From Reason to Culture

Jack David Eller is an American anthropologist and also one of the representative figures of atheist scholarship. His anthropological works include *Culture and the Real World*, *Violence and Culture*, *Cultural Anthropology: Global Forces, Local Lives*, and *Introducing Anthropology of Religion*. His atheist thought is concentrated in the works *Natural Atheism*, *Progressive Atheism: Further Thoughts for the Free Thinker*, and a series of articles defending atheism.

杰克·大卫·艾勒是美国的人类学学者，同时也是无神论学者的代表人物之一。他的人类学著作包括《文化与现实世界》、《暴力与文化》、《文化人类学：全球力量与地方生活》、《宗教人类学基础》等。他的无神论思想集中呈现在著作《自然无神论》、《进步无神论自由思考者的进一步思考》,以及捍卫无神论的一系列文章之中。

In his atheist writings, Eller, on the basis of reason and logic, refutes one by one the many arguments put forward by theists, profoundly revealing the falsehood and fallacy of theism. On this foundation, he presents positive arguments for atheism, pointing out the consistency between atheism and rational thought. Eller also draws on his deep knowledge of anthropology, discussing the diversity and relativity of religion and culture, thereby further overturning the uniqueness and truth claimed by religion, refuting the prejudice, exclusion, and stigmatization of atheists by religious groups, and defending the reputation and rights of atheists. Moreover, Eller emphasizes that atheists should more actively and effectively propagate and develop atheism, calling on atheists to step out of mere speculative argumentation and wage struggle in all fields of language, culture, and daily life, to shake off the control and erosion of religious thought, and to create a language, culture, life, and even an entire world belonging to atheism.

在其无神论著作中，艾勒以理性、逻辑为基础，对有神论者提出的诸多论证进行逐一批驳，深刻揭示了有神论的虚假和谬误，并在此基础上提出了无神论的正面论证，指明无神论与理性思维的一致性。艾勒还借助其深厚的人类学知识，从宗教和文化的多样性与相对性展开论述，进一步推翻宗教所标榜的唯一性和真理性，驳斥宗教团体对无神论者的偏见、排斥与污名化，捍卫无神论者的名誉与权益。不仅如此，艾勒还强调无神论者应当更为积极、有效地宣传和发展无神论，呼吁无神论者从单纯的思辨论证中走出，在语言、文化、日常生活的各个领域展开斗争，摆脱宗教思想的控制和侵蚀，开创属于无神论的语言、文化、生活、乃至整个世界。

I. Atheism with Rationalism as Its Foundation

一、以理性主义为底色的无神论

Eller’s atheist thought has a distinct rationalist character, but he is also deeply aware of the shortcomings of rationalism. He advocates moving beyond the tradition confined to rational argumentation and entering the broader world of culture, language, and life, so as to more effectively promote the development and evolution of atheism.

艾勒的无神论思想具有鲜明的理性主义特征，但他同时又深知理性主义的不足之处，他主张从局限于理性论证的传统走出，进入到更为广泛的文化、语言和生活世界，从而更有效地推动无神论的发展和进化。

(1) Atheism Is Rational

(一)无神论是理性的

In the book *Natural Atheism*, Eller emphasizes argumentation from the perspective of reason and logic. His refutation of theism is based on the logic of argumentation, and his positive arguments for atheism are also developed from a rational standpoint. Eller believes that atheism and reason are identical; reason is originally the method by which people think and reason, “the process of drawing conclusions, generating knowledge, and taking action on the basis of facts and evidence.” Atheism is the clear conclusion reached through rational analysis and practical verification; atheism is consistent with rational thought and a scientific attitude.

在《自然无神论》一书中，艾勒重视从理性、逻辑的角度来展开论述，他对有神论的反驳是以论证的逻辑为基础，他对无神论的正面论证也是从理性的角度展开。艾勒认为，无神论和理性是同一的，理性本是人们进行思考和推理的方法，“理性是在事实和论据的基础上得出结论、产生知识、采取行动的过程”;而无神论就是经过理性分析和实践验证、从而得出的明确的结论，无神论和理性思考、科学态度是相一致的。

The first step in refuting theism is to emphasize the burden of proof, a basic rule that should be followed in debate. That is, “the party making a claim should bear the responsibility of verifying or proving their claim, not the party questioning it.” Regarding the proof of God’s existence, the burden of proof lies with the theists; they should try to prove the legitimacy of this claim. This is similar to the burden of proof in judicial trials, where the party accusing another of a crime or making a claim bears the primary burden of proof, while the other party only needs to overturn their argument. Therefore, theists should try to prove that God exists; if the argument fails, they should admit that the point is wrong or false, i.e., admit that God does not exist. Subsequently, Eller reviews some classic arguments for God’s existence in the history of philosophy, such as the “cosmological argument,” the “ontological argument,” and the “teleological argument,” and adds new supplements to existing refutations. Eller also refutes one by one the empirical and social arguments for God, including those based on the Bible or authority, records of “miracles,” personal experience as testimony, the emphasis on the role of religious morality, and the emphasis on the benefits of religion. He points out that these arguments are not objectively valid. Eller also presents arguments from the contradictions in religious language, the existence of evil, and from sociological and statistical perspectives, thereby strengthening the refutation of God’s existence and enhancing the persuasiveness of the atheist position. Through a total of twelve different argumentative steps, Eller ultimately shows that the theist’s claim has neither a clear and consistent object, nor a reasonable and coherent argument, nor sufficient credible evidence. Therefore, the attitude toward theism should be similar to the attitude toward an invalid accusation in court: maintaining the “presumption of atheism.”

