The Historical Contributions and Limitations of Chen Duxiu’s Atheist Thought

Chen Duxiu, celebrated in the story of “Chen in the South and Li in the North, jointly founding the Party,”[1]1 “Chen in the South and Li in the North, jointly founding the Party” refers to Chen Duxiu (based in Shanghai, in the south) and Li Dazhao (based in Beijing, in the north), two key figures in the founding of the Chinese Communist Party in 1921. was a highly influential thinker and pioneer in the history of Marxist atheism in China. He made significant contributions to the dissemination and establishment of Marxist atheism in the country. Even today, a century after the founding of the Party, a scientific understanding and correct evaluation of the historical contributions and limitations of Chen Duxiu’s atheist thought remain of great significance.

“南陈北李，相约建党”佳话中的陈独秀，是中国马克思主义无神论史上一位拥有巨大影响力的杰出思想家和开拓者，曾为马克思主义无神论在我国的传播和确立做出了很大的贡献。即使在建党百年后的今天，科学认识和正确评价陈独秀无神论思想的历史功绩和局限性，依然意义重大。

I. The Historical Contributions of Chen Duxiu’s Atheist Thought

一、陈独秀无神论思想的历史功绩

In the early twentieth century, in order to help the then-sleeping Chinese masses “master knowledge and understand current affairs,” revolutionary pioneers represented by Chen Duxiu carried out a profound exposure and critique of the various superstitious customs and religious theist thought in China’s feudal society. From opposing superstitious activities such as burning incense, holding Taoist rites, and conducting vegetarian fasts, to questioning whether ghosts and gods truly exist; from resisting the restoration of the monarchy to exposing the colonial nature of Western Christianity, Chen Duxiu engaged in fierce ideological confrontations with figures such as Yi Yixuan, who insisted on the existence of ghosts, and Kang Youwei, who promoted Confucianism. He enriched and developed modern Chinese atheist thought in multiple respects. Specifically, these contributions are as follows.

二十世纪初，为了帮助当时中国的沉睡民众“通达学问，明白时事”，以陈独秀为代表的革命先驱，对我国封建社会的各种迷信陋习与宗教有神论思想，进行了深刻的揭露和批判。从反对烧香打醮做斋等迷信活动到质疑鬼神是否真实存在，从抵制FU辟帝制到揭露西方基督教的殖民本质，陈独秀与坚持有鬼论的易乙玄、推崇孔教的康有为等人，进行了激烈的思想交锋，从多个方面丰富和发展了近代中国无神论思想。具体说来，有以下几点。

(A) Chen Duxiu’s Profound Critique of Feudal Ghost-and-God Culture

（一）陈独秀对封建鬼神文化的深刻批判

First, he argued that ghosts and gods are not an objective material existence. In Chen Duxiu’s view, the popular folk theories about the form and substance of ghosts and gods were mostly absurd and unfounded. From the perspective of the primacy of matter, he resolutely questioned the existence of ghosts and gods. Chen Duxiu pointed out, “If it is said that ghosts, as things, are so subtle and mysterious that they are not encompassed by matter, not reachable by the senses, and not explicable by science, then why do those who speak of ghosts see their forms and hear their voices?” In his view, claiming that ghosts and gods are a formless and substanceless matter is clearly a self-contradictory sophistical argument; if ghosts and gods possess both form and substance, then their existence and activities must be explicable by science. Regarding the claims that ghosts have substance without form or form without substance, Chen Duxiu also considered them erroneous. He pointed out, “If ghosts have substance, why do they not occupy space and create obstacles for themselves, and become obstacles for other substances?” “In the universe, there are only two things that have form but no substance: one is illusion, the other is shadow. Illusion is non-existence, and shadow itself is also non-existence.” Clearly, from the dual perspective of form and substance, Chen Duxiu used dialectical materialism to prove the absurdity of the theory of the existence of ghosts and gods in the world, thereby refuting the fallacy that “ghosts and gods are an objective matter.”

首先，认为鬼神不是一种客观物质存在。在陈独秀看来，民间流传的关于鬼神的形、质存在之论，大多荒诞不羁。他从物质第一性的角度，对鬼神的存在提出了坚决的质疑。陈独秀指出，“倘云鬼之为物，玄妙非为物质所包，非感觉所及，非科学所能解，何以鬼之形使人见，鬼之声使人闻？”在他看来，认为鬼神是一种无形无质的物质，明显是一种自相矛盾的诡辩论说词；如果鬼神形质俱备，则鬼神的存在与活动，必然可用科学予以解释。关于鬼神有质无形和无质有形的说法，在陈独秀看来，也是错误的。他指出，“鬼若有质，何以不占空间之位置，而自生障碍，且为他质之障碍？”“夫宇宙间有形无质者，只有二物：一为幻象，一为影象。幻为非有，影则其自身亦为非有。”显然，陈独秀从形质二元视角，以唯物辩证法证明世间鬼神存在论的荒诞，进而否定了“鬼神是一种客观物质”的谬论。

Second, he argued that ghosts and gods are human fabrications of the objective world. Chen Duxiu believed that so-called ghosts and gods are all subjective inventions and fabrications based on the real world in which people live, essentially a case of “a worrier creating his own trouble.”[2]2 “A worrier creating his own trouble” is a Chinese idiom (庸人自扰) meaning unnecessary self-inflicted worry or trouble. In his “Questioning the Theory of Ghosts,” he pointed out, “If it is said that ghosts belong to the spiritual realm, which is a different path from the material realm, and that the existence of ghosts cannot be inferred using concepts from the material realm, then why do those who speak of ghosts today see their distinct nationalities, languages, customs, and clothing, all resembling those of the human world?” In his view, the various forms of ghost-and-god culture that persisted and ran rampant in China’s feudal society were essentially nothing more than a distorted, warped, and inverted reflection of the objective world in people’s minds, arising from their fear of the unknown. As Engels said, “All religion, however, 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.”[3]3 This quotation is from Friedrich Engels, *Anti-Dühring* (1878).

