The Theoretical Positioning of Engels’s Thought on Religious Criticism

In the history of Marxist development, the critique of religion occupies an important position. On the one hand, this is because religion is closely linked to real society, and the critique of religion serves as a uniquely effective perspective for engaging with real society. As Engels stated: “Politics was at that time a thorny field, so the main struggle turned into a struggle against religion; this struggle, especially from 1840 onward, was indirectly also a political struggle.” [1]1 This quotation is from Engels’s *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (1886), referring to the political context of Germany in the 1830s and 1840s, where direct political opposition was suppressed, and criticism was channeled through religious debate. On the other hand, the critique of religion is a tradition in the history of Marxist development. The thought of Marx and Engels emerged from the Young Hegelians. As a radical intellectual group, breaking the shackles of religion and extolling human subjectivity were the main tasks of the early Young Hegelians. Strauss and Bauer successively launched fierce critiques of Christianity. Feuerbach, based on humanist materialism, concluded that God is the alienation of the human essence. Subsequently, Stirner raised the banner of the “Unique One,” bluntly stating, “Whether it is God or man, it weakens the feeling of my uniqueness,” [2]2 This is a reference to Max Stirner’s *The Ego and Its Own* (1844), in which Stirner argues that both divine and human authority diminish the individual’s unique selfhood. characterizing religion as an instrument of oppression.

在马克思主义发展史上，对宗教的批判之所以占有重要地位，一方面是由于宗教和现实社会紧密相连，宗教批判是关注现实社会的一个独特有效的视角。如恩格斯所说：“政治在当时是一个荆棘丛生的领域，所以主要的斗争就转为反宗教的斗争，这一斗争，特别是从1840年起，间接地也是政治斗争。”另一方面，宗教批判是马克思主义发展史上的一个传统，马克思、恩格斯二人的思想脱胎于青年黑格尔派，作为一个激进的思想团体，破除宗教的桎梏，颂扬人的主体性是早期青年黑格尔派的主要任务，施特劳斯、鲍威尔都先后向基督教发起猛烈的批判，费尔巴哈立足于人本学唯物主义，得出了上帝是人本质的异化的结论。随后，施蒂纳打出“唯一者”的旗号，直言“不论他是神是人，都削弱我的唯一性的感情”，将宗教定性为压迫人的工具。

Throughout Engels’s life, his discussions and studies on religion were not only numerous in quantity but also possessed considerable systematicity. Engels embarked on the journey of criticizing religious theology earlier than Marx, and his critique of religion remained consistent, whether before his collaboration with Marx or after becoming the “second fiddle.” [3]3 Engels used the term “second fiddle” to describe his role in relation to Marx, acknowledging Marx’s primary contribution to the development of their shared theoretical framework.

纵观恩格斯的一生，关于宗教的论述和研究，不仅数量较多，而且具备相当的系统性。恩格斯相较于马克思更早的踏上批判宗教神学的征程，并且对宗教的批判始终如一，无论是在恩格斯与马克思合作之前，还是在成为“第二小提琴手”之后。

Regarding Engels’s view of religion and his thought on religious criticism, there are two research approaches in academia. One approach merges Engels with Marx for joint study and discussion, treating it as a part of Marxist atheism. The advantage of this approach lies in its effective maintenance of the integrity of Marxism, but it simultaneously obscures the respective intellectual characteristics and developmental logic of Marx and Engels. The other approach conducts separate studies on Engels’s atheistic view of religion. Such studies generally revolve around the theoretical origins, social background, and later influence of Engels’s thought on religious criticism, yet their ultimate focus remains on attempting to elucidate Engels’s contribution to Marxist atheism. Overall, relatively few studies treat Engels’s atheistic view of religion as a systematic whole.

关于恩格斯的宗教观和宗教批判思想，学界有两种研究路径。一种是将恩格斯与马克思合并研究讨论，将其作为马克思主义无神论的一个部分，这种研究路径的优势在于很好地维护了马克思主义的整体性，但同时也使得马恩二人各自的思想特色和思想发展逻辑被遮蔽了起来。另一种是对恩格斯的无神论宗教观进行单独研究，这方面的研究一般围绕恩格斯宗教批判思想的理论渊源、社会背景及其后世影响展开，但其落脚点仍然是试图阐明恩格斯对马克思主义无神论所做出的贡献。总的来说，将恩格斯的无神论宗教观作为一个系统来看待的研究相对较少。

There are two debates within the study of Engels’s thought on religious criticism. The first concerns Engels’s view of religion, specifically manifested in how to understand Engels’s attitude toward primitive Christianity: whether Christianity is actually a fellow traveler of revolution and the proletariat. The view that regards the two as fellow travelers originated with Kautsky’s *The Foundations of Christianity* [4]4 Karl Kautsky’s *The Foundations of Christianity* (1908) argued that early Christianity was a movement of the oppressed proletariat, a view that has been debated in Marxist scholarship. and subsequently entered China, being accepted by some scholars. Its textual basis lies in the religious trilogy Engels published in his later years. Some scholars believe that Engels’s attitude toward religion in these three works appears relatively moderate, suggesting a shift in Engels’s stance on religion in his later years. Other scholars argue that this is a misreading of Engels’s later thought, appealing to the scientific nature of materialism and emphasizing Engels’s “materialist atheist position.”

