious believers argue that without belief in God and the laws he decrees, moral beliefs are groundless. Moral relativism, skepticism, and nihilism are, to a large extent, the result of the general weakening of religious belief in the scientific age. Scholastic philosophers painstakingly sought evidence to prove that their faith was rational, but doubting religious faith is equally rational. Nielsen points out that to prove God’s existence, both logical and empirical conditions must be satisfied. He first questions the meaning of God: “When we talk about God, we are talking about a being with infinite love, compassion, power, and understanding. But such statements do not resolve our confusion: what exactly do we mean by this being?” Nielsen argues that God cannot be pointed out like a chair; the word “God” can only be located through unequivocal descriptions. For those who do not understand the meaning of the word “God,” it can be cognized through vague descriptions such as “creator of the universe,” “the sole ultimate reality,” “the first cause,” or “the prime mover.” But such references make the intelligibility of the concept of God extremely low.

无神论意味着否定上帝或精神存在的真实性。基于此，关于无神论的讨论，同时是关于有神论的讨论。有神论者把上帝看作全知全能全善的存在，相信上帝拥有纯粹的精神和超自然的、自我完满的永恒力量。宗教信徒辩称，如果不相信上帝和他制定的律法，道德信仰就毫无根据。道德相对主义、怀疑主义和虚无主义在很大程度上是由于科学时代宗教信仰普遍弱化的结果。经院哲学家苦心孤诣地寻找证据来证明自己的信仰是理性的，但对宗教信仰进行怀疑同样也是理性的。尼尔森指出，若想证明上帝存在，必须满足逻辑和经验这两个条件。他首先对上帝的含义进行追问，“在谈论上帝时，我们谈论的是一个拥有无限的爱、慈悲、力量和理解的存在。但这样的说法并不能解开我们的困惑，我们所说的这个存在究竟是什么意思？”尼尔森认为，上帝不能像椅子那样被指认出来，上帝这个词只能通过确切无疑的描述进行定位。对于那些不明晰上帝一词含义的人而言，可以通过诸如“宇宙的创造者”、“唯一的终极实在”、“第一原因”、“第一推动者”等含混不清的描述来进行认知。但诸如此类的指称使得上帝概念的可理解性变得如此之低。

In Nielsen’s view, a statement has factual meaning only if it is at least logically possible to point to evidence that to some degree supports or opposes its truth. God is regarded as an impersonal, transcendent being upon which the universe depends, and believers must accept that certain so-called relevant factual statements are true. For example, “there is an infinite, eternal creator in the world.” Believers consider such statements beyond doubt. However, Nielsen argues that these interpretations of God are neither directly verifiable nor falsifiable, because we do not know how to determine their truth or falsehood. Therefore, in reality, they are not factual statements at all. Consequently, at the core of these religions there is a fundamental incoherence, and people have no reason to cling to inconsistent beliefs. Nielsen further asks, “To whom or to what does ‘God’ refer? Is it a proper noun, a short definite description, a special kind of descriptive predictable thing, or something else? How can we know or otherwise understand what ‘God’ represents or what characteristics it has?” That is, when we talk about God, what do we really mean? If we must rely entirely on religious authority to accept religion, which authority should we accept? Why Jesus, rather than Buddha or Muhammad? Who speaks for God and exercises authority? Nielsen uses the statement “God is the creator of the universe” as an example. Suppose A agrees with this statement and B denies it. What kind of support could give greater probability to A’s or B’s view? What experiential state would favor one view and disfavor the other? When many alleged revelations claim to be true, a rational person has no reason to claim that only one of these alleged revelations is the true revelation. Nielsen points out that religion claims to be a doctrine of salvation, providing truth and a path of prayer and repentance for vulnerable humanity. But if the standards of truth, reason, and intelligibility are relative across cultures and modes of discourse, then talking about truth and a path is meaningless, or at least serves no rational purpose.

