An Exploration of the Atheist Thought in Engels’ *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*

Atheist thought is the soul of the Marxist view of religion and also an important premise of the Marxist theoretical system. Due to the limitations of historical conditions, the formation of Marx and Engels’ view of religion, with atheism at its core, underwent two leaps: the first leap was from a historical idealist view of religion to a historical materialist view of religion, marked by the writing of *The German Ideology* (1845–1846); the second leap was from a vague to a clear understanding of the nature of primitive society, which in turn gave rise to a leap in the understanding of the roots of the emergence of religion, its historical development, and its social functions. This leap was marked by Marx and Engels’ research on “cultural anthropology.” During this period, Engels published many works to propagate, explain, and systematically expound the Marxist view of religion: in *Anti-Dühring*, Engels concentrated on expounding the essence, roots, and laws of development of religion. In *Dialectics of Nature*, Engels conducted a profound analysis of modern social changes and the development of modern natural science, as well as their relationship with religion. In *Socialism: Utopian and Scientific*, Engels made a deep exposition of the role of Christianity in the European bourgeois revolution. In *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy* (hereinafter referred to as *The Feuerbach Thesis*), Engels, by means of discussing the question of the origin of the world, elucidated the natural and social causes of the origin of religion.

无神论思想是马克思主义宗教观的灵魂，也是马克思主义理论体系的重要前提。由于历史条件的限制，以无神论为核心的马克思、恩格斯宗教观的形成经历了两次飞跃:第一次飞跃是他们从历史唯心主义宗教观到历史唯物主义宗教观的飞跃，以《德意志意识形态》(1845—1846)的写作为标志;第二次飞跃是从对原始社会性质的认识由模糊到清晰，并由此产生了对宗教产生的根源、历史发展以及社会功能认识的飞跃。这次飞跃以马克思、恩格斯对“文化人类学”研究为标志。这期间，恩格斯发表了许多作品用于宣传、解释和系统阐述马克思主义宗教观:在《反杜林论》中，恩格斯集中阐述了宗教的本质、根源和发展规律。在《自然辩证法》中，恩格斯对近代社会变化与现代自然科学发展以及他们与宗教的关系进行了深刻的分析。在《社会主义从空想到科学的发展》中，恩格斯对基督教在欧洲资产阶级革命中的作用作了深刻论述。在《路德维希·费尔巴哈和德国古典哲学的终结》(以下简称《费尔巴哈论》)中，恩格斯借助于讨论世界本源问题，阐明宗教起源的自然原因和社会原因。

In order to expound new insights into primitive society and primitive religion, and to “quietly make up for the work my deceased friend was unable to complete,” Engels, combining Marx’s research notes on “cultural anthropology” with a large amount of historical data, and applying the viewpoints of dialectical materialism and historical materialism, created *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State* (hereinafter referred to as *The Origin*). Although *The Origin* does not discuss the question of religion in a concentrated manner or at great length, in the process of revealing the laws of development of primitive society as it moved towards civilized society, it fully employs scientific atheist thought, expounding the emergence and development of religion on the economic base of primitive society, as well as the role of religion in primitive society and class society. *The Origin*, through a large amount of detailed and reliable historical data, confirms the religious character of the age of barbarism and the age of civilization, expounds the situation of the emergence and development of religion in primitive society, and the role of religion in primitive society and the formation of the state, revealing laws such as that religion, as a historical category, must be verified in the course of history, and that the social role of religion must seek answers in social life. The publication of *The Origin* is not only a further development of historical materialism but also a classic work that scientifically applies Marxist atheist thought to analyze social, historical, and cultural phenomena such as the origin of the state.

为了阐述对原始社会和原始宗教的新见解，“悄悄补偿我的亡友未能完成的工作”,恩格斯结合马克思关于“文化人类学”的研究笔记与大量的史料，运用辩证唯物主义与历史唯物主义的观点，创作了《家庭、私有制和国家的起源》(以下简称《起源》)。《起源》虽然没有集中地或是用大量篇幅讨论宗教问题，但是在揭示原始社会迈向文明社会的发展规律的过程中，充分运用了科学的无神论思想，阐述了在原始社会的经济基础之上宗教的发生和发展，以及宗教在原始社会和阶级社会的作用。《起源》通过大量详实的史料印证了野蛮时代与文明时代的宗教性质，阐述了原始社会宗教发生和发展的状况，以及宗教在原始社会和国家形成中的作用，揭示了宗教作为历史范畴必须在历史进程中加以证实，宗教的社会作用要在社会生活中寻找答案等规律。《起源》的出版既是对历史唯物主义的进一步发展，也是科学运用马克思主义无神论思想分析国家起源等社会历史文化现象的经典著作。

Engels said in *Dialectics of Nature*: “The infinite realms of nature have all been conquered by science, leaving no foothold for the creator.” Similarly, no stage of social development can leave a foothold for the creator. Du Jiwen, when studying the social responsibility of scientific atheism, also pointed out: “What is the characteristic of Marx’s atheism? First of all, it proceeds from historical materialism; it is necessary to explain religion by history, not history by religion, thereby pointing out the social basis for the emergence of religion and digging up the roots of theism.” In this sense, interpreting religion in different historical periods from the perspective of historical materialism is an inherent theoretical need of Marx’s religious research and also the reason for Engels’ unremitting struggle. Then, the publication of *The Origin* is not only Engels’ way of making up for the regret that Marx was unable to personally expound his new insights into primitive society and primitive religion, but also an important link in Engels’ perfection of the theoretical map of Marxism on religion. Existing specialized studies in academia on *The Origin* mostly focus on aspects such as women’s liberation, marriage and family, and nation-states, and rarely interpret it from the perspective of religion and atheism. There are also few studies involving Marx and Engels’ research on primitive religion, such as those by Wang Xiaochao, Hu Xiao, and Jiang Feng. Their works do not contain much discussion of *The Origin*, but their views on primitive religion share a common characteristic: they are mainly cited from the conclusions of *The Feuerbach Thesis*, and the premise for reaching the conclusions in *The Feuerbach Thesis* is precisely the exposition in *The Origin* of historical and cultural phenomena such as primitive society and primitive religion.