其次，认为鬼神是人们对客观世界的臆造。陈独秀认为，所谓鬼神，都是人们依据赖以生存的现实世界，主观编造和杜撰出来的，实乃庸人自扰。他在《有鬼论质疑》中指出，“若谓鬼属灵界，与物界殊途，不可以物界之观念推测鬼之有无，何以今之言鬼者，见其国籍语言习俗衣冠之各别，悉若人间耶？”在他看来，我国封建社会中长存肆虐的形形色色之鬼神文化，本质上只是人们出于对未知世界的恐惧，在大脑中对客观世界的一种扭曲、歪曲、颠倒的反应而已。如同恩格斯所言，“一切宗教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。”

Finally, he argued that feudal superstitious thought, primarily ghost-and-god culture, was extremely harmful. In Chen Duxiu’s view, the feudal superstitious thought centered on ghost-and-god culture in China’s feudal society harmed society in multiple ways, and its degree of harm could not be underestimated. In particular, erroneous concepts within ghost-and-god culture, such as fatalism, the theory of reincarnation, and the idea of karmic retribution, not only imprisoned people’s minds and swindled them out of their money, but even endangered the survival of the nation and state. When evaluating China’s political problems, Chen Duxiu pointed out, “Our China has already been corrupted beyond recognition by the fallacious doctrines passed down through the ages.” Chen Duxiu lamented, “It is precisely because we Chinese, no matter what the matter, always resign ourselves to fate, not knowing that everything depends on human effort, that the country has declined to such a state, yet we still muddle along talking in our sleep, saying things like ‘it is Heaven’s decree,’ ‘it is a matter of fate,’ ‘human strength cannot reverse it.’” Chen Duxiu believed that ghost-and-god culture was not only a major obstacle to the penetration of the scientific spirit into the hearts of the people in China’s feudal society, but also a major ideological resistance to China’s New Culture Movement.[4]4 The New Culture Movement (c. 1915–1920s) was a Chinese intellectual and cultural movement that promoted modernisation, science, democracy, and the vernacular language, while criticising traditional Confucian and feudal values. Regarding the chaos and harm brought by feudal ghost-and-god culture, he noted with concern, “If the national policy on conservatism and reform is not decided early, the contradictions, disorder, and degeneration in politics and society will ultimately be irreversible!”

最后，认为以鬼神文化为主的封建迷信思想危害甚大。在陈独秀看来，我国封建社会中以鬼神文化为主的封建迷信思想，对我国社会的危害是多方面的，其危害程度更是不可小觑。特别是鬼神文化中的命运论、轮回说、因果报应等错误观念，不仅禁锢了人们的心灵、骗取了钱财，甚至危及到民族国家的生死存亡。陈独秀评价中国政治问题时指出，“我们中国，已经被历代悖谬的学说败坏的不成样子了。”陈独秀沉痛指出，“偏偏我们中国人，无论何事，都是听天由命，不知道万事全靠人力做成的，因此国度衰弱到这步田地，还是懞懞懂懂的说梦话；说什么天命如此，气数当然，人力不能挽回。”陈独秀认为，鬼神文化不仅是我国封建社会科学精神深入人心的重要阻碍，也是我国新文化运动的重要思想阻力。对封建鬼神文化所带来的混乱与危害，他不无忧虑地指出，“守旧和革新的国是，倘不早早决定，政治上社会上的矛盾，紊乱，退化，终究不可挽回！”

(B) Chen Duxiu’s Ruthless Exposure of the Worship of Idols

（二）陈独秀对神灵膜拜思想的无情揭露

First, he argued that worshipping lifeless, man-made idols is useless. In Chen Duxiu’s view, many Chinese people liked to burn incense, hold Taoist rites, attend temple fairs, and conduct vegetarian fasts, worshipping all kinds of lifeless, man-made idols in the vain hope of getting rich, gaining good fortune, having sons, or achieving longevity—all of which were useless. In his “Worshipping Bodhisattvas,” he pointed out, “In fact, after the incense is burned and the money is spent, countless people still do not get rich, do not gain good fortune, do not have sons, and do not live long.” “Even if there are bodhisattvas, if you have no sin, why do you need to conduct a fast to absolve it? If you have sin, even if you conduct a hundred fasts, you will not be absolved.” Chen Duxiu believed that all man-made idols respected and even deified in society, “even if they are bequeathed by ancestors, taught by sages, promoted by the government, or revered by society, are not worth a single penny!” That is to say, worshipping lifeless, man-made idols is indeed a useless act.

首先，认为膜拜无生命的人Zao神灵是无用的。在陈独秀看来，许多中国人喜欢烧香、打醮、坐会、做斋，膜拜各类无生命的人Zao神灵，妄图发财发福，求子求寿，都是没有用的。他在《敬菩萨》中指出，“其实香烧过了，钱花尽了，还是不发财，不发福，不得子，不长寿的，也不知有多少。”“就是有菩萨，你无罪又何必要做斋来解，若是有罪，就是做一百堂斋，也是解脱不了的”。陈独秀认为，社会中一切受人尊重的乃至神化为神灵的人造偶像，“虽祖宗之所遗留，圣贤之所垂教，政府之所提倡，社会之所崇尚，皆一文不值也！”也就是说，膜拜无生命的人Zao神灵，实乃无用之举。

