The Stage of Social Critique Is the Fifth Stage of Marx and Engels’s View of Religion

At present, academic circles, whether spontaneously or consciously, divide Marx and Engels’s view of religion into four stages, specifically expressed as the stages of religious critique—political critique—economic critique—cultural critique.[1]1 Engels to Conrad Schmidt, 27 October 1890, in Marx and Engels, Selected Correspondence (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 401. The letter is a key text in Engels’s later elaboration of historical materialism. (1) The stage of religious critique is the early embodiment of Marx and Engels’s view of religion. At this stage, the two had not yet completely drawn a line of demarcation with the Young Hegelians in thought, and their view of religion was manifested as a fierce critique of the hypocrisy and artificiality of religion. (2) In the stage of political critique, the political critique of Marx and Engels’s view of religion used religious critique as a means to achieve a critique of European politics behind religion, revealing the political roots of religion. However, at this time, Marx and Engels’s research on political economy was not yet complete, and their view of religion could not touch upon the economic roots of the emergence of religion. (3) The stage of economic critique is the mature stage of the view of religion after Marx and Engels founded historical materialism and conducted in-depth research on political economy. Important expositions such as the exploration of the roots of religion and the critique of the capitalist economic system through the critique of religion were all born in the stage of economic critique. (4) The stage of cultural critique is the embodiment of Marx and Engels’s view of religion in their later years. The stage of cultural critique holds that in their later years, Marx and Engels regarded religion as a complex cultural phenomenon. (5) At present, academic circles stop abruptly after proposing that there is a stage of cultural critique in Marx and Engels’s view of religion. By revisiting the classic texts of Marx and Engels, it can be found that the stage of cultural critique is not the endpoint of Marx and Engels’s view of religion. After the stage of cultural critique, there is still one more stage in Marx and Engels’s view of religion—the stage of social critique.

目前学术界或自发或自觉将马克思、恩格斯宗教观分为四个阶段，具体表现为宗教批判——政治批判——经济批判——文化批判阶段。（1）宗教批判阶段是马、恩宗教观的早期体现，此阶段二人在思想上尚未完全与青年黑格尔派划清界限，宗教观上体现为激烈批判宗教的虚伪性、人为性。（2）政治批判阶段，马、恩宗教观的政治批判是以宗教批判为手段，实现对宗教背后欧洲政治的批判，揭示宗教的政治根源。但此时马、恩对政治经济学的研究尚不完善，宗教观上无法触及宗教产生的经济根源。（3）经济批判阶段是马、恩二人创立唯物史观后，对政治经济学有深入研究后成熟的宗教观阶段。对宗教根源的探讨以及通过批判宗教来批判资本主义经济制度等重要论述均诞生于经济批判阶段。（4）文化批判阶段是马、恩晚年宗教观的体现，文化批判阶段认为马、恩晚年将宗教视作复杂的文化现象。（5）目前学术界在提出马、恩宗教观存在文化批判阶段后就戛然而止，通过重温对马、恩经典文本可以发现，文化批判阶段并非是马、恩宗教观的终点，马、恩宗教观在文化批判阶段后尚且还有一个阶段——社会批判阶段。

I. The Periodization of Marx and Engels’s View of Religion in Academic Circles

一、学界对马克思、恩格斯宗教观的分期

The formulation that Marx and Engels’s view of religion has four stages first appeared in Mr. Chen Rongfu’s article “The Four Stages and Two Leaps in the Development of Marx and Engels’s View of Religion” published in the *Chinese Social Sciences Today* in 2009. In this article, Mr. Chen Rongfu defined Marx and Engels’s view of religion in detail as the four stages of religious critique, political critique, economic critique, and cultural critique. Subsequently, Ms. Ye Lei, in her article “Marxist View of Religion and Its Methodology and the Study of Modern Religious Culture,” adopted the formulation of four stages. The concepts of the four stages mentioned in the article were also based on Mr. Chen Rongfu’s division. The practice of dividing Marx and Engels’s view of religion into stages has long existed. Especially in the three stages of religious critique—political critique—economic critique, the academic definition of the stages of Marx and Engels’s view of religion is very close to Mr. Chen Rongfu’s definition of the first three stages, only with different expressions. For instance, in Mr. Lü Daji’s work *A Study of Marxist Religious Theory*, Marx and Engels’s view of religion is divided into three parts: the *Rheinische Zeitung* period, the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* period, and the period after the publication of the *Communist Manifesto*. Mr. Niu Sulin’s work *Marx and Engels’s Understanding of Religion* divides Marx and Engels’s view of religion into the early view of religion, the view of religion during the transitional period, and the view of religion after the establishment of historical materialism. Mr. Zeng Chuanhui, in his article “On the Development Context of Marx’s View of Religion,” divides Marx’s view of religion into the democratic view of religion, the view of religion of historical materialism, and the supplement to the view of religion in his later years.

马克思、恩格斯宗教观存在四个阶段的提法，首次见于陈荣富先生在2009年发表于《中国社会科学报》上的《马克思恩格斯宗教观发展的四个阶段两次飞跃》一文，在此文中陈荣富先生将马、恩宗教观详细定义为宗教批判、政治批判、经济批判、文化批判四个阶段。之后，叶蕾女士《马克思主义宗教观及其方法论与现代宗教文化学研究》一文中，沿用了四个阶段的提法，文中提到的四个阶段概念，也是基于陈荣富先生的划分。将马、恩二人宗教观分阶段的做法早已有之，尤其在宗教批判——政治批判——经济批判这三个阶段上，学术界对于马、恩宗教观分阶段的定义，与陈荣富先生前三阶段的定义极为接近，只是表述方式有所不同。诸如吕大吉先生的著作《马克思主义宗教理论研究》中，将马克思、恩格斯的宗教观分为《莱茵报》时期、《德法年鉴》时期和《共产党宣言》问世后时期三个部分；牛苏林先生的著作《马克思恩格斯的宗教理解》将马、恩的宗教观划分为早期宗教观、转型时期的宗教观与唯物史观确立后的宗教观；曾传辉先生在他《论马克思宗教观的发展脉络》一文中，将马克思的宗教观划分为民主主义宗教观、唯物史观的宗教观与晚年对宗教观的补充。

