Cultural Enlightenment and Belief Formation: The Generation of Atheist Knowledge in *New Youth*

*New Youth*’s dissemination of scientific knowledge was a crucial aspect of its cultural enlightenment, undergoing a process from the transmission of ideas to revolutionary mobilization. The generation of atheist knowledge ran vertically through the entire evolution of *New Youth* and horizontally linked social trends and social change, presenting an extremely rich content. Previous research has focused on sorting out *New Youth*’s textual themes, publication and distribution, and social impact; when it comes to its discussions of atheism, it has concentrated on the pathways and strategies of scientific knowledge dissemination, analyzing the content and role of the atheist thought of Chen Duxiu, Li Dazhao, and others. These studies have preliminarily clarified the historical function of *New Youth*’s propagation of atheism, laying a good foundation for a multi-dimensional investigation of this issue. This article attempts, from the perspective of the interaction between knowledge and practice, to present the generation of atheist knowledge in *New Youth* and to explore how, amid the different demands of cultural enlightenment and revolutionary mobilization, the orientation of atheist knowledge was transformed, ultimately becoming deeply connected with the revolutionary activities of the Communist Party of China.

《新青年》播扬科学知识是其文化启蒙的重要方面，经历了从思想传输到革命动员的过程。而无神论知识的生成，纵向贯通《新青年》演进整体，横向联动社会思潮与社会变革，呈现出极为丰富的内容。以往研究侧重梳理《新青年》的文本主题、出版发行及社会影响，具体到其无神论讨论，则聚焦科学知识传播的路径及策略，解析陈独秀、李大钊等人无神论思想的内涵及作用。这些研究初步厘清了《新青年》无神论传播的历史功能，为该问题的多向度考察奠定了较好基础。本文试图从知识与实践交互的视角，呈现《新青年》无神论知识的生成，并探析在文化启蒙和革命动员的不同诉求中，无神论知识指向的转化，如何最终与中国共产党革命活动深度连接。

I. “Destroying the Old Religion”: The Orientation of *New Youth*’s Discussion of Atheism

一、“破坏旧宗教”：《新青年》无神论讨论的指向

In 1915, in the inaugural issue of *Youth Magazine*, Chen Duxiu listed “denying religious authority, seeking the liberation of religion” as one of the magazine’s important objectives. Four years later, in his “Reply to the Charges Against This Magazine,” Chen Duxiu again summarized the past content of *New Youth* and encapsulated it with nine “destructions,” which included destroying Confucianism and destroying old religions (gods and ghosts). From drawing on the experience of Western Enlightenment, taking “denying religious authority” as a goal, to targeting the problems of Confucianism and gods and ghosts existing in Chinese society, Chen Duxiu’s summary showed *New Youth*’s continuous progress in this regard. However, it is necessary to ask: why did *New Youth* make “denying religious authority” one of its founding arguments? What position did this content occupy in *New Youth*’s early atheist discourse system? Why could Confucianism be placed alongside gods and ghosts as an important topic of *New Youth*’s early “criticism”?

1915年，陈独秀在《青年杂志》发刊词中，将“否认教权，求宗教之解放也”，作为杂志的重要目标之一。四年之后，陈独秀又在《本志罪案之答辩书》对以往《新青年》的内容进行概括，并以九个“破坏”总揽其要，当中包含了破坏孔教、破坏旧宗教（鬼神）。从借鉴西方启蒙经验，将“否定教权”作为目标，再到针对中国社会存在的孔教和鬼神问题，陈独秀的总结显示了《新青年》在此方面的持续推进。不过，需要追问的是，《新青年》为何将“否认教权”作为立论之一，这一内容在《新青年》早期的无神论话语体系中居于何种地位？何以孔教能与鬼神并列，成为《新青年》早期“非议”的重要论题？

Although the Xinhai Revolution overthrew the imperial system, activities of offering sacrifices to Heaven and Confucius were still extremely prevalent in the early years of the Republic. On November 1, 1913, the Constitutional Drafting Committee proposed the “Constitution of the Republic of China,” i.e., the “Temple of Heaven Draft Constitution,” Article 19 of which stipulated that “national education shall take the Way of Confucius as the foundation for self-cultivation.” In 1914, Yuan Shikai successively promulgated the “Designating the Sacrifice to Heaven as a Universal Rite,” the “Ritual for the Winter Solstice Sacrifice to Heaven,” and the “Stipulating the Ritual for Sacrificing to Confucius According to Ancient Practice and the Republican System,” guaranteeing the conduct of sacrifices to Heaven and Confucius in the form of state decrees. Influenced by this, various theories promoting gods, ghosts, and Confucianism became rampant. Only three months after Yuan Shikai’s death, Kang Youwei again petitioned the Beiyang government, requesting that “Confucius be made the great religion and be written into the constitution.” This argument caused an uproar. This situation meant that *New Youth*, which took ideological enlightenment as its mission, placed the criticism of Confucianism and the thought of gods and ghosts side by side, making it an important and urgent ideological topic in its early period.

辛亥革命虽然推翻了皇权制度，但民初的祭天祀孔活动仍极为兴盛。1913年11月1日，宪法起草委员会提出《中华民国宪法案》即《天坛宪法草案》，其中第19条规定“国民教育，以孔子之道为修身大本”。1914年，袁世凯先后颁布《祀天定为通祭》《冬至祀天典礼》和《查照民国体制据古义规定祀孔典礼》，以国家法令形式保证了祭天祀孔活动的进行。受此影响，各种宣扬鬼神、孔教之论甚嚣尘上。袁世凯死后仅三个月，康有为又上书北洋政府，请求“以孔子为大教，编入宪法”。此论引起轩然大波。这种状况就使得以思想启蒙为己任的《新青年》，将批判孔教与鬼神思想并列而论，成为其初期重要且紧迫的思想论题。

First, clarifying the relationship between “Confucianism” and national politics. Due to the intricate connections between Confucianism, the thought of gods and ghosts, and imperial restoration in the early Republic, deeply criticizing Confucianism and the thought of gods and ghosts from the perspective of scientific enlightenment and the preservation of the republican system became the basic orientation of *New Youth*. First, the issue of “Confucianism” was an ethical issue and should not be written into the constitution. Chen Duxiu believed that the essence of Confucianism was the code of rites, which was the foundation of traditional Chinese ethical politics, and specifically that “Confucianism and the imperial system have an inseparable connection.” To be precise, as a tool for maintaining the imperial system, Confucianism had no reason to exist after the Xinhai Revolution, and its status could not be stipulated by law, let alone the constitution. Second, “Confucianism” was the thought of the autocratic era and was incompatible with the republican system of the time. The republican system established after the founding of the Republic required new ideas and beliefs to match it, and therefore there should be “thorough awakening and courageous determination” to abolish Confucianism. Third, writing “Confucianism” into the constitution violated the “universal” principle of freedom of religious belief. Taking Western societies as a reference, Chen Duxiu believed that a society might have multiple religious beliefs, and stipulating Confucianism as the “state religion” would inevitably affect other religious beliefs. Additionally, because the linked relationship between monarchical power and religious authority was simultaneously stripped away in the modern transformation of Western societies, the argument for making Confucianism the state religion naturally did not conform to the universal “rules” of the world. It should be said that during this period, *New Youth* mainly used the “examples” of Western countries as its basis for argument, systematically criticizing the early Republic argument for “making Confucianism the state religion.” For the construction of the atheist discourse system, the critique of “Confucianism” was not aimed at the issue of “theism,” but rather criticized topics with a religious character from the broader perspective of “idol worship.”