反驳有神论的第一步是强调举证责任，这是进行辩论所应遵守的一个基本规则，也就是说，“提出主张的一方应承担证实或证明自己主张的责任，而不是由质疑的一方承担举证责任”。就上帝是否存在的证明来说，举证责任在有神论一方，他们应当设法证明该主张的正当性；这类似于司法审判中的举证责任，即控诉对方有罪或提出索赔的一方承担主要举证责任，另一方只要能够推翻其论证即可。因此，有神论者应当设法证明上帝存在，如果论证失败则应承认该论点是错误或虚假的，即承认上帝并不存在。继而，艾勒回顾了哲学史上关于上帝存在的一些经典论证，如“宇宙论的证明”“本体论的证明”“目的论的证明”,并在已有驳论的基础上增加新的补充。艾勒还逐一反驳了关于上帝的经验和社会论证，包括借助《圣经》或权威的论述、借助“奇迹”的记载、以个人经验作证、强调宗教道德的作用、强调宗教的益处等，他指出这些论证都不是客观有效的论证。艾勒还从宗教语言的矛盾、邪恶的存在、以及社会学和统计学角度提出论证，从而加强对上帝存在的驳斥，增强无神论立场的说服力。通过共计十二个不同的论证环节，艾勒最终表明：有神论的主张既没有明确一致的对象，也没有合理融贯的论证，更缺乏足以取信的证据，因此对有神论的态度应类似于法庭上对无效指控的态度，保持“无神论推定”。

These twelve steps help atheists penetrate the lies and fanaticism of religion, strengthen their own stance and confidence, and construct their own meaning and value. For theists, they also help restore the reason damaged by religion, regain trust in themselves, in humanity, and in nature and society, thereby entering a world without God that is nevertheless unique and real.

这十二个步骤有助于无神论者穿过宗教的谎言和狂热，坚定自己的立场和信心，构建自己的意义和价值；对于有神论者来说，也有助于他们恢复被宗教损害的理性，重新获得对自己、对人性、对自然和社会的信任，从而步入一个没有神却是唯一的、真实的世界。

(2) Atheism Cannot Stop at Rational Argumentation

(二)无神论不能止步于理性论证

In the book *Progressive Atheism*, Eller’s interpretation of atheism makes a significant breakthrough: he believes that atheism relying solely on rational argumentation is very inadequate; refuting theological arguments does not allow atheists to achieve victory. This is because the reason religion succeeds is not that it convinces the masses, but that it controls them. Religion often begins with a set of terms describing its beliefs and concepts; therefore, demystifying religion also begins with exposing its religious terminology. However, atheists must never stop there, because religion is far more than some words or terms; religion is also not merely a set of beliefs or factual claims.

在《进步无神论》一书中，艾勒对无神论的阐释有了很大的突破：他认为仅仅依靠理性论证的无神论是很不充分的，驳倒了神学论证也不能让无神论者获得胜利；因为宗教取得成功的原因并不在于它说服了大众，而在于它控制了大众。宗教往往要从一套描述其信仰和概念的术语开始，因此揭秘宗教亦从揭穿其宗教术语开始；然而无神论者决不能止步于此，因为宗教远不止是一些词汇或术语，宗教也不仅仅是一套信仰或事实主张。

Atheists are often rationalists; they tend to emphasize experience and cognition, thinking that once they have “proven” that God does not exist, their work is done. But this is not the case, because religious discourse is not only about stating propositions, stating facts, or conveying information, but about changing, motivating, and manipulating believers. Another misunderstanding of rationalists is the belief that the function of words lies in their meaning, assuming that speakers must understand their meaning in order to use words. But this view is also inaccurate. People often have only a vague concept of the meaning of words; “most Christians and other theists have a very vague concept of God, and many even make ‘unknowability’ one of the qualities of their God.”