恩格斯宗教批判思想的研究中存在两种争论。首先是在恩格斯的宗教观方面，具体体现在如何理解恩格斯对原始基督教的态度，基督教究竟是不是革命的、无产阶级的同路人。将二者视为同道的观点发端于考茨基的《基督教之基础》，随后进入我国，为部分学者所接受，其文本依据在于恩格斯晚年所推出的宗教三部曲，有学者认为恩格斯在这三本著作中对于宗教的态度似乎较为温和，恩格斯晚年对宗教的态度发生了转向。还有学者认为这是对恩格斯晚年思想的误读，且诉诸于唯物主义的科学性，强调恩格斯“唯物主义无神论的立场”。

The second debate concerns the periodization of the development of Engels’s thought on religious criticism. The following views exist. The first divides Engels’s thought on religious criticism into two periods: before and after the formation of historical materialism. The second divides it into three stages: pietism, supernaturalism, and atheism. The third defines the change in Engels’s view of religion as four stages: pietism, rationalism, pantheism, and atheism. The fourth method of division also divides it into four stages: the period of religious doubt, the period of criticizing religious pietism, the period of political critique, and the period of historical materialism. [5]5 These periodization schemes reflect different scholarly attempts to trace the evolution of Engels’s thought from religious belief to a materialist worldview. The commonality among these division methods is that they draw a clear line between Engels’s early religious belief and historical materialism. This article attempts to analyze and clarify several controversial issues involved in the theoretical positioning of Engels’s thought on religious criticism from three aspects: the temporal starting point, the theoretical logic, and the evaluation of the historical function of atheism.

其次是关于恩格斯宗教批判思想发展的分期。有如下几种观点。第一种是将恩格斯的宗教批判思想进行二分，即历史唯物主义形成之前和形成之后；第二种是分为虔诚主义、超自然主义、无神论三个阶段；第三种是将恩格斯宗教观的变化界定为四个阶段，即虔诚主义、唯理论、泛神论、无神论；第四种划分办法也是将其分为四个阶段，即分为怀疑宗教时期、批判宗教虔诚主义时期、政治批判时期以及唯物史观时期；这些划分办法的共同之处在于，将恩格斯早年对宗教的信仰与历史唯物主义划清界限。本文试图从时间起点、理论逻辑以及无神论的历史功能评价三个方面对恩格斯宗教批判思想的理论定位研究涉及的若干争议问题进行辨析和澄清。

I. Taking 1839 as the Starting Point of Engels’s Thought on Religious Criticism

一、将1839年视为恩格斯宗教批判思想的开端

When exactly is the starting point of Engels’s thought on religious criticism? As mentioned above, some studies take the time of the formation of historical materialism (1845) as the starting point of Engels’s thought on religious criticism and his scientific worldview. This article argues that Engels’s life experiences were an important source of motivation for his critique of religion, and that 1839 should be taken as the starting point of Engels’s thought on religious criticism, even though Engels was still a religious believer at this time and had not yet encountered historical materialism.

恩格斯宗教批判思想的开端究竟是何时？如前所述，有研究将历史唯物主义的形成时间（1845）当作恩格斯宗教批判思想与科学世界观的开端。本文认为，恩格斯的生活经历是其批判宗教的重要动机来源，应当将1839年作为恩格斯宗教批判思想的起点，尽管此时恩格斯还是宗教信徒、尚未接触历史唯物主义。

First, Engels began to explicitly criticize religion from 1839. This is marked by the anonymous publication of “Letters from the Wuppertal” in the organ of the German movement, the *Deutsche Telegraf*, in March 1839. In July 1838, Engels came into contact with the Young Germany movement and, influenced by it, in March 1839, at the age of only 19, Engels revealed in “Letters from the Wuppertal” the harm caused by Christian pietists to the two Wuppertal valley cities of Elberfeld and Barmen.

首先，恩格斯从1839年就开始明确对宗教进行批判。以1839年3月在德意志运动机关报《德意志电讯》匿名发表《伍珀河谷来信》为标志。1838年7月，恩格斯开始接触到青年德意志派，并受其影响，于1839年3月，年仅19岁的恩格斯就在《伍珀河谷来信》中揭示了基督教虔诚派对埃尔伯费尔德、巴门两个伍珀河谷沿岸城市的危害。

Engels’s thought on religious criticism began with a profound exposure of the social tragedies caused by religion. Engels was born into a conservative pietist family. In his hometown of Barmen, every aspect of life was influenced by religious pietism; any slight violation would lead to being interrogated as a heretic. Religion restricted the people’s thought and spirit. To strengthen their influence in the region, Christian pietists even extended their reach to children, openly declaring that children also needed to attend church twice every Sunday, otherwise their souls would fall into hell due to depravity. People growing up in such an environment were in a state of long-term mental oppression. Consequently, the people either indulged in the mysticism of the pietists or turned to alcoholism. The soft oppression of the spirit, combined with economic hardship, brought dual physical and mental devastation. The ruling ideology cut off any possibility of development for the people, both spiritually and materially.

恩格斯的宗教批判思想开始于对宗教所造成社会悲剧的深刻揭露。恩格斯出生于保守的虔诚派教徒家庭，在他的故乡巴门，生活的方方面面都受到宗教虔诚主义的影响，一旦稍有违反，就会被当做异教徒审问。宗教限制了人民的思想与精神，基督教虔诚派的教徒为了强化在该地区的影响更是将手伸向儿童，他们公开宣称，儿童也需要每个礼拜日去上两次教堂，否则儿童的灵魂也会因堕落而下地狱。在这种环境下成长起来的人精神长期处于压抑之中，因此人民不是沉醉于虔诚派的神秘主义中就是酗酒。精神上的软性压迫加上经济困境给人带来精神和肉体的双重摧残，处于统治地位的思想断送了人民的精神、物质层面的任何发展的可能。

Second, Engels’s critique of religion contains a critique and reflection on the phenomena of capitalist exploitation. Engels wrote extensively about the oppression of workers by religious forces. He stated that the worst treatment of workers came from the pietists. The pietists claimed that to prevent workers from excessive drinking, they demanded a reduction in workers’ wages. At that time, capitalists tried to keep workers ignorant, because once workers received education, the bourgeoisie would gain little benefit. In the limited education that remained, religion occupied most of the curriculum. People were instilled from a young age with a large number of religious dogmas and theological ideas. This was not a comfort for the suffering of the present world but a cover for capitalists to exploit workers. At this time, although Engels had not yet found the root cause of workers’ oppression and exploitation, he had already begun to take the critique of religion as an entry point. On the one hand, Engels recognized that once pietism became prevalent in a certain region, it would penetrate every aspect of life and ruin them. On the other hand, Engels believed that the cliff of old obscurantism could not block the great current of the times; it would certainly collapse.