首先，厘清“孔教”与国家政治的关系。由于民国初期孔教、鬼神思想与帝制复辟之间千丝万缕的关联，因而从科学启蒙与维护共和制度的角度，深入批判孔教、鬼神思想就成为《新青年》的基本取向。一是“孔教”问题为伦理问题，不宜载入宪法。陈独秀认为，孔教的精华是礼教，是中国传统伦理政治的根本，特别是“孔教与帝制，有不可离散之因缘”，具体而言，孔教作为维护帝制的工具，辛亥革命之后已无存在的理由，更不可从法律甚至宪法上规定其地位。二是“孔教”为专制时代的思想，与当时共和制度不合。民国建立之后确立的共和制度，是需要新的思想、信仰与之相匹配，因而应有“彻底之觉悟，猛勇之决心”，废止孔教。三是将“孔教”载入宪法，与宗教信仰自由的“普遍”原则相违背。陈独秀以西方社会为参照就认为，一个社会可能存在多种宗教信仰，而将孔教规定为“国教”，就必然影响其他宗教信仰。另外，因为君权和教权的连带关系在近代西方社会变革中同时被削夺。在此情况下，定孔教为国教之论，自然也不符合世界普遍的“定则”。应该说，《新青年》这一时期主要是以西方国家的“范例”作为立论依据，对民初“定孔教为国教”之论进行了系统批判。对于无神论话语体系构建而言，“孔教”批判并非针对“有神”问题，是从更为广泛的“偶像崇拜”视角，对具有宗教色彩的论题进行批判。

Second, analyzing the superstitious essence of the psychical research trend. The early Republic government’s activities of offering sacrifices to Heaven strengthened the worship of Heaven’s mandate and ghosts and spirits. Coupled with the fact that people influenced by Western psychical research used photography to fabricate hypotheses about the existence of ghosts, this further encouraged society’s superstitious orientation. In 1917, the Psychical Research Society was established in Shanghai and published the *Journal of Psychical Research*, promoting “telepathy,” “spirit invocation,” “spiritual power to see ghosts,” publishing various “ghost writings” and “spirit photographs,” arguing for the existence of the “spirit world,” and declaring that “the theory of the soul has already been recognized by the world.” In response to this phenomenon, *New Youth* published a large number of articles criticizing various superstitions about gods and ghosts: Xu Changtong’s “On Superstition in Gods and Ghosts,” Chen Duxiu’s “Questioning the Theory of Ghosts,” Liu Bannong’s “Refuting the *Journal of Psychical Research*,” Qian Xuantong’s “Denouncing the *Journal of Psychical Research*,” and Chen Daqi’s “Refuting ‘Psychical Research’,” among others. Among them, Xu Changtong’s “On Superstition in Gods and Ghosts” analyzed the reasons for the prevalence of superstition from an epistemological perspective and further proposed methods to help people break free from superstition in gods and ghosts, namely “strengthening their courage and seeking more knowledge.” Although the author’s methods for breaking superstition in gods and ghosts were relatively simple, they emphasized fully mobilizing people’s own courage, fearless spirit, and popularizing scientific knowledge. Chen Daqi’s “Refuting ‘Psychical Research’” used “scientific principles to explain planchette writing, clarifying that planchette writing is a phenomenon of abnormal psychology,” analyzing the psychological reasons for the Psychical Research Society’s use of various novel techniques to perform “planchette writing,” and also provided methodological guidance from an epistemological perspective for people to recognize various theistic phenomena: “When scientists encounter things, they should strive to investigate their causes and deeply consider their principles, and should not be merely deceived by surface phenomena.” Chen Duxiu’s short article “Questioning the Theory of Ghosts” criticized the motives of contemporaries who borrowed European theories of the soul to fabricate the existence of gods and ghosts, “twisting and citing extensively, believing that the existence of ghosts is beyond doubt,” but this could not prove the existence of gods and ghosts. In response to the psychical researchers’ claim that the world has many unsolvable mysteries, Chen Duxiu raised questions from a scientific perspective, causing people to doubt such fallacies. These articles in *New Youth* initially applied modern science to expose various superstitious phenomena, focusing on explaining the origins of the thought of gods and ghosts, and played a prominent role in the construction of the atheist discourse system.

其次，解析灵学思潮的迷信本质。民初政府祭天活动，强化了对天命鬼神的崇拜，加之受到西方灵学影响的人借助照相技术，虚构鬼魂存在的假说，更助长了社会的迷信取向。1917年,灵学会在上海成立并发行了《灵学丛志》，宣扬“传心术”“降神术”“灵力见鬼术”，刊布各种“鬼文”和“灵魂照片”，论证“幽界”的存在，又宣称“灵魂之学说，则已为世界所公认”。针对这一现象，《新青年》刊发了大量批判各种鬼神迷信的文章：徐长统的《论迷信鬼神》、陈独秀的《有鬼论质疑》、刘半农的《辟〈灵学丛志〉》、钱玄同的《斥〈灵学丛志〉》和陈大齐的《辟“灵学”》等等。其中，徐长统的《论迷信鬼神》一文从认识论角度分析了迷信盛行的原因，并进一步提出，帮助人们摆脱迷信鬼神的方法，即“壮其胆力、多求知识”。尽管作者破解迷信鬼神之法比较简单，但强调了充分发挥人自身的勇气、无畏精神以及普及科学知识。陈大齐的《辟“灵学”》一文，“以科学之理解释扶乩，以明扶乩之为变态心理现象”，分析了灵学会假冒各种新奇之术进行“扶乩”行为的心理原因，还从认识论的高度为人们认清各种有神论现象提供了方法指导：“言科学者遇事接物，宜力索其故，深思其理，不可徒为表面现象所蒙蔽。”陈独秀的《有鬼论质疑》短文则批评了时人假借欧美灵魂之论虚构鬼神存在的动机，“曲征杂引，以为鬼之存在，确无疑义，”但这并不能证明鬼神的存在。针对灵学论者所言世界有诸多不可解之谜，陈独秀从科学的角度以问题相质疑，引起人们对此类谬论的怀疑。《新青年》的这些文章初步运用现代科学来揭露各种迷信现象，着重解释鬼神思想产生的缘由，对无神论话语体系构建具有突出作用。

Finally, it criticized the historical and social functions of religion. *New Youth* profoundly analyzed the essence of religion, further strengthening its critique of the thought of ghosts and gods. In January 1917, in response to Yu Songhua’s view that “religion still has value in contemporary society,” Chen Duxiu, in a reply, enumerated in detail the facts of religion hindering social development. Prior to this, Chen Duxiu had already criticized the assertion that “the secrets of the universe and human life cannot be solved by science; only religion can resolve doubts and relieve worries,” arguing that religion merely creates an illusion of self-liberation, and that only science can dispel such doubts. Hence, “all religions should be abandoned.” Subsequently, *New Youth* serialized the article “Science and Christianity” in Volume 3, Issue 6 and Volume 4, Issue 1. This article, translated by Chen Duxiu from Ernst Haeckel’s *The Riddle of the Universe*, discussed the conflict between modern science and Christianity, providing a reference for understanding the evolution of Christianity. In August 1918, in his “On the Destruction of Idols,” he further pointed out: “All the gods, buddhas, immortals, and ghosts revered and worshipped by all religions are useless, deceptive idols and should be destroyed!” From these propositions, especially when comparing Chen Duxiu’s counterattack against Confucian religion and the worship of ghosts and gods with his later, preliminary systematic critique of Christianity originating from the West, it is evident that behind this lay the Chinese advanced intellectuals’ critique of the so-called “universal truths” and “general principles” of the West. By revealing the essence of religion from a more universal perspective, *New Youth* began to establish an atheist orientation in the realm of life beliefs.

