Problems in the Study of American Atheism and Countermeasures

I. The Necessity of Studying American Atheism

一、研究美国无神论的必要性

In recent years, the ideological struggle between China and the United States has become increasingly acute. From September 2019 to the present, the United States has successively passed the "Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2019," the "Tibet Policy and Support Act of 2019," the "Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019," and the "Hong Kong Autonomy Act," using ideological issues to flagrantly interfere in China's internal affairs, imposing the American worldview, religious view, and cultural view on the Chinese people, confusing public opinion on issues such as religion and human rights, and delivering a serious shock to the thinking of people of all ethnic groups. This has affected the image of Marxism among the Chinese people of all ethnicities, posed a serious threat to China's ideological security, and also presented a severe challenge to China's ideological work.

近年来，中美意识形态斗争日益尖锐。从2019年9月至今，美国先后通过了“2019年维吾尔人权政策法案”、“2019年西藏政策及支持法案”“2019香港人权民主法案”“香港自治法案”，利用意识形态问题对我国内政横加指责，将美国的世界观、宗教观、文化观等强加于我国人民，混淆大众对宗教、人权等问题的看法，给各族人民的思想带来了严重的冲击。这影响了马克思主义在我国各族人民心中的形象，给我国意识形态安全带来严重威胁，也对我国意识形态工作提出了严峻挑战。

General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out that ideological work is an extremely important task for the Party. The intensifying ideological struggle between China and the United States requires us to actively respond to the challenges posed by the United States to China's ideology. To meet this challenge, we must, as in warfare, know ourselves and know the enemy. Only in this way can we achieve victory in the Sino-American ideological struggle. This requires us to understand the ideology of the United States, to understand the state of mind of the American people, and to understand the true attitude of the American people toward the U.S. government. As is well known, although the United States is the most developed capitalist country in the world today, its mainstream ideology is deeply influenced by the worldview, cultural view, values, historical view, national view, and state view of various religions, including Christianity. The vast majority of people believe in various religions such as Christianity, Catholicism, and Islam, and are theists. However, there are also atheists in the United States. According to statistics, American atheists account for 2% to 14% of the national population, and more than 95% of outstanding scientists do not believe in God. Moreover, these American atheists still face discrimination; for example, those who publicly declare themselves atheists in the United States are not eligible to be elected. A 2007 Gallup poll showed that Americans would rather elect a Black person, a Jew, a woman, a Hispanic, a Mormon, a Muslim, or a homosexual as president than an atheist. In fact, 53% of respondents said they would not vote for an atheist. It can be seen that American atheists do not enjoy the full freedom and democracy that American media propagandize; the fact that their democratic rights such as the right to vote and the right to be elected remain unrealized indicates that their human rights are not fully guaranteed. Therefore, the study of American atheism and atheists helps us understand the true state of American ideology. On the one hand, the sharpening of the Sino-American ideological struggle requires us to safeguard ideological security, strengthen the propaganda and research on atheism, help the masses establish an atheist consciousness, form a correct worldview, strengthen their communist faith, and consolidate the guiding position of Marxist thought in our country. On the other hand, it requires us to know ourselves and know the enemy, to understand the ideological situation in the United States, which necessitates a comprehensive and systematic study of American atheism. To study American atheism, we must first understand the current state of research on American atheism.

习近平总书记指出，意识形态工作是党的一项极端重要的工作。中美意识形态斗争愈演愈烈，要求我们积极应对美国对我国意识形态提出的挑战。要应对这一挑战，就要像打仗一样做到知己知彼。唯如此，方能取得中美意识形态斗争的胜利。这就要求我们去了解美国的意识形态，了解美国人民的思想状况，了解美国人民对美国政府的真实态度。众所周知，虽然美国是当今世界最发达的资本主义国家，其主流意识形态深受包括基督教在内的各种宗教的世界观、文化观、价值观、历史观、民族观、国家观的影响，绝大多数人信奉基督教、天主教、伊斯兰教等各种宗教，属于有神论者。但美国也有无神论者。据统计，美国的无神论者占全国人口的2%到14%，其中95%以上的杰出科学家不相信上帝。而且美国的这些无神论者仍受到歧视，如在美国公开宣称自己是无神论者的人没有被选举权。2007年的盖洛普民意测验表明美国人宁愿选黑人、犹太人、女人、西班牙人、摩门教徒、穆斯林、同性恋者为总统，也不愿意选无神论者当总统。事实上53%的受调查者表示他们不愿意选无神论者。可见美国的无神论者并非像美国媒体宣传的那样能够享有充分的自由、民主，其选举权、被选举权等民主权利仍然未能实现的事实表明其人权并未得到充分保障，因此对美国无神论及无神论者的研究有助于我们了解美国意识形态的真实状况。中美意识形态斗争尖锐化一方面要求我们维护意识形态安全，加强对无神论的宣传、研究，帮助人民群众树立无神论意识、形成正确的世界观、坚定其共产主义信仰、巩固马克思主义思想在我国的指导地位，另一方面要求我们知己知彼，了解美国的意识形态状况，这就要求我们对美国无神论进行全面、系统的研究。而要研究美国无神论，就必须先了解美国无神论的研究现状。