恩格斯在《自然辩证法》中讲:“自然界无穷无尽的领域全都被科学征服，不再给造物主留下一点立足之地。”同样，社会发展的每一个阶段也不能给造物主留下一点立足之地。杜继文在研究科学无神论的社会责任时也指出:“马克思无神论的特点是什么?首先是从唯物史观出发，必须用历史说明宗教，不能用宗教说明历史，由此指明宗教产生的社会基础，挖了有神论的根底。”在这个意义上来讲，从历史唯物主义出发来解读不同历史时期的宗教，是马克思宗教研究的内在理论需要，也是恩格斯为之不懈奋斗的缘由。那么《起源》的出版，既是恩格斯弥补马克思未能亲自阐释对原始社会和原始宗教新见解的遗憾，也是恩格斯完善马克思主义宗教理论图谱的重要一环。学术界关于《起源》的既有的专题研究，多从女性解放、婚姻家庭、民族国家等方面展开，鲜有从宗教和无神论的角度来解读的。而涉及到马克思、恩格斯原始宗教研究为数不多，如王晓朝、胡潇、江峰等，他们的作品中涉及《起源》的论述不多，但其关于原始宗教的观点都有一个共同特点，就是主要引用自《费尔巴哈论》的结论，而《费尔巴哈论》得出结论的前提就是《起源》中关于原始社会、原始宗教等历史文化现象的阐释。

I. Religion as a Historical Category Must Be Verified in the Course of History

一、宗教作为历史范畴必须在历史进程中加以证实

Morgan said: “In the lower status of barbarism, the higher attributes of man had already begun to manifest themselves. Personal dignity, eloquence, religious feeling, and rectitude, fortitude, and courage had already become common characteristics of his character.” [1]1 Engels, *Bruno Bauer and Early Christianity* (1882). In the lower status of barbarism, religion was already one of the indispensable ideological forms. Although Engels did not directly discuss the question of the origin of religion in *The Origin*, he gave a clear positioning of the stage of development of the religion believed in by members of gentile society. He said:

摩尔根说过:“在低级野蛮社会中，人类的较高的属性便已经开始表现出来了。个人的尊严、语言的流利、宗教的感情、以及正直、刚毅和勇敢已开始成为其性格的共同特点。”宗教在低级野蛮社会中已经是不可或缺的观念形态之一。恩格斯在《起源》中虽然没有直接论述宗教的起源问题，但是对氏族社会成员信奉的宗教所处的发展阶段有一个明确的定位。他说:

“The Indians are a people who believe in religion in the barbarian way.”

“印第安人，是按照野蛮人方式信仰宗教的人民。”

“Their mythology has so far still not received a critical study; they have already given human form to their religious ideas — various spirits — but they are still in the lower stage of barbarism, so they do not yet know concrete images, that is, so-called idols. This is a worship of nature and worship of natural forces developing towards polytheism.”

“他们的神话迄今还远没有得到考证性的研究;他们已经给自己的宗教观念———各种精灵———赋予人的形象，但是他们还处在野蛮时代低级阶段，所以还不知道具体的造像，即所谓偶像。这是一种正向多神教发展的自然崇拜与自然力崇拜。”

*Anti-Dühring* expounds several stages of the emergence and development of religion: from natural gods to social gods, from polytheism to monotheism. Then, the gods worshipped by the Indians are personifications of natural forces, at the stage of worship of nature gods and worship of natural forces, and it is clearly stated that it is not the gods who created the gens, but the gens that created the gods. Engels quotes Marx’s words, “… although the Greeks derived their gentes from mythology, these gentes are older than the mythology they themselves created, with its gods and demigods.”

《反杜林论》阐述了宗教产生发展的几个阶段:从自然神到社会神，从多神教到一神教。那么，印第安人所信仰的神是对自然力的人格化，处于自然神崇拜与自然力崇拜的阶段，并且明确说明，不是神创造了氏族，而是氏族创造了神。恩格斯引用马克思的话，“……虽然希腊人是从神话中引伸出他们的氏族的，但是这些氏族比他们自己所创造的神话及其诸神和半神要古老些”。

The gens, as a social system (organization), did not exist from the very beginning; it is a product of the development of human society to a certain stage. From the perspective of prehistoric periodization, “the gens arose in the middle stage of savagery and continued to develop in the upper stage … in the lower stage of barbarism it reached its full flower.” [2]2 Marx, *Excerpts from Lewis H. Morgan’s “Ancient Society”*. The emergence of the gentile system has a direct relationship with the development of the marriage system. In terms of origin, the marriage system predates the gentile system. By the upper stage of savagery, human marriage relations, the level of productive forces had improved, and production tools had developed from chipped Paleolithic tools to ground Neolithic tools. The gathering and fishing-hunting economy had transitioned to primitive agriculture and animal husbandry. Nomadic life began to develop towards settled village life, so marriage relations could also become relatively stable, thus giving rise to the punaluan family and the gentile system. In other words, when marriage relations developed to the stage of the punaluan family, the gentile system began to emerge. This thesis of Engels scientifically points out the basis for the emergence of religion. Historically, marriage, the gens, and religion are all adapted to the stage of human civilization, first and foremost to the state of economic development.

氏族作为一种社会制度(组织)，并不是从来就存在的，它是人类社会发展到一定阶段的产物。从史前的历史分期来看，“氏族在蒙昧时代中级阶段发生，在高级阶段继续发展起来……到了野蛮时代低级阶段，它便达到了全盛时代”。氏族制度的产生，同婚姻制度的发展有着直接的关系。就起源看，婚姻制度早于氏族制度。人类的婚姻关系到蒙昧时代的高级阶段，生产力水平有所提高，生产工具已由打制的旧石器发展到磨制的新石器。采集、渔猎经济过渡到原始农业和畜牧业。游牧生活开始向定居的村落生活发展，因而婚姻关系也可以相对地比较稳定，由此产生普那路亚家庭和氏族制度。换句话说，当婚姻关系发展到普那路亚家庭阶段时，氏族制度才开始产生。恩格斯的这一论断，科学地指明了宗教产生的基础。历史上的婚姻与氏族、宗教，都是与人类文明阶段首先是经济的发展状况相适应的。

Primitive religion and the clan always grew and developed together. “Ancestor worship is the product of the further development of matrilineal clan society into patrilineal clan society.” [1]1 Engels, *Bruno Bauer and Early Christianity* (1882). When discussing the matrilineal clan of the Iroquois, Engels repeatedly emphasized that in the higher form of group marriage, the “punaluan family,” a matrilineal household consisting of a female ancestor and her descendants of several generations formed a group, i.e., a matrilineal clan. The worship of the female ancestor was the belief of the Iroquois. The matrilineal clan was based on the public ownership of primitive society; the means of production, including land, houses, and tools, all belonged to the clan. Labor was carried out collectively within the clan, and the means of subsistence were distributed equally within the clan. In the later stages of matrilineal society, with the development of productive forces and the emergence of private wealth, the family and marriage system transitioned from pairing marriage to monogamous marriage. Engels said: “Mother-right had to give way to father-right; at the same time, the emerging private wealth opened the first breach in the clan system.” [2]2 Marx, *Excerpts from Lewis H. Morgan’s “Ancient Society”*. The patrilineal family consisted of several generations descended from one father and their individual families, living together under the authority of a male patriarch. In terms of religious beliefs accompanying the clan, the female ancestor was replaced by the male ancestor. When the patrilineal clan further developed into the nation-state stage, the worship of the male ancestor transformed into hero worship. Engels took the Athenian clan as an example: “Common religious rites and the priest’s privilege of officiating for a particular deity, who was supposed to be the male ancestor of the clan and was designated by a special name.” [3]3 Engels, *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State* (1884). In the Greek and Latin tribes, “the clan became the natural center of religious development and the cradle of religious rites.” [4]4 Engels, *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*.