无神论者往往是理性主义者，他们倾向于强调经验和认知，以为一旦“证明”了上帝不存在，就好像已经完成了工作。但事实并非如此，因为宗教话语不仅是说出命题、陈述事实或传达信息，而是为了改变、激励和操纵信徒。理性主义者的另一个误解是认为语词的功能在于它们的意义，以为说话者必须理解其意义才能使用语词，但这种观点也不准确。人们对词语的意思往往只有一个模糊的概念，“大多数基督徒和其他有神论者对上帝的概念都很模糊，甚至许多人把‘不可知’作为他们的上帝的品质之一”。

Atheists should not underestimate those vague, changeable, incomprehensible religious concepts, because the vagueness or error of these discourses does not prevent religious language from functioning. “A prominent feature of religious language is that it can be effective even when not understood; indeed, not being understood can make it more powerful.” For example, the use of Latin in Christianity: although most medieval Christians did not understand Latin, and only clergy understood this “advanced,” “secret” church language, this actually elevated the status of Latin. Other religions also have special ritual idioms, containing various esoteric, mysterious words, phrases, and tones; believers may not understand them at all but still believe in their divine efficacy. Some religious languages are not even understood by the clergy or monks themselves, because they use a language that has already died out. Yet these secret languages and oral rituals are still considered important and effective. Thus, if atheists only focus on pointing out the errors in religious arguments or the vagueness of their terminology, they cannot yet form a truly powerful influence against religion.

无神论者不应该轻视那些模糊的、多变的、不可理解的宗教观念，因为这些话语的模糊或错误并不影响宗教语言发挥其作用。“宗教语言的一个突出特点就是不被理解时也能发挥效力，甚至不被理解能让它更加强大。”比如基督教中拉丁语的使用，虽然大多数中世纪的基督徒都不懂拉丁语，只有牧者们懂这种“高级”、“秘密”的教会语言，这反而提升了拉丁语的地位。其他宗教也有特殊的仪式习语，包含各种深奥的、神秘的单词、短语和语气，信徒可能完全听不懂却仍然相信其神效。甚至有些宗教语言连牧者或僧侣自己也听不懂，因为他们使用的是某种已经消亡的语言；但这些秘密的语言和口头仪式仍然被认为是重要且有效的。由此可见，如果仅仅致力于指出宗教论证的错误或其术语的模糊，无神论者还不能形成真正对抗宗教的强大影响力。

II. Atheism from an Anthropological Perspective

二、人类学视角中的无神论

Ailler is a renowned anthropologist, and his atheist thought exhibits distinct anthropological characteristics; cultural diversity and relativity are themes he repeatedly addresses. Religion itself embodies cultural diversity and relativity; therefore, for Christianity or any particular monotheistic faith, not only does atheism pose a threat, but any other religious belief also poses a significant threat to it. In refuting theistic proofs, Ailler points out that Christians cannot prove the existence of some mysterious, creative spiritual entity, and even if such a spiritual entity existed, it could not be proven whether it is the God of Christianity, or the god of Hinduism, Islam, or some other religion; the Christian Bible and authoritative writings, for followers of other religions and non-religious people, are merely concepts and expressions within a specific cultural system, not persuasive universal authority or objective evidence; regarding many Christian claims, not only do atheists disagree, but numerous theists who believe in other religions also disagree. Moreover, adherents of other religions are equally confident in their own deities and beliefs, and they also have profound religious experiences, “which means that the strength of faith is a quality of the believer, not a sign of the truth of the faith”; ultimately, “countless religions have given the well-informed atheist the breakthrough insight that religion is part of humanity’s splendid imagination, a cultural creation, not a description of reality.”

艾勒是著名的人类学家，他的无神论思想表现出明显的人类学特征，文化的多样性和相对性是他反复提及的内容。宗教本身体现了文化的多样性和相对性，因此，对于基督教或某种特定一神信仰而言，不仅无神论对其构成了威胁，任何一种其他宗教信仰也对它构成了极大的威胁。在反驳有神论的证明时，艾勒就指出，基督徒不能证明有某种神秘的、创世的精神实体存在，而且即使有这样的精神实体存在，也无法证明他究竟是基督教的上帝，还是印度教、伊斯兰教抑或其他宗教的神；基督教的《圣经》和权威著述对于其他宗教信徒和非宗教信徒来说，只是某一特定文化体系内的观念和表述，并不是具备说服力的普遍权威或客观证据；对于基督教的许多主张，不仅无神论者不同意其观点，众多信仰其他宗教的有神论者也不同意。而且，其他宗教的信徒对自己的神灵和信仰同样充满信心，他们也有其深刻的宗教体验，“这意味着信仰的力量是信徒的一种品质，而不是信仰真实性的标志”;最终，“无数的宗教让见多识广的无神论者获得了突破性的洞见，即宗教是人类绚丽多彩的想象力的一部分，是文化创造，而不是对现实的描述”。

“Culture is like a pair of glasses; it shapes the way we see the world, and thus shapes the way we interact with the world… People usually do not see their own culture, but see the world through or via it, viewing the world as the world distorted by culture”; the anthropological perspective and method allow people to discover the “glasses” of different cultures, and then realize that they themselves originally wore some kind of cultural glasses. As part of culture, religion, like other aspects of culture, wishes to be seen as real and taken for granted; but when people observe it from the perspective of anthropology and cultural diversity, they find that this is not the case.

