The Atheist Thought in Marx’s Doctoral Dissertation and Its Significance in the New Era

From the beginning of 1839 to March 1841, Marx spent more than two years completing his doctoral dissertation, *The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature* (hereinafter referred to as the doctoral dissertation). During his university years, Marx was deeply influenced by Hegelian philosophy and Bruno Bauer’s philosophy of religion, and sought to complete the critique of Christian religious theology by establishing the principle of atheism, thereby providing theoretical justification and an ideological weapon for opposing the feudal autocratic system. In the history of the development of Marxist scientific atheism, the doctoral dissertation is undoubtedly the true opening work of Marx’s theory of religious critique, taking the crucial first step on the road to scientific atheism. Although deeply influenced by Hegelian idealist philosophy, especially Bauer’s philosophy of self-consciousness, the atheist thought contained in the doctoral dissertation remains the logical starting point for the emergence of all Marxist scientific atheism, providing the ideological foundation for the revolutionary transformation of scientific atheism.

1839年初至1841年3月，马克思用两年多时间完成了他的博士论文《德谟克利特的自然哲学与伊壁鸠鲁的自然哲学的差别》（以下简称博士论文）。大学求学时期的马克思深受黑格尔哲学思想和布鲁诺·鲍威尔宗教哲学的影响，力图通过确立无神论原则来完成对基督教宗教神学的批判，从而为反对封建专制制度提供理论论证和思想武器。在马克思主义科学无神论发展史上，博士论文无疑是马克思宗教批判理论真正意义上的开篇之作，在通向科学无神论的道路上迈出了至关重要的第一步。尽管深受黑格尔唯心主义哲学特别是鲍威尔自我意识哲学的深刻影响，但博士论文中蕴含的无神论思想仍然是整个马克思主义科学无神论产生的逻辑起点，提供了科学无神论革命性变革的思想基础。

I. The Atheist Motive for the Topic Selection of Marx’s Doctoral Dissertation

一、马克思博士论文选题的无神论动因

Germany at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century was a feudal state that adhered to religious theology, and the autocratic system made every effort to use religious theology to serve its rule. However, unlike other parts of Germany, Marx’s hometown, the Rhine Province, had been occupied by Napoleon’s army for more than 20 years and was deeply influenced by French Enlightenment thought. At this time, an ideological movement also emerged among German Jews to break the shackles of Judaism and actively accept the infiltration of Protestant faith influenced by Enlightenment thought. “Under the strong influence of rationalism, humanitarianism, and liberalism in the family and school, Marx’s ideological change from middle school to university underwent a process from believing in religion, to doubting religion, and then to opposing and criticizing religion.” [1]1 Bruno Bauer (1809–1882) was a German philosopher and a leading figure of the Young Hegelians, known for his radical critique of religion and the New Testament. As early as 1816 to 1825, Marx’s father, steeped in liberal thought, converted the whole family to Protestantism. From 1830 to 1835, during Marx’s middle school years, he further received the personal instruction and influence of many teachers imbued with the Enlightenment spirit and believing in materialist atheism. These experiences had an initial impact on guiding the young and adolescent Marx toward the path of Enlightenment thought and liberalism. This impact is concentrated in two assigned essays Marx wrote during his middle school years.

18世纪末19世纪初的德国是信奉宗教神学的封建国家，专制制度极力利用宗教神学为其统治服务。但与德国其他地方不同的是，马克思的家乡莱茵省曾被拿破仑大军占领20多年，深受法国启蒙思想的影响。此时德国犹太人中也出现了打破犹太教禁锢、主动接受启蒙思想渗透的基督新教信仰的思想运动。“在家庭和学校的浓厚的理性主义、人道主义和自由主义的影响下，使马克思从中学到大学的思想变化经历了一个由信仰宗教到怀疑宗教再到反对和批判宗教的发展过程。”[1]早在1816至1825年，饱受自由主义思想熏陶的马克思的父亲就携全家改宗基督新教，1830到1835年中学时期的马克思又进一步接受众多富有启蒙精神和信仰唯物主义无神论的教师的言传身教，这些经历对幼年和青少年时代的马克思导向启蒙思想和自由主义之路产生了最初的影响，这种影响集中体现在马克思中学时代写的两篇命题作文中。

The first assigned essay is “The Union of Believers with Christ According to John 15:1–14, Its Nature, Absolute Necessity, and Effects,” which is also the earliest exposition we have of Marx on the issue of religion. At this time, as an intellectually immature middle school student, Marx was undoubtedly interpreting the “absolute necessity” of the union of believers with Christ according to a religious-fideist mode of thinking. The essay is permeated throughout with a spirit of mysticism and fideism. However, it is worth noting that Marx at this point already displayed an independent spirit of thought different from orthodox theology and Christian doctrine. He sought to interpret this mystical theological issue of the union of man and God from a secular perspective, taking the continuous improvement of human morality as the path to achieving this union, and thereby defining the essence of man. This answer was clearly deeply inspired by Enlightenment atheism since the Renaissance, indicating that Marx had already begun to think independently about religious issues within the theoretical framework of 17th- and 18th-century deism. Enlightenment atheism was precisely the substance and core of the Young Hegelian critique of religion, which later had a major impact on the topic selection of Marx’s doctoral dissertation. It can be said that the Enlightenment atheist thought contained in this assigned essay of Marx’s was his initial attempt to begin turning from a traditional religious view to Enlightenment atheist thought, and was the germ of his later topic selection for the doctoral dissertation, which explored liberalism from the perspective of criticizing religion.

第一篇命题作文是《根据<约翰福音>第15章第1至14节论信徒和基督的结合，这种结合的本质、绝对必要及其影响》，这也是我们看到的马克思关于宗教问题的最早阐述。此时的马克思作为思想尚不成熟的中学生无疑是在按照宗教信仰主义的思维来解读信徒和基督结合的“绝对必要性”，作文通篇包含着神秘主义和信仰主义精神。但值得一提的是，马克思却在此时表现出不同于正统派神学和基督教义的独立思考精神。他力图将人神结合这个神秘主义的神学问题从世俗性的角度进行阐释，以人不断提高自己的道德水平作为通达人神结合的路径，并以此来界定人的本质。而这个答案显然深受文艺复兴以来启蒙无神论的启发，这表明此时的马克思已经开始在17、18世纪自然神论的理论框架下独立思考宗教问题，而启蒙无神论恰恰是后来对马克思写作博士论文选题具有重大影响的青年黑格尔派宗教批判的实质与核心。可以说，马克思这篇命题作文所包含的启蒙无神论思想是马克思开始从传统宗教观转向启蒙无神论思想的最初尝试，是其后来博士论文选题从批判宗教视角探索自由主义的萌芽。

The second assigned essay is Marx’s middle school graduation thesis, “Reflections of a Young Man on the Choice of a Profession.” In this article, the young Marx linked the perfect morality pursued by ethical humanitarianism with the Christian concept of salvation to elucidate the value and significance of the choice of profession for individuals, arguing that the limited, egoistic happiness of the individual should be subordinated to the ideals and happiness of all humanity. “Religion itself teaches us that the ideal whom everyone admires sacrificed himself for humanity… If we choose the profession that enables us to serve humanity to the greatest extent, then we should not succumb under its burden, because this is a sacrifice made for all people; then what we experience will not be meaningless, limited, egoistic happiness; our happiness will belong to billions of people; our cause, though obscure, will forever have a positive significance, and noble people will shed hot tears before our graves.” [2]2 This is a reference to the biblical figure Jesus Christ, whom Marx describes as the ideal who sacrificed himself for humanity. Although at this time Marx could not and did not deeply recognize the true path to realizing human happiness as the value orientation of professional choice, this simple yet sublime ethical humanitarianism, especially the selfless radiance of atheist humanitarianism, guided Marx’s future struggles and closely linked him with socialist and communist thought. In this article, what is noteworthy and commendable is that the basic viewpoints of historical materialism, the theoretical foundation of scientific atheism, had already flashed like a spark of genius in the mind of this talented youth: “…we are not able to choose the profession that we think suits us; our social relations, before we can exert a decisive influence on them, have already been determined to a certain extent.” [3]3 This passage from Marx’s essay is an early intimation of the materialist conception of history, which holds that social being determines consciousness. This shows that the young Marx recognized the constraining effect of pre-existing social relations on people’s freedom to choose a profession. Certain ideas of historical materialism and atheism were already slowly taking shape in his mind. Although he was still bound by religious fideism, this already heralded that atheism and even philosophical theory were about to undergo a truly revolutionary transformation. In short, the ethical humanitarianism of his middle school years, especially atheist humanitarianism, became the internal motive force that drove Marx’s later topic selection for his doctoral dissertation and the realization of his ideological transformation.