在尼尔森看来，只有在逻辑上至少有可能指出某一陈述在某种程度上具有支持或反对其真实性的证据时，该陈述才具有事实意义。上帝被认为是宇宙所依赖的非人格化的、超然的存在，信徒必须接受某些所谓的相关事实陈述是真实的。例如“世界上有一个无限的、永恒的创造者”。信徒认为这类陈述是毋庸置疑的。然而，尼尔森认为，这些关于上帝的诠释并不是直接可证实或不可证实的，因为我们不知道如何确定它们的真假。因此，在现实中，它们根本不是事实陈述。由此，在这些宗教的核心中有一种根本的不连贯，而人们没有理由固守前后不一的信念。尼尔森进一步追问，“‘上帝’指的是谁？或者指的是什么？它是一个专有名词，一个简短的明确描述，一种特殊的描述性的可预测的东西，还是其他什么？我们如何才能认识或以其他方式了解‘上帝’代表什么或者具有什么特征？”也就是说，当我们谈论上帝时，我们真正指的是什么？如果我们必须完全依靠宗教权威来接受宗教，我们应该接受哪个权威？为什么是耶稣，而不是佛陀或穆罕默德？谁在替上帝发声和行使权威？尼尔森以“上帝是宇宙的创造者”这一说法为例进行解释，假设A认同这个说法，而B否认这个说法，那么，什么样的支持可以给A或B的观点更大的可能性？什么样的经验状态对一种观点有利而对另一种观点不利？当许多假定的启示都声称是真实的时候，一个理性的人就没有理由声称只有其中一个假定的启示是真正的启示。尼尔森指出，宗教声称作为救赎的教义，为脆弱的人类提供了祈祷与忏悔的真理和道路。但是，如果真理、理性和可理解性的标准在文化和话语方式上都是相对的，那么，谈论真理和道路是毫无意义的，或者至少没有任何合理的目的。

Feuerbach, in *The Essence of Christianity*, points out that the essence of religion is humanity’s split with itself: “what man believes to be God is in fact his own spirit, his own soul, and man’s spirit, soul, and heart are in fact his God; God is the open heart of man, the candid self of man…” Religious believers claim that there exists a cosmological faith, a thorough metaphysical faith, that is, a belief in a sacred reality that transcends the “empirical world,” holding that the universe has an eternal, ever-present creative source and sustainer. God is infinite, omnipotent, holy, immortal, while humans are finite, powerless, sinful, and mortal. In a sense, experiencing God is experiencing one’s own finitude, feeling dependence, awe, fear, love, and security. Nielsen argues that these experiences are clearly experiences of reality within our familiar spatiotemporal framework and can be given a purely secular interpretation. Therefore, we have no reason to describe these comprehensible human experiences as experiences of God. Various religious beliefs, through cosmological, ontological, and other arguments, demonstrate all kinds of transcendent realities, declaring that nothing is greater than God, and therefore God must exist, otherwise he would not be the greatest conceivable being. The problem is that human finite experience is utterly incapable of judging the reality of these transcendent realities. Whatever God is, he is a being that cannot be seen or observed in any other way; he cannot be anything material or empirical. The transcendent God cannot exist in the empirical world, only in the subjective imagination of the human mind, ultimately sliding into mysticism.

费尔巴哈在《基督教的本质》中指出，宗教的本质是人跟自己的分裂，“人认为上帝的，其实就是他自己的精神、灵魂，而人的精神、灵魂、心，其实就是他的上帝；上帝是人之公开的内心，是人之坦白的自我……”宗教信徒声称，存在着一种宇宙论的信仰、一种彻底的形而上学的信仰，也即相信一种所谓超越“经验世界”的神圣现实，认为宇宙有一个永恒的、永远存在的创造源泉和维护者。上帝是无限的、全能的、神圣的、不朽的，而人则是有限的、无能的、罪恶的、易朽的。从某种意义上说，体验上帝就是体验一个人的有限性，感受依赖、敬畏、恐惧、爱和安全感。尼尔森认为，这些经验显然是在我们熟悉的时空框架中的现实性体验，完全可以有纯粹的世俗解读。因而，我们没有理由把这些可以理解的人类经验说成是上帝的经验。各种宗教信仰以宇宙论、本体论等不同的方式论证着林林总总的超验现实，宣称没有比上帝更伟大的了，因而上帝必须存在，否则他不会是最伟大的可想象的存在。问题在于，人类有限的经验根本无法判断这些超验现实的真实性。无论上帝是什么，都是一个不可能被看到或以任何其他方式观察到的存在，他不可能是任何物质或经验的东西。超验的上帝不可能存在于经验世界，只能存在于人的头脑的主观想象中，最终滑向神秘主义。