原始宗教与氏族始终伴随相生相长，“祖先崇拜，是母系氏族社会进一步发展为父系氏族社会的产物”。恩格斯在论述易洛魁人母系氏族时，一再强调，在群婚的高级形式“普那路亚”中，一个母系大家庭由一个女祖先和她的若干辈子女，构成了一个集团，即母系氏族，对女祖先的崇拜是易洛魁人的信仰。母系氏族是以原始社会的公有制为基础，生产资料包括土地、房屋、生产工具等均属氏族所有，劳动在氏族范围内共同进行，生活资料也在氏族范围内平均分配。母系社会发展到后期，生产力发展和私人财富的出现，家庭婚姻制度由对偶婚过渡到专偶婚。恩格斯说:“母权制已让位给父权制;与此同时，正在产生的私有财富在氏族制度上打开了第一个缺口。”父权制家庭是一个父亲所生的几代人和他们的个体家庭组成的，在一个男性家长的支配下共同生活。与氏族伴生的宗教信仰方面，女祖先变成了男祖先。当父系氏族进一步发展进入民族－国家阶段，对于男祖先的崇拜则转化为英雄崇拜。恩格斯以雅典的氏族为例:“共同的宗教祭祀和祭司为祀奉一定的神所拥有的特权。这种神被假想为氏族的男始祖，并用独特的名称作这种地位的标志。”在希腊部落和拉丁部落，“氏族成了宗教发展的天然核心和宗教仪式的发祥地”。

Therefore, when discussing how to understand the various customs within the clan, Engels emphatically pointed out: “This forces us to study the economic base of this social state.” [5]5 Marx, *Excerpts from Lewis H. Morgan’s “Ancient Society”*. Only by clarifying the condition of the economic base can the condition of the superstructure built upon it be explained. Many customs within the clan, including changes and developments in religion, morality, customs, various habits, and institutions, are reflections of the clan’s economic relations. This is precisely the reason Engels focused on economic argumentation in *The Origin*.

所以，恩格斯在谈到应当怎样认识氏族内部的各项习俗时，着重指出:“这就使我们不能不对这种社会状态的经济基础加以研究了。”因为只有弄清经济基础的状况，才能说明建立在其上的上层建筑的状况。氏族内部的许多习俗，包括宗教、道德、风俗、各种习惯和制度的变化和发展，都是氏族经济关系的反映。这正是恩格斯在《起源》中着重经济方面的论证的原因。

Engels also explained the necessary connection between the formation of certain characteristics of primitive religion and economic life from another angle. He believed that some religious phenomena evolved from earlier practices of primitive people. For example, in the middle stage of savagery, productive forces were extremely low. “Since the food supply was often uncertain, cannibalism probably arose at this stage and persisted for a long time afterward.” [6]6 Engels, *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*. Given the state of productive forces at the time, this was considered natural and not subject to moral condemnation. By the middle stage of barbarism, the food supply had greatly improved, and “cannibalism was gradually disappearing, being preserved only as a religious practice or sorcery (which here amount to almost the same thing).” [7]7 Engels, *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*. Thus, with the improvement of productive forces, some early, extremely savage “cannibalism” could transform into sorcery.

恩格斯还从另一个角度解释原始宗教某些特征的形成与经济生活之间的必然联系。他认为有些宗教现象是原始人更早的风气演化而来。譬如，在蒙昧时代中期，生产力极其低下，“由于食物来源经常没有保证，在这个阶段上大概发生了食人之风，这种风气，此后保持颇久。”这在当时的生产力状况下，被认为是很自然的，不会受到人们的谴责。到野蛮时代的中级阶段，食物的来源已大为改进，“食人之风已在逐渐消失，仅仅当做一种宗教活动或巫术(在这儿差不多是一回事)而保存着”。由此可见，随着生产力的提升，一些早期极端蒙昧的“食人之风”可以转化为巫术。

In summary, religion is a historical category; it constantly changes and develops with the development of human society. The objects of worship, religious concepts, and religious sacrificial activities of primitive religion originated from the socio-economic conditions of primitive society, not from any product of gods, reason, or human nature. In his notes on *Ancient Society*, Marx placed great importance on examining the foundational social relations of production. Influenced by *Ancient Society*, he had already begun to examine the kinship system as an important active factor. Morgan believed: “Kinship systems are passive; they merely record the progress made by the family over a long period, and only undergo fundamental change when the family has fundamentally changed.” Marx annotated: “The same is true of political, religious, legal, and generally philosophical systems.” [8]8 Engels, *The Origin*, p. 213. This indicates that religion, as an ideology, must be examined together with the economic base. Whether the economic base determines religion and religious concepts, or religion determines social development, is the fundamental distinction between historical materialism and idealist conceptions of history. When expounding the history of family research, Engels evaluated Bachofen’s pioneering significance for family research, believing that Bachofen sought traces of this primitive state in historical and religious legends — this was one of his great merits. However, when analyzing the overthrow of mother-right by father-right in the Greek heroic age, Bachofen believed it was a miracle created by the gods. Engels said: “Obviously, this view that religion is the decisive lever of world history must ultimately lead to pure mysticism.” [9]9 Engels, *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*.

总之，宗教是一个历史范畴，是随着人类社会的发展而不断变化、发展的。原始宗教的崇拜对象、宗教观念和宗教祭祀活动，源于原始社会的社会经济状况，而不是什么神的、理性的或人的本性的产物。马克思在《古代社会》笔记中非常重视考察基础性的社会生产关系，在《古代社会》的影响下，他已经开始将亲属制度作为一个重要的能动要素进行考察。摩尔根认为:“亲属制度却是被动的;它只是把家庭经过一个长久时期所发生的进步记录下来，并且只是在家庭已经根本变化了的时候，它才发生根本的变化。”马克思注释道:“同样，政治的，宗教的，法律的以至一般哲学的体系都是如此。”说明宗教作为意识形态必须与经济基础一起考察。究竟是经济基础决定宗教和宗教观念，还是宗教决定社会发展，这是唯物史观和唯心史观的根本区别。恩格斯在阐述家庭研究史时，评价巴霍芬对于家庭研究具有开创意义，认为巴霍芬到历史的和宗教的传说中寻找这种原始状态的痕迹，———这是他的伟大功绩之一。但是，巴霍芬在分析希腊的英雄时代父权制推翻母权制时，他相信这是神在创造的奇迹。恩格斯说:“显然，这种认为宗教是世界历史的决定性杠杆的观点，归根结蒂必然导致纯粹的神秘主义。”