第二篇命题作文就是马克思的中学毕业论文《青年选择职业的考虑》，年轻的马克思在这篇文章中将伦理人道主义追求的完美道德和基督教的救世观念联系起来阐发人对职业选择的价值意义，主张个人有限的、利己主义的快乐应当服从于整个人类的理想和幸福，“宗教本身教给我们，一切人所赞美的那个典范为人类牺牲了自己……如果我们选择了使我们能最大限度地服务于人类的职业，那末我们就不应该屈服在它的重负之下，因为这是为一切人而作的牺牲；那时，我们所体会到的就不是无谓的、有限度的、利己主义的快乐，我们的幸福将属于亿万人，我们的事业虽是默默无闻的，但永远具有积极的意义，高尚的人们将在我们的墓前洒下热泪。”[2]尽管此时的马克思没有也不可能深刻认识到作为职业选择价值指向的人类幸福的真正实现路径，但这种朴素而崇高的伦理人道主义，特别是无神论人道主义的无私光辉一直指引着马克思未来的奋斗历程，并使其同社会主义、共产主义思想紧密联系在一起。在这篇文章中，值得关注和称道的是，作为科学无神论的理论根基的唯物史观基本观点已经如灵光般闪现在这位天才少年的心头，“……我们并不是能够选择我们自认为适合的职业；我们在社会上的关系，还在我们能够对它们发生决定性的影响之前，就已经在某种程度上被规定了”。[3]这表明少年马克思认识到先在的社会关系对人们职业选择自由的制约作用，唯物史观和无神论的某些思想已经在他的心中慢慢生成，尽管其仍然深受宗教信仰主义的束缚，但已预示着无神论乃至哲学理论即将迎来真正意义上的革命性变革。总之，中学时代的伦理人道主义，特别是无神论人道主义成为推动马克思后来博士论文选题、实现思想转变的内在动因。

The greatest influence on the choice of topic for Marx’s doctoral dissertation was the religious-critical philosophy of Bruno Bauer, a leading figure of the Young Hegelians, and the core of Bruno Bauer’s religious-critical philosophy was his atheist thought. In October 1836, after transferring to the University of Berlin, Marx was soon infected by the school’s rich philosophical atmosphere and turned to the spiritual world of Hegelian philosophical research. In particular, Marx firmly accepted the idea in Hegel’s dialectical thought about the continuous movement, development, and transformation of nature and human society, and saw in it a rational way out for using Hegelian philosophy to argue for political democratization. Consequently, the Young Hegelians, who were keen to use historical criticism of traditional Christianity to guide political criticism, became the inevitable choice for the young Marx. The spiritual leader of the Young Hegelians was Bruno Bauer, and during his university years Marx was an active member of the Young Hegelians, an important member of the “Doctor’s Club,” and a young talent on whom Bauer greatly relied. During this period, Strauss’s *The Life of Jesus* and Bruno Bauer’s critical studies of Christianity on the Gospels deeply influenced Marx’s view of religion, leading Marx completely onto the path of religious criticism and atheism in his philosophical research. It can be said that during this period Marx “realized the transformation from traditional belief to Enlightenment atheism, which was actually the first leap in the entire process of Marx’s ideological development.” [4]4 The original Chinese text cites a source here, but the source is not provided in the input. The note number is retained as given. Forced by the conservative and oppressive political and religious atmosphere in Germany at the time, Bruno Bauer did not openly propagate atheism but instead sought every means to express and confirm atheism obscurely and circuitously in the form of Hegelian philosophy. In the book *The Trumpet of the Last Judgment against Hegel the Atheist and Antichrist*, Bauer, under the banner of criticizing Hegelian philosophy’s atheism, vigorously propagated religious-critical thought, pushed Enlightenment atheism to the forefront of history, and thereby confirmed the Young Hegelians’ orthodox inheritance of Hegelian philosophical authority. It can be said that *The Trumpet of the Last Judgment against Hegel the Atheist and Antichrist* became the watershed for a complete break between philosophy and religion, and Hegelian philosophy thus became a new form of atheism. Although Bauer’s religious criticism and Enlightenment atheism deeply influenced the young Marx and further confirmed Marx’s high-school-period tendency toward religious skepticism and Enlightenment atheism, unlike Bauer, Marx, who adhered to the professional ideal of atheist humanism, was not satisfied with mere religious-philosophical criticism. Instead, he placed greater value on political criticism connected with religious criticism that had more practical significance—that is, solving real political problems: political democratization reform. After failing to organize a combative Enlightenment atheist journal, the *Library of Atheism*, with the core figures of the Young Hegelians, Marx gradually recognized the importance of carrying out thorough religious criticism. He resolutely maintained a distance from the Young Hegelians in religious criticism, not blindly following Bauer, but instead devoting himself wholeheartedly to writing his doctoral dissertation from a higher perspective, and in the process of new reflection, he continuously engaged in self-criticism and self-negation. The doctoral dissertation was Marx’s attempt to move from religious criticism to political reform, “the precursor to a larger work.” [5]5 The original Chinese text cites a source here, but the source is not provided in the input. The note number is retained as given. It “represents Marx’s atheist thought during his student period; this thought was a continuation of the progressive ideas from his high school period and also a prelude to reaching scientific atheism.” [6]6 The original Chinese text cites a source here, but the source is not provided in the input. The note number is retained as given.

对马克思博士论文选题影响最大的是青年黑格尔派代表人物布鲁诺·鲍威尔的宗教批判哲学，而在布鲁诺·鲍威尔宗教批判哲学中处于核心地位的就是其无神论思想。1836年10月，转学柏林大学后的马克思很快被当时学校浓郁的哲学氛围所感染，转向黑格尔哲学研究的精神世界中，尤其是马克思坚定地接受了黑格尔辩证法思想中关于自然界和人类社会不断运动发展转变的思想，并从中看到了以黑格尔哲学来论证政治民主化的合理性出路。于是，热衷于借助对传统基督教的历史批判来导向政治批判的青年黑格尔派成为青年马克思的必然选择。青年黑格尔派的精神领袖就是布鲁诺·鲍威尔，而大学时期的马克思是青年黑格尔派中活跃分子，是“博士俱乐部”的重要成员，也是鲍威尔十分倚重的青年才俊。这一时期，施特劳斯《耶稣传》、布鲁诺·鲍威尔关于福音书的基督教批判研究论著深深影响了马克思的宗教观，将马克思在哲学研究上彻底导入宗教批判和无神论之路上来。这一时期可以说马克思“实现了从传统信仰到启蒙无神论的转变，这实际上是马克思一生思想发展进程的第一次飞跃”。[4]迫于当时德国保守压抑的政治宗教氛围，布鲁诺·鲍威尔并没有开诚布公地宣扬无神论，而是想方设法地将无神论以黑格尔哲学的形式隐晦而迂回地进行表达和确证。在《对黑格尔、无神论和反基督教者的末日的宣言》一书中，鲍威尔打着批判黑格尔哲学无神论的旗号大肆宣扬宗教批判思想，将启蒙无神论推向历史的前台，并以此确证青年黑格尔派对黑格尔哲学权威的正统继承地位。可以说，《对黑格尔、无神论和反基督教者的末日的宣言》成为哲学与宗教彻底决裂的分水岭，黑格尔哲学就此成为无神论的新形态。尽管鲍威尔的宗教批判和启蒙无神论深刻影响着青年马克思，并使马克思进一步确证中学时期对宗教怀疑精神和启蒙无神论倾向，但与鲍威尔不同的是，坚守无神论人道主义职业理想的马克思并不满足于单纯的宗教哲学批判，而是更加看重与宗教批判相联系的、更加具有现实意义的政治批判即解决现实的政治问题——政治民主化改革。在与青年黑格尔派核心人物筹办富于战斗性的启蒙无神论刊物《无神论文库》失败后，马克思逐步认识到进行彻底宗教批判的重要性，于是毅然保持了与青年黑格尔派在宗教批判上的距离，不是盲目跟随鲍威尔，而是以更高的视角全身心地投入到博士论文的写作中去，并且在新的思考中不断地进行自我批判、自我否定。博士论文就是马克思力图由宗教批判通达政治改革“一种较大著作的先导”[5]。它“代表了学生时期马克思的无神论思想，这一思想是中学时期进步思想的延续，也是达到科学无神论的前奏”[6]。

II. The Atheist Thought Contained in Marx’s Doctoral Dissertation

二、马克思博士论文蕴含的无神论思想

The doctoral dissertation is the beginning of Marx’s formal establishment of the principle of atheism and his systematic religious criticism on this basis. This philosophical work is both a theoretical summary of the atheist motivations that had influenced Marx in the past and a milestone for Marx to further deepen his own atheist thought and thereby open a new stage of development for atheism. It contains rich content of atheist thought and is the logical starting point for understanding and interpreting the entire scientific atheism, occupying a very important position in the history of the development of Marxist scientific atheism.