第二，恩格斯的宗教批判蕴含对资本主义剥削现象的批判与反思。恩格斯就宗教势力对工人压迫的情况着墨甚多。他称对待工人最坏的就是虔诚派教徒。虔诚派教徒声称为了不让工人过度饮酒而要求降低工人的工资。当时的资本家试图使工人保持愚昧，因为一旦工人受到教育，资产阶级就得不到多少好处了，在仅剩的教育中宗教又占据了大部分课程，人们从小就被灌输大量的宗教教条和神学思想，这并不是对现世苦难的安慰，而是为资本家剥削工人进行遮掩。此时的恩格斯虽然还未找到工人受压迫剥削的根源，但已开始将批判宗教作为切入点，一方面恩格斯认识到虔诚主义一旦在某一个地区流行开来，就会渗透到生活的各个方面，并断送他们，另一方面恩格斯相信旧蒙昧主义的断崖是挡不住时代的巨流的，它一定会倒塌。

Third, Engels’s critique of religion in 1839 provided intellectual preparation for later reflections on the path of the proletariat’s self-emancipation. After 1839, Engels’s stance on criticizing religion became increasingly resolute, and he explicitly regarded workers as the real force to rely on for criticizing religion. At the same time, the logic of Engels’s early critique of religion was continuously deepening. Religion would sooner or later be abandoned by the times, because no matter how much religious doctrine was instilled into workers, they would abandon their faith due to economic poverty: “The sharper the opposition between workers and capitalists, the more developed and clearer the proletarian consciousness among workers becomes.” [6]6 This quotation is from Engels’s early work *The Condition of the Working Class in England* (1845), where he analyzes the development of class consciousness among workers. Faced with the vast disparity in wealth and quality of life, workers would gradually awaken, realizing that faith was merely a cover for the bourgeoisie to extract their fat. They would more easily shed the principles and ideas of the bourgeoisie, gradually form interests and principles opposed to those of the bourgeoisie, and gradually give rise to a unique proletarian worldview.

第三，1839年恩格斯的宗教批判为后来思考无产阶级追求自我解放的途径提供了思想准备。恩格斯在1839年之后，批判宗教的立场愈发坚决，并明确将工人视为批判宗教的现实依靠力量。同时，恩格斯早年批判宗教的逻辑也在不断深化，宗教早晚要被时代抛弃，因为无论怎样对工人灌输宗教教义，工人也会因为经济的贫困而抛弃信仰，“工人和资本家的对立越尖锐，工人中的无产阶级意识也就越发展，越明朗”。面对财富、生活质量的悬殊差距，工人会逐渐觉醒，认识到信仰只是资产阶级榨取他们脂膏的掩饰，更容易摆脱资产者的原则与思想，逐渐形成同资产阶级相对立的利益和原则，也会逐渐生发出无产阶级独特的世界观。

Thus, although in 1839 Engels was still a religious believer, taking 1839 as the starting point of Engels’s critique of religion is of great significance. The prerequisite for critique is to be familiar with and acknowledge the existence of the object of critique; Engels’s early experience of faith made his critique of religion all the more profound. Although Engels’s 1839 investigation was still crude—for example, attributing the suffering of the people in the Wuppertal Valley to an evil sect within Christianity; proceeding solely from sympathy for the people’s suffering, neither correctly recognizing the causes of these phenomena nor proposing feasible solutions to overcome practical problems; and amounting only to an indictment of the sect and a condemnation of the factory owners, which could not yet be called a scientific theory—this was still the first step on Engels’s theoretical journey of critique of religion. Yet the 1839 texts already contained two important elements of the communist movement: the goal of achieving both material and spiritual liberation, and the working class as the subject of the realization of Marxism. It can be said that Engels’s 1839 critique of religion is the germ of Marxist critical theory of religion. To ignore the origin of the critique of religion in 1839, to make overly fine historical divisions of Engels’s critique of religion, and especially to understand it as a pre-scientific stage versus a scientific stage, would inevitably severely sever and obscure the trajectory of Engels’s early thought.

可见，尽管1839年恩格斯还是一名宗教信徒，将1839年作为恩格斯宗教批判思想的开端具有重大意义。批判的前提就是熟悉和承认批判对象的存在，恩格斯早年的信仰经历使其宗教批判更加深刻。虽然恩格斯1839年的调查还显得粗糙，如将伍珀河谷地区人民所受的苦难归结为基督教下的某个邪恶教派；仅从对人民苦难的同情出发，既没有正确认识到这些现象产生的原因，也没有提出克服现实问题的可行方案；以及只是对教派的控诉和对工厂主的谴责，尚不能称之为科学理论，这还只是恩格斯踏上宗教批判理论征程的第一步。但是1839年的文本中已经包含了两个共产主义运动的重要元素：实现物质与精神双重解放的目标和作为马克思主义现实化的主体的工人阶级。可以说，1839年恩格斯的宗教批判思想是马克思主义宗教批判理论的萌芽。忽略1839年的宗教批判思想发端、对恩格斯宗教批判思想过于细致的历史划分，特别是将其理解为前科学阶段与科学阶段必然会严重割裂和掩盖早年恩格斯的思想轨迹。