II. The Answer to the Role of Religion Must Be Sought in Social Life

二、宗教的作用要在社会生活中寻找答案

Primitive religion was closely intertwined with clan society. The fact that religion is determined by the economic base cannot be a reason to ignore or belittle its role. In the Preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*, Marx discussed two types of changes in the process of social development: “one in the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the other in the ideological forms — legal, political, religious, artistic, or philosophical, in short, the forms in which people become conscious of this conflict and fight it out.” [10]10 Marx, Preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*. In his *Excerpts from Morgan’s ‘Ancient Society’*, while extensively discussing the decisive role of economic factors such as technology and private property, Marx also paid attention to religion, morality, art, and, after the entry into civilized society, the state and law. Similarly, in *The Origin*, when discussing the driving forces behind the development of clan society, Engels identified the role of natural selection, population increase, the demands of women, and the demands of economic development, as well as trade, war, and intercourse between clans and tribes, and the stabilizing role of religion in society. In this sense, the development process of primitive society manifests as a dialectical development process in which social contradictions, driven by the resultant force of various factors, are continuously formed, concentrated, erupt, and are resolved, only for new contradictions to arise again.

原始宗教与氏族社会息息相关，不能因为宗教是被经济基础决定而忽略或轻视它的作用。马克思在《〈政治经济学批判〉序言》中谈到社会发展进程中的两种变革，“一种是生产的经济条件方面所发生的物质的、可以用自然科学的精确性指明的变革，一种是人们借以意识到这个冲突并力求把它克服的那些法律的、政治的、宗教的、艺术的或哲学的，简言之，意识形态的形式”。马克思在《摩尔根〈古代社会〉一书摘要》中大量论述技术及私有财产等经济因素的决定性作用时，同时也关注宗教、道德、艺术以及进入文明社会后国家和法律问题。同理，恩格斯在《起源》中论及推动氏族社会发展的动力因素时，提出了自然选择的作用，人口增加的因素，妇女的要求和经济发展的要求，也有氏族之间、部落之间的贸易、战争和交往，以及宗教对社会的稳定作用。从这个意义上说，原始社会发展过程体现为各种因素形成的合力推动的社会矛盾不断形成、集中、爆发直至解决以及新的矛盾再次生成的辩证发展过程。

When discussing the specific role of religion in clan society, Engels believed that the religion of this period emerged naturally in the daily social life of clan members. It was a product of people’s direct experience of their particular circumstances, had not yet formed into a theory or doctrine, and existed naturally in a simple form. The role and function of this natural religion of primitive society were mainly manifested in two aspects:

在论及氏族社会宗教的具体作用时，恩格斯认为，这个时期的宗教是氏族成员在日常社会生活过程中自然出现的，是对人们特殊处境的直接感受的产物，还没有形成理论或学说，而是以纯朴的形式自然地存在着。这种原始社会自然宗教的作用、职能主要表现在两个方面:

First, resolving contradictions among clan members. Religion coincided with the customs of the clan, phratry, and tribe; they were different aspects of the same norms of social life. Primitive customs generally manifested as religious rituals and taboos, functioning to regulate the mutual relations between people and between individuals and society (the clan), helping to consolidate the clan into a whole, and having the effect of stabilizing and maintaining this whole. In *The Origin*, Engels said: “Once the prohibition of sexual relations between all brothers and sisters, even the most distant collateral relatives on the mother’s side, was established, the aforementioned group transformed into a clan; that is, it formed a definite group of female blood relatives who could not marry each other; from this point on, this group was increasingly consolidated through other common social and religious institutions and distinguished from other clans within the same tribe.” [11]11 Engels, *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*.

一是解决氏族成员之间的矛盾。宗教与氏族、胞族、部落的习俗重合，它们是同一社会生活准则的不同方面。原始习俗一般都表现为宗教礼仪和禁忌，功能上为着调整人们之间、个人和社会(氏族)之间的相互关系，有助于氏族凝聚成整体，并具有稳定和维护这个整体的作用。恩格斯在《起源》说:“一切兄弟和姊妹间，甚至母方最远的旁系亲属间的性关系的禁规一经确立，上述的集团便转化为氏族了，换言之，即组成一个确定的、彼此不能结婚的女系血缘亲属集团;从这时起，这种集团就由于其他共同的社会的和宗教的设施而日益巩固起来，并且与同一部落内的其他氏族区别开来了。”

Using a female ancestor to explain the origin of the clan strengthened the sense of sacredness and primacy of the clan in the minds of its members, enhancing their feelings of reverence and dependence towards the clan, and making them regard it as the only real form for their own individual survival and development. “The tribe, the clan, and their institutions were sacred and inviolable; they were the highest powers given by nature; the individual was always unconditionally subordinate in feeling, thought, and action.” [12]12 Engels, *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*.

用一个女祖先来解释氏族的产生，它强化了氏族在其成员心目中的神圣感和首要性，增强了成员对氏族的崇敬心理和依赖感，使他们将其视为自身个体生存和发展的唯一现实形式。“部落、氏族及其制度，都是神圣而不可侵犯的，都是自然所赋予的最高权力，个人在感情、思想和行动上始终是无条件服从的。”

Religion not only provided a common purpose and foundation of belief for maintaining the clan, unifying people’s ideas and emotions, and achieving a basic consistency in the consciousness of the clan group, but also, through joint participation in common religious rituals and the execution of common behavioral norms, unified people’s behavior, achieving a basic consistency in the activities of the clan group, thereby consolidating and deepening the sense of identity and intimacy among group members, and enhancing communication and solidarity among them. Apart from religious sacrifices, the Iroquois clan also had a special religious mystery ceremony organized by the phratry, which Morgan called the “medicine society” in *Ancient Society*. The “medicine society” played a major role in their religious worship, being their highest religious ceremony and highest mysterious sacrifice. Among the Seneca tribe, there were two such religious organizations, one for each phratry. This kind of religious body was a fraternity, and new members were formally initiated into it. All clan members, bound by blood ties, believed in common deities and participated together in religious activities. This gradually formed standardized religious rituals that all clan members had to jointly observe, incorporating all clan members into a universal behavioral model and a unified religious system.