Second, he opposed the man-made movement to create gods. In his 1916 article “Refuting Kang Youwei’s Letter to the President and Premier,” Chen Duxiu firmly disagreed with Kang Youwei and others who, after Yuan Shikai’s[5]5 Yuan Shikai (1859–1916) was a Chinese military and political leader who briefly declared himself emperor in 1915–1916, attempting to restore the monarchy. proclamation of the monarchy, “again proposed promoting Confucianism.” In Chen Duxiu’s view, “Our Chinese religion has never been grand,” so it was no surprise that “Mr. Kang’s telegram to the government requesting the worship of Confucius and the promotion of religion was not endorsed by any newspaper in the north or south; the National Assembly advocated deleting the clause on respecting Confucius from the constitution, and the Ministry of the Interior abolished the kneeling and bowing rituals, with no newspaper in the north or south opposing it.” In his view, Kang Youwei’s attempt to restore the monarchy by forcefully promoting religious authority was merely a low-level act of “seeking help from Confucianism from afar,” going against the tide of history, and was doomed to fail. Chen Duxiu profoundly pointed out, “Great religious figures are not born in this land; even if one forcibly fabricates a religion and establishes a religious leader, it will certainly have no authority or glory whatsoever.” He believed that all movements that create a personality cult, whether by peaceful or violent means, will inevitably lead to despotism, and are shackles and enemies of the widespread dissemination and true realization of democratic thought, and we must resolutely oppose them.

其次，反对人为Zao神运动。在1916年的《驳康有为致总统总理书》一文中，陈独秀对康有为等人在袁世凯称帝后“复议提倡孔教”坚决不予苟同。在陈独秀看来，“吾华宗教，本不隆重”，所以对“康先生电请政府拜孔尊教，南北报纸，无一赞同者；国会主张删除宪法中尊孔条文，内务部取消拜跪礼节，南北报纸，无一反对者”毫不为奇。在他看来，康有为企图通过强推教权来fu辟帝制，只是一种低级的“远道乞灵于孔教”逆历史潮流行为，是注定要失败的。陈独秀深刻指出，“教界伟人，不生此土，即勉强杜撰一宗教，设立一教主，亦必无何等威权，何种荣耀。”他认为，一切乱搞个人崇拜运动，不论是和平方式，还是暴力方式，最终都必然导致专制，都是民主思想得以广泛传播和真正实现的枷锁与敌人，我们都必须坚决反对。

(C) Chen Duxiu’s Dialectical Reflections on Basic Religious Issues

（三）陈独秀对宗教基本问题的辩证思考

First, he argued that religion will not disappear in the short term. Chen Duxiu believed that religion is an existence that cannot be ignored, whether in the past, present, or future. However, he disagreed with Bertrand Russell’s[6]6 Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) was a British philosopher, logician, and social critic. prediction that “there must be a new religion in the future.” Chen Duxiu pointed out, “I think that a new religion has no solid foundation for faith; removing the legendary, superstitious, and unscientific elements attached to old religions is itself a new religion.” Clearly, in Chen Duxiu’s view, no new religion would emerge, but old religions stripped of superstitious theology could continue to exist. He further pointed out that the survival of religion has nothing to do with whether it relies on external forces or has absolute value. He cautioned those in China who advocated abolishing religion, “Those who now advocate the New Culture Movement neither pay attention to fine arts and music nor oppose religion, not knowing what kind of mechanical state they would reduce human life to. This is a complete failure to understand the source of our life activities, and it is a great mistake. I am the first to admit my mistake.” He concluded from this, “Religion occupies a large part of old culture, and naturally it cannot be absent from new culture either.”

首先，认为宗教在短期内不会消亡。陈独秀认为，不论是在过去，现在，还是将来，宗教都是一种无法忽视的存在。但对“将来须有一个新宗教”的罗素预言却不苟同。他指出，“我以为新宗教没有坚固的起信基础，除去旧宗教的传说的附会的非科学的迷信，就算是新宗教。”很显然，在陈独秀看来，不会有新宗教产生了，但去除了迷信神学的旧宗教可以继续存在。他进一步指出，宗教存续和是不是他力、有没有绝对价值没有关系。他提示国内主张废除宗教的人士，“现在主张新文化运动的人，既不注意美术、音乐，又要反对宗教，不知道要把人类生活弄成一种什么机械的状况，这是完全不曾了解我们生活活动的本源，这是一桩大错，我就是首先认错的一个人。”他据此得出结论，“宗教在旧文化中占很大一部分，在新文化中也自然不能没有它。”

Second, he held that the social role of religion has a dual character. In Chen Duxiu’s view, the existence of religion has both positive significance and, even more so, a negative side, which cannot be overlooked. All religions are like this. As early as 1915, in his article “The French and Modern Civilization,” he pointed out: “The merit of religion lies in overcoming cruelty and exhorting to goodness; it is not without benefit to the multitude. Yet its superstition regarding divine power, which obscures and blocks human wisdom, is its shortcoming.” In Chen Duxiu’s view, although the existence of religion has a certain positive significance, the drawbacks of its continued existence outweigh its benefits, especially in the case of Buddhism and Confucianism. At the beginning of his article “A Second Reply to Yu Songhua,” he stated: “Yet I have appealed to intuition and compared the various religions, and none fails to have more drawbacks than benefits.” He accused Buddhism of “being fond of speaking of protecting the Dharma, not hesitating to flatter the powerful, and seeking to accomplish the great enterprise of propagating the faith by appealing to the greatest villains under heaven—such as honoring Wu Zetian as an incarnation of the Bodhisattva, a practice of which there have been many examples, ancient and modern.” He criticized Confucianism, saying: “If one uses this to unify people’s hearts and minds, and seeks to preserve and develop it, then in this republic, the ritual teachings that exalt the sovereign, exalt the father, and exalt the male—one cannot know to what degree they would develop before they were considered perfect and complete.” His attitude toward Christianity was slightly different from the former. Although he also divided it into two sides, he first affirmed the social role of Christianity. Chen Duxiu actively advocated “cultivating Jesus’s lofty and great personality and his warm and deep emotions in our blood.” At the same time, he pointed out: “Looking at the history of the Christian church, its past brutality and present depravity are enough to make one sad, indignant, and even tremble; there is really nothing solemn or sacred about it.”