博士论文是马克思正式确立无神论原则并以此为基础进行系统宗教批判的开端，这部哲学著作既是马克思对以往影响自己的无神论动因的理论总结，也是马克思将自己的无神论思想进一步引向深入进而开启无神论新发展阶段的里程碑，这其中蕴含着丰富的无神论思想内容，是理解阐释整个科学无神论的逻辑起点，在马克思主义科学无神论发展史上具有十分重要的地位。

First, by elucidating “self-consciousness,” it affirms Epicurean natural philosophy and thereby establishes the philosophical principle of atheism on an ontological level. The choice of topic for Marx’s doctoral dissertation was deeply influenced by Hegel’s idealist philosophy and Bruno Bauer’s religious-critical thought. He chose to write on the difference between the natural philosophy of Democritus and the natural philosophy of Epicurus precisely because the anti-theological nature of the natural philosophies of Democritus and Epicurus ignited the young Marx’s theoretical enthusiasm for using philosophical ontology to criticize religion and confirm the principle of atheism. Democritus was the greatest materialist natural philosopher of ancient Greece. He used atoms and the void to explain the origin of the world, representing the highest achievement of ancient naive materialist thought. Democritus proposed that the organization, structure, form, characteristics, and existence and movement of atoms in the void constitute the origin and order of the material world. This fundamentally negated religious myths based on illusion and fantasy, overturned the mystical forces that had long hung over people’s minds, and, through theoretical reasoning, compared the divinities of different ethnic regions, revealing the atheist conclusion that religious theology originates from human self-creation. Democritus’s philosophy was not only a peak in the history of the development of natural philosophy, but his religious theory and atheist thought also far surpassed those of contemporary philosophers. Epicurean philosophy, which emerged during the decline of ancient Greece, inherited and developed the basic ideas of Democritus’s materialist natural philosophy and atheism, fully affirming the decisive significance of Democritus’s naive materialism regarding atoms and their collision movement for the generation of the material world. The basic nature of its philosophy was completely consistent with Democritus’s atomic materialism, which also provided an ontological defense for atheism.

第一，通过阐发“自我意识”肯定伊壁鸠鲁自然哲学进而在本体论上确立无神论的哲学原则。马克思博士论文选题深受黑格尔唯心主义哲学、布鲁诺·鲍威尔宗教批判思想的影响，他选择以德谟克利特的自然哲学与伊壁鸠鲁的自然哲学的差别为题，正是由于德谟克利特、伊壁鸠鲁自然哲学的反神学性质点燃了青年马克思运用哲学本体论进行宗教批判、确证无神论原则的理论热情。德谟克利特是古希腊最伟大的唯物主义自然哲学家，他用原子和虚空来说明世界本原，代表了古代朴素唯物主义思想的最高成就。德谟克利特提出原子的组织、结构、形态、特性及其在虚空中的存在运动构成了物质世界的本原和秩序，这就从根本上否定了建立在虚幻缥缈中的宗教神话，颠覆了一直以来笼罩在人们心头的神秘主义力量，并且通过理论推理的方式对不同民族地区的神性进行比较，揭示了宗教神学根源于人的自我创造的无神论结论。德谟克利特哲学既是自然哲学发展史上的一个高峰，同时他的宗教理论和无神论思想也远远超出了同时代的哲学家。处于古希腊衰落时期的伊壁鸠鲁哲学继承和发扬了德谟克利特唯物主义自然哲学和无神论的基本思想，充分肯定了德谟克利特朴素唯物主义关于原子及其冲撞运动对物质世界生成的决定性意义，其哲学基本性质与德谟克利特原子唯物主义是完全一致的，这也为无神论作了本体论上的辩护。

In his doctoral dissertation, Marx states his atheist position at the very outset: “To be honest, I hate all gods. … I would rather be bound to a cliff than be a loyal servant of Zeus.”[7]7 Marx, “Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 40, p. 190. The quotation is a paraphrase of a line from Aeschylus’s *Prometheus Bound*. Marx highly praised the enlightenment atheist significance of Epicurus’s natural philosophy, and for this reason he further explored the differences between the natural philosophies of Epicurus and Democritus, striving to use self-consciousness to defend Epicurus’s doctrine of the “swerve of the atom.” Democritus believed that atoms fall in parallel straight lines in the void, so that they would not collide or come into contact with each other, making it impossible to provide a reasonable explanation for how atoms could combine to form matter. Epicurus, by contrast, held that atoms move in an automatic swerving collision motion, and that the swerving collision between atoms is the core mechanism by which matter is generated. Epicurus’s doctrine of the “swerve of the atom” is something that the natural sciences, especially physics, need to study and explain; in fact, it pointed the way for the development of modern science in the 17th and 18th centuries, represented by Newton, Galileo, and Boyle, and laid the foundation for physics. However, due to the limitations of the productive forces at the time, especially the level of development of the natural sciences, Epicurus did not provide any physical or philosophical explanation for the cause of the atom’s automatic swerve. This gap in philosophical thinking inevitably left room for religious theology, becoming a major flaw in Epicurus’s natural philosophy’s anti-theological stance, something Marx was fully aware of in his doctoral dissertation. But at this time Marx was not yet a materialist; deeply influenced by Hegel’s idealist philosophy, he sought to use Bruno Bauer’s “self-consciousness” and Hegel’s “absolute spirit” or “absolute idea” to provide a spiritual-level explanation for Epicurus’s doctrine of the “swerve of the atom.” In the doctoral dissertation, Marx regarded the swerving motion of the atom as a spiritual expression of the atom’s “self-consciousness” and “free will,” holding that “self-consciousness” is a manifestation of reason and occupies a supreme position above religious divinity. In the world of philosophy, “there should be no god standing alongside human self-consciousness.”[8]8 Marx, “Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 40, p. 190. The principle of philosophy is self-consciousness, while the essence of religion is obscurantism; the two are irreconcilably contradictory. Thus, “self-consciousness” became a powerful weapon to fill the loophole in Epicurus’s doctrine of the “swerve of the atom” and defend his enlightenment atheism. From the perspective of dialectical materialism and historical materialism, using the idealist concepts of “self-consciousness” and “free will” to defend Epicurus’s philosophy is clearly biased, and this also shows that Marx was not yet philosophically mature at this time. But every ideological theory is a product of history, and we need to understand and analyze it objectively from the perspective of historical development. The doctoral dissertation’s defense of Epicurus’s philosophy through “self-consciousness” still has important philosophical and atheist value: first, it overcomes the metaphysical and mechanical defects of Democritus’s atomic materialism, injecting the dialectical method of thinking into the understanding of the category of matter, and affirming the mutual connection and interaction between atoms and matter; second, it affirms the idea that the atom, endowed with spiritual “freedom,” is the origin of the world, thereby excluding religious theology from ontology and establishing the principled stance of atheism in philosophical thought. This dismantles the truthfulness of religious myths at the level of philosophical reason and fundamentally undermines the foundation of Christianity. “Thus, the most brilliant part of the doctoral dissertation is that Marx developed a militant atheist thought, indicating that the basic stance of atheism had already been established.”[9]9 Chen Xian, “The Atheist Thought in Marx’s Doctoral Dissertation,” *Journal of Peking University (Philosophy and Social Sciences)*, 1983, No. 2.