In Nielsen’s view, religion is not the saving myth that humanity yearns for. He opposes both theism and the agnostic claim that the truth or falsehood of God cannot be verified. Nielsen points out that if God is a pure spirit, transcending the world, mysterious and infinite, then humans cannot truly encounter such a supreme being through normal senses. As the eighteenth-century French atheist Holbach said: “If God is infinite, then any finite, mortal being can have no relation to him, nor any connection. Where there is no relation, there can be no mutual obligations or agreements. If no obligations are possible between man and God, then there can be no religion for man.” To speak of a non-anthropomorphic God—that is, God as a transcendent, non-spatiotemporal, infinite individual—is difficult to understand and even self-contradictory. Nielsen argues that “belief in God is an ideological belief that distorts our understanding of reality. This is not merely an innocent distortion. Because usually when we hold such beliefs or are influenced by them, they distort our lives.” Therefore, without definite evidence confirming the existence of God, to advocate that God is the sole truth for understanding human nature and destiny is filled with incredible arrogance and dogmatism; it is strange and untenable.

在尼尔森看来，宗教并非人类所向往的拯救神话。他既反对有神论，也质疑不可知论无法证实上帝真假的说法。尼尔森指出，如果上帝是一个纯洁的灵魂，超越世界，神秘而无限，人类就无法通过正常的感官与这样至高无上的存在真正相遇。正如十八世纪法国无神论者霍尔巴赫所说：“如果上帝是无限的，则任何有限的、有死的存在物就不能同它有任何关系，也不能有任何联系。凡无关系的地方就不能有任何相互的义务和协定。如果在人和上帝之间不可能有任何义务，则对人来说也就不能有任何宗教。”一个人谈论非拟人化的上帝，即上帝是超然的、非时空的、无限的个体，这是难以理解甚至自相矛盾的。尼尔森认为，“对上帝的信仰是一种意识形态的信仰，它扭曲了我们对现实的理解。这不仅仅是一种无辜的扭曲。因为通常当我们有这样的信念或受到这样的信念的影响时，它们其实扭曲了我们的生活。”因而，如果没有确切的证据确证上帝的存在，而鼓吹上帝是理解人类的本性和命运的唯一真理，这种做法充满了令人难以置信的傲慢和武断，是奇怪的、站不住脚的。

II. Morality Cannot Be Established on the Basis of Belief in God

二、道德无法建立在对上帝的信仰之上

The relationship between religion and morality has long been controversial. Does religion make us more moral? Can moral inclinations emerge independently of religious intuition? Religious believers claim that God is the necessary foundation of ethics in the world he created; based on belief in God, a morality not centered on God cannot provide a true basis for moral life. Only God can give definitive meaning to earthly moral life, firmly believing that “God is my creator, I owe everything to him,” and “God is a merciful God, I need his forgiveness.” Nielsen argues that belief in God is no more necessary than belief in Santa Claus. In fact, we do not need some religious faith to provide support for moral behavior. Some religions do contain what serves as moral ideals, but in this respect, there is nothing that an atheist cannot obtain. In *God and the Grounding of Morality*, Nielsen points out: “Whether pre-modern, modern, or postmodern, people can still understand their lives, and without any rational failure, still have a humane morality, even if their beliefs and attitudes are entirely secular.” For some people, especially religious believers, religion is necessary for psychological comfort, moral behavior, and finding purpose in life. However, this is not the case for everyone. This merely shows that those who know good and evil within religious faith need a spiritual crutch to continue acting as moral agents, but they cannot be masters of their own thoughts and actions.

长期以来，宗教与道德的关系一直备受争议。宗教会让我们更有道德吗？道德倾向是否能独立于宗教直觉而出现？宗教信徒声称上帝是他所创造的世界中伦理的必要基础，基于对上帝的信仰，不以上帝为中心的道德不能为道德生活提供真正的基础。只有上帝才能赋予尘世的道德生活以确定性的意义，坚信“上帝是我的创造者，一切都归功于他”，“上帝是仁慈的上帝，我需要他的宽恕”。尼尔森认为，对上帝的信仰并不比对圣诞老人的信仰更有必要。事实上，我们并不需要某种宗教信仰来为道德行为提供支撑。一些宗教确实包含着作为道德理想的东西，但在这方面，没有什么是无神论者不能获得的。在《上帝与道德的根基》中，尼尔森指出：“无论是前现代、现代还是后现代，人们仍然能够理解他们的生活，并且在没有任何理性失败的情况下，依然有一种人道的道德，即使他们的信仰和态度是完全世俗的。”对一些人特别是宗教信徒而言，宗教是心理安慰、道德行为和找到生活目的所必需的，然而，并不是所有人都是如此。这仅仅表明，那些宗教信仰上懂得善恶的人需要一根精神的拐杖才能继续充当道德行动者而已，却不能做自己思想和行动的主人。