其次，认为宗教社会作用具有两重性。在陈独秀看来，宗教存在既有积极意义，更有消极一面，不可不察。所有宗教，皆是如此。早在1915年的《法兰西人与近世文明》一文中，他就指出，“宗教之功，胜残劝善，未尝无益于人群；然其迷信神权，蔽塞人智，是所短也。”在陈独秀看来，宗教存在虽具有一定的积极意义，但宗教存续的弊端要大于其益处，特别是佛教和孔教。他在《再答俞颂华》一文开篇就指出，“然愚尝诉诸直观，比量各教，无不弊多而益少。” 他指责佛教“好言护法，不惜献媚贵人，以宏教大业，求诸天下万恶之魁，如尊武则天为菩萨化身之类，古今不乏其人”，批判孔教“若以此统一人心，而谋有以保存之，发达之，则此共和国中，尊君尊亲尊男之礼教，不知发达至何种程度，始为美备也。”对基督教的评价，他的态度与前者稍有不同。虽然也是一分为二，但却首先肯定了基督教的社会作用。陈独秀积极主张将“耶稣崇高的、伟大的人格和热烈的、深厚的情感，培养在我们的血液里。”同时又指出，“纵观基督教教会的历史，过去的横暴和现在的堕落，都足以令人悲愤而且战慄，实在没有什么庄严神圣之可言。”

Third, he held that freedom of religious belief is not one-sided. Chen Duxiu believed that citizens have the right to respect freedom of religious belief, but also the freedom to oppose religion and denounce religion. “No matter what kind of doctrine or theory, people should be allowed the freedom to approve or oppose it; you, sirs, declare that you greatly respect freedom of religious belief, but why do you not allow the freedom to oppose religion? Is religion truly sacred and inviolable?” Clearly, in his view, believing in a religion is one kind of freedom, but criticizing religion is also a kind of freedom. Chen Duxiu believed that freedom of religious belief is bidirectional; one cannot hold only one end. Allowing non-believers to criticize religion will not evolve into “the first step toward suppressing thought beyond belief in the future,” nor is it the oppression of a weak minority by a strong majority, nor does it violate the freedom of believers; on the contrary, it protects freedom of religious belief.

第三，认为宗教信仰自由不是单方面的。陈独秀认为，公民有尊重信教自由，但也有反对宗教、指斥宗教的自由。“无论何种主义学说皆应许人有赞成反对之自由；公等宣言颇尊重信教自由，但对于反对宗教者自由何异不加以容许？宗教果神圣不可侵犯么？”很显然，在他看来，信仰宗教是一种自由，但批判宗教也是一种自由。陈独秀认为，宗教信仰自由是双向的，不能只执一端。允许不信教的人对宗教进行批判，不会演变为“日后取缔信仰以外的思想的第一步”，也不是多数强者对少数弱者的压迫，更没有侵犯信教者的自由，恰恰是保护了宗教信仰自由。

Fourth, he opposed replacing domestic school education with foreign religious education. In Chen Duxiu’s view, Christianity and the church schools it established in China were not only cultural tools of Western colonialists for colonizing China but also accomplices colluding with China’s old ruling clique to fool the lower masses. He pointed out: “Countless missionaries are unproductive idlers, yet they instead urge productive laborers to submit to the capitalists… The schools established by churches in China all emphasize their own national language and script while neglecting science. A certain church school in Guangdong even used introducing female students to entice students into believing, and there were even those who used marriage relationships to seduce some educator into converting. Besides power and money, they even use the beauty trap to propagate the faith—how despicable!” With such base “religious activities,” it is no wonder that he “fully approved of the student movement against Christianity.” On February 27, 1924, upon learning that Turkey had expelled the Caliph, Chen Duxiu also hoped that China could, like Turkey, one day “destroy the educational rights of foreigners in China.” Chen Duxiu also pointed out: “Young students who enter church schools out of eagerness to study are not to be blamed; but once in a church school, not only do they fail to receive a good education, but they become a new type of flunky who worships foreigners and foreign countries and despises their own country and people—that is having education that is worse than having no education at all!” Clearly, Chen Duxiu believed that this kind of comprador-style church school education was by no means the good education needed by Chinese youth, and that this kind of foreign religious education must never replace domestic school education. Because in his view, the harm of national spiritual self-corruption caused by accepting bad church school education was far more severe than military aggression or economic aggression.

第四，反对以外国宗教教育代替本国学校教育。在陈独秀看来，基督教及其在我国所设立的教会学校，不仅是西方殖民者殖民我国的文化工具，也是伙同我国旧统治集团，愚弄下层人民群众的帮凶。他指出，“无数的宣教师都是不生产的游民，反要劝说生产劳动者服从资本家……教会在中国所设学校无不重他们本国语言文字而轻科学，广东某教会学校还有以介绍女生来劝诱学生信教的，更有以婚姻的关系诱惑某教育家入教的，势力金钱之外，还要用美人计来弘教，是何等下流！”如此卑劣的“宗教活动”，难怪他“对于学生界非基督教运动，却十分赞同”。1924年2月27日，当得知土耳其放逐教主时，陈独秀也希望中国也能如土耳其一样，有朝一日能“破坏外人在华教育权”。陈独秀还指出，“青年学生因急于求学而误入教会学校，这是无可责难的；可是一入教会学校，不但得不着良好的教育，而且变成一个崇拜外国及外国人、蔑视本国及本国人的新式奴才，那便是有教育更坏于无教育了！”显然，陈独秀认为这种洋奴式教会学校教育，绝不是中国青年所需要的良好教育，决不能以这种外国宗教教育代替本国的学校教育。因为在他看来，接受不良的教会学校教育而导致的民族精神自腐危害，远比军事侵略、经济侵略都还要厉害。