宗教不仅为维持氏族提供了共同目的和信仰的基础，把人们的观念、情感统一起来，实现了氏族集团意识的基本一致，而且通过一起参加共同的宗教仪式和执行共同的行为规范，统一人们的行为，实现了氏族集团活动的基本一致，由此巩固和加深了群体成员之间的认同感和亲密感，增强了他们之间的沟通和团结。易洛魁氏族除了有宗教祭祀外，还有一种由胞族组织的特殊的宗教神秘仪式，摩尔根在《古代社会》中称之为“巫术集会”。“巫术集会”在他们的宗教崇拜中起着重大作用，是他们宗教上的最高仪式和最高神秘祭祀。在塞讷卡部落中，有两个这样的宗教组织，每个胞族一个。这种宗教团体是一种兄弟会，新成员入会都要举行正式的入会仪式。以血缘关系为纽带的全体氏族成员信仰共同的神灵，进行共同参与的宗教活动，这就逐渐形成了全体氏族成员必须共同遵奉的规范化的宗教礼仪，它把氏族全体成员纳入普遍性的行为模式和统一性的宗教体制之中。

In *The Origin*, Engels also mentions the custom among the Iroquois clan of adopting outsiders into the clan. Unkilled captives could be adopted by a clan and thus become members of the Seneca tribe. Individual clans that were underpopulated due to special circumstances could also adopt members from other clans. The method of adoption was: “Among the Iroquois, the adoption ceremony took place at a public meeting of the tribal council, and had thus actually become a religious ceremony.” [1]1 Engels, *Bruno Bauer and Early Christianity* (1882). Standardized religious rituals possessed an authority transcending the individual, exerting social coercive force over the behavior and activities of every person within the clan group. By recognizing the common ancestors of the clan he joined and accepting the clan’s common beliefs through religious ceremony, an outsider also, to some extent, maintained the unity of the clan based on blood ties.

恩格斯在《起源》中还提到易洛魁氏族的习俗中可以接纳外人入族。未杀死的俘虏，可以被一个氏族接纳入族，就成为塞讷卡部落的成员。个别因特殊情形人丁不旺的氏族也可以接纳其他氏族的成员。接纳的途径是:“在易洛魁人中间，入族仪式在部落议事会的公共集会上举行，实际上已经变为一种宗教仪式。”规范化的宗教礼仪具有超个人的权威，对氏族集团中的每一个人的行为与活动具有社会的强制力。外来人通过宗教仪式承认他所加入氏族的共同祖先，接受氏族的共同信仰，在某种程度上也是维护了以血缘为基础的氏族的团结。

Second, resolving the contradiction between the clan and nature. The main problem faced by clan society was resolving the relationship between humans and nature. One purpose of early primitive religion was to serve the production and livelihood of all clan members, enabling all members to obtain protection and sufficient food. Engels writes in *The Origin*: “The clan system in its heyday, as we see it in America, presupposed extremely undeveloped production, and hence an extremely sparse population over a vast area; consequently, man was almost completely dominated by a hostile and incomprehensible external nature, a fact reflected in childish religious notions.” [2]2 Marx, *Excerpts from Lewis H. Morgan’s “Ancient Society”*.

二是解决氏族与自然之间的矛盾。氏族社会面临的问题主要是解决人与自然的关系。早期原始宗教的目的之一是为所有氏族成员的生产和生活服务的，使所有成员都能够得到保护和获得充足的食物。恩格斯在《起源》中写道:“全盛时期的氏族制度，如我们在美洲所见的，其前提是生产极不发展，因而广大地区内人口极度稀少;因此，人类差不多完全受着同他异己地对立着的、不可理解的外部大自然的支配，这也就反映在幼稚的宗教观念中。”

The religious notions of the Iroquois were basically at the stage of nature worship. At that time, people did not understand the harm caused by natural objects and forces, and guessed that various things were dominated by a spirit. Besides worshipping female ancestors, the Iroquois also worshipped and sacrificed to the “three sister goddesses” – the Bean Spirit, the Squash Spirit, and the Maize Spirit. Whether the Iroquois clan had specific religious festivals is difficult to determine, but the religious ceremonies of the Iroquois were more or less linked to the clan’s production and life. For example, the Iroquois tribe had six religious festivals each year: the Maple Festival, the Planting Festival, the Berry Festival, the Green Corn Festival (also called the Green Grain Festival), the Harvest Festival, and the New Year Festival. These festivals were shared by all clans composing the same tribe and were held “at certain times each year.” [3]3 Engels, *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State* (1884). These religious notions and sacrifices, except for the New Year Festival, were beliefs related to agriculture, which clearly reflects the close relationship between religious notions and the main economic life of the time. Marx said: “The religious worship of the Iroquois is a thanksgiving for divine favor, a prayer to the Great Spirit and the lesser spirits, hoping that they will continue to bestow happiness upon them.” [4]4 Engels, *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*.

易洛魁人的宗教观念基本上处于自然崇拜阶段。当时人们对于自然物和自然力造成的危害很不理解，猜测各种东西都由一种精灵主宰着。易洛魁人除了崇拜女祖先之外，还有对豆荚精、南瓜精、玉蜀黍精“三姊妹女神”的崇拜和祭祀。易洛魁人的氏族究竟有无特殊的宗教节日，还很难确定，不过易洛魁人的宗教仪式多少都是与氏族的生产生活联系在一起的。例如，易洛魁部落每年有六个宗教祭典:枫树祭、栽培祭、浆果祭、青玉蜀黍祭(亦称青谷祭)、收获祭和新年祭。这些祭典是由组成同一部落的所有氏族共有的，“在每年的一定时间内举行”。这些宗教观念和宗教祭祀，除新年祭外，都是与农业有关的信仰，这就清楚地反映了宗教观念跟当时的主要经济生活有密切关系。马克思说:“易洛魁人的宗教崇拜是一种对神恩的感谢，向大神和众小神祈祷，希望继续把幸福赐给他们。”

The religious ceremonies of the Iroquois served only to satisfy utilitarian, practical needs, including the objects of religious sacrifice being closely related to the real life of primitive people. These objects could be roughly divided into two categories: beneficial and harmful, and many were both. Primitive people hoped that through religious sacrificial activities, the objects of sacrifice would provide more benefits and no longer bring harm.

易洛魁人的宗教仪式只在于满足功利性的现实需求，包括宗教祭祀的对象都是与原始人的现实生活密切相关的。这些对象大致可分为有利的和有害的两类，而许多是两者兼而有之。原始人希望通过宗教祭祀活动，让祭祀对象提供更多的好处，不再带来害处。