II. Engels’s Critique of Religion Is a Coherent and Indivisible Whole

二、恩格斯宗教批判思想是连贯不可分割的

Attempts to periodize Engels’s critique of religion in various ways face certain difficulties and problems. For example, Engels during the Pietist period had already begun to expose the various evils of religion; it cannot be simply assumed that Engels had not yet formed a critique of religion at this time. Another view holds that Engels’s more moderate discussions of Christianity in his later years represent a degeneration of his critique of religion. How can these questions be effectively addressed? Should a detailed periodization be undertaken at all? This article argues that Engels’s critique of religion is a coherent and indivisible whole, just as the formation of historical materialism itself is a process. Engels’s moral critique of religion was the precursor to opening up a deep theoretical critique; the subsequent empirical analysis was a substantiation of historical materialism. Attempting to make a clear-cut periodization of Engels’s thought not only ignores the continuity of Engels’s own thought but also ignores the mutual intellectual influence between Marx and Engels; thus, a clear temporal division is difficult to achieve. Forcibly dividing time periods may also give rise to new problems. For example, taking 1845 as the dividing point between the scientific and pre-scientific worldviews of Marx and Engels may provoke an opposition between “young” and “old.” Overly fine divisions are also difficult to sustain theoretically; for instance, the early German classical philosophy accepted by Marx and Engels, especially Hegelian philosophy, had a profound influence on later Marxism and cannot be separated through periodization. Proceeding from the consistent standpoint of Marx and Engels and exploring the gradual deepening of their thought should be a relatively reliable approach.

对恩格斯宗教批判思想进行多种分期的尝试面临一定困难和问题。例如虔诚主义时期的恩格斯已经开始揭露宗教的种种弊端，不能简单认为此时的恩格斯还没有形成宗教批判思想。还有观点认为晚年恩格斯对基督教较为温和的论述，是宗教批判思想发生了变质。如何有效回应这些问题？究竟要不要进行细致的思想分期？本文认为，恩格斯宗教批判思想是一个连贯不可分割的整体，就如同历史唯物主义的形成本身就是一个过程。恩格斯对宗教展开道德批判是开启深入理论批判的先导，之后的实证分析则是对历史唯物主义的充实。试图对恩格斯思想做出泾渭分明的分期既忽略了恩格斯本人思想的延续性，也忽略了马恩二人在思想上的相互影响，因而从时间上做出明确划分是难以实现的。强行划分时间段还可能引发新的问题。例如，以1845年作为划分马恩二人科学世界观与前科学世界观的分界点便可能引起“青年”与“老年”的对立。过细的划分在学理上也难以成立，比如马恩早期接受的德国古典哲学，特别是黑格尔哲学对日后的马克思主义影响深远，难以通过分期割裂开来。从马恩二人一以贯之的立场出发，探讨其思想的逐步深化应为一条相对稳妥的进路。

First, Engels was always a firm and profound critic of religion. If one takes the critique of religion as a thread to examine the trajectory of Engels’s thought, one finds that Engels never wavered—not only as a firm critic of religion, but also in his consistent stance of combining the critique of religion with scientific socialism, whether in his early radical expressions or in his later years when he opposed overly radical positions by elucidating the laws of the emergence, development, and extinction of religion.

首先，恩格斯始终是坚定、深刻的宗教批判者。如果以宗教批判作为一条线索来考察恩格斯的思想轨迹，就会发现恩格斯从来没有动摇过，不仅作为坚定的宗教批判者没有动摇过，而且将宗教批判与科学社会主义相结合的立场也是始终如一，不论是早年的激进表达，还是晚年的通过阐发宗教产生、发展与消亡的规律反对过于激进的主张时均是如此。

After denouncing the oppression of the lower classes by Pietism, Engels sought to explore the way to resolve it. From 1839 onward, he continuously developed his critique around religion’s oppression of people and the realization of human liberation. Engels first encountered the internal contradictions of religious theology. On the one hand, religious alienation arose from the separation of human nature and divine nature; theologians attributed the beautiful, noble, and great aspects of human nature to God, while people could only await God’s salvation in a “deficient” human nature, losing their own essence in religion. Grasping this point was especially important for Prussia, where the religious atmosphere was heavy at the time, as Engels said: “Only those familiar with the other side of German national development, namely philosophy, can understand the full historical significance of this perfected human nature, this overcoming of religious dualism.” On the other hand, the expansion of religion required people to receive education, at least enough to comprehend religious doctrine; for this reason, religious dogma and theological knowledge had to be designed as the main curriculum, which instead made the educated even more ignorant and foolish. The reason for this lay in the fact that religion’s interpretation of the world could serve the ruling order. In 1844, Engels collaborated with Marx on writing *The Holy Family*, indicating that the critique of religion was the prelude to achieving political liberation and human liberation. In the same year, he published *The Condition of the Working Class in England*, analyzing the living conditions of the working class in English cities, revealing the social structure of the time, and seeking to draw communist conclusions from it. In 1848, he co-authored *The Communist Manifesto* with Marx, breaking through purely theoretical activity and directly combining it with the practice of the international workers’ movement, using thorough materialism to provide a profound and comprehensive explanation of all spheres of social life. From the early moral critique born of sympathy for the lower classes to the theoretical critique of his later years, Engels shared a similar trajectory of intellectual development with Marx. As for the more moderate discussions of Christianity in Engels’s later writings, these are by no means a defense of Christianity but rather a manifestation of wisdom and calm struggle tactics based on the actual conditions of the workers’ movement.