Finally, polytheism is not religion, and pantheism is not religious theology. In Chen Duxiu’s view, polytheism, which worships many deities, can no longer be regarded as religion, and pantheism is not religious theology. Because “all religions must speak of gods and must discuss life and death; this major premise is probably not mistaken,” while “Confucius did not speak of spirits and strange phenomena, and did not know about life and death; thus Confucianism is naturally not a religion.” The Confucian theory that spirits and gods are immanent in all things can at most be considered a kind of pantheism, different from the theism of a ruling god in religion. Clearly, Chen Duxiu believed that between pantheism and religious theology there is a clear logical progression in the number and degree of worship of deities. He also agreed with Guido Haeckel’s [7]7 Guido Haeckel (1834–1919) was a German biologist and philosopher who advocated monism and pantheism, arguing that polytheism was essentially atheistic. claim that polytheism is atheism. But is pantheism atheism? Chen Duxiu did not directly answer. However, he pointed out: “Atheism is a philosophical view opposed to religion; to call it a religion is utterly inappropriate.” From this we can infer that Chen Duxiu probably agreed that pantheism is a transition from theism to atheism, situated between religion and non-religion.

最后，泛神教不是宗教，泛神论不是宗教神学。在陈独秀看来，膜拜神灵众多的泛神教，已经不能被视为宗教了，泛神论也不是宗教神学。因为，“凡宗教必言神，必论生死，此大前提未必有误”，而“孔子不语神怪，不知生死，则孔教自非宗教。”儒家的鬼神体物不遗之说，至多只能算是一种泛神论罢了，不同于宗教中的主宰之神论。很显然，陈独秀认为，泛神论与宗教神学之间，有明确的神灵膜拜数量和程度的逻辑递进关系。对桂特赫克尔称泛神教就是无神教的说法，陈独秀也是赞同的。那泛神论是无神论么？陈独秀没有直接回答。但他指出，“无神论乃一种反对宗教之哲学见解，字字曰宗教，殊为不伦。”我们据之可以推论，陈独秀应该认同泛神论是界于宗教与非宗教之间的一种从有神论向无神论的过渡。

II. The Historical Limitations of Chen Duxiu’s Atheist Thought

二、陈独秀无神论思想的历史局限性

Constrained by the era and other factors, Chen Duxiu’s atheist thought has certain historical limitations. Not only did it fail to thoroughly adhere to the Marxist atheist stance, but it even became entangled with various religious theologies. Specifically, this can be summarized in the following aspects.

囿于时代以及其它多方面的因素，陈独秀的无神论思想具有一定的历史局限性。不仅没有彻底地坚持马克思主义无神论立场，甚至还与种种宗教神学纠缠不清。具体说来，可概括为以下几个方面。

(1) In worldview, he did not thoroughly uphold the materialist stance

（一）世界观上没有彻底地坚持唯物主义立场

Chen Duxiu’s critique of ghost-and-spirit culture and religious thought was mainly based on the theory of evolution. In his view, “Using science to investigate the evolution of species and the origin of mankind is truly an unprecedented great work,” and thus “the survival of the fittest, the elimination of the unfit” is the basic law of the continuous change and evolution of all things in the world. Chen Duxiu clearly grasped the fundamental attribute of matter—motion—and in the struggle against feudal superstition, religious theology, and other idealisms, its philosophical significance was undoubtedly enormous.

陈独秀对鬼神文化、宗教思想的批判，主要是以进化论为基础的。在他看来，“以科学论究物种之进化，与人类之由来，实空前之大著也”，因而“适者生存，优胜劣败”是世界上一切事物不断变迁演化的基本规律。陈独秀显然抓住了物质的根本属性——运动，这在与封建迷信、宗教神学以及其它唯心主义的斗争中，其哲学意义无疑是十分巨大的。

Since the world is constantly developing and changing, what is the origin of the world? On this question, Chen Duxiu did not, like Li Dazhao, clearly point out that “matter and the economy can determine thought, doctrine, philosophy, religion, morality, legal systems, etc.” He merely stated in “A Call to Youth”: “What is science? It is our concept of things, synthesizing objective phenomena and appealing to subjective reason without contradiction.” Does conforming to the standard of “subjective reason without contradiction” necessarily mean it is the origin of the world? Clearly not. So-called non-contradictory subjective reason is at most a certain reflection of matter by human consciousness. By neglecting the primacy of matter, “non-contradictory subjective reason” can only ultimately slide into idealism.

既然世界是不断发展变化的，那世界的本原是什么呢？对此问题，陈独秀没有如李大钊那样明确指出“物质和经济可以决定思想、主义、哲学、宗教、道德、法制等等”，只是在《敬告青年》中指出，“科学者何？吾人对于事物之概念，综合客观之现象，诉之主观之理性而不矛盾之谓也”。符合“主观之理性而不矛盾”标准，就一定是世界的本原？显然不是。所谓的不矛盾的主观理性，至多只是人类意识对物质的某种反映而已。忽略了物质第一性，“不矛盾的主观理性”只能最终滑向唯心主义。

Chen Duxiu strongly advocated European realism. “This spirit pervades everything… In philosophy, it appears as empiricism and materialism; … all thought and action are rooted in real life.” Clearly, in Chen Duxiu’s view, the spirit of realism is a kind of existence that transcends materialism. This obviously confuses the relationship between materialism and idealism. Yu Zhanhong pointed out that Chen Duxiu also “regarded the universe as the sum total of a great flow of energy, but avoided making a clear definition of the essence of energy.” Is this great flow of energy material or spiritual? Or is it a combination of spirit and matter? Chen Duxiu did not further determine this. Such avoidance essentially fell into the quagmire of agnosticism.