Regarding the division of the first three stages of Marx and Engels’s view of religion, namely the stage of religious critique, the stage of political critique, and the stage of economic critique, there is no controversy in academic circles; only different scholars use different ways to express them. There is still controversy over whether there is a stage of cultural critique in Marx and Engels’s view of religion, but generally speaking, academic circles generally recognize the existence of four stages. For example, expressions such as the *Rheinische Zeitung* period, or the early period, or the democratic period correspond to the view of religion in the stage of religious critique; formulations such as the *Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher* period, or the period of the germination of historical materialism, correspond to the view of religion in the stage of political critique. Moreover, different scholars also have the same characterization of the view of religion in the stages of religious critique and political critique. On the one hand, religious and political critique provided theoretical support for economic critique, but on the other hand, the first two stages are the view of religion in a period that was not fully mature, because whether it is the stage of religious critique or the stage of political critique, both critique the superstructure from the level of the superstructure, without analyzing and critiquing the economic base behind religion. After the publication of *The German Ideology*, especially after the first volumes of the *Communist Manifesto* and *Capital*, Marx and Engels integrated the method of historical materialism into their view of religion, elevating the view of religion to the stage of economic critique. There is no disagreement on this in academic circles, so academic circles use terms such as the mature stage or the stage of historical materialism to define the stage of economic critique of Marx and Engels’s view of religion.

对于马、恩宗教观的前三个阶段的划分，即宗教批判阶段、政治批判阶段与经济批判阶段，学术界不存在争议，只是不同学者用不同的方式来表述。而对马、恩宗教观是否存在文化批判阶段尚有争议，但大体而言，学术界普遍认可四个阶段的存在。如《莱茵报》时期或者早期或者民主主义时期等表述对应宗教批判阶段的宗教观；《德法年鉴》时期或者唯物史观萌芽时期等提法，对应政治批判阶段的宗教观。而且不同学者对于马、恩宗教批判、政治批判阶段的宗教观定性也相同，一方面，宗教、政治批判为经济批判提供了理论支撑，但另一方面前两阶段是未完全成熟时期的宗教观，因为不管是宗教批判阶段或是政治批判阶段，都是从上层建筑层面批判上层建筑，并未分析批判宗教背后的经济基础。《德意志意识形态》问世，尤其是《共产党宣言》与《资本论》第一卷之后，马、恩将唯物史观的方法融入到宗教观中，宗教观上升到经济批判阶段，学术界对此也无异议，故学术界用成熟的阶段、唯物史观的阶段等方式来定义马、恩宗教观的经济批判阶段。

In summary, the division of Marx and Engels’s view of religion into stages from the perspective of the history of development in academic circles, even if the forms of expression are different, is similar in nature to the division of religious critique—political critique—economic critique—cultural critique. However, combining the classic texts of Marx and Engels, specifically from Marx’s relevant expositions on religion in the third volume of *Capital* and Engels’s letters to Conrad Schmidt and Franz Mehring, and then combining the new methodology of Marx and Engels in analyzing religious issues in their later years, there should be a fifth stage in Marx and Engels’s view of religion, namely the stage of social critique.

综上所述，学术界从发展史的角度对马克思、恩格斯宗教观分阶段的划分，即使表述形式不同，但就性质而言与宗教批判——政治批判——经济批判——文化批判的此种划分方式相似。然而，结合马、恩的经典文献，具体来说从马克思在《资本论》第三卷中关于宗教的部分表述与恩格斯《致康·施米特》《致弗·梅林》来看，再结合马、恩晚年分析宗教问题的新方法论，马、恩宗教观还应有第五个阶段的存在，即社会批判阶段。

II. Elaboration of the Connotation of the Fifth Stage—the Stage of Social Critique

二、第五阶段——社会批判阶段的内涵阐述

Marx’s stage of social critique in his view of religion refers to, on the basis of historical materialism, including but not limited to the economic analysis method of the economic base determining the superstructure to approach religious issues, but also analyzing religious issues holistically from the perspective of social resultant forces such as culture, politics, history, and individual will. Overall, the view of religion of social critique proceeds from the conditions of existence of specific social formations to explain the essence and laws of religion.

马克思在宗教观上的社会批判阶段是指以唯物史观为基础，包括但不限于经济基础决定上层建筑的经济分析法对待宗教问题，还从文化、政治、历史、个人意志等社会合力角度，整体的分析宗教问题。总体而言，社会批判宗教观是从具体的各种社会形态存在的条件入手，去阐释宗教的本质与规律。

1. Conceptual Elaboration of the View of Religion in the Stage of Social Critique

1.社会批判阶段宗教观的概念阐释

Synthesizing the relevant literature from Engels’s later years, we can attempt to define the view of religion in the stage of social critique as follows: the view of religion in the stage of social critique refers to a religious theory that, on the basis of historical materialism, comprehensively examines various social formations in real history, explains religious issues from the perspective of comprehensive social formations, and at the same time cannot ignore the counteracting force of religion on the overall social formation.

综合恩格斯晚年相关文献，我们可以尝试对社会批判阶段宗教观作出如下定义：社会批判阶段的宗教观是指以唯物史观为基础，在真实历史中综合考察各种社会形态，并从综合的社会形态出发阐释宗教问题，同时不能忽略宗教对整体社会形态的反作用力的一种宗教理论。

First, the factors influencing the development of religion include, in addition to the economic base, a comprehensive social resultant force. Engels pointed out: “Thus there are innumerable intersecting forces, an infinite series of parallelograms of forces, which give rise to one resultant—the historical event. This event may again be regarded as the product of a power which, taken as a whole, works unconsciously and without volition.”[2]2 Friedrich Engels, Anti-Dühring (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1947), p. 365. The stage of social critique of the view of religion confronts the dialectical relationship between the economic base and the superstructure, pointing out that while material production plays a decisive role in religious issues, it places greater emphasis on the historical inheritance of ideology and the relative independence of the superstructure. The view of religion in the stage of social critique, which analyzes and derives religious relations from real forms of intercourse and social relations, comprehensively examines the comprehensive social factors of politics, law, philosophy, religion, etc., which “react upon one another and upon the economic base.”[3]3 Friedrich Engels, “Bruno Bauer and Early Christianity,” in Marx and Engels, Collected Works, vol. 24 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1989), p. 427. This religious theory, based on historical materialism while comprehensively examining various social resultant forces, is also an effective counterattack against the erroneous idea of distorting historical materialism as “economic materialism.”