最后，批判宗教的历史及社会功能。《新青年》深刻剖析宗教本质，进一步强化了对鬼神思想的批判。1917年1月，陈独秀针对俞颂华关于“宗教在现社会尚有存在之价值”的观点，在回信中详细列举了宗教阻碍社会发展的事实。在此之前，陈独秀就批判了“宇宙人生之秘密，非科学所可解，决疑释忧厥惟宗教”的论断，认为宗教只是营造了人自我解脱的幻象，能破除此种疑惑的只有科学，因而“一切宗教，皆在废弃之列”。随后，《新青年》第3卷第6号､第4卷第1号连载了《科学与基督教》一文，该文是陈独秀译自赫克尔《世界之谜》，论述了近代科学与基督教的冲突，为认识基督教演变提供了参照。1918年8月，他在《偶像破坏论》中进一步指出：“一切宗教家所尊重的崇拜的神佛仙鬼，都是无用的骗人的偶像，都应该破坏！”从这些主张来看，特别是纵向对比陈独秀对孔教及鬼神崇拜的反击，到初步系统批判来自于西方的基督教，背后蕴含了中国先进知识分子对西方所谓“公理”“公例”的批判，从更为普遍意义上揭示宗教本质，使得《新青年》开始在人生信仰领域确立无神论取向。

Overall, during this period, *New Youth* criticized the “restorationist” countercurrent in the realm of social thought, particularly in response to the domestic political situation, as well as the situation where “superstition” was practiced under the guise of scientific techniques, and analyzed the relationship between “Confucian religion” and national politics. Although Chen Duxiu vehemently refuted the proposal to “establish Confucian religion as the state religion,” he also distinguished between Confucius’s teachings and “Confucian religion,” stating: “Our Chinese religion is not solemn to begin with, and Confucian religion absolutely lacks the substance of religion.” Such practices also reflect *New Youth*’s attempt to remove ideological elements from Chinese culture that could not adapt to the needs of the times. Indeed, for any ideological proposition to have a significant impact, relying solely on “destroying the old” is insufficient to accomplish the task of enlightenment. Therefore, while *New Youth* “denied religious authority” and criticized Confucian religion and the thought of ghosts and gods, it also advocated “constructing a new and fresh faith in spirit” to truly shape the new youth. However, shaping a “fresh faith” under the guidance of scientific enlightenment undoubtedly includes atheist thought. How *New Youth* constructed a complete discourse system of atheism remains a question requiring further exploration.

总体来看，这一时期《新青年》针对当时国内政治形势，特别是社会思潮领域出现的“复古”逆流，以及假借科学之术行“迷信”之实的情况进行批判，辨析“孔教”与国家政治的关系。尽管陈独秀极力批驳“定孔教为国教”的主张，但也区分了孔子学说与“孔教”的不同意涵：“吾华宗教，本不隆重，况孔教绝无宗教之实质。”此类做法也反映出《新青年》试图祛除中国文化中不能适应时代需要的思想因素。诚然，任何一种思想主张要产生较大影响，仅仅依靠“破旧”难以完成启蒙任务。因此，《新青年》在“否定教权”，批判孔教和鬼神思想的同时，又主张“精神上别构真实新鲜之信仰”，才能真正塑造新青年。不过，在科学启蒙之下塑造“新鲜之信仰”，无疑就包含无神论思想，而《新青年》又如何构建起完整的无神论话语体系，仍是需要探索的问题。

II. “Replacing Religion with Science”: The Reconstruction of Atheist Content in *New Youth*

二、“以科学代宗教”：《新青年》无神论内容的重构

Constructing a more systematic system of atheist content and extending scientific knowledge to a broader scope was also an effective way for *New Youth* to respond to social trends like spiritualism. In 1917, Chen Duxiu advocated “replacing religion with science.” Later, Cai Yuanpei proposed the idea of “replacing religion with aesthetic education.” These reflections, aimed at more systematically establishing atheist thought under the guidance of scientific enlightenment, undoubtedly advanced the understanding of the atheist issue.

构建更为系统的无神论内容体系，将科学知识扩展到更广阔范围，也是《新青年》面对灵学等社会思潮，试图做出回应的有效方式。1917年，陈独秀主张以“科学代宗教”。之后，蔡元培又提出“以美育代宗教”的思想。这些思考是在科学启蒙之下如何更为系统地确立无神论思想，无疑推进了对无神论问题的认识。

First, it explored the resources of atheist thought within traditional Chinese culture. On July 15, 1918, *New Youth* published Yi Baisha’s article “The Philosophers’ Theory of No Ghosts,” which systematically compiled statements from pre-Qin philosophers [9]9 “Manifesto of This Magazine,” *New Youth*, vol. 7, no. 1 (December 1919). that did not believe in ghosts and gods. The uniqueness of this article lies in the fact that, at a time when *New Youth* was heavily criticizing traditional Chinese culture, the author, from the perspective that “the reason Chinese religion could not be established is due to the merit of the philosophers’ theory of no ghosts,” pointed out that “the philosophers’ theory of no ghosts all sought to liberate from the way of the gods,” and criticized the contemporary view of saving China’s peril through Western Christianity. In fact, Yi Baisha’s articles published in *New Youth*, such as “A Fair Discussion of Confucius” (Volume 1, Issue 6; Volume 2, Issue 1) and “On Mozi” (Volume 1, Issue 2; Volume 1, Issue 5; Volume 2, Issue 1), all attempted to clarify the modern scientific spirit contained in the thoughts of Confucius and the Mohist school, stripping away the “forced interpretations” added by Confucian religionists and those who believed in ghosts and gods. It should be said that excavating the ideological origins of atheism from traditional Chinese culture expanded the cognitive breadth of the discussion on atheism. From the perspective of constructing atheist knowledge, this approach was entirely different from the orientation of drawing ideological resources from Western culture.