陈独秀极力推崇欧洲现实主义。“此精神磅礴无所不至……见之哲学者，曰经验论，曰唯物论；……一切思想行为，莫不植基于现实生活之上。”很显然，在陈独秀看来，现实主义精神就是超越唯物论的一种存在。这明显搞错了唯物主义和唯心主义之间的关系。余展洪指出，陈独秀也曾“把宇宙看作能量大流的总和，却避免对能量的本质做出明确的规定”。这种能量大流是物质的还是精神的？还是精神与物质的和合体？陈独秀没有进一步予以确定。这样的回避实质上已陷入了不可知论的泥潭。

(2) In belief, he did not thoroughly draw a clear line with religious theology

（二）信仰上没有彻底地与宗教神学划清界限

Judging from Chen Duxiu’s published articles, he neither drew nor intended to draw a clear line of demarcation with religious theology. In his article “Reply to Li Dakui,” he praised the Buddhist dharma as vast, profound, and refined, adding that it was something “I have always believed in without doubt.” In his view, if the Buddhist dharma did not propagate superstition, it could be called “perfect and beyond question.” If this is so, could the Buddhist dharma or other religious doctrines, once the superstitious and theological elements were removed, become a correct belief system that we must uphold? Chen Duxiu did not clarify this in “Reply to Li Dakui” or in his other articles. In “Christianity and the Chinese People,” Chen Duxiu also did not, as Lu Xun did, profoundly expose the exploitative nature of Jesus’ followers who “ate off religion” and their flattery of politics; instead, disregarding the basic fact that Christianity had consistently played an inglorious role as a cultural vanguard of obscurantism in the process of modern Western imperialist aggression against China, he disagreed with viewing Christianity “merely as a kind of evil cult.” In his view, “the question of Christianity is a major issue that our society should study seriously; I hope our youth will not, like the ignorant elders, shut their eyes and talk nonsense.”

从陈独秀公开发表的文章来看，他没有也无意于与宗教神学划清界限。在《答李大魁》一文中，他就赞誉佛法广大精深，且“愚所素信不疑者也”。在他看来，如果佛法没有传播迷信，“谓为圆满，不容置疑”。既然若此，剔除迷信神学后的佛法或其它宗教教义，是否就可以成为我们必须坚持的正确的信仰体系呢？陈独秀在《答李大魁》一文及其他文章中并没有予以说明。在《基督教与中国人》中，陈独秀也没如鲁迅那般深刻揭露的耶稣信徒“吃教”行为的剥削人民和谄媚政治之本质，反而不顾基督教在近代西方列强侵略中国过程中一直扮演着不太光彩的文化愚民急先锋角色这个基本事实，不同意将基督教“只看作一种邪教”。在他看来，“基督教问题是我国社会上应该研究的重大问题，我盼望我们青年不要随着不懂事的老辈们闭起眼睛瞎说！”

Based on Chen Duxiu’s attitude toward religion as described above, it is not difficult to understand why he insisted that “since society still needs religion, opposing it is futile; only by promoting a better religion to supply this need and replace the worse one can we truly do something beneficial.” If society needs religion, opposing it is futile? Is it not the case that what the broad masses of the revolutionary proletariat need, but rather what imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucratic capitalism need, makes our opposition futile as well? Chen Duxiu clearly did not clarify this point. Was Christianity a hundred years ago a better religion? Chen Duxiu himself thought not. Nevertheless, among various religions, his “hostility” toward Christianity was evidently milder than his attitude toward other religions. He once publicly stated that he found it “very laughable that all corrupt reactionary factions attack Christianity in step with the times.” The “better religion” in Chen Duxiu’s mind was clearly based on pragmatism; in essence, it “allowed the bourgeoisie to enjoy the happiness of their usurped plunder in this world, while consoling the proletariat with the illusory and wondrous heavenly kingdom for the exploitation and suffering they endured in this world.”

基于陈独秀对宗教的上述态度，我们就不难理解他为何要坚持，“因为社会上若还需要宗教，我们反对是无益的，只有提倡较好的宗教来供给这需要，来代替那较不好的宗教，才真是一件有益的事。”社会需要宗教我们反对就是无益的？难道不是广大无产阶级革命群众所需要，而是帝国主义、封建主义和官僚资本主义所需要，我们反对也是无益的吗？显然陈独秀在此没有予以明确。一百年前的基督教是一种较好的宗教吗？陈独秀也认为不是。不过，在各色宗教中，他对基督教的“敌视”，显然要好于对其他宗教的态度。他曾公开表示，“对于一切腐败的反动派随着时论攻击基督教，觉得很可笑”。陈独秀心中“较好的宗教”显然是基于实用主义的，实质上是“容许资产阶级在现世享尽他们僭越的掠夺的幸福，而以空幻其妙的天国慰安无产阶级在现世所受的剥削与苦痛。”

From the above, it can be seen that Chen Duxiu displayed a contradictory attitude of love and hate toward religion, especially Christianity. On the one hand, he resolutely opposed religious theology and superstitious thought; on the other hand, he still harbored expectations and illusions about religious philosophy and the specific role a particular religion might play at a particular historical stage. Religious theology, religious philosophy, and the social function of religion are inherently integrated and cannot be separated. The elaboration of religious philosophy and the realization of religion’s social function are both inseparable from religious theology. Theology is the core of religion; without theology, religion ceases to be religion in its original sense and can no longer even be called religion. In this sense, Chen Duxiu’s partiality for religious philosophy and his positive evaluation of religion’s social function did not completely—and could not—draw a clear line of demarcation with religious theology. A true Marxist atheist criticizes religious theology theoretically because the religious theology it preaches is entirely contrary to the ideological liberation of all humanity; a true Marxist atheist, when studying religious philosophy and evaluating religion’s social function, does not indulge personal emotional preferences but must stand on the position of the proletariat and follow the basic principles of historical materialism.