“文化就像一副眼镜，它塑造了我们看待世界的方式，从而塑造了我们与世界的互动方式……人们通常不会看到自己的文化，而是透过或通过它来看待世界，将世界视为文化所扭曲的世界”;人类学的视角和方法则让人们发现不同文化的“眼镜”,进而意识到自己原本也带着某种文化眼镜。作为文化的一部分，宗教和文化的其他方面一样，希望被视为真实的、理所当然的；但当人们从人类学和文化多样性的视角来观察它时，就会发现事实并非如此。

(I) Tolerance

(一)宽容

Tolerance is a cultural proposition that Americans cherish and take pride in; it holds that people are free to think and believe what they wish to think and believe, and can take actions such as propaganda, parades, and assemblies to express their views; people, as social citizens with equal rights, do not suffer discrimination and persecution because of their personal beliefs. Ailler discusses social tolerance from historical and cultural perspectives, pointing out: religion is not the source of the concept of tolerance; tolerance actually originates from the secular, from the reality of cultural diversity, and from people’s aversion to and correction of religious persecution.

宽容是美国人珍视并为之自豪的一种文化主张，它主张人们可以自由地思考和相信他们所愿意思考与相信的事情，并且可以采取宣传、游行、集会等行动来彰显自己的观点；人们作为拥有平等权利的社会公民、不因其个人理念的不同而遭受歧视和迫害。艾勒从历史和文化的角度论述社会宽容，他指出：宗教并不是宽容理念的来源，宽容其实来源于世俗、来源于文化多样的现实和人们对宗教迫害的厌恶和纠正。

Ailler, combining religious concepts and history, points out that religion itself is tolerant of neither atheism nor other religious beliefs; there is no foundation for tolerance in the origins and doctrines of religion. For example, the Bible nowhere mentions that believers should tolerate non-believers, but is filled with severe punishments and warnings against those who do not believe in God or who believe in other gods. For instance: Deuteronomy says that if a relative or friend entices you to serve other gods, you should stone them to death; Leviticus records that a person was sentenced to death for cursing God’s name; Revelation describes God’s final judgment of the world, where those who believe in God and do good deeds may ascend to heaven, while various sinful people, including non-believers, are to enter a sea of fire and go to hell. Islam regards non-monotheists as idolaters; the Quran mentions capturing, besieging, and killing idolaters, and that Allah’s curse will fall upon non-believers, etc. The Hindu classic Bhagavad Gita contains a passage that sounds open to “other faiths,” mentioning people who worship different gods, but then points out that those people’s worship is mistaken and they will pay a price for it. In short, “no religious tradition is truly tolerant at its roots, nor do they welcome difference. Every religion sets a proper or correct way of thinking, feeling, and acting; although there may be some degree of freedom on specific points, there is absolutely no idea that one can reject faith or choose some other teaching or way of thinking and then decide for oneself.” The brutal history of religious wars, religious persecution, opposition to blasphemy, opposition to heresy, opposition to infidels, etc., are all direct results of intolerant religious beliefs. During periods when religion prevailed or even ruled the world, religious people not only did not practice tolerance but condemned it; religious people advocated flogging, expulsion, exile, disenfranchisement, and confiscation of property for heretics, advocated forcing them to convert by force, even imposing the death penalty and mass slaughter. Christianity also tried hard to use all available tools to attack and eliminate heresy, but it was never able to completely eradicate all unorthodox thoughts; the flames of heresy grew more numerous and more stubborn, and ultimately, it could only reluctantly accept coexistence with each other to avoid mutual annihilation.

艾勒结合宗教的观念和历史并指出，宗教本身既不宽容无神论，也不宽容其他宗教信仰，宗教的来源和教义中并没有宽容的根基。例如，《圣经》没有在任何地方提到信徒应该容忍非信徒，而是充斥着对那些不信神、或信仰其他神的世人的严厉惩戒与警告。比如：《申命记》中说，如果亲人朋友引诱你事奉别的神，那么你应该用石头打死他们；《利未记》记载了一个人因为诅咒上帝的名字而被判处死刑；《启示录》中描写上帝对世人进行末日审判，信仰上帝并行善者可升入天堂，包括不信神在内的各种罪恶之人则要入火海下地狱。伊斯兰教把非一神论者视为偶像崇拜者，在《古兰经》中提及要把偶像崇拜者俘虏、围困、杀死，真主的诅咒会降在不信神者身上等等。印度教经典《薄伽梵歌》中有段话听起来像是对“其他信仰”的开放，它提及信仰不同神灵的人，但又指出那些人的崇拜是错误的，会为之付出代价。总之，“没有哪个宗教传统在其根源上真正的宽容，它们也并不欢迎差异。每一个宗教都设定了一种适当或正确的思考、感受和行动的方式，虽然在特定的点上可能有一些自由度，但绝对不存在认为可以拒绝信仰或选择一些其他教导或思考之后自己决定的情况”。历史上的宗教战争、宗教迫害、反对亵渎神明、反对异端、反对异教徒等等残酷历史，都是不宽容的宗教信仰的直接结果。在宗教盛行甚至统治世界的时期，宗教人士不仅没有实践宽容，而且谴责宽容，宗教人士主张对异教徒进行鞭刑、驱逐、流放、剥夺公民权、没收财产，主张以武力迫使他们皈依乃至判处死刑、大量屠杀。基督教也曾努力地使用一切可用的工具打击和消灭异端，只是它始终无法彻底根除所有非正统思想；异端的火苗变得越来越多、越来越顽抗，最终只能勉强地、为了免于相互灭绝而接受了彼此的共存。