II. The Current State of Research on American Atheism

二、美国无神论研究的现状

(A) Research by Chinese and Foreign Scholars on the Origins, Emergence, Meaning, and Classification of American Atheist Thought

（一）中外学者对美国无神论思想的渊源、产生、含义和分类的研究

At present, Chinese and foreign scholars are conducting more and more research on American atheist thought. Regarding research on the sources of atheist thought, Louis Dupré has explored the intellectual sources of modern atheism, arguing that eighteenth-century deism paved the way for atheism. Regarding research on the emergence of atheism, Michael Martin, Professor of Philosophy at Boston University, has provided a detailed discussion of the emergence and development of atheism in modern history and thought in *The Cambridge Companion to Atheism*.

目前，中外学者对美国无神论思想的研究越来越多。就无神论思想来源的研究而言，路易·杜卜瑞对现代无神论的知识来源进行了探讨，认为十八世纪的自然神论铺垫了通向无神论之路。对无神论产生的研究，波士顿大学哲学教授迈克尔·马丁(Michael Martin)在《剑桥无神论指南》中对无神论在现代历史与思想中的产生与发展进行了详尽论述。

As for the meaning of atheism, Armin W. Geertz considers atheism a natural cognitive strategy. David Eller holds that atheism is not a belief system but rather refers to a lack of belief in gods, a psychological state of self-reliance, self-contentment, self-empowerment, and self-confidence manifested in human strength, well-being, and ability. George H. Smith also argues that atheism refers to the absence of belief in the existence of gods or deities. Kerry Walters believes that atheism is the disbelief in God or other gods, whether this disbelief is theoretical or practical, passionate or intellectual, strong or mild. Kai Nielsen argues that atheism is the critique and denial of the main supernatural belief systems concerning God or gods saving souls, involving not only decisions about how to live but also how to rationally understand the world in which one lives. Leo Apostel maintains that atheism means having no suitable object of worship. Except for Leo Apostel and Armin W. Geertz, the above scholars all hold that atheism opposes or denies the existence of supernatural forces such as God, gods, ghosts, and deities, with David Eller, George H. Smith, and Kerry Walters among them all arguing that atheism refers to a lack of belief in deities, God, or other gods. The differences among the above scholars in defining atheism lie in disagreements over whether the nature of atheism is a theory, a psychological state, a lack of belief in gods, or simply the belief of "not believing in God," and there is no consensus on whether atheists can believe in gods.

至于无神论的含义，阿明·W·格尔茨认为无神论是自然的认知策略。大卫·埃勒认为无神论不是一个信仰系统，而是指缺乏对神的信仰，指人在力量、康乐、才能等方面表现出来的一种自存、自乐、自力、自信的心理状态。乔治·H·史密斯也认为无神论是指不相信神或神物存在的神灵信仰的缺乏。克里·沃尔特斯认为无神论是不相信上帝或其他神，不管这种不相信是理论上的还是实践上的，是激情式的还是理智型的，是强烈的还是平和的。凯·尼尔森认为无神论是对上帝或神灵拯救灵魂的主要的超自然信仰体系的批判和否认，不仅涉及到怎样生活的决定，也涉及到如何理智地认识生活于其中的世界。利奥·奥普斯特尔主张无神论意味着没有合适的崇拜目标。上述学者除利奥·奥普斯特尔、阿明·W·格尔茨外均认为无神论反对或否认上帝、神、鬼、神物等超自然力量的存在，其中大卫·埃勒、乔治·H·史密斯、克里·沃尔特斯等人均认为无神论指缺乏对神物、上帝或其他神灵的信仰。上述学者对无神论的定义的不同点在于对无神论的性质究竟是一种理论、一种心理状态还是神灵信仰的缺乏，抑或就是“不信神”的信仰存在分歧，对无神论者可否相信有神的意见不统一。