首先，影响宗教发展的因素，除了经济基础外还包含综合的社会合力。恩格斯指出：“这样就有无数互相交错的力量，有无数个力的平行四边形，由此就产生出一个合力，即历史结果，而这个结果又可以看做一个作为整体的、不自觉地和不自主地起着作用的力量的产物。”宗教观的社会批判阶段正视经济基础与上层建筑的辩证关系，指明在宗教问题中起决定作用的物质生产的同时，更加重视意识形态的历史继承性与上层建筑的相对独立性。从现实的交往形式与社会关系中分析与引出宗教关系的社会批判阶段的宗教观，统筹考察了政治、法律、哲学、宗教等“又都互相作用并对经济基础发生作用”的社会综合因素，这种以唯物史观为基础，同时综合考察各种社会合力的宗教理论，也是对将曲解唯物史观为“经济唯物主义”的错误思想的有效反击。

Secondly, the study of religious issues must also proceed from history and examine in detail the comprehensive social conditions of a specific historical period. In his 1890 letter to Conrad Schmidt, Engels stated: “The whole of history must be studied anew, the conditions of existence of the different formations of society must be examined in detail before the attempt is made to deduce from them the political, civil-law, aesthetic, philosophic, religious, etc., views corresponding to them.” [1]1 Engels to Conrad Schmidt, 27 October 1890, in Marx and Engels, Selected Correspondence (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 401. The letter is a key text in Engels’s later elaboration of historical materialism. The viewpoint here clearly shows that Engels’s view of religion shifted from economic critique to social critique. In Anti-Dühring, Engels wrote: “But all religion is nothing but the fantastic reflection in men’s minds of those external forces which control their daily life, a reflection in which the terrestrial forces assume the form of supernatural forces.” [2]2 Friedrich Engels, Anti-Dühring (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1947), p. 365. The definition of religion here is a typical manifestation of economic critique, a process of analysis moving from religion to actual existence. However, in the letter to Conrad Schmidt, Engels inverted this relationship, no longer proceeding from religion to social existence but deriving religion from social existence. Engels emphasized the premise of religious analysis, namely, that one must first “examine in detail the conditions of existence of the different formations of society,” and only on the basis of this study can one identify religious relations. “Formations of society” is the foundation of religious research; Engels even mentioned that religious analysis should be conducted only after “the whole of history must be studied anew.” In 1882, in Bruno Bauer and Early Christianity, Engels had already pointed out that the root of religion is: “All religion of antiquity was spontaneously evolved tribal religion and later national religion, which arose out of the social and political conditions of the respective peoples and grew together with them.” [3]3 Friedrich Engels, “Bruno Bauer and Early Christianity,” in Marx and Engels, Collected Works, vol. 24 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1989), p. 427. Thus it can be seen that Engels’s concept of social critique did not arise spontaneously but consciously; Engels gradually realized that the economic-critique view of religion could not comprehensively analyze religious issues and that a complete social study and social critique had to be undertaken from the beginning in order to provide a sufficient theoretical and practical basis for religious analysis.

其次，对于宗教问题的研究，还需要从历史出发，详细考察特定历史时期综合社会条件。恩格斯在1890年的《致康·施米特》中提到：“必须重新研究全部历史，必须详细研究各种社会形态的存在条件，然后设法从这些条件中找出相应的政治、私法、美学、哲学、宗教等等的观点。”此处的观点明显呈现出恩格斯在宗教观上从经济批判转向了社会批判。在《反杜林论》中，恩格斯提到：“但是，一切宗教都不过是支配着人们日常生活的外部力量在人们头脑中的幻想的反映，在这种反映中，人间的力量采取了超人间的力量的形式。”这里对宗教的定义是典型的经济批判体现，是从宗教到现实存在的分析过程。但是在《致康·施米特》中，恩格斯则倒置了这个关系，不再是从宗教到社会存在，而是从社会存在引出宗教。恩格斯强调宗教分析的前提，即必须先“详细研究各种社会形态”，之后在这个研究基础之上找出宗教关系。“社会形态”是宗教研究的基础，恩格斯甚至提到“重新研究全部历史”后再进行宗教分析。1882年，恩格斯在《布鲁诺·鲍威尔和原始基督教》中已经提到宗教的根源是：“古代一切宗教都是自发的部落宗教和后来的民族宗教，它们从各民族的社会条件和政治条件中产生，并和这些条件紧紧连在一起。”由此可见恩格斯的社会批判观念并不是自发地而是自觉地，恩格斯逐渐认识到经济批判的宗教观并不能全面的分析宗教问题，需要重头进行一次完整的社会研究与社会批判，才能为宗教分析提供充分的理论与现实基础。

Thirdly, the examination of religion must not only focus on the influence of various social formations on the formation and development of religion but also reflect on the counter-effect of the formation and development of religion on social formations. In his 1893 letter to Franz Mehring, Engels reviewed the definition of historical materialism that he and Marx had formulated in their early years, acknowledging that they had overly focused on the determining and constraining role of the economic base on the superstructure, while to a certain extent neglecting the relative independence and counter-effect of the superstructure. “Because we denied that the various ideological spheres which play a part in history have an independent historical development, we also denied them any effective influence on history. This is due to the usual non-dialectical conception of cause and effect as rigidly opposite poles, and to the complete neglect of interaction.” [4]4 Engels to Franz Mehring, 14 July 1893, in Marx and Engels, Selected Correspondence, p. 435. Engels’s relevant reflection here provided the theoretical basis for the shift of the view of religion from the stage of economic critique to the stage of social critique. If historical materialism only described the constraining and determining role of the economic base on the superstructure, then historical materialism would have boundaries and limitations; fortunately, Engels and Marx did not simplify historical materialism. Then the Marx-Engels view of religion, built on the foundation of historical materialism, certainly could not remain merely at the stage of economic critique or cultural critique, which focuses only on a single sphere. From Engels’s supplementary remarks on historical materialism in the letter to Franz Mehring, we can infer that the view of religion at the stage of cultural critique requires: not only must we pay attention to the influence of social forces on religion, but we also cannot ignore the interaction of religion with various forms of the superstructure.