Due to the underdevelopment of productive forces in primitive society and the simplification of clan social structure, primitive religion, along with customs, morality, and various other concepts and behavioral norms, formed a mixed unity, becoming a form of social system that maintained social life, permeating all aspects of social life. Thus, it could regulate contradictions between people and contradictions between humans and nature. However, this effect was not absolute; especially towards the end of the development of clan society, primitive religion gradually lost its binding force. In *The Origin*, Engels mentions that the clan chiefs of the Iroquois generally also served as priests, playing an important role in religious activities. In patrilineal clan society, to glorify external warfare, military leaders such as the Greek *basileus* were embellished with myths of being “born of Zeus” or “nurtured by Zeus,” indicating that he was a child of the gods. The *basileus* not only held military power but also the authority over religious sacrifices and judgments. However, “as for the actual disciplinary power of the army, Tacitus states unequivocally that it lay in the hands of the priests. Real power was concentrated in the popular assembly.” [5]5 Marx, *Excerpts from Lewis H. Morgan’s “Ancient Society”*. Although the *basileus* held religious authority, he could not do as he pleased. Even in the distribution of spoils, “when Achilles speaks of gifts, that is, the distribution of booty, he never leaves it to Agamemnon or some other *basileus* to distribute, but lets ‘the sons of the Achaeans,’ that is, the people, do the distributing.” [6]6 Engels, *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*. This “popular assembly” did not fully represent the interests of all tribal members, but rather represented the interests of every adult male in the tribe – all the warriors participating in the war. Even if the *basileus* was a “child of the gods” and held the power of sacrifice, this kind of power tinged with religion was greatly restricted when facing the interests of all warriors. Engels also describes the situation of the Germans, in transition from matrilineal to patrilineal society, when they encountered the prosperous world of the Roman Empire: “If the Germans in their forests had been such paragons of virtue, rare in the world, a mere touch of the outside world sufficed to bring them down to the level of the rest of the average European…” [7]7 Engels, *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*. After entering the Roman world, the traditional religion and customs of the Germans no longer had any binding effect. Primitive religion, as a custom of clan society and its related functions, was inevitably bound to change with changes in the mode of social life.

由于原始社会的生产力的不发达，氏族社会结构的简单化，原始宗教与习俗、道德等各种观念和行为规范形成混合的统一体，成为维系社会生活的社会制度形式，渗透到了社会生活的各个方面，由此能够调节人与人之间的矛盾，调节人与自然的矛盾。但是这种作用不是绝对的，尤其是到了氏族社会发展的末期，原始宗教也逐渐失去了它的约束力。恩格斯在《起源》谈到，易洛魁人氏族酋长一般还会充当祭司，在宗教活动中扮演重要角色。到了父系氏族社会，为了强化对外战争的光荣，军事首领如希腊的巴塞勒斯被渲染上“宙斯所生的”、“宙斯所养的”神话，说明他是神灵的产儿。巴塞勒斯不仅掌握军权，还掌握宗教祭祀和审判的权限。但是，“至于军队的实际惩戒权，塔西佗确定地说，是握在祭司们手里的。真正的权力集中在人民大会上”。巴塞勒斯掌握了宗教的权利，但也不是可以为所欲为，即便是分配战利品，“阿基里斯在说到赠品，即说到分配战利品时，他总是既不让亚加米农也不让其他某个巴赛勒斯来分配，而是让‘亚该亚人的儿子们’即人民来分配”。这个“人民大会”不完全是代表全体部落成员的利益，而是代表部落中的每个成年男子———参加战争的全体战士的利益。即便巴塞勒斯是“神灵的产儿”，掌握祭祀的权力，这种带有宗教色彩的权力在面对全体战士的利益时也会受到极大的限制。恩格斯还叙述了处于母系社会向父系社会过渡的德意志人面对罗马帝国的繁华世界时的状况:“如果说德意志人在自己的森林中曾经是这种世上少有的美德骑士，那么，只要和外界稍一接触，便足以使他们堕落到其余一般欧洲人的水平……”在进入罗马世界后，德意志人的传统宗教和习俗都不再具有约束作用。原始宗教作为氏族社会的习俗及其相关职能，必然要随着社会生活方式的改变而改变。

III. The Nature of Religion Receives Different Confirmation in the Age of Barbarism and the Age of Civilization

三、宗教性质在野蛮时代和文明时代得到不同印证

Entering the age of civilization from the age of barbarism, the economic base, social relations, and superstructure all underwent fundamental changes. When analyzing how economic development and change ultimately led to the collapse of the clan system, Engels points out: “But it was broken by influences which appear to us as a decline, a fall from the simple moral heights of the old gentile society. The basest interests – vulgar greed, brutal appetites, sordid avarice, selfish robbery of common property – inaugurate the new, civilized, class society; the meanest means – theft, violence, fraud, treachery – undermine and destroy the old classless gentile society, leading it to its downfall.” [8]8 Engels, *The Origin*, p. 213. Private ownership replaced public ownership, society split into opposing classes, and the state replaced the clan. Primitive relations of equality and freedom were replaced by class oppression, coercion, and enslavement. This series of fundamental changes also caused fundamental changes in religion.

从野蛮时代进入文明时代，经济基础、社会关系、上层建筑都发生了根本性的变化。恩格斯在分析由于经济的发展变化、最后导致氏族制度的崩溃时，指出:“不过它是被那种在我们看来简直是一种堕落，一种离开古代氏族社会的纯朴道德高峰的堕落的势力所打破的。最卑下的利益———庸俗的贪欲、粗暴的情欲、卑下的物欲、对公共财产的自私自利的掠夺———揭开了新的、文明的阶级社会;最卑鄙的手段———偷窃、暴力、欺诈、背信———毁坏了古老的没有阶级的氏族制度，把它引向崩溃。”私有制代替了公有制，社会分裂为对立的阶级，国家代替了氏族。原始的平等、自由关系，被阶级压迫、强制和奴役所代替。这一系列的根本变化，也引起了宗教的根本变化。

Engels’s designation of primitive religion as “spontaneous religion” is very apt. It is a spontaneous reflection by primitive people of the natural forces that dominated them. It shows that humanity, in terms of the level of productive forces and cognitive capacity, was still at a primitive, low stage, free from the contamination that class society would impose upon it, containing no element of deception, and possessing the simple and unsophisticated character of human religion. However, in the process of “spontaneous religion” transforming into “artificial religion” after entering the age of civilization, the characteristics, functions, and social status of religion all underwent change. Engels said: “It is quite clear that spontaneous religion, such as the fetish-worship of the Negroes or the primitive common religion of the Aryans, contains no element of deception at its origin, but in its later development priestly fraud soon becomes inevitable. As for artificial religion, although it is full of pious fervour, at its very foundation it cannot do without deception and the falsification of history…” [1]1 Engels, *Bruno Bauer and Early Christianity* (1882).