在博士论文中，马克思开宗明义地提出自己的无神论立场：“老实说，我痛恨所有的神。……我宁肯被缚在崖石上，也不愿作宙斯忠顺的奴仆。”[7]马克思高度赞扬了伊壁鸠鲁自然哲学的启蒙无神论意义，为此他还进一步探究了伊壁鸠鲁和德谟克利特自然哲学的不同之处，力图用自我意识来为伊壁鸠鲁的“原子偏斜”学说作辩解。德谟克利特认为原子是在虚空中作直线平行下落的，这样它们之间就不会形成冲撞和接触，原子何以能够结合成物质就无法获得合理的解释。而伊壁鸠鲁则认为原子是作自动偏斜的碰撞运动，原子之间的偏斜碰撞是物质何以能够生成的核心机理。伊壁鸠鲁的“原子偏斜”说是自然科学特别是物理学需要研究解释的，事实上它也确实为17-18世纪以牛顿、伽利略、波义尔为代表的近代科学的发展指明了方向，奠定了物理学基础。但是由于当时生产力特别是自然科学发展水平的限制，伊壁鸠鲁并未就原子自动偏斜的动因做任何物理学和哲学意义上的解释，这种哲学思维上的漏隙不可避免地为宗教神学保留了地盘，成为伊壁鸠鲁自然哲学反神学上一大瑕疵，马克思在博士论文中已经充分意识到这一点。但此时的马克思并不是唯物主义者，深受黑格尔唯心主义哲学影响的他力图用布鲁诺·鲍威尔的“自我意识”和黑格尔的“绝对精神”或“绝对理念”来为伊壁鸠鲁的“原子偏斜”说作精神性层面的解释。在博士论文中，马克思将原子的偏斜运动看作原子“自我意识”、“自由意志”的精神性表现，认为“自我意识”是理性的表现，具有高于宗教神性的至上地位。在哲学的世界里，“不应该有任何神同人的自我意识并列”[8]，哲学的原则是自我意识，而宗教的本质是蒙昧主义，两者存在不可调和的矛盾。于是，“自我意识”便成为弥补伊壁鸠鲁“原子偏斜”说的漏洞并捍卫其启蒙无神论的有力武器。从辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义的观点上看，以“自我意识”、“自由意志”的唯心主义观念去辩解伊壁鸠鲁哲学显然是失之偏颇的，这也是此时马克思在哲学上尚未成熟的表现。但任何思想理论都是历史的产物，需要我们从历史发展的角度来客观理解和分析。博士论文以“自我意识”为伊壁鸠鲁哲学进行辩解还是具有重要的哲学和无神论价值的：一是它克服了德谟克利特原子唯物主义的形而上学性和机械性的缺陷，将辩证法的思想方法注入物质范畴的理解中，肯定了原子及物质间的相互联系、相互作用；二是肯定了具有精神性“自由”的原子是世界本原的思想，从本体论上排斥了宗教神学，在哲学思想上确立了无神论的立场原则，这就从哲学理性层面瓦解了宗教神话故事的真实性，从根本上破坏了基督教的基础。“所以博士论文最为精彩的地方，是马克思发挥了战斗的无神论思想，表明无神论的基本立场已经确立。”[9]

Second, using the theory of alienation to rationally explain nature in order to defend Epicurus’s anti-religious philosophy, thereby endowing atheism with an activist tendency. Looking at the entire history of the development of Marxist atheism, the theory of alienation has always been an important ideological method for Marx to explore religious issues, and the doctoral dissertation is undoubtedly the origin of Marx’s use of the theory of alienation to analyze early human nature worship and thereby promote the spirit of atheism. To defend Epicurus’s enlightenment philosophy of opposing religion and opposing the worship of celestial bodies, Marx, in his doctoral dissertation, used a genius theory of alienation to analyze the relationship between the real world and the religious world, studying early human nature worship in an effort to uncover the roots of the emergence and existence of religion. In the ancient world, the level of development of productive forces was low, science and technology were underdeveloped, and people could not provide reasonable explanations for various natural phenomena. Faced with the immense power of nature, people developed great fear and helplessness, giving rise to various forms of nature worship and primitive religions. Epicurus even regarded human fear of nature as the psychological root of primitive religion. In Marx’s view, the alienation between humans and nature is the cause of primitive religion, and it dominates any relationship with nature. “But when we acknowledge that nature is rational, our dependence on it ceases to exist.”[10]10 Marx, “Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 40, p. 173. “Any relationship with nature is itself simultaneously an alienation of nature.”[11]11 Marx, “Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 40, p. 174. Since religion originates from human dependence on nature, breaking this alienated relationship and thereby freeing humans from their fear of nature requires a rational explanation of nature. Epicurus believed that the highest good in the human world is that which makes people happy and joyful, and philosophy is the means and tool for making life happy and joyful, because philosophy can eliminate all factors that cause people unease and fear, namely divine punishment and death. The rational expression of philosophy is to break religious superstition, thereby seeking tranquility of the mind and ultimately the fundamental path to escaping alienation. Hegel’s idealist philosophy and the Young Hegelians’ “self-consciousness” or “self-will” became the best representatives of this rational expression at the time. Thus, it can be seen that in his doctoral dissertation, Marx accepted Hegel’s idealist philosophy, and his understanding of alienation was limited by the level of the Young Hegelians’ philosophical and religious theory, and it bore a clear imprint of Epicurus’s natural philosophy. However, in the doctoral dissertation, Marx was not entirely confined to Bruno Bauer’s purely speculative critique of religion; instead, he actively sought breakthroughs from the perspective of the theory of alienation. It is undeniable that the proposal of the theory of alienation opened the path for the shift from religious critique to political critique and for the formation of scientific atheism.

第二，用异化理论理性解释自然界来捍卫伊壁鸠鲁的反宗教哲学进而赋予无神论行动化倾向。纵观马克思主义无神论的发展史，异化理论一直是马克思探寻宗教问题的重要思想方法，而博士论文无疑是马克思运用异化理论分析人类早期的自然崇拜进而发扬无神论精神的滥觞。为了捍卫伊壁鸠鲁反宗教、反天体崇拜的启蒙哲学，马克思在博士论文中就以天才的异化理论分析了现实世界与宗教世界的关系，对人类早期的自然崇拜进行研究，力图得出宗教产生和存在的根源。在古代世界，生产力发展水平低下，科技不发达，人们无法对自然界的各种现象进行合理的解释，在强大的自然力面前，人们产生巨大的恐惧感和无助感，于是产生了各种自然崇拜和原始宗教。伊壁鸠鲁更是将人对自然界的疑惧作为原始宗教产生的心理根源。在马克思看来，人与自然的异化是原始宗教得以产生的原因，并且它支配着对自然界的任何关系。“但我们承认自然界是由有理性的时候，我们对它的依赖关系就不复存在。”[10]“对自然的任何关系本身同时也就是自然的异化。”[11]既然宗教源自于人对自然界的依赖关系，那么打破这种异化关系进而摆脱人对自然界的恐惧就必须对自然界进行合乎理性的解释。伊壁鸠鲁认为人世间最高的善是使人快乐和幸福者，而哲学就是使人生快乐和幸福的手段和工具，因为哲学可以消除一切使人感到不安和恐惧的因素即神的惩罚和死亡。哲学的理性表达就是打破宗教迷信进而寻求心灵的宁静并最终摆脱异化的根本途径。黑格尔的唯心主义哲学以及青年黑格尔派的“自我意识”或“自我意志”则成为此时这种理性表达的最佳代表。由此可见，马克思在博士论文中接受的是黑格尔唯心主义哲学，其对异化的认知受到青年黑格尔派哲学宗教理论水平的限制，并且带有明显的伊壁鸠鲁自然哲学的性质。但在博士论文中，马克思也没有完全受限于布鲁诺·鲍威尔的纯思辨性的宗教批判，而是积极地从异化理论的角度寻求突破。不可否认，异化理论的提出为宗教批判转向政治批判、为科学无神论的形成开辟了道路。