恩格斯在痛斥虔诚主义对底层人民的压迫之后，便试图探究破解之道。从1839年开始，就不断围绕宗教对人的压迫和实现人的解放而展开批判。恩格斯首先碰到的就是宗教神学的自身矛盾。一方面，由于人性与神性的分离而产生了宗教异化，神学家们将人性中美好的、崇高的、伟大的事物归之于神，人只能在“残缺”的人性中等待神的拯救，人在宗教中丧失了自己的本质。能否把握到这一点对于当时宗教氛围浓重的普鲁士尤其重要，如恩格斯所说：“只有熟悉德国民族发展的另一方面即哲学的人，才能理解这种完善的人性，这种对宗教二元论的克服所具有的全部历史意义。”另一方面，宗教的扩张需要人们接受教育，至少可以领会宗教教义，为此不得不将宗教教条和神学知识设计为主要课程，这反倒使得受教育者愈发的愚昧无知。造成这样的原因，就在于宗教对世界的解释可为统治秩序效力。1844年恩格斯与马克思联手写作《神圣家族》，表明宗教批判是实现政治解放和人类解放的序幕。同年发表《英国工人状况》，通过分析英国城市的工人阶级的生活现状，展现当时的社会结构，力图从中引出共产主义的结论。1848年与马克思合著《共产党宣言》，突破了纯粹的理论活动，直接同国际工人运动的实践相结合，并运用彻底的唯物主义，对社会生活的一切领域做出深刻、全面的说明。从早年出于对底层人民的同情的道德批判到晚年的理论批判，恩格斯与马克思有着相似的思想发展历程。至于恩格斯晚年著作中对基督教较为温和的论述，绝非对基督教的辩护，而是从工人运动的实际出发所彰显的睿智和冷静的斗争策略。

Reviewing the course of Engels’s critique of religion, one can see that Engels’s methods of critique included philosophical critique, empirical research, historical analysis, and so on; one cannot deny the coherence of Engels’s critique of religion simply because of changes in research methods or perspectives.

回顾恩格斯宗教批判的历程，可以发现恩格斯对于宗教批判的方式有哲学批判、实证研究、历史梳理等等，不能因为研究方法、视角的变迁就否定恩格斯宗教批判思想的连贯性。

Second, Engels’s critique of religion developed in tandem with his historical materialism. From the very beginning, Engels’s critique of religion never detached itself from factors such as history, society, and class. Whether it was the early moral indictment born of sympathy for the workers or the later historical study of religion, the direction of development of his critique of religion was identical to that of historical materialism, and the two also exhibited a mutually reinforcing relationship. From the theoretical starting point, the prerequisite for establishing a scientific worldview was to correctly position the relationship between the real world and religious doctrine. Religion subordinates the real world to some concept of a deity, attempting to make reality conform to doctrine. In Christian theology, God is the highest reason, and happiness can only be attained through reason; for a long time, the development of the natural sciences was also intermingled with concepts of deity—for example, the preface to *Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy* firmly declared that natural philosophy was the most suitable weapon against the godless rabble. Engels’s work consistently revolved around exposing how religion uses the illusion of reason to conceal conflicts and contradictions between material interests. The historical materialism of Marx and Engels holds that social being determines social consciousness, and that human history is ultimately determined by the sum total of material production and the relations of life formed on this basis; this powerfully challenged the Christian theological doctrine, dating back to Augustine, of explaining the world through reason. By the time of Engels’s later research on the origin and development of Christianity, the theoretical maturity of historical materialism was fully manifested.

第二、恩格斯宗教批判思想伴随其历史唯物主义同步发展。恩格斯宗教批判思想从一开始就没有脱离历史、社会、阶级等因素。无论是早年出于对工人的同情而生发的道德控诉还是晚年的宗教历史研究，其宗教批判思想的发展方向同历史唯物主义的发展方向是同一的，而且二者还表现出相互促进的关系。从理论出发点来看，科学世界观建立的先决条件就是摆正现实世界与宗教教义的关系。宗教将现实世界支配于某种神灵观念，试图让现实符合教义。基督教神学中上帝为最高理性，通过理性才能获得幸福，在很长一段时间中自然科学的发展也掺杂着神灵观念，例如《自然哲学的数学原理》的序言中便坚定地宣称自然哲学是最合适用来对付不信神的乌合之众的武器。恩格斯所做的工作始终围绕揭露宗教用理性的虚幻来掩盖物质利益之间的冲突与矛盾。马恩的历史唯物主义认为，社会存在决定社会意识，人类的历史归根结底是由物质生产以及在此基础之上结成的生活关系的总和所决定的，这有力冲击了自奥古斯丁以来的基督教神学以理性说明世界的学说。直到晚年恩格斯对基督教起源发展的研究，已经完全彰显了历史唯物主义的理论成熟。

Engels’s study of the history of the origin and development of religion is a model application of historical materialism. As Engels said, “The problem can only be solved when we explain the origin and development of religion in terms of the historical conditions under which it arose and achieved dominance.” He sought the roots of the emergence and development of religion in economic and social contradictions: representative religious movements in the East and West were both caused by economic reasons, and their differences also stemmed from the different modes of production and social environments of East and West. Christianity was a cover for the lower classes to attack the economic system, while Islam was the theoretical source for impoverished nomadic peoples to launch attacks on wealthy urbanites. “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles,” and religion is no exception. Historically, Christians emerged from the expansion of the Roman Empire; Rome’s military force and conquests produced a large number of propertyless freemen and slaves, whose immense suffering required spiritual consolation, and Christianity precisely provided this consolation. As Engels said, “Since they despaired of material salvation, they sought spiritual salvation instead, that is, spiritual consolation… it had to appear in religious form.” After the Enlightenment, Christianity gradually changed, precisely as a result of the struggle between the bourgeoisie, representing the advanced productive forces of the time, and the feudal forces. Within the framework of historical materialism, Engels provided a convincing analysis of the origin, development, and forms of religion.