Regarding the classification of atheism, Jeanne Diller et al. consider that atheism can be divided into global atheism and local atheism; Michael Martin calls the original meaning revealed by Greek roots negative atheism, meaning nonbelief, and calls the common meaning in current dictionaries, namely the denial of God, the afterlife, providence, the immortality of the soul, and biblical authority, positive atheism. Kerry Walters also divides atheism into positive atheism (actively disbelieving in God) and negative atheism (lack of belief in God), and he further divides positive atheism into radical atheism (holding that belief in God is not only wrong but also harmful) and moderate atheism (holding that belief in God is incorrect but not harmful). Thus, both Michael Martin and Kerry Walters consider that atheism can be divided into positive atheism and negative atheism. David Eller, however, holds that there is no distinction between positive atheism and negative atheism, only complete atheism and incomplete atheism. Incomplete atheism means not grasping or accepting the full implications of atheism. In 2009, Martin Hägglund, a professor of comparative literature at Yale University, studied radical atheism. In his book *Radical Atheism: Derrida and the Time of Life*, he systematically introduces the radical atheism of the French philosopher Jacques Derrida, a representative of Western deconstruction. That book attracted the attention of Michael Naas and Samir Haddad that year; they evaluated the views in Martin Hägglund’s book and offered different opinions. Among them, Michael Naas made a useful supplement to the views in Martin Hägglund’s book, arguing that the most notable achievement of radical atheism is that its claims are entirely convincing and correct, and, reassuringly, it leaves something worth looking forward to, making everything worth anticipating. In addition to the above scholars’ classificatory studies of atheism, George H. Smith divides atheism into implicit atheism and explicit atheism. Implicit atheism refers to disbelief in God not caused by an active rejection of theistic belief, while explicit atheism refers to disbelief in God caused by an explicit and active rejection of theistic belief. Leo Apostel divides atheism into atheism unrelated to religion and anti-religious atheism, where the former can be further divided into pre-theistic atheism and post-theistic atheism. Some scholars also divide atheism into contemplative atheism and pretended atheism, or into open atheism and covert atheism, where covert atheism means inwardly believing there is no God but not saying so aloud or in writing. In the past two years, some scholars have mentioned analytical atheism and militant atheism. Among them, Ståle Thomas, in the article “Analytical Atheism: Valuing Cognitive Rationality Strengthens the Link between Analytical Thinking and Nonbelief,” argues that when people engage in analytical thinking while also having cognitively reasonable goals, analytical thinking should have a stronger correlation with nonbelief. Eric Steinhart, in his book *Believing in Dawkins*, analyzes the thought of Richard Dawkins, arguing that Dawkins is famous for militant atheism and that his works are filled with fragmentary outlines of this “spiritual atheism.”

就无神论的分类来看，珍妮·迪勒等认为无神论可分为全球无神论、地方无神论；迈克尔·马丁将由希腊词根显示的原始含义称为消极的无神论(negative atheism)，意指无信仰（nonbelief），而将当前词典中通用的含义，即否认上帝、来世、天命、灵魂不死、圣经权威等称为积极的无神论(positive atheism)。克里·沃尔特斯也将无神论分为积极的无神论（主动不信上帝）和消极的无神论（上帝信仰的缺乏），他还进一步将积极的无神论分为激进无神论（认为上帝信仰不仅是错的而且是有害的）和温和无神论（认为上帝信仰不正确，但并不认为它是有害的）。可见，迈克尔·马丁、克里·沃尔特斯均认为无神论可分为积极的无神论和消极的无神论。而大卫·埃勒则认为没有积极无神论和消极无神论之分，只有完全无神论(complete Atheism)和不完全无神论(incomplete Atheism）。不完全无神论意指没有掌握或承认无神论的全部含意（not grasping or accepting the full implications)。2009年,耶鲁大学比较文学专业教授马丁·海格伦德对激进的无神论进行了研究。他在《激进的无神论：德里达和生命的时间》中对西方解构主义代表人物、法国哲学家雅克·德里达的激进无神论进行系统介绍。该书在当年引起了迈克尔·纳斯、萨米尔·哈达德的注意，他们对马丁·海格伦德的这本书的观点进行评价，提出不同的见解。其中迈克尔·纳斯对马丁·海格伦德书中的观点做了有益的补充，他认为激进无神论最显著的成就是其主张完全是令人信服的、正确的，而且让人欣慰地是它留下了值得人们期待的东西，它让每件事都值得期待。除上述学者对无神论进行了分类研究外，乔治·H·史密斯将无神论分为含蓄的无神论和明确的无神论。含蓄的无神论指非由主动拒绝有神信仰而造成的不信神，而明确的无神论则指因明确主动地拒绝有神信仰而造成的不信神；利奥·奥普斯特尔则将无神论分为与宗教无关的无神论和反宗教的无神论，其中前者还可分为有神论产生前的无神论和有神论产生后的无神论。还有学者把无神论分为思索性无神论和假装的无神论，分为公开的无神论和隐晦的无神论，隐晦的无神论指在内心认为没有上帝，但不大声说出来或写出来。近两年，一些学者提到了分析无神论、战斗无神论。其中斯特尔·托马斯在《分析无神论：重视认知理性加强了分析思考与不信教的联系》一文中认为人们在分析思考的同时，又有认知上合理的目的，则分析思考与不信教应该有更强的相关性；埃里克·斯坦哈特在其著作《信仰道金斯》一书中对理查德·道金斯的思想进行了分析，认为道金斯因战斗无神论而著名，其著作中充满了这种“精神无神论”的碎片化的轮廓。