Religion itself does not see the wisdom of tolerance, but the secular world, based on experience and reason, has understood that persecution has lost its effectiveness and that tolerance is a safe and rational choice; therefore, the concept of tolerance comes from experience and reason, from secular society, from the evolving consciousness of freedom and consensus. Ailler discusses tolerance not to criticize religion’s history of intolerance, but to point out that atheists in the United States still suffer exclusion and oppression, and their situation is intolerant. In contemporary America, atheists are no longer openly expelled, persecuted, and killed as in the past, but they are not considered fully equal good citizens in this society; there are still people who openly condemn atheists, even arguing that atheists are unqualified to hold any government office in the United States. Atheists are excluded for pointing out the errors of theism, and are denigrated and stigmatized for not agreeing with the majority’s beliefs; this clearly does not conform to the concept of tolerance that the United States claims for its modern civilized society.

宗教本身看不到宽容的智慧，但世俗世界根据经验和理性，明白了迫害已经失去效力、宽容则是一种安全和理智的选择；因此宽容的概念来源于经验和理性，来自世俗社会，来自不断发展的自由意识和共识。艾勒讨论宽容不是为了批判宗教的不宽容的历史，而是为了指出美国的无神论者仍然遭受着排斥和压迫，他们的处境是不宽容的。在当代的美国，无神论者没有像过去那样被公开驱逐、迫害和杀害，但也没有被认为是这个社会中完全平等的好公民，仍然有人公开谴责无神论者，甚至主张无神论者没有资格在美国担任任何政府公职。无神论者因其指出有神论的错误而被排斥，因其不认同多数人的信仰而被贬低和污名化，这显然不符合美国所标榜的现代文明社会的宽容理念。

(II) Morality

(二)道德

Atheists have historically been slandered as dissolute and immoral; words such as indulgence, anger, sorrow, loneliness, indifference, and even demonic have been pinned on atheists. These stigmas are all absurd and have no basis in reality, but they rely on some specious reasons and have caused great harm to atheists.

无神论者在历史上一直被诽谤为放荡的、不道德的，诸如放纵、愤怒、悲伤、孤独、冷漠，甚至是恶魔之类的词汇都被扣在无神论者头上。这些污名都是荒谬的、没有任何现实依据，但它们却依托一些似是而非的理由，对无神论者造成了极大的伤害。

Religious believers accuse atheists of lacking morality, arguing that ethics and morality are laws established by God for humanity, and since atheists do not acknowledge God, they therefore have no ethics or morality. Some anti-atheists claim that “atheists have no moral code like the Bible, nor a spiritual police to enforce such a code, so morality is impossible”; others believe that “atheists are actually covert theists who, while denigrating God, secretly derive their behavioral norms from religion.” In response, Eller [1]1 Eller, *Atheism and Secularity*, Vol. 2, p. 14. [Note: This is a citation from the source text being discussed; the original English source is not provided, so the translation follows the Chinese quotation.] points out that atheism does not actually have the moral problem claimed by theists, because religion is not the sole foundation of morality, even for theists. “Morality is generally considered to have four foundations: religion, culture, nature, and reason; but religion is merely one domain of culture, so ultimately morality has three foundations (culture, nature, and reason), and religion cannot stand alongside them.” Culture includes knowledge and skills, beliefs, norms, values, morality, and so on; it can be divided into different domains and aspects, with religion being only one of them. All aspects of culture derive from and depend on the economic realities of a secular society. Many religions have formal moral codes with specific lists of behaviors and related punishments, but not all religions are particularly concerned with morality; moreover, religious moral codes are flawed, sometimes being too general and at other times too specific. Religious beliefs can even contradict morality—for example, Christianity’s “theodicy” [2]2 Eller, *Atheism and Secularity*, Vol. 2, p. 15. [Note: This is a citation from the source text being discussed; the original English source is not provided, so the translation follows the Chinese quotation.] justifies social and natural disasters, but if these calamities and sufferings are acts of divine justice, then people should not sympathize with victims or offer aid, which clearly contradicts people’s moral sentiments and behaviors of fraternity and mutual assistance. Furthermore, possessing a set of moral codes is far from having genuine moral character, as evidenced by the high crime rates, deviant behaviors, and various antisocial acts of theists. At the same time, there is no clear evidence that atheists are more immoral or commit more “bad deeds” than theists.