其一，发掘中国传统文化中的无神论思想资源。1918年7月15日，《新青年》刊登易白沙的《诸子无鬼论》一文，从诸子文献中系统梳理了不信鬼神的言论，这篇文章独特之处就在于，在当时《新青年》着重批判中国传统文化，作者从“中国宗教不能成立，诸子无鬼论之功也”的角度，指出“诸子之无鬼论，皆欲解脱神道者也”，并批判了时人以西方基督教挽救中国危亡的主张。事实上，易白沙在《新青年》上发表的《孔子平议》(第1卷第6号､第2卷第1号)､《述墨》(第1卷第2号､第1卷第5号､第2卷第1号)，都试图厘清孔子思想、墨家思想所包含的现代科学精神，剥离孔教论者、迷信鬼神者添加其上的“附会之言”。应该说，从中国传统文化中挖掘无神论的思想渊源，扩展了无神论讨论的认识广度；从无神论知识构建的角度来看，此法与从西方文化中汲取思想资源的取向截然不同。

Second, it examined the social functions of religion in human history. *New Youth* placed religion within the broad history of human origins and development, investigating the reasons for its emergence and its impact, thereby providing the most solid evidence for “replacing religion with science.” On January 15, 1919, *New Youth* published Wang Xinggong’s “Biology Before the Existence of Humans,” which used “concise knowledge” from biology and geology to discuss prehistoric biological evolution. On February 25 of the same year, *New Youth* published a translation of “On Spiritualism” by Liu Shuya, which systematically reviewed the role of religious belief in human society, especially noting that after the development of modern science, “the struggle against superstition and ignorance is a war for civilization.” The translator specifically hoped that the “inquisitive and thoughtful youth” who read this article would establish a rational outlook on life and the world, relying on pure reason to pursue their own happiness. It should be said that these translations, introductions, and commentaries refuted the fallacy of “divine creation of the world,” attempting from the root to construct a scientific knowledge of the history of human social development. Their practical aim was to attempt to construct a “scientific” outlook on life and the world.

其二，梳理人类历史上宗教的社会功能。《新青年》将宗教放置于人类起源和发展的宏阔历史中，考察其产生的缘由及影响，为“科学替代宗教”提供了最为坚实的证据。1919年1月15日，《新青年》杂志刊发王星拱的《未有人类以前之生物》，通过生物学、地质学的“简要知识”论述了史前生物进化。同年2月25日,《新青年》又登载了刘淑雅翻译的《灵异论》一文，系统梳理了宗教信仰在人类社会中的作用，尤其是近代科学发达之后，“和迷信无知的奋斗，就是个为文明战争”，译者特别期望阅读这篇文章的“好学深思的青年”，能够树立合理的人生观和世界观，依靠纯粹理性，追求自己的幸福。应该说，这些译介和述论批驳了“神创人世”的谬论，从根源上尝试构建人类社会发展史的科学知识，其现实指向则是试图构建“科学的”人生观和世界观。

Third, it provided a methodology for criticizing theism and constructing atheism. Among these, using “scientific laws” to analyze natural phenomena became the top priority for *New Youth* in its efforts to construct an atheist knowledge system. This shifted *New Youth*’s scientific enlightenment from focusing on the dissemination of specific phenomena or knowledge to the exploration of their common laws or universal significance, providing more explanatory and methodological intellectual tools for constructing an atheist knowledge system. Examples include Wang Xinggong’s “The Origins and Effects of Science” (Volume 7, Issue 1) and “What is the Scientific Method?” (Volume 7, Issue 5), Gao Kai’s “The Physiology of Sex” (Volume 9, Issue 4) and “‘What Is’ and ‘Why’” (Volume 9, Issue 5), and Ren Hongjun’s “What is a Scientist?” (Volume 6, Issue 3). Among these, Gao Kai’s “The Physiology of Sex” introduced the theory of biological evolution from the perspective of life science, explaining concepts related to life science such as “cell division,” “biological genetic inheritance,” and “metabolism.” By reviewing the modes of reproduction in the biological world, it refuted the Western Christian theory of “God creating humans” and the ancient Chinese discourse of “the union of yin and yang,” arguing that “ignorance and superstition are our great enemies.” In another article titled “‘What Is’ and ‘Why’,” he further pointed out that to understand principles and recognize things, we need to eliminate superstition and enhance rationality, and that “to discard faith, to see clearly ‘what is,’ and to establish ‘why’—that is our truth.” From the perspective of the time, this introduction to scientific ways of thinking was, to some extent, more valuable than merely using scientific knowledge to explain a particular natural phenomenon, providing a methodological reference for people to understand scientific knowledge.

其三，提供批判有神论、构建无神论的方法论。其中以“科学法则”解析自然现象，成为《新青年》着力构建无神论知识体系的重中之重。这就使得《新青年》科学知识启蒙从注重对具体现象或知识的传播，转向对其共有规律或普遍意义的探寻，为无神论知识体系构建提供了更具解释力和方法论的思想工具。如王星拱的《科学的起源与效果》(第7卷第1号)､《什么是科学方法》(第7卷第5号),高铦《性之生理学》(第9卷第4号)､《“是什么”和“为什么”》(第9卷第5号),任洪隽的《何为科学家》(第6卷第3号)等等｡其中，高铦的《性之生理学》一文从生命科学角度介绍生物进化论思想，解释了“细胞分裂”“生物性的遗传”“新陈代谢”等有关生命科学的概念，通过对生物界繁殖方式的梳理，批驳了西方基督教“神创造人类”以及中国古代“阴阳交合”的论说，并认为“无知和迷信是我们人的大敌”。他在另一篇题为《“是什么”和“为什么”》的文章中又指出，我们要知理、识物就需要消除迷信，增进理性，要“去信仰，看清了‘是什么’，立定了‘为什么’才是我们的真理”。从当时的情况来看，这种对科学思维方式的介绍，在某种程度上说，比仅仅用科学知识解说某一自然现象更有价值，为人们了解科学知识提供了方法论上的参照。

With *New Youth*’s extensive dissemination of scientific knowledge, constructing a “scientific” life belief was an issue it had to confront. This was primarily for two reasons. First, the need to understand the world. Although natural scientific knowledge cannot fully explain the world or completely replace religion, relying on religion or superstition is even less capable of understanding the operation of the material world. Under the monist assertion of the material world, the outlook on life formed through understanding and transforming the material world should naturally possess practical, material characteristics, and “science” is likewise a basic quality it should possess. Hence, Chen Duxiu pointed out: “All politics, morality, education, and literature are imbued with the spirit of scientific positivism.” [1]1 “Benevolence, righteousness, morality” (仁义道德) is a core Confucian ethical concept, often used in early 20th-century Chinese radical discourse as a shorthand for traditional feudal moral codes that were seen as tools of class oppression. In this situation, youth not only needed to understand scientific knowledge, but also needed to understand the “true meaning” of a “scientific” life belief, and needed to understand that achieving happiness in life “is brought about by one’s own efforts in life, not bestowed by God, nor something that can be accomplished by letting nature take its course.” [2]2 Chen Duxiu, “The True Meaning of the Scientific Outlook on Life.” This discursive orientation that takes “science” as the ultimate goal led *New Youth* to incorporate issues of knowledge, belief, and many others into the category of “science” for consideration; the scientific outlook on life was also a “natural” extension of its scope. Second, the need to transform the world. The discussion of the scientific outlook on life unfolded against the backdrop of the increasingly broad influence of scientific enlightenment and the growing prominence of social problems; thus, directly confronting social transformation was its underlying character. In 1919, Wang Xinggong stated in his article “The Origins and Effects of Science”: “The scientific outlook on life is to seek truth within life itself.” [3]3 Wang Xinggong, “The Origins and Effects of Science,” *New Youth*, vol. 6, no. 6 (November 1919). Compared with the contemporaneous *New Youth* manifesto, which stated: “We believe that politics, morality, science, art, religion, and education should all center on the practical needs of social progress in the present and future,” [4]4 “Manifesto of This Magazine,” *New Youth*, vol. 7, no. 1 (December 1919). the implications of the two are highly consistent, both emphasizing the exploration of the value and meaning of a “scientific” life within social practice and real life. The discussion of the scientific outlook on life was *New Youth*’s response to issues concerning the human spiritual world in its propagation of atheism and expansion of the influence of scientific enlightenment. It precisely targeted the area where contemporaries argued religion might have the most “value.” Although the existing discussion still appeared mechanical and thin, it was a reinforcement of the “weak points” of scientific enlightenment.