(II) Studies by Chinese and Foreign Scholars on American Atheist Thought in Different Periods

（二）中外学者对不同时期美国无神论思想的研究

1. Studies on Modern and Contemporary American Atheism

1.对近现代美国无神论的研究

Han Feng argues that Einstein’s religious view is essentially materialist atheism; Yu Qiming holds that outstanding scientists, including Einstein, have become increasingly attuned to atheist thought; Shi Mengnan analyzes Einstein’s views on God and belief, pointing out that his God is Spinoza’s God, that is, nature, and analyzes whether Einstein was an atheist.

韩锋认为爱因斯坦的宗教观在本质上是唯物论的无神论；于祺明认为包括爱因斯坦在内的杰出科学家对无神论的思想越来越心领神会；石梦楠对爱因斯坦的上帝和信仰观进行了分析，指出他的上帝是斯宾诺莎的那个上帝,也就是自然，并分析了爱因斯坦是否是无神论者。

2. Studies on Contemporary American Atheism

2.对当代美国无神论的研究

First, studies on the causes and manifestations of the rise of contemporary American atheism. Shang Quanyu preliminarily explores the reasons for the rise of the New Atheism in the United States; Chen Weihua argues that the reasons for the rise of the contemporary Western New Atheism include the macro-trends of Western society, people’s struggle against religious fundamentalism and theocracy, and various factors such as people’s need for social recognition and expression of political demands.

首先，对当代美国无神论兴起的原因、表现等的研究。尚劝余初步探析了美国新无神论勃兴的原因；陈卫华认为当代西方新无神论兴起的原因包括西方社会的宏观走势、人们对宗教原教旨主义和神权政治的斗争及人们获取社会认同、表达政治诉求的需要等多种因素。

Regarding the manifestations of American atheism. M. Brewster, in the book *American Atheists*, recounts the experiences of more than 20 Americans of different ages, races, and educational backgrounds who became atheists; Chen Weihua argues that atheism has already existed as an independent cultural phenomenon in Western societies, including the United States, has developed into a relatively systematic and distinctive ideological system, and has even materialized into a possible way of life.

关于美国无神论的表现。M·布鲁斯特在《美国无神论者》一书中记述了年龄、种族、教育等背景都不同的20多名美国人转变为无神论者的经历；陈卫华认为无神论已作为包括美国在内的西方社会一种文化现象独立存在，已发展为一种相对系统和特色鲜明的思想体系,甚至现实化为一种可能的生活方式。

In addition to studying the manifestations of American atheism, Jason Megill defends atheism by denying that God is the source of life’s meaning; Andrew Johnson defends the New Atheism from the perspective of whether New Atheists show respect for religious beliefs when criticizing religion; Donovan O. Schaefer argues that major unexpected events provide space for dialogue between deconstructionism in religious studies and post-adaptationist evolutionary theory, offering insights for understanding new, post-secular atheism.