宗教信徒指责无神论者没有道德，他们认为，伦理道德是神为世人所立之法，而无神论者不承认神，因此也就没有伦理道德。一些反无神论者声称，“无神论者没有像《圣经》这样的道德准则，也没有一个精神警察来赋予这种准则，因此不可能有道德”;还有一些反无神论者认为“无神论者其实是隐秘的有神论者，他们虽然诋毁上帝，但最终却秘密地从宗教中获得了自己行为准则”。对此，艾勒指出，无神论其实并不存在有神论者所宣称的道德问题，因为宗教并不是道德的唯一基础，甚至对有神论者来说也是如此。“一般认为道德有四个基础：宗教、文化、自然和理性；但宗教其实只是文化的一个领域，所以归根结底，道德有三个基础(文化、自然和理性),而宗教不能与之并列。”文化包括知识和技能、信仰、规范、价值观、道德等等，它可以被划分为不同的领域、不同的方面，而宗教只是其中之一；文化的各个方面都是从一个世俗社会的经济现实中衍生出来的并依赖于这些现实。很多宗教具有正式的道德规范，有具体的行为清单和相关的惩罚，但是并非所有宗教都特别关注道德；而且，宗教的道德准则是有缺陷的，它有时过于笼统，有时又过于具体。宗教信念有时还与道德相悖，比如基督教的“神正论”会给社会灾难和自然灾难辩护，但如果这些灾难痛苦都是神的正义之举，那么人们就不应该同情受害者也不应该去救助，这显然和人们的道德情感以及友爱、互助行为相悖。此外，有一套道德准则与具有真实的道德品性相去甚远，有神论者的高犯罪率、越轨行为和各种反社会行为已经佐证了这一点。与此同时，也没有明显的证据表明，无神论者比有神论者更不道德，做的“坏事”更多。

Eller emphasizes: “Morality, in the sense of norms and constraints on behavior, is actually a natural, evolution-based phenomenon.” For example, all social animals and many non-social animals have standardized behaviors and “rituals” or gestures that trigger or halt aggression; many species exhibit “selfless” traits such as sharing and self-sacrifice in group life, and the stronger the learning ability of these species, the more moral behaviors they display. Thus, the origins of morality can be understood from natural and evolutionary perspectives. The universality of morality, like the universality of language or culture itself, further demonstrates the unity of humanity in evolution and genetics. The multitude of languages developed by humans indicates a strong innate tendency to acquire language, though this tendency must be cultivated through social experience; similarly, the universality of morality suggests that humans have a strong innate tendency to acquire morality, which must also be cultivated through experience.

艾勒强调：“道德，在规范和约束行为的意义上，实际上是一种自然的、基于进化的现象。”比如，所有的群居动物和许多非群居动物都有标准化的行为和“仪式”或姿势，这些行为和姿势会引发攻击或停止攻击；许多物种在群体生活中表现出分享和自我牺牲等具有“无私”特点的行为，并且这些物种学习能力越强，它们表现出的道德行为就越多。因此，人们可以从自然和进化的角度看到道德的起源。道德的普遍性，就像语言或文化本身的普遍性一样，更能证明人类在进化和基因上的统一性。人类发展出的众多语言表明了人们有某种强大的习得语言的倾向，不过这种倾向必须由社会经验来培养；与之相似，道德的普遍性也表明，人们天生就有一种强大的习得道德的倾向，这种倾向也必须由经验来培养。

Another foundational source of morality is reason. “Even without religion, even without the genetic tendency to acquire morality, reason itself would still guide people to make normative and socially beneficial behaviors based on principles and intersubjectivity (i.e., awareness of others’ feelings).” People do not need any religion to tell them that evil acts like killing cause harm to others, to themselves, and to social order. Reason does not require God and His rewards and punishments, yet it can and does achieve most of the moral principles of great religions. In fact, since morality always involves voluntarily choosing actions from possible options, atheists may be more moral than theists—because when they act according to morality, they do so more out of morality itself than out of obedience to a powerful deity.

道德的另一个基础来源是理性，“即使没有宗教、即使没有获得道德的遗传倾向，理性本身仍然会引导人们在原则和主体间性(即对他人感受的意识)的基础上做出规范和有益于社会的行为”。人们不需要任何宗教来告诉自己，杀戮等罪恶行为会对他人、对自己和社会秩序造成破坏。理性并不需要借助上帝及其奖赏与惩罚，但它可以而且确实达到了伟大宗教的大多数道德原则。事实上，由于道德总是涉及从可能的选择中自愿地选择行动，因此无神论者有可能比有神论者更有道德——因为当他们遵循道德而行事时，他们更多的是出于道德本身而非出于对某个强大的神明的服从。

(3) Language

(三)语言

Eller believes that religion and language share several similarities: first, both are acquired; just as no one is born with a particular faith, no one is born speaking a particular language. Second, there are many different languages in the world, just as there are many different religions. Third, a person acquires a specific language or a specific religious faith often because they grow up among people who speak that language or believe in that religion. However, there is a key difference between language and religion: speakers of a language do not claim that their language is “correct”; they do not consider English true and Spanish false. But religious members believe their own religion is correct, while other religions are false or erroneous. Religious language is a unique subset of language, combining special vocabulary unique to religion with secular language. Each religion has its own set of special terms—for example, Messiah, baptism, and sacrament are Christian religious terms; nirvana, anātman, and bodhisattva are Buddhist concepts. At the same time, each religion has its own language, so many different religious languages coexist; believers of the same religion all speak one language, while the languages of other religions are like foreign languages to them. Eller warns atheists never to underestimate the role of religious language, because a language is a way of thinking, and this way of speaking and thinking infiltrates all areas of social life.