恩格斯把原始宗教称作“自发的宗教”是很恰当的，它是原始人对支配自己的自然力量的一种自发的反映，它表明人类在生产力水平和认知能力方面，尚处在原始的低级阶段，不会受到阶级社会所加予它的污染，没有欺骗的成分，它具有人类宗教的纯朴性质。但是，“自发的宗教”在进入文明时代后，转化为“人为的宗教”进程中，宗教的特征、职能和社会地位都发生了变化。恩格斯说过:“事情很清楚，自发的宗教，如黑人对物神的膜拜或雅利安人共有的原始宗教，在它产生的时候，并没有欺骗的成分，但在以后的发展中，僧侣的欺诈很快就成为不可避免的了。至于人为的宗教，虽然充满着虔诚的狂热，但在其创立的时候，便少不了欺骗和伪造历史，……”

Religious power was stripped away. In his analysis of the privatization of land in the time of Solon in *Excerpts from Lewis H. Morgan’s “Ancient Society”*, Marx pointed out that in the gentile era, the communal ownership of land and other property would hinder the mobility of social members. Because the property of social members was linked together, in the process of migration, one person’s desire to transfer property might not align with that of others. However, when land and other property became private, individual property could be disposed of more freely, thereby freeing people from previous personal bonds to a greater extent. Social members could “acquire property elsewhere, making it increasingly difficult for members of a gens to continue living together in one place. The unit of their social system became unstable, both territorially and in character.” “Regardless of territory: the difference in property within the same gens turned the commonality of interests of its members into antagonism among them.” Finally, “because the gentile system could not meet the increasingly complex needs of society, all the civil powers of the gens, phratry, and tribe were gradually stripped away and transferred to new elective bodies.” [2]2 Marx, *Excerpts from Lewis H. Morgan’s “Ancient Society”*. The religion of gentile society was also part of civil power; its significance ceased to exist. Engels, discussing the Roman gentes after the formation of the state, noted: “the curiae and the gentes composing them, as in Athens, were degraded to mere private and religious associations, and as such they dragged out a lingering existence for a long time…” [3]3 Engels, *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State* (1884).

宗教权力遭到剥夺。马克思在《路易斯·亨·摩尔根〈古代社会〉一书摘要》中分析梭伦时期土地私有化时指出，在氏族时代，土地等财产的共有会阻止社会成员的流动。因为社会成员的财产联系在一起，在迁移过程中，一个人的财产转移意愿不一定与其他人一致。但是，当土地等财产变为私有以后，个人财产能得到比较自由的处置，从而更多地摆脱了此前的人身束缚。社会成员能够“在其他地方添置产业，要使一个氏族的人继续聚居在一起就越来越困难了。他们的社会制度的单位在地域方面和性质方面都变得不稳定了”。“不管地域如何:同一氏族中的财产差别使氏族成员的利益的共同性变成了他们之间的对抗性。”最后，“由于氏族制度不能适应社会的变得复杂的需要，氏族、胞族和部落的所有民政权力就逐渐被剥夺，移交给了新的选民团体”。氏族社会的宗教也是属于民政权力，它的意义不复存在。恩格斯论及罗马氏族进入国家后，“库里亚和构成它们的各氏族，像在雅典一样，就降为纯粹私人的和宗教的团体，并且作为这样的团体还苟延残喘了很久，……”

Religious customs were defiled. Engels gave the example of public prostitution, which prevailed throughout the age of civilization in various forms, and which Morgan called “hetairism”. “This hetairism derives directly from group marriage, from the sacrificial offering by women to purchase the right of chastity.” [4]4 Engels, *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*. This act was originally a religious one: a woman, in order to belong exclusively to one man, would offer herself in a temple according to religious custom. In the age of civilization, influenced by private ownership, women became temple slaves in the Temple of Anaitis in Armenia, the Temple of Aphrodite in Corinth, and religious dancing girls in Indian temples, effectively becoming prostitutes, offering themselves for money. This took place in the temples of the love goddess, and the money obtained initially went to the temple treasury. As Marx pointed out: “Private property has had a great influence on the human mind and has given rise to the appearance of new traits in human character; in the heroic age of barbarism it had already become a powerful passion. The oldest and most ancient customs were unable to resist it.” [5]5 Marx, *Excerpts from Lewis H. Morgan’s “Ancient Society”*.

宗教习俗遭到玷污。恩格斯举例说，以各种不同的形式盛行于整个文明时代的公开卖淫，被摩尔根称之为“淫游制”。“这种淫游制直接起源于群婚制，起源于妇女为赎买贞操权利而作的献身牺牲。”这种行为最初是一种宗教行为，女子为了专属于一个男子，按照宗教习俗在神庙献身。到了文明时代，受到私有制的影响，女子成为亚美尼亚的阿娜伊蒂斯庙、科林斯的阿芙罗狄蒂庙的庙奴，以及印度神庙中的宗教舞女，实际上成为娼妓，为金钱而献身，它是在爱神庙举行的，所得的钱最初都归于神庙的财库。正如马克思所指出的:“私有财产给予人类心灵以巨大影响，并引起了人们性格的新特点的出现;它在英雄的野蛮人中已成为强有力的嗜欲了。最古老和较古老习俗都无法抵抗它。”

The purpose of religion underwent a transformation. After entering civilized society, class contradictions and the system of exploitation became the deepest social roots for the existence and development of religion. On the one hand, the prayers of the ruling class and the ruled class to the gods were different. Certain elements of primitive religion could be utilized by the ruling class. The Old Norse mythological poem *Völuspá* (The Prophecy of the Seeress), which also contains Christian elements, describes universal depravity and moral decay before the great catastrophe. On the other hand, in class society, because people of different classes have different class interests, their understanding of the value of religion also differs. As with the Roman Empire’s choice of Christianity, Engels stated in *The Origin*: “It came to terms with the Roman Empire and slavery for centuries, and never afterwards prevented Christians from trading in slaves — neither the Germans in the north, nor the Venetians in the Mediterranean, nor the later trade in Black slaves.” [6]6 Engels, *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*.

宗教目的遭到蜕变。进入文明社会以后，阶级矛盾和剥削制度成为宗教赖以存在和发展的最深刻的社会根源。一方面，统治阶级和被统治阶级对神的祈求是不一样的。原始宗教的某些内容对统治阶级来说，可以加以利用。在古代斯堪的纳维亚关于诸神传说的《Völuspa》(《女预言者的预言》)中，也包含有基督教的因素，描述了大灾难前的普遍堕落和道德败坏。另一方面，阶级社会中由于不同阶级的人们有着不同的阶级利益，对宗教的价值认识也不相同。如同罗马帝国对基督教的选择，恩格斯在《起源》中说道:“它在罗马帝国和奴隶制同流合污达数世纪之久，以后也从来没有阻止过基督徒买卖奴隶———既没有阻止过德意志人在北方，或威尼斯人在地中海买卖奴隶，也没有阻止过后世买卖黑奴。”

In short, after entering the age of civilization, the mutual aid and mutual support maintained under religious customs, and the absolute loyalty to the gens, degenerated into the gap between rich and poor, and even into brutal killing for profit… Primitive religion thus lost its original simple and unsophisticated character and was deeply stamped with the mark of “civilization”.