恩格斯对宗教起源发展历史的研究是历史唯物主义的应用典范。如恩格斯所说，“只有根据宗教借以产生和取得统治地位的历史条件，去说明它的起源和发展，才能解决问题。”他从经济社会矛盾方面寻找宗教产生发展的根源：东西方代表性的宗教运动都是由于经济原因所引起的，二者的差别也源于东西方不同的生产方式和社会环境，基督教是底层人民进攻经济制度的一个遮盖物，伊斯兰教则是贫困的游牧民族对富有的市民发起进攻的理论来源。“至今一切社会的历史都是阶级斗争的历史”，宗教也概莫能外，在历史上，基督教徒是由罗马帝国的扩张而产生的，罗马的军事强力和征服造成大量没有财产的自由民与奴隶的产生，极大的痛苦需要寻求思想上的安慰，基督教正是提供了这种安慰。如恩格斯所说：“他们既然对物质上的得救感到绝望，就去追寻灵魂得救来代替，即追寻思想上的安慰……它必须以宗教形式出现。”在启蒙运动后基督教逐渐发生改变，这正是由于当时代表着先进生产力的资产阶级与封建势力斗争的结果。根据历史唯物主义的框架，恩格斯对宗教起源、发展和宗教的形式做出了令人信服的分析。

Third, Engels’s critique of religion was always accompanied by the working-class group. Before the birth of Marxism, Engels had already focused on the working class, the most revolutionary proletarian group. For Engels, whose theoretical work was just beginning, the politically unenlightened situation in Germany was not suitable for directly discussing politics, so using the critique of religion to implicitly address reality became a common trait among the young Hegelians. [12]12 The young Hegelians were a group of German intellectuals in the 1830s and 1840s who drew radical atheistic and political conclusions from Hegel’s philosophy, often using religious critique as a proxy for political commentary under censorship. In 1839, the working-class group entered Engels’s field of vision, and thereafter received high attention, always linked to Engels’s critique of religion. Promoting the unity of the world’s proletarians to achieve comprehensive liberation was not only the theoretical pursuit of Marxism but also the practical aspiration of Marx and Engels. In 1847, the relationship between communism and religion was clearly expressed in Engels’s texts: “All religion so far has been the expression of historical stages of development of individual peoples or groups of peoples, but communism is the stage of development that makes all existing religions superfluous and brings about their abolition.” In 1848, when the “feudal socialism” constructed by clergy in collusion with feudal lords, along with Christian socialism, emerged and interfered with the workers’ movement, Engels, together with Marx, exposed its reactionary nature. This kind of “socialism” advocated opposing private property through charity and prayer, monasticism and worship, seemingly sharing a common enemy with communists, but in essence it was turning back the wheel of history, attempting to safeguard the interests of feudal lords.

第三、恩格斯的宗教批判思想始终与工人群体相伴随。恩格斯在马克思主义诞生之前便已经关注到工人这一革命性最强的无产阶级群体。对于理论事业刚刚起步的恩格斯而言，德国国内并不开明的政治局势并不适宜直接谈论政治，因此借助批判宗教隐晦地谈及现实成为了当时青年黑格尔派成员的共性。1839年工人群体进入恩格斯的视野，之后便一直受到高度重视，而且一直同恩格斯的宗教批判相关联。推动世界无产者的联合进而实现全面解放不仅是马克思主义的理论追求，亦是马恩二人的现实夙愿。1847年，共产主义与宗教的关系在恩格斯的文本中得到了清晰的表达，“迄今一切宗教都是单个民族或几个民族的历史发展阶段的表现，而共产主义却是使一切现有宗教成为多余并使之消灭的发展阶段。”1848年，当僧侣伙同封建主构造的“封建的社会主义”以及基督教社会主义出现并干扰工人运动时，恩格斯与马克思一同揭露了其反动本质。这种“社会主义”提倡用行善和祈求、修道和礼拜来反对私有财产，看似与共产主义者有着共同的敌人，实质上是开历史倒车，试图维护封建主的利益。

Engels’s critique of religion played an important role in resisting erroneous trends in the workers’ movement. For example, Dühring called religion “childish, primitive imagination,” and therefore “all the props of religious magic must be removed, and consequently all the basic components of worship must be removed.” This stance of opposing all religion and its external manifestations seemed revolutionary, but it was far from the truth of historical materialism. In Engels’s view, religion, as the alienation of human essence, is an expression of specific relations of production; religion is a result of the movement of social contradictions, not their cause. As long as members of society cannot escape the state of enslavement by the means of production, religion will not disappear. Dühring’s erroneous theory only helped prolong the life cycle of religion. Many anti-church decrees in history ultimately ended in failure, instead increasing the fervor of religious defense and the number of believers.

恩格斯宗教批判思想在抵御工人运动错误思潮上发挥了重要作用。如杜林称宗教是“幼稚的原始的想象”，因此“必须除去宗教魔术的一切道具，因此也必须除去膜拜的一切基本组成部分”。这种反对一切宗教及其外部表现的主张看似具有革命性，但离历史唯物主义的真理还非常遥远。在恩格斯看来，宗教作为人的本质的异化，是一定生产关系的表现，宗教是社会矛盾运动的结果而不是原因，只要社会成员还不能摆脱生产资料的奴役状态，宗教就不会消失。杜林的错误学说，只是在帮助宗教延长生命周期，历史上许多实施反教会的法令，最后都以失败而告终，反倒增加了护教狂热和教徒数量。

Engels’s concern for the workers and the workers’ movement continued until his death in 1894. When investigating the origin and social essence of Christianity, he still did not forget to think about the problems of the workers’ movement. He believed that the early Christians in history had many similarities with the workers’ movements under various “socialist” banners that emerged in the 19th century: both were mass movements, and both were in a state of chaos, lacking goals, and engaged in endless internal struggles. [13]13 The term “internal struggles” (neidou) refers to factional conflicts within the early Christian communities, which Engels compared to splits and debates in 19th-century socialist movements. Due to the lack of guidance from scientific theory, “the first Christians, like our first communist workers’ circles, were incredibly credulous about anything that suited their taste.” It can be seen that Engels’s critique of religion always followed the direction of his early critique of religion, closely revolving around protecting and purifying the workers’ movement, consistently and without interruption.