“Marx’s theory of alienation is not the result of a self-deduction from a transcendental category of alienation; on the contrary, the concept of alienation gradually emerged and developed in the process of the formation of Marx’s thought and theory.”[12]12 Wang Xiang, “Marx’s Theory of Alienation and Its Contemporary Significance,” *Journal of Peking University (Philosophy and Social Sciences)*, 2022, no. 1, p. 45. Marx’s thought on alienation underwent a progressive evolution from “religious alienation” to “political alienation,” and then to “alienation of labor” and “alienation of money.” The strict sense of the exposition of “religious alienation” began with the doctoral dissertation. In the doctoral dissertation, Marx explicitly put forward the view that religion is the alienation of self-consciousness. By exalting human reason to criticize the orthodox status of divinity, he regarded nature as the embodiment of reason, and Epicurus was the greatest Greek Enlightenment thinker who overthrew religion and liberated the human spirit from the heavy yoke of religion. At the same time, Marx further pointed out that the so-called proofs of the existence of God “are nothing but proofs of the existence of the self-consciousness of human essence, logical proofs of the existence of self-consciousness.”[13]13 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, vol. 1, p. 101. Therefore, the God in religion is merely an impersonal existence that stands above human beings and performs specific social functions, an existence of the alienation of self-consciousness. The critique of religion is the premise of all other critiques, and religious alienation is the premise for the formation of other theories of alienation. In Marx’s view, the alienation of self-consciousness should not be confined solely to the subjective category of pure speculation, nor should it be satisfied with its own logical deduction; rather, it should be directed toward actual secular political activity. “It is a psychological law that a theoretical spirit that has become free in itself turns into practical energy and, as will, emerges from the shadowy kingdom of Amenthes and turns itself against the worldly reality that exists outside the rational spirit.”[14]14 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, vol. 1, p. 75. In the doctoral dissertation, Marx was already using the category of practice to mediate between self-consciousness and secular activity. Although the concept of practice at this time did not yet possess the character of dialectical materialism, it nonetheless pointed the way for the worlding of philosophy and endowed atheism with a tendency toward action, i.e., combativeness. This combative atheist spirit in the doctoral dissertation, aimed at defending Epicurus’s anti-religious philosophy, objectively inherited and carried forward the tradition of 18th-century French combative atheism characterized by the assertion of reason, and clearly established its own basic atheist stance. What is most commendable here is that in the doctoral dissertation, Marx’s atheism had already begun to gradually break free from the mechanical and metaphysical character of French combative atheism, endowing “self-consciousness” with positive, dynamic, and creative qualities in the spirit of dialectics, thereby opening the way for the transformation from “religious alienation” to “political alienation,” “alienation of labor,” and “alienation of money,” and opening the door to the ultimate completion of the revolutionary transformation of scientific atheism. On this, Engels later commented: “Materialism became misanthropic. In order to be able to get the better of the spiritualism which was misanthropic and lacking in flesh and blood on its own ground, materialism had to mortify its own flesh and become an ascetic. It thus turned from a sensuous thing into a thing of the intellect; but in return it developed all the more relentlessness characteristic of the intellect.”[15]15 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, vol. 2, p. 597.

“马克思的异化理论不是由一个先验的异化范畴而自我演绎的结果，恰恰相反，异化概念是在马克思思想理论的生成过程中逐渐生成发展的。”[12]马克思的异化思想经历了“宗教异化”、“政治异化”、再到“劳动异化”、“金钱异化”的递进演化过程，而严格意义上的“宗教异化”阐述是从博士论文开始的。在博士论文中，马克思明确提出宗教是自我意识的异化的观点，通过高扬人的理性来批判神性的正统地位，把自然界看作是理性的化身，而伊壁鸠鲁就是那个打倒宗教、把人类精神从宗教的重压下解放出来的最伟大的希腊启蒙思想家。与此同时，马克思还进一步指出，那些所谓的神的存在的证明“不外是对人的本质的自我意识存在的证明，对自我意识存在的逻辑证明”。[13]因此，宗教中的神只不过是凌驾于人之上的、履行特定社会职能的非人格的存在，是自我意识异化的存在。对宗教的批判是其他批判的前提，而宗教异化就是其他异化理论形成的前提。在马克思看来，自我意识异化不应该仅仅局限在纯粹思辨的主观范畴中，更不应该满足于自身的逻辑演绎，而应指向实际的世俗政治活动。“一个本身自由的理论精神变成实践的力量，并且作为一种意志走出阿门塞斯的阴影王国，转而面向那存在于理性精神之外的世俗的现实，——这是一条心理学的规律。”[14]在博士论文中，马克思已经在使用实践的范畴来沟通自我意识和世俗活动了，尽管此时的实践概念并不具有辩证唯物主义的性质，但它毕竟为哲学的世界化指明了方向，赋予了无神论行动化倾向即战斗性。博士论文中这种以捍卫伊壁鸠鲁的反宗教哲学为目的的战斗的无神论精神在客观上继承和发扬了以理性的张扬为特征的18世纪法国战斗的无神论传统，旗帜鲜明地确立了自己无神论的基本立场，而这其中最难能可贵的是，博士论文中马克思的无神论已经开始逐步摆脱法国战斗的无神论的机械性和形而上学性，以辩证法的精神来赋予“自我意识”以积极的、能动的、创造性的特质，从而为“宗教异化”向“政治异化”、“劳动异化”、“金钱异化”转变开辟了道路，为最终完成科学无神论的革命性变革打开了大门。对此，恩格斯后来评价道：“唯物主义变得漠视人了。为了能够在对手，即漠视人的、毫无血肉的唯灵论的领域制服这种唯灵论，唯物主义就不得不扼杀自己的肉欲，成为禁欲主义者。这样，它就从感性之物变成理智之物；可是，它因此也就发展了理智所特有的无所顾忌的全部彻底性。”[15]

Third, by refuting Plutarch’s theological thought on the immortality of the soul and the proofs of the existence of gods, it confirms atheist humanism. In the doctoral dissertation, Marx, in the form of an appendix, explicitly refutes the theological thought on the immortality of the soul and the proofs of the existence of gods of the ancient Greek thinker Plutarch from the Roman era. Plutarch believed: “Although the common people also fear the afterlife, they are stirred by myths to hope for immortality and a passionate longing for existence. This love, the oldest and most powerful of all forms, is filled with such joy and excitement that it suppresses this childish fear. Those who have lost children, spouses, and friends would rather their loved ones exist or dwell somewhere, even in suffering, than be completely dead, destroyed, and reduced to nothing.”[16]16 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, vol. 1, p. 103. In Marx’s view, this feeling of the common people in Plutarch is an irrational existence, and “irrationality is the existence of God.”[17]17 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, vol. 1, p. 101. Precisely because reason no longer exists, God has a reason to exist. But the existence that people hope for should be empirical existence, i.e., existence in a “sensuous space,” and certainly not the imperceptible and unempirical nothingness—the eternal existence of the immortal soul—that Plutarch preached. On this, Marx refuted Plutarch’s “theory of the immortality of the soul” in the doctoral dissertation: “If it were merely a matter of love, then one’s wife and children would be most purely preserved in one’s heart, an existence far higher than empirical existence. But the case is different: since the individual himself is merely an empirical existence, the wife and children belonging to the individual are also merely wife and children existing empirically. He would rather have them exist somewhere in the space of feeling, even if that place is very bad, than have them exist nowhere. This merely means that the individual wishes to have the consciousness of his own empirical existence.”[18]18 *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, vol. 1, p. 104. Plutarch’s theistic argument appealing to the “feelings of the common people” is nothing but a “semblance of feeling” that does not conform to “empirical” facts, a subjective “form of consciousness” detached from objective existence. For these proofs of the existence of God are nothing but empty tautologies; proving the existence of God is proving the non-existence of God, is refuting the existence of all ideas of God.

第三，通过反驳普罗塔克关于灵魂不灭的神学思想和对神灵存在的证明来确证无神论人道主义。马克思在博士论文中以附录的形式对古罗马时代的希腊思想家普罗塔克关于灵魂不灭的神学思想和对神灵存在的证明进行明确反驳。普罗塔克认为：“庸众虽说也害怕死后的生活，却被神话激起对于不朽的希望和对于生存的热情的渴望，这种在一切形式中最古老的和最有力的爱充满了一种欢乐和兴奋，以至压制了这种幼稚的恐惧。那些丧亡了儿女、夫妇和朋友的人们总宁愿他们的亲人存在或居留在某个地方即使在苦难中间，而不是完全死灭、被消灭和变为乌有。”[16]在马克思看来，普罗塔克这种庸众的感情是无理性的存在，而“无理性就是神的存在”。[17]正因为理性不存在了，神才有了存在的理由，但这种人所希望的存在应该是经验的存在，即存在于一个“感性空间”中，而绝不是普罗塔克所宣扬的无法感知和经验的虚无——灵魂不死的永恒存在。对此，马克思在博士论文中对普罗塔克的“灵魂不灭说”进行了反驳：“假如光是谈到爱的话，那末个人的老婆和孩子就最纯洁地保留在他们的心里，这是一种比经验的存在高得多的存在。但事情却不同，既然个人本身只是经验的存在，那末属于个人的老婆和孩子也仅仅是在经验中存在的老婆和孩子。他宁愿指导他们在感情空间中任何地方存在着，尽管这地方很坏，也不情愿什么地方也不存在，这也不过是说个人愿意有他自己经验存在的意识而已。”[18]普罗塔克诉诸“庸众的感情”的有神论论证只不过是不符合“经验”事实的“感情的假象”，是脱离客观存在的主观的“意识形式”，因为这种对神的存在的证明不过是空洞的同义反复罢了，对上帝存在的证明就是在证明神的不存在，就是在驳斥一切神的观念的存在。