从上可见，陈独秀对宗教，特别是基督教呈现一种爱恨交织之矛盾态度。一方面坚决反对宗教神学、迷信思想，另一方面又对宗教哲学、对某个具体的宗教在某一个具体的历史阶段产生什么具体作用仍存期望和幻想。宗教神学与宗教哲学、宗教社会作用本身就是一体的，无法割裂。宗教哲学的阐述、宗教社会作用的实现，都离不开宗教神学。神学是宗教的核心，没了神学，宗教就不再是原来意义上的宗教，甚至不能再称之为宗教。从这个意义上讲，陈独秀对宗教哲学的偏爱、对宗教社会作用的正向评价，并没有彻底也无法彻底与宗教神学划清界限。真正的马克思主义无神论者从理论上批判宗教神学，是因为其宣扬的宗教神学与全人类的思想解放是完全相悖的；真正的马克思主义无神论者研究宗教哲学，评价宗教社会作用，也不会有更多的个人情感喜好，而一定会站在无产阶级立场上，遵循历史唯物主义的基本原则。

(3) In the revolutionary struggle, he did not thoroughly strive for leadership over the work of opposing theism

（三）革命斗争中没有彻底地争取反有神论工作的领导权

Although he held high the banner of opposing feudal superstition and criticizing religious theology in thought, Chen Duxiu not only clearly lacked sympathy for the victimized masses who were deceived and misled by feudal thought and theism during China’s New Democratic Revolution, but also lacked a relatively objective understanding and fair evaluation of them. When evaluating the Boxers, Chen Duxiu pointed out, “I personally experienced the barbarism of the Boxers, their stubbornness and superstition, and the atmosphere of terror during the Boxer Uprising.” In a series of articles such as “On the So-Called ‘Red Army’,” he even contemptuously referred to the lower-class rebellious masses oppressed by the three mountains as “lumpen-proletariat,” “bandits and defeated soldiers,” and “a heap of dregs of broken-down elements detached from various classes.”

虽然在思想上高举反对封建迷信、批判宗教神学的旗帜，陈独秀却对在我国新民主主义革命过程中被封建思想、有神论蛊惑欺骗的受害民众，不仅明显缺乏同情，更是缺乏一个相对客观的认知和公正的评价。在评价义和团的时候，陈独秀指出，“义和团的野蛮，义和团的顽旧与迷信，义和团时的恐怖空气，我都亲身经验过”。在《关于所谓“红军”问题》等系列文章中，更是蔑称深受三座大山压迫的底层反抗民众为“游民无产阶级”、“土匪与溃兵”、“由各阶级脱离出来之破落分子的渣滓堆”。

In fact, in the semi-colonial and semi-feudal old China, these so-called “lumpen-proletariat,” suffering under the triple oppression of imperialism, bureaucratic capitalism, and feudalism, lived in dire straits and endured even greater calamities and suffering. Their participation in the Divine Soldiers, the Big Swords Society, and the Red Spear Society was merely an instinctive act of self-preservation forced upon them for survival; their being captured by feudal superstition and religious theism was only a search for spiritual solace under cruel oppression. It was precisely these people at the bottom of semi-colonial and semi-feudal society who had greater revolutionary needs and firmer positions in resisting oppression. As early as 1925, Mao Zedong pointed out in his “Analysis of the Classes in Chinese Society”: “There are also a considerable number of lumpen-proletarians… They are the most unstable element in human life. They have secret organizations everywhere, such as the ‘Triad Society’ in Fujian and Guangdong, the ‘Elder Brothers Society’ in Hunan, Hubei, Guizhou, and Sichuan, the ‘Big Swords Society’ in Anhui, Henan, and Shandong, the ‘Zaili Society’ in Zhili and the three northeastern provinces, and the ‘Green Gang’ in Shanghai and elsewhere; these have all been mutual-aid organizations for their political and economic struggles. Dealing with this group is one of China’s difficult problems. This group is very capable of brave struggle, but it has a destructive nature; if guided properly, it can become a revolutionary force.” In July 1926, under the insistence of Li Dazhao and others, the Third Enlarged Plenary Session of the Fourth Central Executive Committee of the CPC passed the “Resolution on the Red Spear Society Movement,” emphasizing: “The Red Spear Society is a product of warlord politics; it is a primitive self-defense organization of peasants who could no longer bear the extortion of corrupt officials, the exploitation of exorbitant taxes and levies, the destruction of warlord wars, the harassment of bandits and defeated soldiers, and the bankruptcy caused by imperialist economic aggression and the exploitation of local tyrants and evil gentry. … Attention should be paid to making the peasant associations the overall peasant organization and the Red Spear Society the armed organization of the peasants.” The victorious practice of the New Democratic Revolution also shows that, after the baptism of brutal revolutionary struggle and strict ideological and political education, the former “victims of disaster, divine soldiers, bandits, and defeated soldiers” could certainly grow into the “guardians and pillars” of the Red Army; this has long been a historical fact, not the “traitors’ revolutionary strategy” that Chen Duxiu spoke of.