According to the theistic view, objective moral values are rooted in God. He is the source of moral value; his holy and loving nature provides the absolute standard for measuring all actions; he is spiritual, inherently full of love, generosity, justice, loyalty, goodness, and other qualities. Everything you do is under God’s evaluation and scrutiny; God wants us to act in certain ways rather than others. But how can we know that God is infinitely perfect? Even if a believer assumes it, why does he do so? What reason does his assumption have? How can a person without faith know that God is infinitely perfect? How do power, wisdom, and creativity themselves manifest goodness? Nielsen argues that religious believers insist God is perfect and good, but to make such a judgment, one must first understand what perfection and goodness are. We cannot determine that something is good or ought to be done merely by mindlessly following God’s commands, will, injunctions, and so on. Whether “God is good” is substantive or analytic, the concept of good must be understood as distinct from the concept of God; that is, one can know how to properly use “good” yet still not know how to use “God.” In fact, unless a person already knows how to use “good,” he cannot know how to use “God.” Understanding of good is logically prior to and independent of any understanding or acknowledgment of God. Only when we already possess the necessary moral knowledge can we correctly understand what believers are saying when they talk about God. Unless we verify God’s reality through experience and insight, any praise believers heap upon God—concerning his love, mercy, omnipotence, and reality—is suspect. “God is the creator of humans and all finite beings, the omnipotent commander of all finite beings; this does not prove or in any way establish his goodness, nor does it show that he deserves obedience. With these traits, he could even be an evil god.” [3]3 Kai Nielsen, a prominent 20th-century Canadian philosopher and atheist critic of religion. A being that is omnipotent and omniscient but possesses only willpower does not thereby become good. Hence, the ultimate foundation or basic principle of our morality cannot be built on faith in God, nor on faith in ultimate reality itself, or any other similar faith.

根据有神论的观点，客观的道德价值植根于上帝。他是道德价值的源泉，他圣洁慈爱的本性提供了衡量一切行为的绝对标准，他是属灵的，天生就充满爱心、慷慨、公正、忠诚、善良等品质。你所做的每一件事都在上帝的评估审查之下，上帝希望我们以某种方式行事，而不是以其他方式行事，但我们如何才能知道上帝是无限完美的？即使一个信徒假定了它，他为什么要这样做？他的假设有什么理由？没有信心的人怎么能知道神是无限完美的？权力、智慧和创造力本身如何显示善？尼尔森认为，宗教信徒坚称上帝是完美和善良的，而要做出这样的判断，首先要理解何为完美和善良。我们不能仅仅通过没有头脑地遵循上帝的命令、意志、嘱咐等来决定某事是好的还是应该做的。无论“上帝是善”是实质的还是分析的，善的概念必须被理解为有别于上帝的概念，也就是说，一个人可以知道如何恰当地使用“善”，但仍然不知道如何使用“上帝”。事实上，除非一个人已经懂得如何使用“善”，否则他不可能知道如何使用“上帝”。对善的理解在逻辑上先于并独立于对上帝的任何理解或承认。只有当我们已经拥有了必要的道德知识，我们才能正确地理解人们在谈论上帝时所说的内容。除非我们通过经验和洞察力验证上帝的真实性，否则，当信徒谈论上帝的爱、怜悯、全能和现实时，他们关于上帝的任何赞誉之辞都是值得怀疑的。“上帝是人类和所有有限存在的创造者，是所有有限存在的全能指挥，这并不证明或以任何方式确立他的善，并不表明他值得被服从。有了这些特质，他甚至可能是一个邪恶的神。”一个无所不能、无所不知的存在只有意志力，并不意味着它是好的。因而，我们道德的最终基础或基本原理不能建立在对上帝的信仰上，也不能建立在对终极现实本身的信仰上，或者其他类似的信仰上。

Believers constantly say “God loves us,” regardless of how much evil exists in the real world. In Nielsen’s view, this “love” has lost its meaning, degenerating into blind superstition, even to the point of committing injustice in God’s name. Whether God exists or not, wanton slaughter of humans, complete disregard for human needs, or using others as means to one’s own ends—these human actions are despicable. No matter what philosophical explanations we give for such things, these things are wrong. Even in a world without God, they remain wrong. Even if God’s earthly agents command us to do them, that does not make them moral. Morality exists to respond to human interests and needs, and to render fair judgments amid conflicts of interests and desires. We have ample reason to believe that any morality, whether religious or secular, that fails to consider fairly adjudicating conflicts of interest and satisfying legitimate human needs is a pathetically defective morality. There is no reason to believe that religious morality can provide us with a “higher” alternative morality. Thus, the existence of God loses its so-called moral necessity.