除了对美国无神论的表现进行研究外，杰森·麦吉尔通过否认上帝是生命意义的源泉来捍卫无神论；安德鲁·约翰逊则从新无神论者批评宗教时是否尊敬宗教信仰等方面捍卫新无神论；多诺万·O·谢弗认为重大突发事件为宗教界的解构主义和后适应主义者的进化论进行对话提供了空间，对理解新的、后世俗无神论提供了启示。

Second, studies on the life experiences, living conditions, and life difficulties of contemporary American atheists. In addition to studying atheist thought, academia has also studied the life experiences of American atheists. Joseph Langston et al., through an analysis of the relationship between reputation-enhancement performance in family upbringing and religious importance, choice, and conflict, draw relevant conclusions for predicting the age of atheism (predicting when a person becomes an atheist): when demographic, parental quality, religious, kinship, and institutional variables are controlled, reputation-enhancement performance becomes a precise predictor of the age of atheism. Wei Jianwu and Ren Dingcheng argue that Western atheism has undergone an evolutionary process from being a charge of ideological crime against dissidents, heretics, pagans, and nonbelievers, to being an explicit claim by individuals, organizations, and even states, and then to being a topic of dialogue between atheists and theists.

其次，对当代美国无神论者的人生经历、生活现状、生活困境等的研究。除了对无神论思想进行研究外，学界还对美国无神论者的人生经历进行了研究。约瑟夫·兰斯顿等人通过对家庭教养中的信誉提升表现和宗教重要性、选择和冲突的关系分析，得出了预测无神论年龄（预测一个人在什么时候成为无神论者）的相关结论：当人口结构、父辈品质、宗教变量、亲属变量和制度变量得到控制时，信誉提升表现成了预测无神论年龄的精准的预报器。魏建武、任定成认为西方无神论经历了从作为指控异己、异端、异教徒和不信教者的思想罪名,到作为个人、组织乃至国家的明确主张,再到无神论者与有神论者之间的对话主题的演变历程。

Regarding the living conditions of American atheists, academia has studied their lifestyles, views on happiness and the means of attaining it, self-concept and humor styles, management of death awareness, factors influencing worldview defense, morality and religious spirit, and the level of moral character. Among them, Madalyn Murray O’Hair argues that the lifestyle adopted by all American atheists shows that they are materialists; Shena M. Horning points out that atheists tend to rely on material means to attain happiness and, compared to those with similarly low levels of religious devotion, atheists are more inclined to use humor to cope; Kenneth E. Vail et al. argue that atheists who manage death awareness in an atmosphere filled with concepts of an afterlife enhance worldview defense.

就美国无神论者的生活现状来看，学界对美国无神论者的生活方式、幸福观及获得途径、自我观和幽默风格、管理死亡意识、世界观防卫的影响因素、道德和宗教精神、道德品质的高低等进行了研究。其中曼德琳·莫里·奥海尔认为美国所有无神论者所采取的生活方式说明他们就是唯物主义者；谢娜·M·霍宁指出无神论者倾向于发挥物质的作用来获得幸福，而且与类似的信仰虔诚度低的人士相比无神论者更喜欢用幽默来应对；肯尼斯·E·维尔等人主张在充满来世观念的氛围中管理死亡意识的无神论者提升了世界观防卫意识。

As for the existential predicament of American atheists, Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association, reflected in his article “A Godless Fourth of July” on the slander by presidential candidate Michele Bachmann that atheists are not patriots; Samuel R. Weber and others explored the psychological confusion of non-religious believers, including atheists, arguing that the healthier a person’s psychology, the more certain their belief system; Zhang Yingshan examined the reasons why American atheism and materialist philosophy face such great pressure and encounter so much resistance; Prothero, in his paper, reflected that some pastors and missionaries who abandoned religious faith faced rejection and opposition from their families and communities; William Lane Craig, in his book *The Debate about God and Morality: What Is the Best Explanation for Objective Moral Values and Duties?*, discussed the relationship between atheists and theists: the two groups typically do not converse with each other. Melanie E. Brewster and others, in their article “It’s Like Herding Cats: Atheist Minority Stress, Group Involvement, and Psychological Outcomes,” used minority stress theory to analyze in detail the situation of 522 atheists from across the United States, concluding that American atheists experience marginalization, which may take the form of discrimination or stigmatization due to their non-belief, or both. These negative experiences may worsen atheists’ mental health. Dena M. Albert explored for the first time the experiences of atheists of color, finding that their trajectory of establishing atheism resembles previously proposed models of identity development. The psychology of atheists of color sequentially passes through four stages: experiencing discrimination from anti-atheists, browsing atheism in violation of traditional cultural expectations, objectively employing strategies (concealing their atheism), and benefiting from the sense of connection and freedom brought by atheist identity. Maurits A. van der Veen, in his article “Atheism in US and UK Newspapers: Negativity about Non-Belief and Non-Believers,” studied the situation of American atheists, arguing that in the United States, atheists belong to the most disliked “religious group,” atheism is negatively portrayed in print media, and atheism as a concept is more severely negated than atheists as individuals.