事实上，在半殖民地半封建社会的旧中国，这些所谓的“游民无产阶级”，由于深受帝国主义、官僚资本主义、封建主义三重压迫，生活在水深HUORE之中，其所承受灾难痛苦尤甚。其参与神兵、大刀会、红枪会，只是为了生存而不得已进行的一种本能的自救行动；其被封建迷信、宗教鬼神论捕获，只是为了所受残酷压迫寻找一种精神上的慰藉而已。恰恰是这些生活在半殖民地半封建社会底层的人，其革命需求更大，反抗压迫立场也更坚定。早在1925 年，毛泽东就在《中国社会各阶级的分析》一文中指出：“还有数量不小的游民无产者……他们是人类生活中最不安定者。他们在各地都有秘密组织，如闽粤的‘三合会’，湘鄂黔蜀的‘哥老会’，皖豫鲁等省的‘大刀会’，直隶及东三省的‘在理会’，上海等处的‘青帮’，都曾经是他们的政治和经济斗争的互助团体。处置这一批人，是中国的困难的问题之一。这一批人很能勇敢奋斗，但有破坏性，如引导得法，可以变成一种革命力量。”1926 年 7 月，在李大钊等的坚持下，中共四届三次中央执委扩大会议通过了《对于红枪会运动议决案》，强调：“红枪会是军阀政治下的产物，是一般中小农民不堪贪官污吏之搜括，苛捐苛税之剥削，军阀战争之破坏，土匪溃兵之骚扰，以及受帝国主义经济侵略之破产，土豪劣绅之鱼肉，才发生这种农民原始自卫的组织。……应注意使农会成为整个的农民组织，红枪会成为农民武装组织。”新民主主义革命的胜利实践也表明，经过残酷的革命斗争洗礼和严格的思想政治教育，实现信仰体系的彻底转变，曾经的“灾民、神兵、土匪与溃兵”当然可以成长为红军的“卫军与支柱”，这早已是历史事实，而非陈独秀口中“叛徒们的革命策略”。

It is undeniable that the large-scale influx of the “lumpen-bandits” and “bandit-defeated soldiers” that Chen Duxiu spoke of into the Red Army would, within a certain period and to a certain extent, bring a serious impact on the Red Army’s Marxist belief system. In response, Comrade Mao Zedong emphasized that Communists, in leading the peasant movement, should actively guide, be good at enlightening, and educate the peasants, raising their consciousness so that they would voluntarily break with superstition and discard the idols. Chen Duxiu himself also pointed out that “a true Red Army is born of revolution.” So why could peasants who had undergone the baptism of brutal revolutionary struggle not do so? Was it merely because they had once been deceived and poisoned by feudal superstitious thought? Chen Duxiu clearly made a subjective error of prior negation regarding the possibility of belief transformation for the so-called “lumpen-proletariat” he spoke of. This error also led him to lose an accurate judgment of the development status of the proletarian revolutionary forces. Therefore, Chen Duxiu first abandoned the leadership over the work of opposing theism in practice, and then abandoned the leadership of the proletariat in the practice of the New Democratic Revolution; behind his choice of the “Right capitulationist line” lay a deeper ideological root of biased cognition in Marxist atheist thought.

不可否认，陈独秀口中的“游民流寇”、“土匪溃兵”大量加入红军队伍，会在一定时间内、一定范围内给红军的马克思主义信仰体系带来严重冲击。对此，毛泽东同志就曾强调，共产党人在领导农民运动中应积极引导、善于启发和教育农民，提高其觉悟，使其自觉破除迷信和丢开菩萨。陈独秀自己也指出，“真正红军乃是革命产生的”，那为什么经过残酷革命斗争洗礼的农民不行？难道仅仅是因为他们曾经受过封建迷信思想的欺骗与毒害吗？陈独秀显然对他口中的“游民无产阶级”的信仰转化可能性，犯了主观上先行否定的错误。这样的错误也致其对无产阶级革命力量发展现状失去了准确的判断。所以，陈独秀是首先在实践中放弃了反有神论工作的领导权，进而放弃了无产阶级在新民主主义革命实践中的领导权，其选择“右倾投降主义”路线的背后有更深层次的马克思主义无神论思想认知有失偏颇的思想根源。

Conclusion

结 语

Chen Duxiu’s atheist thought is rich in content, and its scientific evaluation is not an easy task. One basic fact that we cannot deny is that the genuine insights contained in Chen Duxiu’s series of articles from a century ago greatly promoted the spread of Marxist atheist thought in China and also opened the historical precedent for adapting Marxist atheist thought to the Chinese context [11]11 “Adapting to the Chinese context” (中国化) here refers to the process of making Marxist theory suitable for China’s specific conditions, a precursor to the later official formulation “adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times.”. Its historical contributions cannot be erased. At the same time, the erroneous parts of Chen Duxiu’s atheist thought and the negative influence of its debatable viewpoints cannot be ignored. Since Marxism was introduced into China over a century ago, its integration with the Chinese revolution and construction has lasted for a full century, and the Sinicized Marxist atheist thought has also developed for more than a hundred years. Standing at the new historical starting point of striving toward the second centenary goal [12]12 The “second centenary goal” (第二个百年奋斗目标) is the goal of building China into a modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, and harmonious by the middle of the 21st century, marking the centenary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 2049., and using our current understanding of Marxist atheist thought, although it is easy to discover the fallacies and historical limitations in the views of early revolutionaries, the evaluation of Chen Duxiu’s atheist thought should be placed within the historical conditions of that time. Only in this way can we arrive at an evaluation that is both historically faithful and objectively fair.

陈独秀无神论思想内容丰富，对其科学评价并不是一件非常容易的事。我们不能否认的一个基本事实就是，陈独秀在一百年前的系列文章中饱含的真知灼见，曾极大地促进了马克思主义无神论思想在中国的传播，也为马克思主义无神论思想的中国化开了历史的先河，其历史贡献是不能抹杀的。同时，也不能无视陈独秀无神论思想中的错误部分和有待商榷观点的消极影响。马克思主义自一百多年前传入中国后，与中国革命与建设相结合已经长达一个世纪，中国化的马克思主义无神论思想也发展了一百多年。我们站在向第二个百年奋斗目标奋进的新历史起点上，运用今天我们对马克思主义无神论思想的认知，虽然很容易发现早期革命者思想观点的谬误和历史局限性，但更应该将对陈独秀无神论思想的评价放到当时的历史条件中去。只有这样，才能得出既符合历史又客观公正的评价。

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心