再次，对宗教的考察不仅要着眼各种社会形态对宗教形成、发展的影响作用，还要反思宗教形成、发展对社会形态的反作用。恩格斯在1893年的《致弗·梅林》中回顾早年和马克思对唯物史观的定义，承认他们早年过于聚焦经济基础对上层建筑的决定与制约作用，而在一定程度上对上层建筑的相对独立性和反作用有所忽略。“因为我们否认在历史中起作用的各种意识形态领域有独立的历史发展，所以我们也否认它们对历史有任何影响。这是由于通常把原因和结果非辩证地看做僵硬对立的两极，完全忘记了相互作用。”恩格斯在这里的相关反思，为宗教观从经济批判阶段转向社会批判阶段提供了理论基础。如果唯物史观仅仅只是描述经济基础对上层建筑的制约和决定作用，那么唯物史观则存在边界性和局限性，所幸恩格斯和马克思并没有将唯物史观简化。那么建立在唯物史观基础上的马恩宗教观，必然也不会仅仅停留在仅聚焦某一领域的经济批判阶段或者文化批判阶段。从《致弗·梅林》中恩格斯对唯物史观的相关补充，我们可以推论，文化批判阶段的宗教观要求：不仅仅要重视社会合力对宗教的影响作用，同时也不能忽略宗教对各种形式的上层建筑的相互作用。

From the theory of social forces in the letter to Joseph Bloch, we can derive that, besides the economic base, the comprehensive social forces also influence the development of religion, serving as the theoretical basis for the view of religion at the stage of social critique; from the letter to Conrad Schmidt, we can conclude that the study of religious issues must proceed from history and examine in detail the comprehensive social conditions of a specific historical period; from the letter to Franz Mehring, we can conclude that the examination of religion must not only focus on the influence of various social formations on the formation and development of religion but also reflect on the counter-effect of the formation and development of religion on social formations. Therefore, the definition of the view of religion at the stage of social critique naturally emerges: it is a theory of religion that, based on historical materialism, comprehensively examines various social formations in real history, explains religious issues from the perspective of comprehensive social formations, and at the same time cannot ignore the counter-effect of religion on the overall social formation.

从《致约·布洛赫》中的社会合力论，我们可以得出影响宗教发展的，除了经济基础还包含综合的社会合力这一作为社会批判阶段宗教观基础的理论；从《致康·施米特》中我们可以总结出，对于宗教问题的研究，需要从历史出发，详细考察特定历史时期综合社会条件；从《致弗·梅林》我们可以总结出，对宗教的考察不仅要着眼各种社会形态对宗教形成、发展的影响作用，还要反思宗教形成、发展对社会形态的反作用。因此，社会批判阶段宗教观的定义也就呼之欲出了，即以唯物史观为基础，在真实历史中综合考察各种社会形态，并从综合的社会形态出发阐释宗教问题，同时不能忽略宗教对整体社会形态的反作用力的一种宗教理论。

2. The Inevitability of the Existence of the View of Religion at the Stage of Social Critique

2.社会批判阶段宗教观存在的必然性

The shift of Marx and Engels’s view of religion from the stages of economic and cultural critique to the stage of social critique also contains an inevitability, which is analyzed in detail below.

马、恩宗教观从经济、文化批判阶段转向社会批判阶段，还存在着一个必然性，以下具体分析。

First, the holistic perspective of social critique in religious analysis is also the inevitability of the emergence of the stage of social critique in the view of religion. In another letter to Conrad Schmidt, Engels mentioned: “Although the need for economics was and increasingly is the main driving force for the progressive understanding of nature, it would be too pedantic to seek economic causes for all this primitive ignorance.” [5]5 Engels to Conrad Schmidt, 27 October 1890, in Marx and Engels, Selected Correspondence, p. 402. In his later years, Engels increasingly realized that the study of religious issues could not be accomplished solely from the perspective of economic critique, and even adding the cultural perspective was far from sufficient; the study of religious issues required a holistic social perspective.

首先，对宗教分析的社会批判的整体性视野也是宗教观社会批判阶段出现的必然性。在《致康·施米特》的另一封信中，恩格斯提到：“虽然经济上的需要曾经是，而且越来越是对自然界的认识不断进展的主要动力，但是，要给这一切原始状态的愚昧寻找经济上的原因，那就太迂腐了。”在晚年，恩格斯越发认识到对于宗教问题的研究，仅靠经济批判的视角无法完成，即使加上文化视域也是远远不够的，对宗教问题的研究需要整体的社会视野。

Second, the stage of social critique in the view of religion is precisely the stage of religious analysis that, on the basis of grasping historical materialism, highlights dialectics. In this stage, with the various elements of society as the core, it proceeds from complex social existence to grasp the superstructure, making up for the deficiencies of the stages of economic critique and cultural critique, and examining the essence and laws of religion from multiple dimensions. In 1893, Engels said in his letter to Franz Mehring: “That is to say, we all first placed the emphasis on deriving political, legal, and other ideological concepts and the actions mediated by these concepts from basic economic facts, and we had to do so. But in doing so, we neglected the formal side for the sake of the content side, namely, the manner and method by which these concepts, etc., arise.” [6]6 Engels to Franz Mehring, 14 July 1893, in Marx and Engels, Selected Correspondence, p. 435. Engels emphasized that the analytical method of historical materialism, in which the economic base determines the superstructure, is fundamental, but economic analysis is not the end; if only one-dimensional analysis is conducted, it will inevitably lead to the neglect of other aspects of the issue. Including on religious issues, all other social factors beyond the economic base actively and positively interact with each other.

其次，宗教观上的社会批判阶段就是在把握唯物史观的基础上，突显辩证法的宗教分析阶段，该阶段中，以社会各要素为核心，从复杂的社会存在出发去把握上层建筑，弥补经济批判、文化批判阶段的不足，从多向度考察宗教的本质、规律。1893年恩格斯在《致弗·梅林》中谈到：这就是说，我们大家首先是把重点放在从基本经济事实中引出政治的、法的和其他意识形态的观念以及以这些观念为中介的行动，而且必须这样做。但是我们这样做的时候为了内容方面而忽略了形式方面，即这些观念等等是由什么样的方式和方法产生的。”恩格斯强调，经济基础决定上层建筑的唯物史观分析法是根本，但是经济分析并不是终结，如果只做单向度的分析那么必然会导致对问题其他方面的忽视。包括在宗教问题上，经济基础之外的一切其他社会因素，都是主动积极的互相发生着作用。