至于美国无神论者的生存困境，美国人文主义协会秘书长罗伊·斯巴克哈德在“无上帝的美国国庆日”一文中反映了总统候选人米歇尔·巴赫曼对无神论者不是爱国者的诽谤；塞缪尔·R·韦伯等人则对包括无神论者在内的非宗教信徒的心理困惑进行了探讨，认为一个人的心理越健康，信念系统越具有确定性；张英珊对美国无神论和唯物主义哲学为什么受到那么大压力,遇到那么多阻力的原因进行了探讨；普罗瑟罗在其论文中反映了一些放弃宗教信仰的牧师和传教士受到了家人和社区的排斥、反对；威廉?莱恩?克雷格在《关于上帝和道德的讨论：客观的道德价值和责任的最好解释是什么》一书中谈到了无神论者和有神论者之间的关系：两者通常情况下不会相互交谈。梅勒妮·E?布鲁斯特等人在《这就像牧猫：无神论者的少数派压力、群体参与和心理结果》一文中用少数应力理论对来自全美的522位无神论者的处境进行详细分析后得出结论：美国无神论者经历着边缘化，边缘化的形式可能是因为他们不信教而受到歧视或遭到污名，或两者兼而有之。这些否定的经历可能使无神论者的精神健康状态更糟糕。德娜·M?阿尔伯特第一次探讨了有色人种无神论者的经历，发现他们确立无神论的轨迹与以前提出的认同发展模式相似。有色人种无神论者的心理先后经历了这样四个阶段：受到反无神论者的歧视、违背传统文化预期而浏览无神论、客观上存在运用策略（掩饰自己的无神论），从无神论者认同所带来的人脉感和自由感中受益。万·德尔·维恩·A·毛里茨在《美国和英国报纸上的无神论：关于非信仰和非信仰者的否定》一文中对美国无神论者的处境进行了研究，他认为在美国无神论者属于最讨厌的“宗教组织”，无神论被印刷的媒体否定地描述，无神论作为一个概念比无神论者作为个体受到更为严重的否定。

Beyond the above research, scholars have also studied atheism in American culture, the relationship between belief in God and the quality of people’s health in reality, the correlation between levels of atheism and societal health, and the relationship between dogmatism and openness among non-religious individuals; they have studied how the Science-Atheism Association in real life affects American Christians’ attitudes toward science, atheists’ attitudes toward Mitt Romney in presidential elections, and atheism in the American animal rights movement; they have conducted comparative studies of the IQs of non-religious individuals (atheists and agnostics) and those who self-identify as religious believers. Among these, Phil Zuckerman convincingly analyzed the close relationship between levels of atheism and societal health and refuted the view that religious belief is “innate”; Philippe Schwaller, in his article “Political Activism among Non-Believers,” explored the political activities of atheists, arguing that atheists are quite liberal, energetically participating in political struggles and paying attention to political news. David Speed argued that non-belief in God is unrelated to established global health outcomes, suggesting that belief in God does not necessarily imply better health; Corey Lee Wrenn argued that atheists constitute the largest portion of participants in the animal rights movement, and that atheist and agnostic vegetarians likely adopt vegetarianism largely because they care about other animals. Gold argued that Sam Harris is not the only atheist providing substitutes for what people lose after abandoning religious faith, but he pointed out that what we now need is a rational approach close to spirituality. J. J. Ruddick, in reviewing Lee Smolin’s book *The Life of the Cosmos*, noted that people face two choices: either unconditionally believe in his hypothesis (saving atheism) or believe in a willful, rational, omnipresent deity.

除上述研究外，学界还对美国文化中的无神论、是否信仰上帝与现实中人们健康状况的好坏、无神论水平与社会健康度、非信教人员中教条主义与开放性之间的关系进行了研究；对现实生活中科学—无神论协会如何影响美国基督徒对科学的态度、无神论者在总统选举中对米特·罗姆尼的态度、美国动物权利运动中的无神论进行了研究；对非信教人员（无神论者和不可知论者）和自称是宗教信徒的人的智商进行了对比研究。在这些人当中，菲尔·朱克曼令人信服地分析了无神论水平与社会健康度之间存在的密切关系,并驳斥了宗教信仰“天赋性”的观点；菲力浦·希瓦德尔在《不信教者的政治活动》一文中对无神论者的政治活动进行了探讨，他认为无神论者相当自由，他们精神抖擞地参与政治斗争并关注政治新闻。戴维·斯彼得认为不信上帝与既定的全球健康状况的好坏无关，这表明信仰上帝不一定意味着有更好的健康状况；科里·李·雷恩认为无神论者占了动物权利运动参与者的最大的一部分，无神论者和不可知论素食主义者接受素食主义的原因很大可能是他们关心其他动物。戈尔德认为山姆·哈里斯不是唯一的为放弃宗教信仰后的人们所丧失的东西提供替代品的无神论者，但他指出了我们现在所需要的是一种接近灵性的合理方法。J·J·拉迪克在评价李·斯莫林的书《宇宙的生命》时指出人们面临两种选择，要么无条件地相信他的设想（拯救无神论），要么相信一个有意志、有理性的无处不在的神灵。