随着《新青年》对科学知识的广泛传播，构建“科学”的人生信仰，是其必须面对的论题。这主要有两方面原因：一是认识世界的需要。尽管自然科学知识难以完全解释世界，无法完全替代宗教，但依靠宗教或迷信更无法认识物质世界的运行。在物质世界一元论的主张之下，认识和改造物质世界所形成的人生观，理所应当带有实践的物质性特点，而“科学”自然也是其所应具备的基本特性。所以陈独秀就指出：“一切政治、道德、教育、文学、无一不含着科学实证的精神。”在此情况下，青年不仅需要了解科学知识，也需要了解“科学”人生信仰的“真义”，且需要懂得实现人生幸福，“是人生自身出力造成的，非是上帝所赐，也不是听其自然所能成就的”。这种以“科学”为一切旨归的论述取向，使《新青年》将知识、信仰等诸多问题纳入“科学”范畴加以思考，科学人生观也是其范围“自然而然”延伸的结果。二是改造世界的需要。科学人生观的讨论，是在科学启蒙影响日广，社会问题日益凸显的背景下展开的，因而直面社会改造是其底色。1919年,王星拱在《科学的起源和效果》一文中就提出：“科学的人生观，就是要求真实于生活之中。”对比同期《新青年》宣言所说：“我们相信政治、道德、科学、艺术、宗教、教育，都应该以现在及将来社会生活进步的实际需要为中心。”两者意涵指向极为一致，都强调了在社会实践和现实生活中探寻“科学”的人生价值和意义。对科学人生观的讨论，是《新青年》宣传无神论、扩展科学启蒙影响，在涉及人精神世界问题上的回应，恰恰也是针对时人所论宗教可能最有“价值”的领域，尽管已有论述仍显机械和单薄，却是对科学启蒙“弱项”的补强。

*New Youth*’s dissemination of scientific enlightenment and atheist knowledge further strengthened its close relationship with real politics. This process went through a stage from vigorously criticizing religious superstition and imperial restoration to using atheism to defend the republican system. The previous discussion has already covered *New Youth*’s “denial of religious authority” and its use of this to criticize the role of Confucianism and superstition in maintaining imperial rule. But moving from “destruction” to “construction,” *New Youth*’s discussion of the relationship between state and religion more prominently highlighted the connection between atheism and science. Chen Duxiu pointed out that in the party politics of a modern state, “those who devote themselves to party political life all give full play to the spirit of individual independent belief.” [5]5 Chen Duxiu, “The Relationship Between Religion and the State,” *New Youth*, vol. 8, no. 3 (January 1921). On this basis, *New Youth* further extended the significance of atheism for national politics, clarifying the relationship between individual independent belief and party building, and pointing out that moral belief also needed to match real politics. In 1918, Chen Duxiu believed: “There are now two roads in the world: one is the bright road toward republicanism, science, and atheism; the other is the dark road toward autocracy, superstition, and theocracy.” [6]6 Chen Duxiu, “The Two Roads in the World,” *New Youth*, vol. 5, no. 5 (November 1918). It is evident that Chen Duxiu and others, having experienced events such as Yuan Shikai’s restoration and Zhang Xun’s restoration in the early Republic of China, [7]7 Yuan Shikai (1859-1916) was a military leader who briefly restored the monarchy in 1915-1916, proclaiming himself emperor. Zhang Xun (1854-1923) was a Qing loyalist who staged a brief imperial restoration in July 1917. were deeply aware of the role of religious superstition in promoting these events; therefore, *New Youth* set the two in stark opposition. However, the discourse on atheism and the republican system under scientific enlightenment still found it difficult to change the reality of warlord separatism and the suffering of the people’s livelihood in Chinese society.

《新青年》对于科学启蒙、无神论知识的传播进一步强化了其与现实政治之间的密切关系。这一过程经历了从着力批判宗教迷信与帝制复辟，到以无神论维护共和制度的过程。对于《新青年》“否定教权”，借此来批判孔教与迷信对维护帝制的作用，前文已有讨论。但从“破坏”到“构建”，《新青年》在论述国家与宗教的关系上，更加突出了无神论与科学的关联。陈独秀指出，在现代国家的政党政治中，“投身政党生活者，莫不发挥个人独立信仰之精神”。在此基础上，《新青年》进一步引申无神论对国家政治的重要意义，阐明个体独立信仰与政党建设的关系，并指出道德信仰也需要与现实政治相匹配。1918年，陈独秀认为：“现在世界上有两条道路：一条是向共和的、科学的、无神的光明道路；一条是向专制的、迷信的、神权的黑暗道路。”可见，陈独秀等人经历了民国初期袁世凯复辟和张勋复辟等事件，深知宗教迷信在其中的助推作用，因此《新青年》将两者截然对立。不过，科学启蒙之下无神论与共和制度的论述，仍然难以改变中国社会军阀割据、民生困苦的现实。

III. “The Awakening of the Laborer”: The Progression of Atheist Knowledge in *New Youth*

三、“劳动者的觉悟”：《新青年》无神论知识的转进

On November 16, 1918, Cai Yuanpei delivered a speech titled “Labor Is Sacred,” which quickly became a focus of attention in Chinese intellectual circles. [8]8 Cai Yuanpei (1868-1940) was a prominent educator and chancellor of Peking University. His “Labor Is Sacred” speech was delivered at a celebration of the Allied victory in World War I. With the spread of Marxism in China, *New Youth*’s discussion of atheism gradually merged with the “Labor Is Sacred” trend of thought, becoming an ideological tool for enlightening the Chinese laboring class. In December 1919, *New Youth*’s “Manifesto of This Magazine” stated: “We believe that respecting natural science and experimental philosophy, and eliminating superstition and delusion, are necessary conditions for the evolution of our present society.” [9]9 “Manifesto of This Magazine,” *New Youth*, vol. 7, no. 1 (December 1919). *New Youth* reaffirmed its own propositions, which did not differ greatly from its previous positioning on scientific enlightenment; however, elements such as “respecting labor” and “mass movements, social transformation” presented a prominent “reformist” atmosphere. Furthermore, *New Youth*’s focus gradually shifted from topics such as the moral revolution and the literary revolution to new topics like “Labor Is Sacred.”