对工人和工人运动的关切一直持续到恩格斯逝世前，1894恩格斯在探究基督教产生的历史以及社会本质时，仍不忘思考工人运动的问题。他认为，历史上的原始基督教信徒同19世纪兴起的各式各样“社会主义”旗帜下的工人运动有许多相似之处，二者都是群众运动，又同样处于混乱、缺乏目标以及无休止的neidou之中。由于缺乏科学理论的指导，“最初的基督徒也像我们最初的共产主义工人支部那样，对于一切投合他们口味的东西都无比轻信。”可见，恩格斯宗教批判思想始终沿着早年宗教批判的方向，紧密围绕保护、净化工人运动，一以贯之。

III. Re-examining Engels’s Functional Positioning of Atheism and Its Practical Significance

三、重新审视恩格斯对无神论的功能定位及其现实意义

Atheism is an important link in Marxism, and Engels discussed it extensively, elaborating it from multiple aspects. The reason is that Marx and Engels saw both Feuerbach’s claim that “religion is the alienation of human essence” and the reified manifestation of religion as a product of alienation: religion had become a social force in human civilization that could not be ignored. So how is the dissolution of religion to be accomplished in reality? Based on historical materialism, Engels identified atheism as a long-term strategy of practice and struggle.

无神论是马克思主义的一个重要环节，恩格斯对此有很多论述，并从多个侧面进行阐发。原因在于马恩既看到了费尔巴哈所说的“宗教是人的本质的异化”，也看到了宗教作为异化产物的实体化表现：宗教已经成为人类文明中不可忽视的社会力量。那么如何在现实中完成对宗教的消解？恩格斯基于历史唯物主义将无神论确定为长期的实践与斗争方略。

First, how should Engels’s statement that “atheism is a religion” be correctly understood? There is some controversy in academia on this point, and some in society even consider it a defense of religion. This issue must be clarified. As Engels said, “As for atheism being merely a negation, we ourselves pointed that out as early as forty years ago when we were refuting the philosophers, but we added: atheism, as the mere negation of religion, always refers to religion, without which it itself does not exist, and therefore it itself is still a religion…” In Engels’s view, atheism exists as the opposite of religious theism; it is the negation of theism. As an ideology that confronts theism, the two are the same in category—both are worldviews. But the theoretical nature of Marxism is fundamentally different from a religious worldview; the two cannot be conflated. Atheism is the ideological preparation for the complete abolition of religion and the realization of communism, not, as McLellan believes, that Engels’s atheism shares with Christianity the content of “support for the oppressed,” “promise of salvation,” “opposition to the existing society,” and “guarantee of final victory.” Since the real world has not yet reached the final state of communism, progressive atheism is always needed to counterbalance various forms of religious theism. Therefore, to accurately understand Engels’s functional positioning of atheism from the context of historical materialism: theism comes first, then atheism; the long-term existence of theism determines the long-term existence of atheism, until the concept of gods disappears after communism is realized.

首先，如何正确理解恩格斯“无神论是一种宗教”的表述？学界对此存在一定争议，甚至社会上有人认为这是对宗教的辩护，这个问题必须得到澄清。如恩格斯所说，“至于无神论只是表示一种否定，这一点我们自己早在40年前驳斥哲学家们的时候就已经说过了，但是我们补充说:无神论作为对宗教的单纯的否定，它始终要涉及宗教，没有宗教，它本身也不存在，因此它本身还是一种宗教……”在恩格斯看来，无神论是作为宗教有神论的对立面而存在的，是对有神论的否定，作为一种与有神论相对抗的意识形态，在范畴上二者是一样的，都是世界观。但马克思主义的理论本性与宗教的世界观迥然相异，二者不能混为一谈。无神论是为彻底消亡宗教进而实现共产主义的思想准备，而不是像麦克莱伦所认为的恩格斯所持的无神论与基督教之间共享着“受压迫民众的支持”、“拯救的承诺”、“现行社会的对立”以及“最终胜利的保证”的内容。由于现实世界尚未达到共产主义的最终状态，就始终需要进步的无神论同各种宗教有神论相制衡。因此，从历史唯物主义的语境下准确理解恩格斯对无神论的功能定位，先有有神论，再有无神论，有神论的长期存在决定了无神论的长期存在，直到共产主义实现后神灵观念消失。

Second, propagating Marxist atheism must conform to historical materialism. Religion, as an expression of human alienation in the ideological sphere, still has its core in the secular world. Engels severely criticized Dühring’s radical plan to forcibly prohibit religion. Dühring promulgated even stricter May Laws, opposing not only Catholicism but all religion. [14]14 The May Laws (Maigesetze) were a set of anti-Catholic laws enacted by the Prussian government under Otto von Bismarck in the 1870s as part of the Kulturkampf (cultural struggle) against the influence of the Catholic Church. Dühring’s proposal to extend such laws to all religions is presented as an extreme, counterproductive measure. It can be seen that ignoring the stage of historical development and attempting to eliminate religion through coercive means may not only fail to realize the desire to eliminate religion but may also have the opposite effect. In other words, the extreme approach of denouncing all religious doctrines as nonsense and then completely banning them does not pave the way for atheism, nor does it conform to historical materialism. Therefore, the true mission of Marxist atheism is to build a secular state according to the grand vision of Marx and Engels, continuously deepen the degree of secularization of the state, and gradually achieve thorough and comprehensive secularization through practical atheism in thought and institution, thereby dissolving religion. This has great value for guiding the construction of ideology in China today. On the one hand, Marxist atheism must be actively propagated; on the other hand, practical strategies must be emphasized, especially the need to unite more people for common struggle during the process of national construction in the primary stage of socialism.