总之，进入文明时代以后，人们在宗教习俗维持下的互助、互济，对氏族的绝对忠诚，蜕变为贫富差距以致为了利益残暴杀戮……原始宗教便失去了原有的纯朴性质，而深深打上了“文明”的印记。

The primitive religions of the Iroquois, Greeks, Romans, and others discussed in *The Origin* had a natural connection with primitive social life and production. The mode of life in gentile society determined that primitive religion was the common belief of all social members of the gens and tribe. Every member of society was a natural religious believer; collective religious affairs were naturally the duty of every social member, and the religious activities of each individual were also part of the social religious activities. With the dissolution of the gentile system, the chiefs of the gentes and tribes transformed into gentile aristocrats. They held the power of religious sacrifice, while some members became wealthy through participation in commerce. These wealthy merchants and aristocrats, driven by greed for private desires and seeking to continuously accumulate wealth and expand commercial capital, no longer valued the ancient customs within the gens of “public ownership of the means of production, collective labor, and equal distribution”. They began to practice usury, ceased to care for impoverished members of the gens, and even embezzled the property of orphans. The ruling class, however, tried by every means to conceal this phenomenon. Engels said: “Whatever is good for the ruling class is good for the whole society, because the ruling class identifies itself with the whole society. Therefore, the more civilization advances, the more it is compelled to throw the cloak of love over the evils it necessarily engenders, to gloss them over, or to deny them — in a word, to practice conventional hypocrisy.” [7]7 Engels, *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*.

《起源》所论及的易洛魁人、希腊人和罗马人等原始宗教与原始社会生活生产之间具有天然联系，氏族社会的生活方式决定了原始宗教是氏族部落的全部社会成员的共同信仰，社会中的每一个成员都是天然的宗教信徒，集体的宗教事务也自然是每一个社会成员的义务，而每一个社会成员的宗教活动同时也是社会宗教活动的一部分。随着氏族制的解体，氏族部落的酋长随之转化为氏族贵族，他们掌握宗教祭祀的权力，有的成员因参与经商而成为富人。这些富商和贵族因为对私欲的贪图，谋求不断的积累财富、扩大经商资本而不再重视氏族内部“生产资料共有，集体劳动，平均分配”等古老习俗，开始放高利贷，不再关注氏族内部的贫困成员，甚至侵吞孤儿的财产。这种现象，统治阶级却要千方百计加以掩盖。恩格斯说:“凡对统治阶级是好的，对整个社会也应该是好的，因为统治阶级把自己与整个社会等同起来了。所以文明时代越是向前进展，它就越是不得不给它所必然产生的种种坏事披上爱的外衣，不得不粉饰它们，或者否认它们———一句话，即实行流俗的伪善。”

This “cloak of love” and hypocrisy also include the actions of religion in class society.

这种“爱的外衣”和伪善也包括宗教在阶级社会的所作所为。

IV. Conclusion

四、结语

Engels’ entire life made a great contribution to the formation, enrichment, and perfection of Marxist theory of religion. Engels’ research and exposition on the question of religion were mainly carried out from the perspective of “historical categories,” but the problems and content he addressed varied. For example, in *The German Ideology*, Engels discussed the process of religion’s development and evolution from the perspective of macroscopic laws of social development, revealing that to eliminate religion’s alienation of human nature, it is necessary to transform the social system and economic base on which it relies; in *Anti-Dühring*, Engels focused more on explaining the essence of religion from an epistemological standpoint; in *On the History of Early Christianity*, Engels focused more on the historical role of religion. These studies by Engels are mostly presented within the grand narrative background of history. However, in *The Origin*, Engels proceeded from a microscopic perspective, concentrating on explaining the formation and development of primitive religion from the angle of changes in material production and social organization. This made up for the deficiencies of previous research, fully demonstrating that religion is a historical category — this is precisely where the power of atheist thought lies. In *The Origin*, Engels also profoundly revealed how, with the improvement of productive forces and the emergence of private property, the role, purpose, and nature of primitive religion changed: primitive religion transformed from a force that maintained the entire clan in its struggle against nature into a tool for safeguarding the privileges of a minority, that is, a means for a minority to rule the majority. This proved the law of the transformation of primitive religion from naturalness to the class character of artificial religion. This was absent in Engels’ previous expositions. In *The Origin*, although Engels did not further explain the characteristics, functions, and roles of artificial religion in civilized society, nor did he explain the ultimate destination of religion, it was precisely because of the research on primitive religion in *The Origin* that Engels could comprehensively expound the process of religion’s emergence, development, and extinction in *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy*, thereby proving that the long-term existence of religion is likewise a historical category. It is precisely on the basis of *The Origin* that Engels ultimately revealed the law of the transformation of natural religion into artificial religion, revealing that religion is a product of the development of human social productive forces and human thinking ability to a certain stage, and will also naturally die out at a certain stage — this natural law.

恩格斯的一生对马克思主义宗教学理论的形成、丰富和完善做出了巨大贡献。恩格斯对宗教问题的研究、阐释主要从“历史的范畴”来展开，但他所针对的问题和内容各不相同。比如，在《德意志意识形态》中，恩格斯从宏观的社会发展规律来论述宗教的发展演化过程，揭示了要消除宗教对人本质的异化，必须变革其依托的社会制度和经济基础;在《反杜林论》中，恩格斯比较侧重从认识论上来说明宗教的本质;在《早期基督教的历史》中，恩格斯比较侧重宗教的历史作用。恩格斯这些研究多是在历史的宏大叙事背景中展现的。而在《起源》一书中，恩格斯从微观入手，着重于从物质生产和社会组织的变化的角度说明原始宗教的形成发展。这样就弥补了以往研究的不足，完整地说明宗教是一个历史范畴———这就是无神论思想的力量所在。恩格斯在《起源》中，还深刻地揭示了随着生产力的提高、私有制的产生，原始宗教的作用、目的、性质发生的变化:原始宗教从维系整个氏族抗衡自然的力量，变成了维护少数人特权的工具，即少数人统治多数人的手段。从而证明了原始宗教自然性向人为宗教阶级性转变的规律。这在恩格斯以往的论述中是没有的。在《起源》中，恩格斯虽然没有进一步说明在文明社会中人为宗教的特征、职能和作用，也未能说明宗教的最终归宿。但正是有了《起源》对原始宗教的研究，恩格斯才可以在《费尔巴哈论》中全面阐述宗教产生、发展和消亡过程，以此证明宗教存在的长期性同样是一个历史范畴。正是在《起源》的基础上，恩格斯最终揭示了自然宗教向人为宗教转化的规律，揭示了宗教是人类社会生产力、人类思维能力发展到一定阶段的产物，也会到一定阶段自然消亡这一自然法则。

(About the authors: Ding Qiang, Associate Professor at the Wenzhou University Research Base of the Zhejiang Provincial Research Center for the Theoretical System of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics; Mou Degang, Professor at the Wenzhou University Research Base of the Zhejiang Provincial Research Center for the Theoretical System of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.)

（作者简介：丁强，浙江省中国特色社会主义理论体系研究中心温州大学研究基地副教授;牟德刚，浙江省中国特色社会主义理论体系研究中心温州大学研究基地教授）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心