信徒们口口声声说“上帝爱我们”，而不管现实世界有多少罪恶。在尼尔森看来，这种“爱”已经丧失意义，变成一种盲目的迷信，乃至于以上帝之名行不义之事。无论上帝是否存在，对人类的肆意杀戮，对人类需求的完全忽视，或将他人作为达到自己目的的手段，这些人类行为都是卑鄙的。无论我们对这些事情给出什么样的哲学解释，这些事情就是错误的。即使在一个没有上帝的世界里，它们仍然是错误的。即便上帝的尘世代理人命令我们这样做，也并不能使它们变得合乎道德。道德的存在是为了回应人类的利益和需要，并在利益和欲望的冲突之间做出公正的裁决。我们有充分的理由相信，任何道德，无论是宗教的还是世俗的，如果不考虑公正地裁决利益冲突和满足人类正当的需要，都是一种可悲的有缺陷的道德。没有理由相信宗教道德可以为我们提供一种“更高”的替代道德。由此，上帝的存在就失去所谓的道德必要性。

According to theists, God is the moral legislator; he determines what is right or wrong. God’s moral nature is the ultimate measure of moral goodness. Without God, nothing is good. Morality would be merely a social convention, lacking any universal validity beyond culture or self-interest. Therefore, without faith in God, a satisfactory morality is impossible. Divine commands elevate moral principles above human preferences and customs, giving them objective binding force. If God’s commands were clearly evil, would believers have a moral obligation to obey them? Theologians adopt three distinctly different approaches to this question: (1) rejecting the possibility of such commands by appealing to God’s essentially good nature; (2) modifying divine command theory to avoid implying that we should obey such commands; (3) accepting the implication that we should obey such commands by appealing to divine transcendence and mystery. Whether rejecting or accepting, these approaches consider God too much and humans too little, merely treating humans as appendages of God, substituting religion for reason. Nielsen points out, “For many years, humans have been helpless, completely dependent beings. Because of this, deep within us we need a father who protects everything, or some other cosmic guarantee, depending on the culture we are in. It is natural for humans to desire such security, but there is not the slightest reason to think such security exists. Having a sense of dependence does not mean there is something we can depend on. Although we have this need, it gives us no reason to think that our sense of dependence has such a transcendent support.” Because we are rational beings, we can understand that basic moral rules are universally applicable. Anyone possessing good qualities (generosity, justice, loyalty, etc.) is morally good, whether God exists or not. Even without a perfect being, love and justice and other qualities can still constitute moral ideals, and the degree to which people realize these ideals in their actual lives remains morally good.

按照有神论者的说法，上帝是道德的立法者；他决定什么是对或错。上帝的道德本性是道德良善的最终尺度。如果没有上帝，就没有什么是良善的。道德将只是一种社会习俗，没有超越文化或自身利益的任何普遍有效性。因此，没有对上帝的信仰，就不可能有令人满意的道德。神圣命令将道德原则提高到人类偏好和习俗之上，使其具有客观的约束力。如果上帝的命令显然是邪恶的，信徒是否有道德义务去做？神学家对这个问题采取三种截然不同的应对方法：（1）通过诉诸神的本质良善来拒绝这种命令的可能性；（2）通过修改神谕理论，避免暗示我们应该服从这样的命令；(3) 接受这样的暗示，即我们应该通过诉诸神圣的超越性和神秘性来服从这样的命令。无论是拒绝还是接受，都是过多地考虑神而较少地考虑人，仅仅把人视为神的附属品，以宗教代替理性。尼尔森指出，“人类多年来都是无助的、完全依赖他人的生物。正因为如此，我们内心深处就需要一个保护一切的天父，或者其他一些宇宙的保证，这取决于我们所处的文化。人类渴望这样的安全是很自然的，但没有丝毫理由认为存在这样的安全。我们有依赖感并不意味着有我们可以依赖的东西。虽然我们有这样的需求，但这并没有给我们任何理由去认为我们的依赖感有这样一个超越世俗的支撑。”由于我们是理性的人，可以理解基本的道德规则是普遍适用的。任何拥有良善品质（慷慨、公正、忠诚等）的人在道德上都是好的，无论是否有上帝，都是如此。即使没有完美的存在，爱和正义以及其他部分仍然可以构成道德理想，并且人们在他们的现实生活中实现该理想的程度在道德上仍然是善的。