1918年11月16日，蔡元培发表了题为“劳工神圣”的演讲，一时成为中国知识界的关注焦点。随着马克思主义在中国的传播，《新青年》的无神论讨论也逐渐与“劳工神圣”思潮相结合，成为启蒙中国劳工阶级的思想工具。1919年12月,《新青年》的《本志宣言》指出：“我们相信尊重自然科学、实验哲学，破除迷信妄想，是我们现在社会进化的必要条件。”《新青年》重申自己的主张，与以往的科学启蒙定位并无较大区别，不过其中的“尊重劳动”以及“民众运动、社会改造”等内容，呈现了突出的“革新”气象。进而言之，《新青年》的关注焦点从道德革命、文学革命等论题逐渐让位于“劳工神圣”等新论题。

First, *New Youth* connected atheism with the ideological liberation of socialism. In November 1920, Chen Duxiu wrote an article from the perspective of the laws of social evolution, pointing out: “Republicanism must give way to socialism.” [10]10 Chen Duxiu, “On Republicanism and Socialism,” *New Youth*, vol. 8, no. 3 (January 1921). Although he acknowledged the role of republican politics in the history of human evolution, it was “monopolized by a minority capitalist class.” In this situation, the majority “gradually came to understand and demand their own freedom and happiness; socialism was to rise up and replace republican politics.” [11]11 Chen Duxiu, “On Republicanism and Socialism.” Chen Duxiu, comparing the degree of development of democratic politics, also explained that socialism was “worthy of belief and pursuit,” rather than “unconscious blind obedience or worthless superstition.” [12]12 Chen Duxiu, “On Republicanism and Socialism.” Compared with his previous discussions on atheism and the republican system, his argument here also compared socialism and the republican system under the guidance of science. In other words, he believed it was necessary to explain not only the practical feasibility of socialism, but also its rationality and “scientific” nature as a social ideal. In December of the same year, Li Dazhao more profoundly explained the development of modern economic organization, which prompted the self-consciousness of the laboring class and thus the social roots of the “Labor Is Sacred” trend of thought. From the perspective of a comparison between historical materialism and “the methods of theology,” he pointed out the significance of atheist propaganda for the liberation of the “common people” and social progress: “All past history” was neither created by great men nor bestowed by God, but created by the common people. [13]13 Li Dazhao, “The Economic Explanation of the ‘Labor Is Sacred’ Trend of Thought,” *New Youth*, vol. 8, no. 4 (December 1920). Because of this, “we should be conscious of our own strength, quickly unite, respond to the needs of our lives, and create a new world history of the common people.” [14]14 Li Dazhao, “The Economic Explanation of the ‘Labor Is Sacred’ Trend of Thought.” This explanation fundamentally broke with the idealist view of history that posits fate and divine decree, connecting atheism with labor liberation on a broader level, and combining it with the practical problems of enlightening the labor force in Chinese society at the time. This marked a shift from *New Youth*’s previous emphasis on discussing the relationship between atheism and the republican system to explaining the ideological significance of atheism for the liberation of the proletariat.

第一，《新青年》将无神论与社会主义的思想解放相连。1920年11月，陈独秀撰文从社会演化规律的角度指出：“共和要让社会主义”，尽管他也承认共和政治在人类进化史上的作用，但“被少数资本阶级所把持”，在此情况下多数人“都渐渐明白起来要求自己的自由与幸福了，社会主义要起来代替共和政治，”陈独秀从民主政治发展程度上进行比较，还说明了社会主义是“值得去信仰趋赴”，而不是“无意识的盲从或无价值的迷信”。对比此前他有关无神论与共和制度的述论，此处立论也是在科学取向下对比社会主义与共和制度。换言之，他认为必须要说明社会主义不仅在实践上的可行性，还需论述其作为社会理想的合理性和“科学性”。同年12月，李大钊更加深刻地阐释了现代经济组织发展，促使劳工阶级自觉，进而发生“劳工神圣”思潮的社会根源，从唯物史观与“学神的方法”比较视角，指出无神论宣传对“平民”解放及社会进步的意义，“一切过去的历史”，既不是伟人创造，也不是上帝赐予，而是由平民创造的。正因为此，“我们应该自觉我们的势力，敢快联合起来，应我们生活上的需要，创造一种世界的平民的新历史”。这一解释从根本上破除了天命神定的唯心史观，从更为广泛的意义上把无神论与劳工解放连接起来，并将之与当时中国社会劳工启蒙的现实问题相结合，标志着以往《新青年》侧重述论无神论与共和制度的关系，已转变为解释无神论对无产阶级解放的思想意义。

Second, *New Youth* expanded the magazine’s scope of science, highlighting the revolutionary nature of atheism. On June 15, 1923, after *New Youth* resumed publication, it published the “New Manifesto of *New Youth*,” positioning itself as “the compass for the Chinese proletarian revolution.” [15]15 “New Manifesto of *New Youth*,” *New Youth*, quarterly issue no. 1 (June 1923). Qu Qiubai once again emphasized the “revolutionary significance” of *New Youth*’s discussion of atheism: “*New Youth* has long become the ideological organ of the proletariat; it will not only wage a fierce struggle against the thought of patriarchal society, but will simultaneously attack bourgeois thought. To liberate China, it is necessary to forcefully eliminate all kinds of obstacles — the autocracy of patriarchal society, muddled thinking, opposition to science, and superstition are all obstacles to revolution.” [16]16 “New Manifesto of *New Youth*.” This new manifesto undoubtedly clarified *New Youth*’s further objectives for struggle. In particular, by making the superstitious autocracy of patriarchal society and bourgeois thought its targets of struggle, it made science and atheism, as tools of the proletarian struggle, extremely important. Therefore, in choosing the path of struggle, he expanded science to include “social science”: “We must strictly use scientific methods to study everything, from philosophy to literature, conduct fundamental investigations, comprehensively observe the laws of social phenomena, and seek conclusions.” [17]17 “New Manifesto of *New Youth*.” Compared with early *New Youth*’s focus on introducing natural scientific knowledge, the “social science” advocated in this “new manifesto” undoubtedly expanded the magazine’s scope of responsibility, highlighted its instrumental significance for the proletarian social revolution, and adapted to the practical needs of the revolution.