Plutarch, proceeding from the feelings of the abstract vulgar crowd, interrogated Epicurus’s anti-religious Enlightenment atheism, directing his attack straight at Epicurus’s abolition of divine punishment and the fear of hell after death as an ethical-moral crisis, and opposing atheism to the construction of social morality and to valuable, socially active engagement. “Or, more correctly, they think that the present life has no meaning; they live in idle comfort and do not live well; out of their own timidity, they despise virtue and active engagement, and they despise themselves, believing their life to be short, unstable, and incapable of accomplishing anything of value.”[19]19 Plutarch, *That Epicurus Actually Makes a Pleasant Life Impossible*, 1098c. Quoted in Marx, “Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 1 (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1995), p. 13. Plutarch grounded human ethical-moral conduct in the fear of the gods and in a consciousness of terror before divine sanctions. This is a typical theological viewpoint and also a theme that Epicurus’s philosophy vehemently opposed. In fact, this theological drivel that plunges people into daily terror is precisely the most immoral thing of all. “To base morality on the very small moral characteristics of God, and not to distinguish God from the unwavering consistency of actions, means that man no longer knows what he ought to do—whether in his duty toward God, in his duty toward himself, or in his duty toward others. Therefore, nothing is more dangerous than to persuade people that there exists a superhuman power before which they should let reason cease its activity, and that, if you wish to attain happiness, you must sacrifice everything present on earth for the sake of this power.”[20]20 Marx, “Notebooks on Epicurean Philosophy,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 40 (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1982), p. 140. Marx believed that the existence of God is a product of human irrationality; God ultimately comes from human beings. The irrational state of the external world and all kinds of evils provide a breeding ground for the existence of the concept of God. To be liberated from theological drivel, one must resort to rational philosophical analysis, i.e., atheist humanism. “In Marx’s philosophical conception at that time, he had already regarded religion as the antithesis of philosophy; philosophy is absolutely free, while religion is the servant of God.”[21]21 Chen Xianda, *A Study of Marx’s Early Thought* (Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press, 2006), p. 56. Compared with the atheist humanism of his high-school essay “Reflections of a Youth on the Choice of a Profession,” the atheist humanism of the doctoral dissertation further regarded religion as the antithesis of rational philosophical analysis. This is both Marx’s response to the original intention of earlier atheist humanism and an attempt to liberate himself from the naive fantasies of past humanism, striving to explore, from the height of a philosophical worldview, the intrinsic connection between atheism and the pursuit of human happiness. It holds very important significance on the road toward scientific atheism. In fact, with the later establishment of the Marxist scientific worldview, the atheist humanism that developed along the direction of rational philosophy became an important ideological foundation for the emergence of scientific atheism and an important source of communist thought.

普罗塔克从抽象的庸众的感情出发对伊壁鸠鲁的反宗教的启蒙无神论进行诘问，矛头直指伊壁鸠鲁破除神的惩罚和死后地狱恐惧的伦理道德危机，将无神论与社会道德建构、有价值的社会积极活动对立起来。“或者更正确点说，认为现世生活没有任何意义，他们苟且偷安，不好好地生活下去；由于自己的胆小，他们轻视美德和积极的活动，并且轻视他们自己，认为自己的生命是短促的，不稳固的，不能作出什么有价值的事情的”。[19]普罗塔克把人的伦理道德行为建立在对神的敬畏和对神灵制裁的恐怖意识基础之上，这是一种典型的神学观点，也是伊壁鸠鲁哲学所强烈反对的主题。事实上，这种使人终日陷入恐惧之中的神学呓语恰恰是最不道德的。“把道德建筑在神的很小的道德特性上，不把神同行为的始终不渝区别开，人再也不知道应该作什么——无论在他对于神的义务的问题上，在他自己对自己的义务的问题上，在他对于他人的义务的问题上。因此最危险不过的事情莫过于去劝人，说存在着一种超人的力量，在这个力量面前，人们应该让理性停止活动，并且，如果你想要获得幸福的话，为了这个力量就必须牺牲现在地上的一切东西”。[20]马克思认为，神的存在就是人的非理性产物，神归根到底还是来自于人，外部世界的无理性状态和各种罪恶为神的观念存在提供了滋生的温床，而要从神学呓语中解放出来，就必须诉诸理性的哲学分析即无神论人道主义。“在马克思当时的哲学观念里，已把宗教视为哲学的对立物，哲学是绝对自由的，而宗教则是上帝的奴仆。”[21]与中学时代《青年选择职业的考虑》中的无神论人道主义相比，博士论文中的无神论人道主义进一步把宗教视为理性的哲学分析的对立物，这既是马克思对以往无神论人道主义初衷的回应，又是从过去朴素的人道主义幻想中解放出来，力图从哲学世界观的高度探讨无神论与追求人生幸福的内在关联的重要尝试，在通向科学无神论的道路上具有十分重要的意义。事实上，随着后来马克思主义科学世界观的创立，沿着理性的哲学方向发展的无神论人道主义成为科学无神论产生的重要思想基础，成为共产主义思想的重要来源。

III. The Significance of Marx’s Doctoral Dissertation in the New Era

三、马克思博士论文在新时代的意义

No scientific theory emerges out of thin air; it is always based on the accumulation of past history and is continuously confirmed and elevated through comparison and struggle with the theoretical forms of its own era. This process includes both the persistence in and response to past theoretical convictions and the witness of a mental journey of continuous self-criticism and self-negation. Marxist scientific atheism, as the highest form of development in the history of atheism, is no exception. Marx’s doctoral dissertation is a result that carries forward the achievements of Western religious criticism and atheist research, and it is also an important document that opens a new stage in the development of atheism. It holds significant milestone importance in the history of the development of Marxist scientific atheism, serving as a link between the past and the future, and it also has important significance for strengthening theoretical research on atheism and scientific atheist education in the New Era.

任何科学理论的产生都不是凭空的，它都是以以往历史积淀为基础，在与同时代理论形态进行比较抗争中不断得以确证和升华的，这其中既包含着对过去理论信仰的执着和回应，也见证了不断进行自我批判和自我否定的心路历程，作为无神论历史上发展程度最高的马克思主义科学无神论也不例外。马克思的博士论文是承接西方宗教批判和无神论研究的成果，同时也是开辟无神论发展新阶段的重要文献，在马克思主义科学无神论发展史上具有承上启下的重要里程碑意义，对新时代加强无神论理论研究和科学无神论教育也具有重要的意义。

First, we must carry forward the thorough critical spirit of Marxist scientific atheism that is oriented toward problems, and dare to and be adept at waging ideological struggle against theism in all its forms. Looking at the entire process from the selection of the topic to the writing of the doctoral dissertation, Marx consistently maintained a clear problem orientation and a combative spirit of atheism. From his youth, Marx was deeply influenced by the Enlightenment spirit and atheist thought, and he placed particular importance on studying real religious problems. Later, he actively participated in the religious criticism movement initiated by the advanced German intellectual circles represented by the Young Hegelians. The scientific atheist research that began with the doctoral dissertation opened the historical precedent for Marx’s religious criticism to lead into critiques of politics, economics, society, and so on. He began to continuously direct the spear of criticism at religious theology, at old materialism, at the Young Hegelians who were mired in the vulgarization of religious criticism, and even at himself through continuous self-criticism and self-negation. It can be said that the critical study of religious problems constituted the logical starting point of all of Marx’s theoretical activities. This religious theory with atheism at its core later became the ideological starting point for Marx and Engels’s creation of the communist doctrine. In essence, Marxist scientific atheism is critical. This critical character is rooted in its practical nature and its contemporaneity. It possesses a clear orientation toward religious problems and a thoroughgoing spirit of struggle, embodying a consciousness of transformation, a consciousness of innovation, and a consciousness of concern for potential dangers. This is also the secret of why Marxist scientific atheism has always forged ahead and remained forever young for over 180 years. The 20th National Congress of the CPC profoundly pointed out: “Problems are the voice of the times; answering and guiding the solution of problems is the fundamental task of theory.”[22]22 Xi Jinping, “Hold High the Great Banner of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics and Strive in Unity to Build a Modern Socialist Country in All Respects—Report to the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China,” October 16, 2022. Today, the complexity of the various problems we face, including those in the religious sphere, and the arduousness of solving them have increased markedly, placing higher demands on upholding and developing Marxist scientific atheism. The atheist struggle in the New Era not only bears the task of breaking the shackles of traditional religion and liberating people’s spiritual world, but also has the important function of resisting the infiltration of reactionary religious forces from both inside and outside the country and safeguarding national and ethnic interests. This requires us to strengthen our awareness of religious problems, always uphold the combative spirit of scientific atheism, carry forward the thorough critical spirit of Marxist scientific atheism, dare to and be adept at waging ideological struggle against theism in all its forms, and ensure ideological security.