Third, Marx already showed the germ of the social-critique view of religion during the creation of the first volume of Capital. He once said: “In fact, it is much easier to find the secular core of religious illusions through analysis than, conversely, to derive their heavenly forms from the actual relations of life at a given time. The latter method is the only materialist method, and hence the only scientific one.” [7]7 Karl Marx, Capital, vol. 1, in Marx and Engels, Collected Works, vol. 35 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1996), p. 91. At this time, Marx’s view of religion was still at the stage of economic critique, defining religion from the perspective of reflection theory, holding that religion is a distorted reflection of actual relations of production. But at this very moment, Marx had already keenly sensed that relying solely on economic analysis could only define the reflection theory of religion and could not comprehensively grasp and thoroughly understand religion. Therefore, on the basis of the economic analysis method, Marx mentioned seeking the laws of religion from actual relations of life. In the above expression, Marx first mentioned the “secular core”; the contradictory movement of productive forces and relations of production is the driving force of all historical development. Then, the “actual relations of life” after the “secular core” would certainly no longer specifically refer to productive forces and relations of production; therefore, “actual relations of life” refers to the overall social relations. The “only materialist method” that Marx referred to is not the economic critique method of analyzing the economic base from religion, but the social critique method of exploring the laws of religion from society.

再次，马克思在《资本论》第一卷创作时就出现了社会批判宗教观的萌芽。他曾说：“事实上，通过分析找出宗教幻象的世俗核心，比反过来从当时的现实生活关系中引出它的天国形式要容易得多。后面这种方法是唯一的唯物主义的方法，因而也是唯一科学的方法。”此时马克思的宗教观尚处于经济批判阶段，对宗教的定义是从反映论出发，认为宗教是现实生产关系的变形反映，但在此时，马克思已经敏锐的察觉单靠经济分析法只能定义宗教反映论，并不能更加全面的掌握与彻底的了解宗教。因此，马克思在经济分析法的基础之上，提到了从现实生活关系中寻找宗教的规律。在上述表达中，马克思先提到了“世俗核心”，生产力与生产关系的矛盾运动是一切历史发展的动力，那么在“世俗核心”之后的“现实生活关系”必然不会再特指生产力和生产关系，因此“现实生活关系”指的便是整体的社会关系。马克思所指的“唯一的唯物主义方法”便不是从宗教分析经济基础的经济批判法，而是从社会入手探索宗教规律的社会批判法。

Further, when Marx analyzes commodity fetishism in the first volume of *Capital*, he starts from the mysteriousness of commodity fetishism, removes the mysteriousness between commodity relations by exposing the religious cloak of commodity fetishism, and reduces commodity relations to labor relations. But in the third volume of *Capital*, Marx’s view of religion clearly transitions to the stage of social critique, no longer starting from religion to critique the economic base, but adopting “the only materialist method.” [8]8 Karl Marx, *Capital*, vol. 3, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 37 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1998), p. 393. The phrase “the only materialist method” appears in Marx’s discussion of the fetishism of capital in this volume. When discussing the relationship between surplus value and the fetish of capital in the third volume of *Capital*, Marx analyzes: “Now interest, on the contrary, appears as the true fruit of capital, as the original thing, while profit in the form of entrepreneurial income appears as something merely added and appended in the reproduction process. Here the fetish form of capital and the idea of the capital fetish are completed.” [9]9 Karl Marx, *Capital*, vol. 3, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 37 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1998), p. 428. This passage is Marx’s exploration of the externalization of capital relations in the form of capital; because the theme is concentrated, Marx does not spread the topic to the overall social sphere. But from the perspective of methodology, the method of exploring the root of the commodity fetish in the third volume of *Capital* is completely different from the method of exploring the root of the birth of commodity fetishism in the first volume. In the third volume of *Capital*, Marx has already implemented the social critique analysis method of deriving religious relations from real-life relations. Marx derives the religious relations of the form and idea of the capital fetish from the real-life relations of the capitalist’s interest income and reproduction. Marx’s analysis method of the capital fetish in the third volume of *Capital* shows that in his later years, Marx consciously and actively transitioned from the stage of economic and cultural critique to the stage of social critique in his view of religion.

进一步，马克思在《资本论》第一卷中分析商品拜物教时，从商品拜物教的神秘性入手，通过揭示商品拜物教的宗教外衣来去除商品关系之间的神秘性，把商品的关系还原为劳动关系。但在《资本论》第三卷中，马克思的宗教观明显过渡到了社会批判阶段，不再是从宗教入手批判经济基础，而是采取“唯一的唯物主义方法”。在《资本论》第三卷提及剩余价值和资本物神的关系时，马克思分析：“现在利息却反过来表现为资本的真正果实，表现为原初的东西，而现在转化为企业主收入形式的利润，却表现为只是在再生产过程中附加进来和增添进来的东西。在这里，资本的物神形态和资本物神的观念已经完成。”这段论述是马克思关于资本关系在资本形式上的外化的探讨，因为主题集中，马克思并未将话题散发到整体的社会领域。但从方法论来看，《资本论》第三卷对商品物神诞生的根源的探讨方法，同第一卷中商品拜物教诞生的根源的探讨方法完全不同。在《资本论》第三卷中，马克思已经落实了从现实生活关系引出宗教关系的社会批判分析法，马克思从资本家的利息收入与再生产这一现实生活关系引出资本物神的形态与观念的宗教关系，《资本论》第三卷中马克思对资本物神的分析法，表明晚年的马克思在宗教观上已经有意识的主动从经济、文化批判阶段向社会批判阶段过渡。

III. Methodological Analysis of the Fifth Stage — The Stage of Social Critique

三、第五阶段——社会批判阶段的方法论探析

When Marx and Engels’s view of religion was in the stages of religious critique and political critique, the research method they adopted in their view of religion was similar to the conceptual induction method of the Young Hegelians. When Marx and Engels’s view of religion reached the stage of economic and cultural critique, the basic method they adopted was economic analysis. And in their view of religion at the stage of social critique, a new research method emerges. This new methodology is a spiral ascent from the methodology of economic critique, specifically manifested as adhering to the research method of historical materialism and focusing on starting from the specific conditions of existence of various social forms to explain the essence and laws of religion.