III. Problems in the Study of American Atheism

三、美国无神论的研究存在的问题

These studies from Chinese and foreign academic circles have laid a solid theoretical foundation for further research on American atheism, but their shortcomings are as follows:

中外学界的这些研究为进一步研究美国无神论打下了坚实的理论基础，但这些研究的不足有以下几点：

(1) From the Perspective of Research Subjects

（一）从研究主体来看

Apart from a handful of scholars such as Chen Weihua, Zhang Yingshan, Han Qi, Shang Quanyu, Yang Junfeng, and Xi Wuyi, few domestic scholars study American atheism. Among these, many translate foreign works, and even fewer go deep into the United States to understand the current state of its atheism before conducting independent research. Besides the scarcity of domestic researchers, whether foreign scholars studying American atheism are religious believers, whether their understanding of American atheism is objective, and whether it aligns with the actual situation of American atheists are open to question. Moreover, existing researchers have not sustained their efforts in the study of American atheism, advanced it deeply, or produced subsequent research results.

国内学者研究美国无神论的人除了陈卫华、张英珊、韩琪、尚劝余、杨俊峰、习五一等屈指可数的几位以外，很少有人研究美国无神论。在这些人中，有很多是翻译外国人的作品，深入美国了解其无神论的现状再展开独立研究的就更少了。除国内研究者较少外，国外研究美国无神论的学者是否信仰宗教，他们对美国无神论的认识是否客观，是否符合美国无神论者的实际状况，值得商榷。而且既有研究者并没有在美国无神论的研究方面持续发力，深入推进，没有后续的研究成果出现。

(2) From the Perspective of Research Content

（二）从研究内容来看

There is more research on contemporary American “New Atheism,” but relatively little on the evolutionary process of atheism since the founding of the United States, the representative figures of various schools, and the formation and influence of their ideas and viewpoints. From existing research, it is impossible to clearly understand the evolution of American atheism since the country’s founding; there is relatively little research on the influence exerted by American Marxists on the formation, evolution, and development of American atheism.

对当代美国的“新无神论”研究较多，对美国建国以来无神论的发展演变过程、各个流派的代表人物及其思想观点的形成与影响涉及比较少，从现有研究无法清晰地了解美国无神论自美国成立以来的发展演变情况；对美国马克思主义者为美国无神论的形成、演变、发展所施加的影响的研究比较少。

(3) From the Perspective of Research Methods

（三）从研究方法来看

The research is unsystematic, incomplete, and not in-depth. That is, domestic scholars have not conducted a comprehensive and deep understanding of the current state of research on American atheism, nor have they carried out in-depth surveys or interviews with American atheists, because no relevant analysis of questionnaires or interview data has been found in existing domestic research results.

研究不系统、不全面、不深入，即国内学者没有对美国无神论的研究现状进行全面深入的了解，没有对对美国无神论者进行深入的调查、访谈，因为没有在国内的现有研究成果中发现调查问卷、访谈资料的相关分析。

(4) From the Perspective of Research Conclusions and Outcomes

（四）从研究结论及成果来看

First, current research does not deeply or comprehensively analyze the reasons for the difficulties encountered in the development of American atheism, does not explore the measures American atheists take to cope with these difficulties, and does not predict the development trends of American atheism. Second, apart from a small number of individual papers, there are no monographs on the study of American atheism among current research outcomes.

首先当前研究对美国无神论的发展所遇困境的原因分析不深入、不全面，没有探讨美国无神论者应对困境的措施，没有对美国无神论的发展趋势做出预测。其次，目前的研究成果，除了为数不多的单篇论文外，没有关于美国无神论研究的专著。

IV. Suggestions for the Study of American Atheism

四、关于美国无神论研究的建议

The study of American atheism is related to the ideological struggle between China and the United States; it helps to know both ourselves and our adversaries in this struggle, and to adopt targeted and effective measures in the ideological struggle initiated by the United States. Therefore, it is imperative to strengthen the study of American atheism. In response to the above problems in this research, the following research suggestions are proposed.