艾勒认为宗教和语言有不少相似之处：首先在于它们都是后天习得的，正如没有哪一个人生来就有某一信仰一样，也没有哪一个人生来就使用某种语言。其次，世界上存在着很多不同的语言，也存在着很多不同的宗教。第三，一个人习得一种特定的语言或者获得某一特定宗教信仰，常常是因为他在说某种语言、信仰某宗教的人群中长大。然而，语言和宗教之间有一个关键的区别：说某种语言的人不会声称他们的语言是“正确的”,他们不会认为英语为真而西班牙语为假；但宗教成员却认为自己的宗教是正确的，其他宗教则是虚假的或者错误的。宗教语言是语言的一个独特的子集，它将宗教独有的特殊词汇与世俗语言结合起来使用。每个宗教都有自己的一套特殊词汇，比如弥赛亚、洗礼、圣礼是基督教的宗教术语，涅槃、无我、菩萨等是佛教的词语概念。同时，每个宗教也都有自己的语言，因而同时存在着很多不同的宗教语言；同一宗教的信徒都说一种语言，其他宗教的语言对他们如同外语一般。艾勒提醒无神论者绝不可以轻视宗教语言的作用，因为一种语言就是一种思考方式，而且这种说话和思考的方式会侵入到社会生活的各个领域。

In a society like the United States, where Christianity is dominant, Christian language has long permeated the entire cultural system. People have developed a habit of speaking and thinking in a Christian way, and atheists have not been spared. American atheists also tend to equate religion itself with Christianity; they take Christian terms like “God,” “heaven,” or “sin” very seriously, “letting Christianity set the agenda, define the issues, and provide the language of debate,” and atheists speak Christian language “as fluently and naturally as believers.” But this is clearly a dangerous practice, because atheists inadvertently participate in Christian language and thereby promote and perpetuate Christian influence. Eller argues that atheists should stop speaking the language of Christians, so as to loosen the control of Christian language over their thinking. Atheists should also impress upon Christians that they are talking about Christianity, not all religions, and should reduce Christianity’s status to that of one religion among many, rather than the only or most important religion.

在美国这种基督教占主导地位的社会中，基督教语言早已渗透至整个文化体系，人们有一种用基督教的方式说话和思考的习惯，无神论者也未曾幸免。美国的无神论者还存在着一种把基督教等同于宗教本身的倾向，他们对待“上帝”“天堂”或“罪”等基督教词汇十分认真，他们“让基督教设定议程、确定问题、并提供辩论的语言”,并且无神论者讲起基督教语言来“和教徒一样的流利和自然”。但这显然是一种危险的做法，因为无神论者在无意中参与了基督教语言，并且通过这种方式促进和延续着基督教的影响。艾勒认为，无神论者应当停止说基督徒的话语，这样才能放松基督教语言对其思想的控制。无神论者还应当给基督徒留下深刻的印象，即——他们谈论的是基督教而非所有的宗教，应当把基督教的地位下降到诸多宗教之一的位置，而不是某种唯一或最重要宗教的位置。

On how to reject Christian language, Eller offers some concrete suggestions. For example: one should not use the word “religion” to refer to Christianity, but should use “Christianity” when speaking of it; one should not refer to God with a capital “G” as Christians do, but should use “the Christian God”; one should not say “the Bible” or “scripture,” but should say “Judeo-Christian writings”; one should not use words such as “heaven, hell, sin, devil, angel, soul, prayer” as ordinary vocabulary, but should explain that they are “Christian concepts of heaven, hell, sin, etc.”; one should treat Christian terms like foreign religious terminology, marking them in italics to maintain a certain distance; one should avoid everyday idioms that are too heavily Christian in color, such as the common American expressions “God bless you,” “spirit,” “belief,” and so on. The core principle is to become aware of the existence of Christian language and its erosion of everyday language, to actively treat it as just one of many religious languages, and to avoid unconsciously using religious language in a way that reinforces the spread and influence of Christianity. Moreover, simply refusing and avoiding religious language is insufficient; atheists also need to use their own terminology to express atheist meanings and concepts. Atheists can “borrow everyday language with some modifications and supplements,” can also “appropriate words from religion or recover words occupied by religion,” and can also “introduce new terms,” just as religion, philosophy, and biology each have their own specialized terminology. In short, what atheists need is a distinctive atheist discourse—speaking the language of atheism rather than the language of religion.