马、恩宗教观处在宗教批判、政治批判阶段时，二人在宗教观上所采取的研究方法是类似于青年黑格尔派的概念归纳法。马、恩宗教观到经济、文化批判阶段时，马、恩所采取的基本方法是经济分析法。而他们社会批判阶段的宗教观中呈现出一种新的研究方法，这种新的方法论是对经济批判方法论的螺旋上升，具体表现为坚持唯物史观的研究方法，并注重从各种社会形态存在的具体条件入手，去阐释宗教的本质与规律。

First, in the stage of religious critique, Marx’s analysis of religious issues methodologically still followed the conceptual analysis method of the Young Hegelians, defining the essence of religion as the conceptual stipulation inherent in religion itself. In “Comments on the Latest Prussian Censorship Instruction,” Marx analyzes the essence of religion: “For every religion believes that its distinction from other special, fictitious religions lies precisely in its special essence, and it is precisely because of this stipulation that it is the true religion.” [10]10 Karl Marx, “Comments on the Latest Prussian Censorship Instruction,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 1 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 114.

首先，在宗教批判阶段时，马克思对宗教问题的分析在方法论上仍然沿用青年黑格尔派的概念分析法，将宗教的本质定义为宗教自身蕴含的概念规定性。在《评普鲁士最近的书报检查令》中，马克思对宗教的本质分析到：“因为每种宗教都认为，它同其他各种特殊的、虚构的宗教的区别，正在于它的特殊本质，正是由于它有这种规定性，它才是真正的宗教。”

When Marx and Engels’s view of religion was in the stage of political critique, the methodological level of analyzing religious issues still belonged to conceptual induction and deduction. In “A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s *Philosophy of Right*: Introduction,” Marx analyzes the root of the emergence of religion: “This state, this society, produces religion, an inverted world-consciousness, because they are an inverted world.” [11]11 Karl Marx, “A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s *Philosophy of Right*: Introduction,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 175. But the state and society here are answers obtained through conceptual induction and deduction. In “The Condition of England: Review of Thomas Carlyle’s *Past and Present*,” Engels, besides attributing the essence of religion to the reflection of nature, also defines the essence of religion as the alienation of human essence. At this time, Engels uses conceptual analysis to define human essence; his definition of the essence of religion, methodologically speaking, is also conceptual induction.

马、恩二人的宗教观处于政治批判阶段时，在分析宗教问题的方法论层面仍属于概念上的归纳与演绎。马克思在《<黑格尔法哲学批判>导言》中对宗教产生的根源进行分析：“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。”但是这里的国家和社会，是概念上的归纳和演绎而得到的答案。恩格斯在《英国状况——评托马斯·卡莱尔的<过去和现在>》中将宗教的本质归为对自然的反映之外，还将宗教的本质定义为对人本质的异化，此时恩格斯对人本质的定义用的是概念分析法，他对宗教本质的定义从方法论上来说，同样还是概念归纳法。

The stages of economic critique and cultural critique of Marx and Engels’s view of religion are mature stages of their view of religion based on the completion of *The German Ideology*, *The Communist Manifesto*, and the first volume of *Capital*. In these two stages, Marx and Engels use the research method of historical materialism to explain religious issues. For example, in *The German Ideology*, Marx and Engels define the origin of religion as follows: “Religion from the very beginning is a transcendent consciousness that arises from real forces.” [12]12 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *The German Ideology*, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 5 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 36. Moreover, Marx’s definition of this “real force” is no longer conceptual induction; in his subsequent *Capital*, he further points out the internal relations of this “real force,” namely, as “a relation that reflects the social relation of the producers to the total social labor as a social relation between things existing outside the producers.” [13]13 Karl Marx, *Capital*, vol. 1, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 35 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1996), p. 82.

马、恩宗教观的经济批判、文化批判阶段是在完成了《德意志意识形态》《共产党宣言》《资本论》第一卷的基础上的成熟的宗教观阶段，在这两个阶段中，马、恩阐释宗教问题所用的是唯物史观的研究方法。如在《德意志意识形态》中，马、恩对宗教的来源作出如下定义：“宗教从一开始就是超验性的意识，这种意识是从现实的力量中产生的。”并且，马克思对于这一“现实力量”的定义也不再是概念的归纳，而是在其后的《资本论》中更进一步的指出这种“现实力量”自身的内部关系，即为一种“从而把生产者同总劳动的社会关系反映成存在于生产者之外的物与物之间的社会关系”。

Second, the stage of social critique, compared with the stages of economic critique and cultural critique, methodologically adopts a comprehensive analysis method based on historical materialism, changing from starting from religion to analyze the economic base to starting from the totality of society to explain religion. Compared with previous views of religion, the methodology adopted in the stage of social critique is more layered, combining the thinking paradigms from the general to the particular and from the abstract to the concrete. Specifically, Marx first mentions this new method of studying religion in the third volume of *Capital*: deriving religious relations from real productive forces and forms of intercourse. Engels later further supplements this in his letter to Conrad Schmidt: study the conditions of existence of various social forms, and then try to find the corresponding religious views from these conditions. [14]14 Frederick Engels, “Letter to Conrad Schmidt, October 27, 1890,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 49 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 2001), p. 58.

其次，社会批判阶段，是对比经济批判、文化批判阶段，在方法论上即以唯物史观为基础的综合分析法，从原来的宗教入手分析经济基础变为从社会整体性入手解释宗教。与之前的宗教观相比，社会批判阶段宗教观所采取的方法论更具备层次性，结合了从一般到个别、从抽象到具体的思维范式。具体而言，马克思先在《资本论》第三卷提到了这种新的研究宗教的方法：从现实的生产力与交往形式中引出宗教关系。恩格斯后在《致康·施米特》进一步补充到：研究各种社会形态存在的条件，然后设法从这些条件中找出相应的宗教的观点。

Economic critique and cultural critique point out the economic roots of religion, remove the mysteriousness of religion, and explain the artificiality of religion. Social critique goes a step further to answer the influence of complex social forces and other social factors beyond economic roots on religion. And the new methodology, that is, deriving religious forms from real forms of intercourse, treats religious phenomena as a reflection of the overall comprehensive forms of intercourse and social life relations, combining social phenomena and religious phenomena through the laws of social development. “Thus it exposes the false appearances and illusions, the independentization and hardening of the different social elements of wealth, this personification of things and reification of production relations, this religion of everyday life.” [15]15 Karl Marx, *Capital*, vol. 3, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 37 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1998), p. 969. In the new methodology mentioned by Marx in the third volume of *Capital*, he starts from classical political economy, but is no longer limited to pure economic analysis; instead, he examines social history together with the economic base.