美国无神论的研究关系到中美之间的意识形态斗争，有助于在这种斗争中做到知己知彼，有助于我们就美国发起的意识形态斗争采取针对性强、斗争效果好的措施。因此，加强对美国无神论的研究势在必行，针对其研究中的上述问题，提出以下研究建议。

(1) From the Perspective of Research Subjects

(一)从研究主体来看

The academic community should attract more domestic and foreign scholars to focus on the study of American atheism by convening specialized research conferences on American atheism, and attract master’s and doctoral students, as well as postdoctoral researchers, to dedicate themselves to the study of American atheism by establishing research directions related to American atheism.

学界应通过召开美国无神论的专门研究会议来吸引更多的国内外学者专注于美国无神论的研究，通过设置与美国无神论相关的研究方向来吸引硕士、博士研究生、博士后致力于美国无神论的研究。

(2) From the Perspective of Research Content

（二）从研究内容来看

Not only should attention be paid to contemporary American “New Atheism,” but research interest should also be placed on the evolutionary process of atheism since the founding of the United States, the representative figures of various schools, and the formation and influence of their ideas and viewpoints; on the influence exerted and conditions provided by American Marxism for the formation, evolution, and development of American atheism; on the mutual relationships and influences between American Marxists and American atheists; and on understanding the current state of American atheists’ ideological conditions and life situations, analyzing the reasons, and providing countermeasures.

不仅要重视当代美国的“新无神论”研究，还要将研究旨趣放在美国建国以来无神论的发展演变过程、各个流派的代表人物及其思想观点的形成与影响上，放在美国马克思主义为美国无神论的形成、演变、发展所施加的影响、所提供的条件上，放在美国马克思主义者与美国无神论者之间的相互关系和相互影响上，放在对美国无神论者的思想状况和生活处境的现状了解、原因分析、对策提供上。

(3) From the Perspective of Research Methods

（三）从研究方法来看

We should conduct systematic, comprehensive, and in-depth research on American atheism. This research should not only be carried out through textual reading and literature review, but also through telephone interviews, field interviews, questionnaire surveys, and other methods to gain a deep understanding of the actions, thoughts, and ideas of atheists from among farmers, workers, business owners, and students in various parts of the United States. We should draw on the research methods of American atheism researchers, and, like them, apply existing theories from ethics, psychology, sociology, and religious studies—such as minority stress theory and moral foundations theory—to conduct research.

应对美国无神论进行系统、全面、深入的研究，不仅要通过文本阅读、文献梳理来进行研究，还要通过电话访谈、实地访谈、问卷调查等方式深入了解美国各地无神论者中的农民、工人、企业主、学生等的所行、所思、所想，要借鉴美国的无神论研究者的研究方法，要像美国无神论研究者一样运用伦理学、心理学、社会学、宗教学的现有理论如少数应力理论、道德基础理论等来研究。

(4) From the perspective of research conclusions and outcomes

（四）从研究结论及成果来看

First, on the basis of comprehensive, in-depth, and systematic research, one should correctly analyze the causes of the difficulties encountered by American atheism in its development, propose specific measures for American atheists to cope with these difficulties, and make scientific predictions about the development trends of American atheism. Second, from the perspective of research outcomes, attention should be paid not only to the writing of papers but also, on the basis of paper writing, to systematizing, deepening, and refining the research results into monographs or research reports, so as to further advance the study of American atheism.

首先应在全面、深入、系统的研究基础上，正确分析美国无神论在发展中所遇困境的原因、提出美国无神论者应对困境的具体措施，对美国无神论的发展趋势做出科学预测。其次，从研究成果来看，不仅应重视论文的撰写，更应在论文写作的基础上，将研究成果条理化、系统化、深入化、精致化，形成专著或研究报告，以进一步推进美国无神论的研究。

In short, the increasingly intense ideological struggle between China and the United States requires us to strengthen our research on American atheism. The problems existing in the study of American atheism—few research subjects, incomplete research content, simplistic research methods, and few research results—demand that we expand our research forces, broaden our research content, innovate our research methods, and produce more research results.

总之，中美日益激烈的意识形态斗争要求我们加强对美国无神论的研究。而美国无神论研究中存在的研究主体少、研究内容不全面、研究方法简单、研究成果少等问题则要求我们扩充研究力量、拓展研究内容、创新研究方法、多出研究成果。

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心