III. Breaking Free from the Spell of Religious Ideology

三、摆脱宗教意识形态的魔咒

Nielsen calls religion an ideology in which humans are seen as sinful, selfish, combative creatures. Therefore, they must be tamed, made to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s, and must submit to formally established religious authority, so that humans live in specific ways, hold specific beliefs, hold specific attitudes, and exist as members of a distinct confessional community. “This ideology tells us that we must learn not to desire, let alone seize, what is not ‘ours,’ but instead accept the social position God has assigned us, shoulder our responsibilities, and unquestioningly accept God’s will. We must know our place and our duties; we must accept our fate.” Within this framework, people are required to accept a social order founded on miracles, mystery, and authority. And people’s situation in the world, due to humanity’s fallen nature, is fixed by the supreme God. Various religious theologies, in religious form, through the magic of ideology, project people’s hopes of building a truly human society onto a special, never-before-seen place called “heaven,” and moreover a “spiritual world” after “physical death.” Nielsen points out, “What we see here is a disguised, ideologically distorted expression of genuine human liberation interests and enduring human hopes.” The result is that people, fooled by various religious viewpoints or metaphysical specters, do not explore the real roots of their suffering but instead attribute their misfortunes to the wrath of spirits. As Holbach said, “Human reason, fooled by various theological dogmas, abandons self-knowledge, doubts its own power, rejects experience, fears truth, despises sound thinking and denies it, and blindly submits to force.” [4]4 Paul-Henri Thiry, Baron d’Holbach (1723–1789), a French-German philosopher and prominent atheist figure of the Enlightenment. While religion sings of human liberation, it simultaneously forges chains for humanity.

尼尔森将宗教称之为意识形态，在这种意识形态中，人类被视为罪恶的、自私的、好斗的生物。因此，必须驯服他们，使他们把属于凯撒的东西给凯撒，把属于上帝的东西给上帝，并且必须服从正式建立的宗教权威，使人类以特定的方式生活，持有特定的信念，持有特定的态度，以及作为一个独特的忏悔团体的一员。“这种意识形态告诉我们，我们必须学会不要渴望，更不要抓住不是‘我们的’东西，而是接受上帝赋予我们的社会地位，承担我们的责任，毫无疑问地接受上帝的意志。我们必须了解自己的地位和职责；我们必须接受自己的命运。”在这个框架内，人们被要求接受一种建立在奇迹、神秘和权威之上的社会秩序。而人们在世界的处境，由于人类堕落的本性，被至高无上的上帝所固定。各种宗教神学以宗教的形式，通过意识形态的魔术，把人们建立真正的人类社会的希望投射到一个特殊的、从未出现过的叫做“天堂”的地方，而且是“肉体死亡”之后的“精神世界”。尼尔森指出，“我们在这里看到的是对真正的人类解放利益和持久的人类希望的一种伪装的、意识形态扭曲的表达。”由此导致的结果是，人们受到各种宗教观点或形而上学幽灵的愚弄，不去探求自己痛苦的现实根源，反而将自己的不幸归于神灵的愤怒。正如霍尔巴赫所说，“人的理性受到各种神学教条的愚弄，放弃了自我认识，怀疑自己的力量，拒绝经验，害怕真理，轻视健全的思想并且否认它，而盲目地屈从于强力。”宗教在歌唱人类解放的同时也在为人类锻造锁链。