第一，必须发扬马克思主义科学无神论面向问题的彻底批判精神，敢于善于开展与形形色色的有神论的思想斗争。纵观博士论文从选题到写作的全过程，马克思始终具有鲜明的问题导向和无神论的战斗精神。马克思自青年少时代就深受启蒙精神和无神论思想熏陶，特别重视研究宗教现实问题，后来又积极参加青年黑格尔派为代表的德国先进思想界发起的宗教批判运动，以博士论文为开端的科学无神论研究更是开启了马克思宗教批判导向政治、经济、社会等批判的历史先河，开始不断把批判的矛头指向宗教神学，指向旧唯物主义，指向沉迷于宗教批判庸俗化的青年黑格尔派，甚至不断地进行自我批判和自我否定。可以说，对宗教问题的批判研究构成了马克思全部理论活动的逻辑起点，这种以无神论为核心的宗教理论成为后来马克思恩格斯创建共产主义学说的思想开端。从本质上来说，马克思主义科学无神论是批判性的，这种批判性根源于实践性和时代性，它具有鲜明的宗教问题导向和彻底的斗争精神，体现的是一种变革意识、创新意识、忧患意识，这也是180多年来马克思主义科学无神论始终砥砺奋进、永葆青春的奥妙所在。党的二十大深刻指出：“问题是时代的声音，回答并指导解决问题是理论的根本任务。”[22]今天，我们所面临的各种问题包括宗教领域问题的复杂程度、解决问题的艰巨程度明显加大，给坚持和发展马克思主义科学无神论提出了更高要求。新时代无神论斗争不仅担负着打破传统宗教束缚、解放人们精神世界的任务，而且还具有抵制境内外反动宗教势力渗透、维护国家民族利益的重要功能，这就要求我们增强宗教问题意识，始终坚持科学无神论的战斗精神，发扬马克思主义科学无神论的彻底批判精神，敢于善于开展与形形色色的有神论的思想斗争，保障意识形态安全。

Second, we must view the theoretical evolution of atheism historically and dialectically, and adhere to a broad Marxist perspective in approaching the historical development of religious theory. Marxist scientific atheism is the inheritance and development of Western atheism; Western atheism, especially that of ancient Greece and Rome, represents the intellectual essence of human cognition and contains rich theoretical nourishment. Marx’s choice of topic for his doctoral dissertation was precisely a defense and elevation of Epicurus’s anti-religious Enlightenment philosophy, and its epochal significance in manifesting atheism is self-evident. However, as a major member of the Young Hegelian movement of religious criticism, the young Marx accepted Bauer’s concept of “self-consciousness” and used it to explain and defend the atheist character of Epicurean natural philosophy. Although “self-consciousness” was a core concept used by Hegelian idealist philosophy to explain the world system, and using it to thoroughly oppose religious theology was one-sided, this revolutionary thought, which represented the demands of the bourgeoisie at the time, was indeed the highest level atheism could reach under the historical conditions of that era. Moreover, this religious criticism directed at real struggle pointed the way for the revolutionary leap of atheism in the next stage. As Engels later pointed out: “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. Strauss’s *Life of Jesus*, published in 1835, became the first impetus. Later, Bruno Bauer opposed the theory of the genesis of the Gospel myths expounded in that book, proving that many Gospel stories were fabrications by the authors themselves. The debate between the two was conducted under the philosophical guise of the struggle of ‘self-consciousness’ against ‘substance.’”[23]23 Friedrich Engels, “Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 21 (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1965), p. 312. [This is a standard reference to the Chinese edition of the MECW; the English edition pagination may differ.] Admittedly, when writing his doctoral dissertation, Marx was still under the shadow of Bauer’s philosophy of self-consciousness, which was inconsistent with the level of development and conclusions of the natural sciences (physics) at the time. However, this was also determined by the intellectual conditions of the era and was a product of history. Facts have also proven that, as a genius thinker, the later Marx did not stop there but continuously engaged in self-criticism and self-negation. Therefore, any view that uses the idealist reasons of self-consciousness in Marx’s doctoral dissertation to take things out of context and deny its atheist value is erroneous. Today, we must dialectically view the theoretical evolution of Marx’s atheist thought, respect the theoretical contributions of each period of its development, and adhere to a broad Marxist perspective to understand and grasp scientific atheism from a large historical scale.

第二，必须历史辩证地看待无神论的理论演进，坚持用马克思主义的宽广眼界对待宗教理论的历史发展。马克思主义科学无神论是对西方无神论的继承和发展，西方无神论尤其是古希腊罗马的无神论是人类认识的思想精华，其中包含着丰富的理论养分，马克思博士论文的选题正是对伊壁鸠鲁反宗教的启蒙哲学的捍卫和升华，其彰显无神论的时代意义显而易见。但是，作为青年黑格尔派宗教批判运动的主要成员，年轻的马克思接受了鲍威尔的“自我意识”概念，并以之来解释和捍卫伊壁鸠鲁自然哲学的无神论特质。尽管“自我意识”是黑格尔唯心主义哲学用来解释世界体系的核心概念，用其来彻底反对宗教神学是失之偏颇的，但这种代表当时资产阶级要求的革命思想确实是在当时历史条件下无神论所能达到的最高水平了，并且这种指向现实斗争的宗教批判为下一阶段无神论的革命性飞跃指明了方向。正如后来恩格斯所指出的那样：“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。1835年出版的施特劳斯的《耶稣传》成了第一个动力。后来，布鲁诺·鲍威尔反对该书中所阐述的福音神话发生说，证明许多福音故事都是作者自己虚构的。两人之间的争论是在‘自我意识’对‘实体’的斗争这一哲学幌子下进行的。”[23]诚然，写作博士论文的马克思还笼罩在鲍威尔自我意识哲学的阴影之下，与当时自然科学（物理学）的发展水平和结论是不相符合的，但是这也是由当时的思想条件所决定的，是一种历史的产物。事实也证明，作为天才的思想家，后来的马克思并没有局限于此，而是不断地进行自我批判和自我否定。由此，任何以马克思博士论文中自我意识的唯心主义理由来断章取义地否定其无神论价值的观点都是错误的。今天，我们要辩证地看待马克思无神论思想的理论演进，尊重其发展每一时期的理论贡献，坚持以马克思主义的宽广眼界从历史的大尺度上去认识把握科学无神论。