经济批判、文化批判指明宗教的经济根源，去除了宗教神秘性，解释了宗教的人为性。社会批判则更进一步的回答了经济根源之外的复杂的社会合力与其他社会因素对于宗教的影响。而新的方法论，即从现实的交往形式中引出宗教形式，这种方法是把宗教现象视作整体全面的交往形式、社会生活关系的反映，将社会现象与宗教现象通过社会发展规律结合起来。“这样，它就把上面那些虚伪的假象和错觉，把财富的不同社会要素互相间的这种独立化和硬化，把这种物的人格化和生产关系的物化，把日常生活中的这个宗教揭穿了。”马克思在资本论第三卷提到的新的方法论中，从古典经济学入手，但是不再仅限单纯的经济分析法，而是结合社会历史同经济基础一道进行考察。

Therefore, from the conceptual analysis and induction method of the stages of religious critique and political critique, developing into the economic analysis method of the stages of economic critique and cultural critique, and finally ascending to the social analysis method of the stage of social critique, this is, at the methodological level, a spiral ascent from the general to the particular and then from the particular to the general. From the perspective of the two leaps from cognition to practice, the transition from the stage of economic critique to the stage of cultural critique is only the first leap from practice to cognition. Therefore, cultural critique is not the endpoint of Marx and Engels’s view of religion. Only by completing the second leap from cognition to practice, that is, from cultural critique to social critique, can the leap from understanding the world to changing the world be completed.

因此，从宗教批判阶段、政治批判阶段的概念分析、归纳法发展变化为经济批判、文化批判阶段的经济分析法最后上升到社会批判阶段的社会分析法，在方法论层面上来说这是从一般到个别，再从个别到一般的螺旋上升。从认识到实践的两次飞跃来看，从经济批判阶段到文化批判阶段只是实践到认识的第一次飞跃，因此文化批判不是马克思、恩格斯宗教观的终点，只有完成从认识到实践的第二次飞跃，即从文化批判到社会批判，才能完成从认识世界到改造世界的飞跃。

IV. Analysis of the Significance of the Fifth Stage — The Stage of Social Critique

四、第五阶段——社会批判阶段的意义分析

First, the turn toward social critique in Marx and Engels’s view of religion facilitates a deeper understanding of the essence of religion and provides theoretical guidance for correctly handling religious issues. The views of religion based on economic critique and cultural critique, as the mature views of Marx and Engels, once played a very revolutionary role. As Marx mentioned in “Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right”: “For Germany, the critique of religion is essentially completed; and the critique of religion is the prerequisite of all critique.” [16]16 Karl Marx, “Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right,” in *Marx Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 175. The view of religion based on economic critique provided an entry point for Marx and Engels to launch a fierce critique of the capitalist economic system. At the same time, the view of religion based on economic critique was also the first to analyze religious issues from the perspective of historical materialism, contributing a revolutionary guiding direction for understanding the roots of religion and the laws of religious development, and it also put an end to the idealist religious thought of the Young Hegelians in their conception of history. The view of religion based on cultural critique, on the basis of economic critique, focused on analyzing the cultural attributes of religion and further enriched the substance of historical materialism. The view of religion at the stage of social critique, on the basis of economic critique and cultural critique, integrates the idea of the resultant of social forces, [17]17 The “resultant of social forces” (社会合力论) refers to Engels’s idea that history is the product of the interaction of countless individual wills and forces, resulting in a collective outcome that no single individual intended. reveals the complex relationships between religion and the various dimensions of society, and answers the dialectical relationship between the laws of religion and the concrete paths for dealing with religious issues.

首先，马、恩宗教观上的社会批判转向有利于更进一步认识宗教的本质，为正确处理宗教问题提供理论遵循。经济批判、文化批判的宗教观作为马克思、恩格斯成熟的宗教观，曾起到非常革命的作用。如同马克思在《<黑格尔法哲学批判>导言》提到的：“就德国来说，对宗教的批判基本上已经结束；而对宗教的批判是其他一切批判的前提。”经济批判的宗教观为马克思、恩格斯发起对资本主义经济制度猛烈的批判提供了切入点，同时经济批判的宗教观也是首次从唯物史观角度分析宗教问题的宗教观，为认识宗教根源、宗教发展规律贡献了革命性的指导方向，还终结了青年黑格尔派在历史观上的唯心主义宗教思想。文化批判的宗教观在经济批判的基础上着重分析了宗教的文化属性，也进一步丰富了唯物史观的厚重感。社会批判阶段的宗教观，在经济批判和文化批判的基础上，结合社会合力论的思想，揭示宗教与社会众维度之间的复杂关系，回答了宗教规律与对待宗教问题在具体道路上的辨证关系。

The view of religion based on social critique is one that neither deviates from the central axis of the economic base nor excludes the various contingencies beyond economic necessity. At the same time, concrete social forms are not immutable; therefore, the view of religion based on social critique, derived from the examination of concrete social forms, will not be a dogmatic view of religion. “But our conception of history is above all a guide to study, not a lever for construction after the Hegelian manner.” [18]18 Friedrich Engels, letter to Conrad Schmidt, August 5, 1890, in *Marx Engels Collected Works*, vol. 49 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 2001), p. 8. The view of religion oriented toward social critique requires both a comprehensive re-examination of past history and an examination of the present. Hence, the view of religion based on social critique is a guide to action, a second leap from cognition to practice.

社会批判的宗教观是马、恩既不偏离经济基础中轴线又能涵盖经济必然性之外的各种偶然性的宗教观。同时社会具体形态不是一成不变的，那么从具体社会形态的考察而来的社会批判宗教观就不会是教条的宗教观。“但是我们的历史观首先是进行研究工作的指南，并不是按照黑格尔学派的方式构造体系的杠杆。”社会批判向度的宗教观既要求全面的重新考察过往历史，又要求对当前的考察，所以社会批判的宗教观是行动的指南，是从认识到实践的第二次飞跃。

The views of religion oriented toward economic critique and cultural critique explored the roots of religion, summarized the laws of religious development, and analyzed the cultural factors of religion. The view of religion oriented toward social critique, in turn, provides answers to questions such as the relationship between freedom of religious belief and the private individual and the state, the attitude of working-class political parties toward whether to conduct propaganda and education on scientific atheism, the definition of “left” and “right” deviations in religious policy, and the relationship between religious work and united front work. [19]19 “United front work” (统战工作) refers to the Chinese Communist Party’s practice of building alliances with non-Party groups and individuals to achieve common political goals. Marx, in his 1871 *The Civil War in France: Address of the General Council of the International Working Men’s Association*, and Engels, in his “Critique of the Draft Social-Democratic Programme of 1891” and other writings, were able to give correct answers on specific religious matters such as whether to implement the separation of church and state and whether to implement freedom of religious belief precisely because the view of religion oriented toward social critique truly achieved the dialectical unity of theory and practice.