In his “Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right,” Marx wrote, “Religion is the self-consciousness and self-feeling of the human being who has either not yet found himself or has already lost himself again. But the human being is no abstract being squatting outside the world. The human being is the world of the human being, the state, society. This state, this society, produces religion, an inverted world-consciousness, because they are an inverted world.” In the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, Marx further explicitly emphasized, “Atheism and communism are the actual becoming of the human essence, the actual realization of the human essence for the human being, or the realization of the human essence as something actual.” Humanity distinguishes itself from other primates through its unique creative power. It possesses distinctive cultural capacities and the related ability to transform its environment, rather than being dominated and manipulated by illusory religion. Nielsen holds that religion, by instilling in people an attitude of submission to this world and replacing hope for a better “spiritual world” with eschatological hope, diverts people from the path of pursuing what they might possess. In this heavenly deception, the sigh of the oppressed creature is soothed; religious ideology prevents people from struggling for actual liberation. He acutely points out, “The richer our concept of God, the poorer our concept of the human being.” We must break the spell of this false consciousness and shatter the religious net that imprisons the mind, rather than losing the subjectivity that makes humans human amid religious delusion. If God is omniscient, knowing everything everyone does, this is clearly a denial of human free will. But in fact, human beings possess self-consciousness, are capable of free and conscious life activities, can engage in rational reflection and deliberate consideration, formulate plans, and execute them. Religion, however, is originally built on unfounded assumptions, which it then uses to argue, conceal the truth, and mislead followers. Various religions achieve this by promising rewards in the afterlife rather than in this life. By focusing attention on otherworldly rewards and providing a worldview of spiritual meaning that pacifies members, this worldview diverts attention that would otherwise be directed at the inequalities existing in the real world. Religion is essentially a narcotic; although it can be used to alleviate pain, it remains a false improvement of a desperate situation. Thus, people have no reason to be manipulated and fooled by religion. Nielsen repeatedly emphasizes that without God, life is still worth living. Healing the sick, achieving racial equality and social justice, attaining happiness and a richer life for oneself and those connected to oneself, gaining love, and strengthening human bonds and solidarity—these are goals that human beings can possess, and they can remain intact in a world without God.

马克思在《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》中写道，“宗教是还没有获得自身或已经再度丧失自身的人的自我意识和自我感觉。但是，人不是抽象的蛰居于世界之外的存在物。人就是人的世界，就是国家，社会。这个国家、这个社会产生了宗教，一种颠倒的世界意识，因为它们就是颠倒的世界。”在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中，马克思更是明确强调，“无神论、共产主义才是人的本质的现实的生成，是人的本质对人来说的真正的实现，或者说，是人的本质作为某种现实的东西的实现。”人类以其独特的创造力使自己有别于其他灵长类动物。他具有独特的文化能力和与其相关的改造环境的能力，而非被虚幻的宗教所支配和操纵。尼尔森认为，宗教通过给人们灌输一种对这个世界顺从的态度，用末世的希望取代另一个更好的“精神世界”的希望，使人们偏离了追求他们可能拥有的事物的轨道。在这个天国的骗局中，被压迫生灵的叹息被安抚了，宗教意识形态使人们不再为实现实际的解放而斗争。他敏锐地指出，“我们对上帝的概念越丰富，对人的概念越贫乏。”我们必须打破这种虚假意识的魔咒，冲破禁锢心灵的宗教罗网，而非在宗教的迷惑中丧失人之为人的主体性。如果上帝无所不知，知晓每个人所做的一切，这显然是对人类自由意志的否定。但事实上，人类是有自我意识的，能够进行自由自觉的生命活动，能够理性反思和深思熟虑，制定计划并执行。而宗教原本就是建立在一些没有根据的假设之上，然后又用它们来进行论证，掩盖真相并误导追随者。形形色色的宗教通过承诺来世而不是今生的奖励来实现这一目标。通过将注意力集中在超凡脱俗的奖励上，通过提供一种精神意义的世界观来安抚成员，这种世界观转移了原本会指向现实世界存在的不平等的注意力。宗教本质是一种麻醉剂，虽然它可以用来减轻痛苦，但它仍然是对绝望情况的一种虚假的改善。因而，人们没有理由受到宗教的摆布和愚弄。尼尔森一再强调，没有上帝，生活仍然值得活下去。治愈病人、实现种族平等和社会正义、为自己和与之相关的人实现幸福和更丰富多彩的生活、获得爱、密切人类纽带和团结。这些是人类可以拥有的目标，而它们在一个没有上帝的世界里依然能完好无损地保持。