第二，宣扬马克思主义无神论需要符合历史唯物主义。宗教作为一种人在思想领域内的异化表现，其核心仍然是在世俗世界之中。恩格斯曾严厉批评杜林试图强行禁止宗教的激进方案，杜林颁布了更严厉的五月法令，不仅反对天主教，而且也反对一切宗教。可见，不顾历史发展阶段而通过强制手段消灭宗教可能不仅无法实现消灭宗教的愿望，还可能起到相反的作用。换言之，将一切宗教教义斥为胡说八道，然后彻底禁止的极端做法不是在为无神论开辟道路，更不符合历史唯物主义。因此，马克思主义无神论的真正使命是按照马克思、恩格斯的伟大构想构建世俗国家，持续深化国家的世俗程度，在思想上、制度上通过实践的无神论逐步通达彻底的、全面的世俗化，进而消解宗教。这对于指导当今中国的意识形态建设工作有重大价值，一方面要不断积极宣传马克思主义无神论，一方面要注重现实策略，特别是社会主义初级阶段国家建设过程中仍然需要团结更多的人群共同奋斗。

Third, atheism relying on dialectical materialism has the important function of resisting idealism and new theism. Idealism sanctifies, objectifies, and worships a certain human spirit; this is one of the important roots of the emergence and development of religion. The emergence of this situation is in fact also a form of human alienation, and eliminating this phenomenon is the mission of Marxist atheism. When Engels analyzed the pseudo-scientific “research” of spiritualism by Wallace and Crookes, he revealed that the reason these scientists turned to mysticism was not a necessary consequence of natural-philosophical theory, but rather an excessive trust in experience-based observation. This empirical observation “despises all theory, distrusts all thought” and possesses an incurable superficiality; because it lacks dialectical thinking, it ultimately moves toward the opposite of science. Hence Engels sighed that contempt for dialectics is surely punished. This has an important theoretical guiding role in resisting the prevalence of new theistic activities such as the endless contemporary superstitions and pseudosciences.

第三，依托于唯物辩证法的无神论具有抵御唯心主义和新有神论的重要功能。唯心主义将人的某种精神神圣化、客体化并加以崇拜，这是宗教得以产生发展的重要根源之一，这种状况的产生事实上也是人的异化表现当中的一种，消除这种现象是马克思主义无神论的使命。恩格斯在分析华莱士、克鲁克斯的灵学伪科学“研究”时，揭示出这些科学家走向神秘主义的原因并不是出于自然哲学理论的必然，而是过度相信基于经验的观察，这种经验观察“蔑视一切理论、怀疑一切思维”，且具有无可挽救的肤浅性，由于缺少辩证思维，因而最终走向科学的反面。故而恩格斯发出感叹，蔑视辩证法是一定要受惩罚的。这对于抵制层出不穷的当代迷信、伪科学、神秘主义等新有神论活动的流行具有重要的理论指导作用。

Human history proceeds from theism to atheism, and then from atheism to communism, which completely transcends religion. When humanity finally achieves complete liberation and the ideological alienation in people’s minds is eliminated, that will be the moment when atheism completes its own historical mission. Engels’s functional positioning of atheism as a dialectical link leading to communism is historical, sober, and wise, and it still has great practical guiding significance.

人类历史是从有神论到无神论，再从无神论到彻底超越宗教的共产主义，当人类最终实现彻底解放、头脑中的观念异化得以消除，便是无神论完成自身历史使命之时。恩格斯对无神论作为通达共产主义的辩证环节这一功能定位是历史的、清醒的、睿智的，仍极具现实指导意义。

Conclusion

结 语

This article holds that Engels’s critique of religion should be regarded as an organic whole based on historical materialism; that is, from Engels’s first critique of religion in 1839 in “Letters from the Wuppertal” to the publication of “On the History of Early Christianity” in 1894, all should be seen as the period of development of Engels’s atheist thought. On the one hand, Engels’s critique of religion emerged in the history of Marxist development, driven by the internal logic of Marxist theory; on the other hand, it is founded on the premise of historical materialism, inherently containing the theoretical demand from critique to the transcendence of religion. Under this dual framework, the theoretical logic inherent in Marxism led Engels to issue the call to “dig out the spirits that are buried under the foundation stones of churches and dungeons, but that are knocking under the hard crust of the earth, seeking deliverance.” [15]15 This quotation is from Engels’s 1842 article “The Insolently Threatened Yet Miraculously Rescued Bible, or: The Triumph of Faith,” in which he critiques religious obscurantism and calls for the liberation of rational thought. Historical materialism, as the theoretical cornerstone, propelled Engels to put forward an advanced ideology bearing a historical mission—atheism—which is also the bridge between pre-communist society and communist society. It can be seen that the internal logic of the theory points out the direction, while the theoretical premise lays the foundation for insight into the future. The theoretical purport of Engels’s critique of religion is deeply concerned with the future fate of humanity, history, and society; therefore, it remains a guide for dealing with the problems of the present era and has important theoretical and practical significance.

本文认为，应当将恩格斯的宗教批判思想视为立足于历史唯物主义的一个有机整体，即从1839年《伍珀河谷来信》恩格斯对宗教第一次批判开始，到1894年《原始基督教的历史》发表为止，均视作恩格斯无神论思想的发展时期。恩格斯的宗教批判思想一方面产生于马克思主义发展史中，受到马克思主义理论内在逻辑的推动，另一方面又奠基于历史唯物主义的前提之上，内在的包含了从批判到超越宗教的理论要求。在这双重框架之下，马克思主义内涵的理论逻辑使得恩格斯发出“把那些埋没在教堂和地牢的基石下、但在坚硬的地壳下敲击着、寻求解救的精灵发掘出来”的呼吁；作为理论基石的历史唯物主义推动着恩格斯提出了肩负着历史重任的先进意识形态——同时也是沟通前共产主义社会与共产主义社会之间的桥梁——无神论。可以看到，理论的内在逻辑指明了方向，而理论前提则奠定了洞察未来的基础。恩格斯宗教批判思想的理论旨归，深切关注着人类、历史和社会的未来命运，因此它仍然是处理当下时代问题的指南，具有重要的理论和现实意义。

Online editor: Rainbow

网络编辑：彩虹