第二，《新青年》扩展杂志的科学范畴，凸显无神论的革命性。1923年6月15日,《新青年》复刊后发表了《新青年之新宣言》，将之定位为“中国无产阶级革命的罗针”，瞿秋白再次强调了《新青年》无神论讨论的“革命意义”：“《新青年》早已成无产阶级的思想机关，不但将与宗法社会的思想行剧激的争斗，并且对于资产阶级的思想同时攻击。本来要解放中国，必须力除种种障碍———那宗法社会的专制主义，笼统的头脑，反对科学，迷信，固然是革命的障碍”。这篇新宣言无疑明确了《新青年》进一步的斗争目标，尤其是他将宗法社会的迷信专制以及资产阶级思想作为斗争对象，使得作为无产阶级斗争工具的科学和无神论显得极其重要。所以在斗争路径选择上，他将科学扩展至“社会科学”，“当严格的以科学方法研究一切，自哲学以至于文学，作根本上之考察，综观社会现象之公律，而求结论”。这篇“新宣言”所主张的“社会科学”，相比于早期《新青年》专注于自然科学知识的介绍，无疑扩展了杂志职属责任，突出了其对无产阶级社会革命的工具意义，适应了革命的现实需要。

Third, New Youth took up the Comintern’s discourse on the cultural mission of the proletariat and linked it to the anti-imperialist and anti-feudal tasks of the Chinese Communist Party. After the founding of the CPC, it paid close attention to the issue of imperialist cultural aggression against China through Christianity. In June 1922, Li Dazhao pointed out in an article, “Religion and Freedom, Equality, and Fraternity,” that the emergence of religion originated from “the beliefs of the weak and the inferior” and argued that the essence of religion embodied unequal relations. Chen Duxiu also held that the Christian church not only would not help weak and small nations but served the colonial policies of governments. In the same year, the Comintern stated in “Party Communist Education Work” that the work of communist education was to clarify for the proletariat the limitations of bourgeois science and to declare war on bourgeois science, art, morality, and religion; and that criticizing the bourgeois practice of defining the “proletarian way of life” through religion, morality, etc., was an important way for the proletariat to construct its own “new culture.” Influenced by this, on June 15, 1923, New Youth published an article, “The Cultural Movement of Communism.” Xi Zhen translated the Comintern congress’s relevant discussions on this issue and added a commentary: “Communism itself is a cultural movement, the most advanced and most universal cultural movement. A cultural movement must certainly be able to enhance the political knowledge and political consciousness of the laboring masses, enabling workers, peasants, and commoners to understand their social position.” Discussing the role of atheist propaganda and education in criticizing bourgeois science and religion, and its significance for communist education, from a cultural dimension—this was a landmark shift for New Youth: from the enlightenment of natural scientific knowledge to the use of “social science knowledge” to explore social laws, and then from the perspective of proletarian culture to analyze the role played by atheist propaganda and education—this was a great advance in the understanding of early Chinese Communists. In 1924, Jiang Xia Seng, in the article “Proletarian Revolution and Culture,” discussed from the perspective of the dialectical relationship between the economic base and cultural creation that the proletariat could not only solve the bread problem but also the problem of cultural creation, and that only the proletariat could bear the heavy responsibility of “sorting out past culture and creating future culture.” These discussions clarified the relationship between constructing a new culture and the proletariat fulfilling its own mission, expanding the scope of New Youth’s atheist thought.

第三，《新青年》承接共产国际有关无产阶级文化使命的论述，与中国共产党的反帝反封建任务相关联。中国共产党成立后，高度关注帝国主义利用基督教对中国的文化侵略问题。1922年6月，李大钊在《宗教与自由平等博爱》一文中就指出，由于宗教的产生，系出于“劣者、弱者的信仰”，并认为宗教的本质体现了不平等关系。陈独秀也认为，基督教会不但不会帮助弱小民族，且是为政府的殖民政策服务的。同年，共产国际在《党的共产主义教育工作》中指出，共产主义教育工作就是要向无产阶级阐明资产阶级科学的局限性，并且要向资产阶级的科学、艺术、道德和宗教宣战；而批判资产阶级通过宗教、道德等界定“无产阶级生活方式”的做法，是无产阶级构建自身“新文化”的重要方式。受此影响，1923年6月15日，《新青年》刊登《共产主义之文化运动》一文，奚桢翻译了共产国际大会对此问题的相关讨论，并加评论：“共产主义本身就是文化运动，是最先进最普遍的文化运动。文化运动必定要能增进劳动群众之政治智识及政治觉悟，使农工平民了解其所处之社会地位。”从文化维度论述无神论宣传教育在批判资产阶级科学及宗教中的作用，以及对共产主义教育的意义，这是《新青年》的标志性转变：从自然科学知识启蒙到运用“社会科学知识”探析社会规律，再从无产阶级文化角度解析无神论宣传教育所扮演的角色，是早期中国共产党人认识上的巨大进步。1924年,蒋侠僧在《无产阶级革命与文化》一文，从经济基础与文化创造的辩证关系角度论述了无产阶级不仅能解决面包问题，也能解决文化创造问题，而且只有无产阶级能够承担“整理过去的文化，创造将来的文化”之重任。这些论述明晰了构建新文化与无产阶级完成自身使命的关系，拓展了《新青年》无神论思想的论域。

Fourth, New Youth combined scientific atheism with the proletarian outlook on life, thoroughly breaking free from the influence of the bourgeois outlook on life. In December 1923, in the preface to “Science and the Outlook on Life,” Chen Duxiu defined the “materialist conception of history” as follows: “Only objective material causes can change society, can explain history, can dominate the outlook on life.” Although this discussion continued the magazine’s previous orientation, it is worth noting that the earlier scientific outlook on life more prominently highlighted the attribute of “science,” whereas in the discourse on the formation of proletarian faith, this orientation placed greater emphasis on the attribute of “proletariat.” Qu Qiubai put it even more bluntly in “Eastern Culture and World Revolution”: “When the true popularization of the discourse of benevolence, righteousness, morality and the true socialization of scientific civilization arrive, that will be the doomsday of all old societies.” [1]1 “Benevolence, righteousness, morality” (仁义道德) is a core Confucian ethical concept, often used in early 20th-century Chinese radical discourse as a shorthand for traditional feudal moral codes that were seen as tools of class oppression. In particular, he pointed out that the outcome differs greatly depending on whether science is in the hands of the majority or the minority, “Therefore, correct methods of social science must be used. Methods of natural science must be applied to practical movements for the benefit of the laboring common people.” This discussion precisely highlighted the close relationship between science and the construction of proletarian culture. The discussion of the outlook on life, especially the debate between idealism and materialism, and the adherence to the “monism” of the materiality of the world, explained at a deeper level the significance of the proletariat’s adherence to historical materialism for shaping class faith and transforming the material world. In “The World of Freedom and the World of Necessity,” Qu Qiubai further discussed the relationship between the outlook on life and social development. First, the scientific law of causality is sufficient to reveal the outlook on life, because the outlook on life of each era is constituted by the scientific knowledge of that time; the creators of a new outlook on life, by means of new scientific knowledge, “extend their ‘individual outlook on life’ to make it the outlook on life of the era.” Second, the scientific law of causality is sufficient to change the outlook on life, because new scientific knowledge must be obtained from the progress of the economic base and the social experience of class struggle, “Therefore, individual pioneers arise only in response to the needs of this struggle; they are merely the historical instruments of society or class.” Qu Qiubai profoundly revealed the connection between the outlook on life and social development, explaining the significance of mastering the laws of social development for humanity to move from being a “slave of nature” to becoming the “master of nature.” This explanation clarified the internal logical connection between the proletarian outlook on life and revolutionary struggle. It should be said that, from the initial use of atheist thought to criticize phenomena of gods and ghosts, to the use of historical materialism to analyze the laws of social development and the historical mission of the proletariat, this process profoundly witnessed the transformation of naive atheism into scientific atheism.