Third, we must pursue the truth of Marxist scientific atheism with the spirit of truth, and continuously open up new realms for the study of atheism. From his middle school graduation essay to his doctoral dissertation, Marx’s religious thought underwent major changes, and the completion of the doctoral dissertation was an important milestone in the theorized and systematic construction of Marx’s atheist thought. This includes the perceptual analysis of Enlightenment thought, the rational critique of alienation theory, the anti-religious spirit of the Young Hegelians, and the dialectical method of Hegelian philosophy. These constituted the basic features of the development of atheism during this period and also provided the internal impetus for atheism to develop toward a new stage. Although it did not yet represent the emergence of scientific atheism, the revolutionary transformation of atheism, operating along this intellectual path of pursuing truth, was already stirring and on the verge of emerging. Practice has no end, and theoretical innovation will not stagnate. Today, Marxist scientific atheism has formed a complete scientific theoretical system. However, as far as the essence of Marxist scientific atheism is concerned, its scientific character is not only reflected in its existing views and conclusions but, more importantly, it opens up an atheist path for us to understand truth, uphold truth, and develop truth, providing the standpoints, viewpoints, and methods for observing, understanding, and solving religious problems. Lenin profoundly pointed out: “Among the ‘reasons’ put forward by those who have abandoned Marxism, it is not uncommon to see isolated quotations from Marx (especially when they are misapplied); this is not surprising.”[24]24 V. I. Lenin, “The Attitude of the Workers’ Party to Religion,” in *Lenin Collected Works*, vol. 17 (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1988), p. 392. [Standard Chinese edition reference.] The greatest obstacle to upholding and developing Marxist scientific atheism is precisely misreading and distortion divorced from the historical context. The 20th National Congress of the CPC pointed out: “We must approach science with a scientific attitude and pursue truth with the spirit of truth.”[25]25 Xi Jinping, “Hold High the Great Banner of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics and Strive in Unity to Build a Modern Socialist Country in All Respects—Report to the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China,” October 16, 2022. [The 20th National Congress of the CPC, held in October 2022, set the Party’s guiding principles for the next five years.] To correctly understand and interpret the basic theories of Marxist scientific atheism, we must uphold fundamental principles and break new ground, adhere to pursuing the truth of Marxist scientific atheism with the spirit of truth, and must not treat the conclusions reached by classical writers under special circumstances in isolation from the conditions of their times. Still less should we arbitrarily dismember or distort the basic spirit and historical genesis of Marxist scientific atheism. Instead, we should grasp its scientific theoretical system from its holistic nature and continuously open up new realms for the study of atheism.

第三，必须以真理的精神追求马克思主义科学无神论的真理性，不断开辟无神论研究的新境界。从中学命题作文到博士论文，马克思的宗教思想经历了重大变化，而博士论文的完成正是马克思无神论思想理论化系统化建构的重要标志，这其中包含着启蒙主义的感性分析、异化理论的理性批判、青年黑格尔派的反宗教精神以及黑格尔哲学的辩证思维方法，它们构成了这一时期无神论发展的基本面貌，也为无神论向新的阶段发展提供了内在动力。虽然它此时并不代表科学无神论的出现，但沿着这一追求真理的思想路径运行的无神论革命性变革已经在激发萌动、呼之欲出。实践永无止境，理论创新也不会停滞不前。今天，马克思主义科学无神论已经形成了一套完整的科学理论体系，但就马克思主义科学无神论的本质来说，它的科学性不仅仅体现在其既有的观点和结论上，更为重要的是它为我们认识真理、坚持真理和发展真理开辟了无神论道路，提供了观察、认识和解决宗教问题的立场、观点和方法。列宁曾经深刻指出：“在那些背弃马克思主义的人提出的‘理由’中，常常可以看到引自马克思的只言片语（特别是印证得不对头的时候），这是不足为奇的。”[24]坚持和发展马克思主义科学无神论的最大障碍恰恰是脱离时代背景的误读和曲解。党的二十大指出：“我们要以科学的态度对待科学、以真理的精神追求真理。”[25]我们要正确理解阐释马克思主义科学无神论的基本理论，就必须守正创新，坚持以真理的精神追求马克思主义科学无神论的真理性，决不能脱离当时的时代条件来孤立地对待经典作家在特殊境遇下得出的结论，更不能随意肢解、歪曲马克思主义科学无神论的基本精神和历史生成，而应该从其整体性上把握其科学理论体系，不断开辟无神论研究的新境界。

Fourth, we must adhere to the philosophical implication of ultimate concern in Marxist scientific atheism and elevate the value concern of scientific atheism. The doctoral dissertation was Marx’s first attempt to establish the principle of atheist humanism from the perspective of philosophical ontology. Marx regarded philosophy as the antithesis of religion, and religion as the servant of God. Philosophy must oppose all gods in heaven and on earth, and elevating the rationality of philosophy is precisely the “salvation” of humanity’s ultimate concern. Although there were theoretical misunderstandings and immaturity, this pursuit in terms of world ontology indeed opened the door for the ultimate value concern of atheism, guiding scientific atheism to develop in the direction of humanity’s ultimate concern. In fact, religious theism is a kind of ultimate concern, but this religious ultimate concern only leads to a Plutarch-like fear of the divine, aiming to strangle human nature in the illusory freedom and liberation of religious theism, which is of no benefit to social development and progress. Philosophy is a pursuit in terms of ontology, an ultimate concern containing certainty and infinity. Without the ultimate concern of philosophy, a cultured nation “is like a temple that is richly decorated in all other respects but lacks the holy of holies.”[26]26 G. W. F. Hegel, *Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion*, vol. 1 (Beijing: Commercial Press, 1962), p. 1. [Standard Chinese edition reference; the original German text is from Hegel’s introduction to his lectures.] Marxist scientific atheism is opposed to religious theism, but it does not reject ultimate concern; on the contrary, it pays even stronger attention to the philosophical implication and practical path of ultimate concern, consistently taking humanity’s concern for its own ultimate value as its theme. As humanity’s rationalized self-consciousness, scientific atheism is concerned with humanity’s own ultimate value, and this ultimate value must have a clear and strong sense of social mission, that is, it points toward communist society in terms of real social systems and social formations. This is because only the social formation of communism, as humanity’s ultimate concern, can truly realize the organic unity of the disappearance of religion, human liberation, and the comprehensive and free development of the individual. The 20th National Congress of the CPC pointed out: “Any theory that is divorced from the people is pale and feeble, and any theory that does not benefit the people has no vitality.”[27]27 Xi Jinping, “Report to the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China,” October 16, 2022. Today, as we uphold and develop Marxist scientific atheism, we must adhere to its philosophical implication of ultimate concern and elevate the value concern of scientific atheism, that is, to truly realize the free liberation and comprehensive development of humanity in the historical process oriented toward communism. Otherwise, breaking free from the shackles of religion would be empty talk, atheism would lose its practical relevance and broad mass base, and education in scientific atheism would be out of the question. To this end, Marxist scientific atheism must not only pay attention to and grasp the latest achievements of natural science development but also should shoulder various social responsibilities, taking education in scientific atheism, humanity’s aspiration for a better life, and the comprehensive development of the individual as its historical mission, fulfilling the atheist duty of realizing humanity’s ultimate concern.

第四，必须坚持马克思主义科学无神论终极关怀的哲学意蕴，高扬科学无神论的价值关切。博士论文是马克思从哲学本体论上确立无神论人道主义原则的首次尝试，马克思把哲学视为宗教的对立物，宗教则是上帝的奴仆，哲学必须反对一切天上和地上的神灵，高扬哲学的理性就是“拯救”人的终极关怀。尽管存在着理论上的误区和不成熟性，但这种世界本体论上的追求确实为无神论的终极价值关怀开启了大门，引导着科学无神论沿着人类终极关怀的方向发展。事实上，宗教有神论是一种终极关怀，但这种宗教终极关怀所引导的只是普罗塔克式的神灵敬畏，是要把人性扼杀在宗教有神论中的虚幻的自由解放，它于社会发展进步无益。哲学是一种本体论上的追求，是一种包含着确定性的、无限性的终极关怀。如果没有哲学的终极关怀，一个有文化的民族“就像一座庙，其他各方面都装饰得富丽堂皇，却没有至圣的神那样”。[26]马克思主义科学无神论与宗教有神论相对立，但它并不排斥终极关怀，反而更加强烈地关注终极关怀的哲学意蕴和现实路径，始终把人对自身终极价值的关切作为主题。作为人类理性化的自我意识，科学无神论关切的是人自身的终极价值，而这种终极价值必须具有明确而强烈的社会使命感，即在现实社会制度和社会形态上是指向共产主义社会的，因为只有作为人类终极关怀的共产主义的社会形态才能真正体现宗教消亡、人类解放、人的全面自由发展这三者的有机统一。党的二十大指出：“一切脱离人民的理论都是苍白无力的，一切不为人民造福的理论都是没有生命力的。”[27]今天，我们坚持和发展马克思主义科学无神论，必须坚持其终极关怀的哲学意蕴，高扬科学无神论的价值关切即在指向共产主义的历史进程中真正实现人的自由解放和全面发展，否则摆脱宗教的束缚就是一句空话，无神论也会失去现实针对性和广泛的群众基础，科学无神论教育更是无从谈起。为此，马克思主义科学无神论不仅要关注把握自然科学发展的最新成果，而且应该担负起各种社会责任，把科学无神论教育、人类对美好生活的向往和人的全面发展作为自己的历史使命，履行好实现人类终极关怀的无神论职责。

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心