IV. Concluding Remarks

四、余论

Nielsen argues that the use of any word or statement is meaningful only if there is a context that is already familiar and commonly recognized. The concept of God, however, is transcendent and spiritual; we have no available context to evaluate those metaphysical statements about God, because most contexts of everyday language depend on our experience, knowledge, and value judgments of this real world. In this collection of essays, Nielsen advocates for and defends atheism, demonstrates the irrationality of theistic belief, and shows that we do not need theistic belief to justify the moral beliefs by which we live. In Nielsen’s view, secular morality cannot provide the so-called “eternal life,” “resurrection,” or certain spiritual purposes above life that religious morality promises. But we must soberly recognize that religious morality is illusory, deceptive, and obscuring. Destiny is in our own hands, not manipulated by a vague and intangible God; everyone can obtain the blessings of life, not only those who can recite doctrine. We do not need God to endow life with value and meaning, nor do we need the “spiritual crutch” of religion to walk. For human beings cannot be treated merely as a means to achieve other ends; the human being is itself an end, the human being is the highest essence of the human being, possessing inalienable positive freedom, autonomous personality, and agency. Everyone has the ability to formulate life plans and create their own future. The meaning of life can also be found in secular things such as love, friendship, care, knowledge, self-esteem, and the joy of living, without relying on God’s grace.

尼尔森认为，任何词语或陈述的使用都是有意义的，前提是有一个大家都已经熟悉和公认的语境。而上帝概念是超然的、精神的，我们没有任何可用的语境来评估关于上帝的那些形而上的陈述，因为日常语言的大部分语境依赖于我们对这个现实世界的经验、知识和价值判断。尼尔森在这本论文集中倡导和捍卫无神论，论证有神论信仰的不合理性，表明我们并不需要有神论信仰来证明我们赖以生存的道德信念。在尼尔森看来，世俗道德无法提供宗教道德所允诺的所谓“永生”、“复活”以及某些凌驾于生命之上的精神性目的。但我们有必要清醒地认识到，宗教道德具有虚幻性、欺骗性和蒙蔽性。命运掌握在我们自己手中，而不是受虚无缥缈的上帝所操纵；每个人都可以获得生命的祝福，而不仅仅是那些能够背诵教义的人。我们不需要上帝来赋予生命以价值和意义，不需要宗教的“精神拐杖”来走路。因为人不能仅仅被当作是达成其他目的的手段，人自身就是目的，人是人的最高本质，拥有不可剥夺的积极自由、自主人格和能动性。每个人都有能力制定人生计划，开创自己的未来。人生意义也可以在爱情、友谊、关怀、知识、自尊、生活乐趣等世俗事物中找到，而不必依赖于上帝的恩赐。

In summary, Nielsen argues that morality is independent of religion and that morality cannot be based on religion. Human beings cannot purely understand themselves as God’s creations, living dependent on God. As finite rational beings, human beings can, through deliberate consideration, find valuable goals to strive for and explore the eternal source of human happiness in secular ethics. Our personal welfare depends on a mechanism that fairly resolves social and personal conflicts, not on praying to God. Thus, morality has an objective basis; even if “God is dead,” it does not matter. Although some parts of this collection of essays appear somewhat positivist and empiricist in their argumentation, at least in their discursive expression, when Nielsen examines religious “faith” with philosophical “thought,” holding that there is no strong argument for the existence of God, this has a certain enlightening significance for deepening our understanding of atheism and the essence of religious belief. Only by adhering to the Marxist scientific atheist stance can we break through all kinds of religious superstition and idol worship, consciously resist various distorted and erroneous views and trends of thought, dispel absurd illusions, correctly reveal the materiality and objective regularity of the world, thereby confirm the essential power of the human being, and create a real happy and beautiful life.

综上所述，尼尔森主张道德独立于宗教，道德不能以宗教为基础。人不能将自身纯粹地理解为上帝的创造物，依赖上帝而活。作为有限的理性存在，人能够通过深思熟虑寻找到有价值的奋斗目标，在世俗伦理中探寻出人类幸福的永恒源泉。我们的个人福利取决于一个能公平地解决社会和个人冲突的机制，而非依靠对上帝的祈祷。因而，道德具有客观的存在基础，就算“上帝死了”，也无关紧要。虽然这本论文集的有些部分在论述上略显实证主义和经验主义，至少在话语表述上显得如此，但当尼尔森以哲学之“思”审视宗教之“信”，认为没有任何证明上帝存在的有力论据，这对我们加深对无神论以及宗教信仰本质的理解具有一定的启发意义。只有坚持马克思主义的科学无神论立场，才能破除形形色色的宗教迷信和偶像崇拜，自觉抵制各种歪曲、错误的观点和思潮，驱散荒谬的幻影，正确揭示世界的物质性和客观规律性，从而确证人的本质力量，创造现实的幸福美好生活。

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心