第四，《新青年》将科学无神论与无产阶级的人生观相结合，彻底摆脱资产阶级人生观的影响。1923年12月,陈独秀在《科学与人生观序》中这样界定“唯物的历史观”，“只有客观的物质原因可以变动社会，可以解释历史，可以支配人生观”。尽管这一论述延续了此前杂志的取向，不过值得注意的是，以往科学的人生观，更加突出“科学”的属性，而在无产阶级信仰生成的论述中，此种取向则更加强调了“无产阶级”属性。瞿秋白在《东方文化与世界革命》中说得更为直白：“至仁义道德说之真正的平民化及科学文明之真正的社会化时，就是一切旧社会的末日。”尤其是他指出了科学被掌握在多数人还是少数人手中，结果迥异，“所以必须以正确的社会科学的方法。自然科学的方法，为劳动平民的利益，而应用之于实际运动”。这一论述恰恰凸显了科学与无产阶级文化建构之间的密切关系。对人生观的讨论，特别是关于唯心主义与唯物主义的争论，对世界物质性“一元论”的坚持，从更深层次上说明了无产阶级坚持唯物史观，对塑造阶级信仰和改造物质世界的重要意义。在《自由世界与必然世界》中，瞿秋白进一步论述了人生观与社会发展的关系，一是科学的因果律足以揭示人生观，因为每个时代的人生观，都是当时科学知识的构成，新的人生观的创造者借助新科学知识，“推广其‘个性的人生观’使成时代的人生观”；二是科学的因果律足以变更人生观，由于新科学知识须从经济基础的进步以及阶级斗争的社会经验中获得，“所以个性的先觉仅仅应此斗争的需要而生，是社会的或阶级的历史工具而已。”瞿秋白深刻揭示了人生观与社会发展之间的关联，说明掌握社会发展规律对于人从“自然之奴”进入“自然之王”的意义。这一解说明晰了无产阶级人生观与革命斗争之间的内在逻辑联系。应该说，从最初运用无神论思想批判神鬼现象，到以唯物史观解析社会发展规律及无产阶级的历史使命，此过程深刻地见证了朴素的无神论转变为科学无神论的过程。

Fifth, New Youth used scientific atheism to preliminarily write the history of human social development. It should be pointed out that, with the widespread dissemination of Marxism, atheism transformed into scientific atheism, and New Youth also attempted to use historical materialism to analyze the development of human society. While negating the thesis of “gods creating the world,” it preliminarily constructed knowledge of the history of human social development. Jiang Guangci’s “Changes in Economic Forms and Social Relations” analyzed changes in human society from the perspective of relations of production, and fundamentally denied the claim of gods creating the universe regarding the origin of humanity. In particular, Jiang Xia Seng’s “The Explanation of the Development of Human Social History by Historical Materialism” applied historical materialism more accurately, comprehensively discussing the laws of change in human society from the aspects of the role of productive forces, productive forces and relations of production, social development and the geographical environment, the superstructure and the economic base, and the role of the individual in the historical process, and deeply analyzed topics such as the origin of humanity and social consciousness. Wang Yifei’s translation of “The Marxist View of Historical Research” used the writing of Russian history as an example to illustrate how to use historical materialism to analyze the regularity of historical development. These discussions also incorporated the social outlook and outlook on life, making them the “philosophical” knowledge of the proletariat, thereby constructing a complete system of scientific atheist knowledge.

第五，《新青年》运用科学无神论初步书写人类社会发展史。需要指出的是，随着马克思主义广泛传播，无神论转变为科学无神论，《新青年》也尝试运用唯物史观解析人类社会发展，在否定“神创人世”立论的同时，初步构建了人类社会发展史知识。蒋光赤的《经济形势与社会关系之变迁》从生产关系角度解析了人类社会变迁，而在人类起源上根本否定了神创宇宙的说辞。特别是蒋僧侠的《唯物史观对于人类社会历史发展的解释》，对唯物史观的运用更为准确，从生产力的作用，生产力与生产关系，社会发展与地理环境，上层建筑与经济基础，个人在历史过程中的作用等方面，完整论述了人类社会变化规律，深入解析了人类起源、社会意识等论题。王一飞翻译的《马克思主义的历史研究观》以俄国史书写为例证，说明了如何运用唯物史观解析历史发展的规律性。这些论述也将社会观、人生观纳入其中，成为无产阶级的“哲学”知识，从而构筑了完整的科学无神论知识体系。

IV. Conclusion

四、结语

The discussion of atheism in New Youth ran through the entire period of its publication, and the process of generating atheist knowledge revealed changes in the magazine’s enlightenment orientation. Fundamentally, the content system of atheism, mainly based on modern scientific knowledge, had different emphases in its discussion depending on the target of enlightenment. Cultural enlightenment focused on drawing on modern scientific knowledge and its role in safeguarding the republican system, criticizing the feudal autocratic system and superstition, while labor enlightenment concentrated on the role of atheism in constructing proletarian culture and class liberation.

《新青年》对于无神论的讨论，贯穿了其办刊始终，而无神论知识的生成过程，呈现了刊物启蒙定位的变化。从根本上看，以现代科学知识为主要载体的无神论内容体系，因启蒙对象不同，述论侧重点也有所不同，文化启蒙注重借鉴现代科学知识及其维护共和制度的作用，批判封建帝制及迷信，而劳工启蒙则聚焦无神论对构建无产阶级文化和阶级解放的作用。

The shift in the discussion of atheism in New Youth was also related to changes in its knowledge resources. Especially after 1920, literature from Soviet Russia increased rapidly, which changed New Youth’s previous orientation of mainly taking European and American thought as its model. More noteworthy is that the discussion of atheism used historical materialism as a tool to analyze the laws of social change, used the scientific outlook on life as a tool for class enlightenment, and aimed at achieving class liberation, which gave it a more profound change in its cultural orientation.

《新青年》无神论讨论的转向，也与其知识资源的变化有关。特别是1920年之后，来自苏俄的文献迅速增加，这就改变了此前《新青年》主要以欧美思想为范本的取向。更值得注意的是，无神论讨论以唯物史观作为分析社会变化的规律，又以科学人生观作为阶级启蒙的工具，并以实现阶级解放为目标，就使其在文化取向上呈现出更为深刻的变化。

From the perspective of the Chinese Communist Party’s revolutionary mobilization, the reconstruction of atheist knowledge in New Youth was related to early worker mobilization. Therefore, discussing atheism from the perspective of proletarian culture promoted the transformation of atheism into scientific atheism, which was a unique process in the transformation of Chinese revolutionary thought. On the other hand, the Chinese Communist Party’s popularization of the theoretical issues in New Youth enabled its widespread dissemination among young students and worker groups, which also served to promote scientific atheism, turning it into an ideological weapon to advance the revolution.

从中国共产党革命动员的角度来看，《新青年》无神论知识的重构与早期的工人动员相关，因而从无产阶级文化的视域论述无神论，推动了无神论向科学无神论转变，这是中国革命思想转化的独特进程。另一方面，中国共产党对《新青年》学理问题的通俗化，使其在青年学生和工人群体中广泛传播，又起到推介科学无神论的作用，将之变成推动革命的思想武器。

(Author’s bio: Yang Lan, Associate Professor, School of Marxism, Southern Medical University)

（作者简介：杨兰，南方医科大学马克思主义学院副教授）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心