经济批判与文化批判向度的宗教观探究了宗教的根源、总结了宗教发展的规律与分析了宗教的文化因素，社会批判向度的宗教观则对宗教信仰自由与私人和国家的关系问题、工人阶级政党对是否进行科学无神论宣传教育的态度问题、宗教政策的“左”与“右”的界定问题、宗教工作与统战工作的关系等问题作出回答。马克思能在1871年的《法兰西内战·国际工人协会总委员会宣言》、恩格斯能在《1891年社会民主党纲领草案批判》等文中，对是否实行政教分离、是否实施宗教信仰自由等具体的宗教事务上作出正确的回答，是因为社会批判向度的宗教观真正实现了理论与实践的辨证统一。

Second, the significance of the critique of religion in Marx and Engels’s view of religion lies in revealing the hypocrisy and artificiality of religion, and the stage of social critique within it precisely embodies the completeness of Marx and Engels’s view of religion. After forming the view of religion at the stage of religious critique, Marx and Engels discovered that religious critique alone could not truly achieve a thorough critique of religion; therefore, they added political critique as a supplement to the view of religion. The view of religion based on political critique does not consist solely of political critique, but rather religious critique plus political critique—that is, on the basis of revealing the hypocrisy and artificiality of religion, it simultaneously critiques the political systems of Europe. Similarly, the reason why Marx and Engels’s view of religion later supplemented and added economic critique and cultural critique is precisely that Marx and Engels discovered that relying solely on the earlier stages of the view of religion could not accomplish a thorough critique of religion.

其次，马克思、恩格斯宗教观的宗教批判意义在于揭示宗教的虚伪性和人为性，而其中的社会批判阶段正体现了马恩宗教观的完整性。在形成宗教批判阶段的宗教观后，马、恩二人发现宗教批判并不能真正达到对宗教彻底的批判，因此加入政治批判作为对宗教观的补充。政治批判的宗教观并不是仅有政治批判，而是宗教批判加上政治批判，即在揭示宗教虚伪性、人为性的基础上，同时批判欧洲的政治制度。同理，为什么马克思、恩格斯的宗教观在之后补充加入了经济批判、文化批判，就是因为马克思、恩格斯二人发现仅靠前阶段的宗教观，不能完成对宗教彻底的批判。

The reason Marx and Engels formed and developed the stage of social critique in their view of religion in their later years is also that they discovered that relying solely on the first four stages of the view of religion could not achieve a comprehensive and complete critique of religion. The root cause lies in the fact that Marx and Engels’s understanding of religion was also continuously perfected. Starting from their initial awareness of the hypocrisy and artificiality of religion, they discovered the political attributes of religion; then, on the basis of previous research, they further deepened their understanding and explored the economic roots of religion; subsequently, they also realized that cultural factors exist within religion; and finally, in the end, Marx and Engels recognized that the exploration of religion requires integrating various concrete social forms.

马克思、恩格斯晚年之所以在宗教观上形成、发展出社会批判阶段，也正是马、恩二人发现仅靠前四阶段的宗教观，无法实现对宗教全面完整的批判，究其原因在于，马、恩二人对宗教的认识也是不断完善的。他们从最开始意识到宗教的虚伪、人为性后，发现了宗教的政治属性，又在之前的研究基础上进一步加深认识，探究了宗教产生的经济根源，随后他们还意识到宗教中存在着文化因素，直到最后，马克思、恩格斯认识到对宗教的探究需要结合各种具体的社会形态。

Why Marx and Engels established the view of religion at the stage of social critique was already answered by Marx in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*: to achieve the sublation of human self-alienation and to realize human emancipation. Religion is the alienation of humanity from itself; therefore, to sublate this alienation, it is necessary to deepen the understanding of religion. In the process of understanding religion, Marx and Engels discovered the complexity of religious issues, thus forming the five stages in their view of religion.

马恩为何要创立社会批判阶段的宗教观，马克思在《1844年政治经济学哲学手稿》中就做了回答，即实现对人自我异化的扬弃，实现人的解放。宗教是人对自身的异化，那么要扬弃这个异化，需要加深对宗教的理解。马克思和恩格斯在认识宗教的过程中，发现宗教问题的复杂性，因此形成宗教观上的五个阶段。

Finally, no matter how many stages the view of religion has, the ultimate goal is only one: to achieve the sublation of the self-alienation of religion and to realize the emancipation of humanity. The reason Marxism is open and developing is that Marxism is not dogmatism but a methodology. Marx and Engels always addressed specific questions in relation to specific societies and never answered questions about one social form from the perspective of another. Concrete social forms are always developing and changing; therefore, the view of religion based on social critique can proceed from reality, investigate and analyze religious issues by seeking truth from facts. No matter how one defines the stages of Marx and Engels’s view of religion, their view of religion is always one of social critique, or a view of religion that addresses the problem of “man,” because the ultimate point of Marx and Engels’s critique of religion lies in: at the social level, dissolving the self-alienation of religion, and ultimately realizing the emancipation of humanity.

最后，不论宗教观有多少阶段，最终目的只有一个，即实现对宗教自我异化的扬弃，实现对人的解放。马克思主义之所以是开放的、发展的，是因为马克思主义不是教条主义，而是方法论。马克思、恩格斯始终是就具体社会，回答具体问题，绝不会从这个社会形态出发回答另一个社会形态的问题。具体社会形态始终是发展变化的，那么社会批判的宗教观便能做到从实际出发，实事求是的考察、分析宗教问题。不论怎么定义马、恩宗教观的阶段性，马、恩宗教观都是社会批判的，或者是解决“人”的问题的宗教观，因为马、恩批判宗教的落脚点在于：在社会层面上，消解宗教的自我异化，最终实现人的解放。

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心