关于如何拒绝基督教语言，艾勒给出了一些具体建议。例如：不应该用“宗教”这个词指代基督教，谈论基督教的时就应用“基督教”来指称；不应像基督教徒一样用大写的“God”指称上帝，而是用“基督教的上帝”来表示；不应该说“圣经”或“经文”,而应该说“犹太-基督教著作”;不应当把“天堂，地狱，罪恶，魔鬼，天使，灵魂、祈祷”等词汇当作普通词汇来使用，而应说明它们是“基督教关于天堂、地狱、罪等的概念”;像对待外国宗教术语一样，把基督教术语用斜体字标出，让它们保持一定的距离感；避免使用基督教色彩过于浓厚的日常俗语，比如美国人常说的“God bless you”“spirit”“belief”,等等。其核心要义就在于意识到基督教语言的存在及其对日常语言的侵蚀，主动地将其视为诸多宗教语言的其中一种来对待，避免不自觉地使用宗教语言而强化了基督教的传播和影响。而且单纯拒绝和避免使用宗教语言是不够的，无神论者还需要用自己的术语来表达无神论的意义和概念。无神论者可“借用日常语言进行一些改动和补充”,也可以“挪用来自宗教的词汇或者恢复被宗教所占有的词汇”,还可以“引入新的术语”,正如宗教、哲学、生物学都有自己的专业术语一般。总之，无神论者需要的是一种独特的无神论话语——说无神论语言而不是宗教语言。

(4) The Sphere of Life

(四)生活领域

Eller believes that the lifestyle of American atheists is largely the Christian lifestyle; people are surrounded, occupied, and permeated by a taken-for-granted, invisible yet omnipresent religious lifestyle; whether or not people believe in religion, they experience religion at every moment, and some religious content has become so universal and routine that people do not know it is religious in nature.

艾勒认为，美国无神论者的生活方式很大程度上就是基督教的生活方式，人们被一种理所当然的、无形而又无处不在的宗教生活方式所包围、占领和渗透；不管人们信不信宗教，他们每时每刻都在体验着宗教，而且有些宗教内容已经变得非常的普遍和常规，以至于人们不知道它们是宗教性质的。

Eller reviews the process of early Christian missionaries’ religious colonization of indigenous Africans: “The missionaries quickly realized that fully understanding doctrine was neither possible nor necessary; they discovered that controlling life was more important than persuading people, and that the former would basically lead to the latter. The goal thus became—and still is—to make religion omnipresent yet invisible.” To achieve this goal, religion adopted a series of measures, including controlling the economy and work, reshaping them in a Western, colonial, Christian manner, and then extending from economic matters to all aspects of family and personal life; for example, requiring adjustments in the division of labor and status between men and women, dress and hygiene requirements, house construction and home furnishings, the rituals of diet, daily life, marriage, funerals, and so on. Eller emphasizes that in American society, Christianity’s colonization of the sphere of life is similar to its religious colonization of indigenous societies, but is more enduring and deeper. He analyzes in detail the concrete manifestations of Christianity’s intrusion into daily life, including: first, major life events—from infant birth, adulthood, marriage, illness, to death—all major life events are inseparable from Christian rituals and the involvement of religious figures. Second, religion occupies a large amount of space, not only various temples, churches, and religious gathering places, but also religious statues erected in public spaces, public venues and addresses given religious names, and it intrudes into private homes. Third, the Christian calendar, Christmas, Easter, and other holiday arrangements, and even how believers arrange their personal time, all fall under the projection of religion. Fourth, various art forms, such as songs, stories, music, dance, architecture, sculpture, painting, and so on, are all captured by religion, repeatedly rehearsing religious stories, images, and language. Fifth, religion shapes people’s daily habits, such as eating habits, habits of prayer and confession, habits of naming, habits of clothing and wearing accessories, requirements for body care, tattoos or piercings, requirements for standing, sitting, and gesturing, and so on.

艾勒回顾了早期基督教传教士对非洲土著进行宗教殖民的历程：“传教士很快就认识到，完全理解教义既不可能也没有必要，他们发现，控制生活比说服人们更重要，而前者基本上会导致后者。于是目标变成了——现在仍然是——使宗教无所不在，但又看不见。”宗教为达到这一目的采取了一系列手段，包括掌控经济和工作，并以西方的、殖民的、基督教的方式对其进行重塑，并进而从经济事务延伸到家庭和个人生活的各个方面；比如要求男女分工和地位的调整，衣着和卫生要求，房屋建筑和家居布置，饮食起居、婚丧嫁娶的礼仪，等等。艾勒强调，在美国社会，基督教对生活领域的殖民和其对土著社会的宗教殖民类似，但更为持久和深入。他详细分析了基督教侵入日常生活的具体表现，包括：第一，重要的生活事件，例如从婴儿出生、成年、婚姻、疾病、直至死亡，人生的重大事件都少不了基督教的礼仪和宗教人士的介入。第二，宗教占据了大量空间，不仅有各种神庙、教堂、宗教聚会场所，还在公共空间树立宗教雕像，给公共场馆、地址冠以宗教名称，并且挤入私人家庭之中。第三，公元纪年、圣诞节、复活节等节日安排、乃至教徒如何安排个人时间都在宗教的投射之下。第四，各种艺术形式，如歌曲、故事、音乐、舞蹈、建筑、雕塑、绘画等等都被宗教所俘虏，一遍遍地重复着宗教的故事、形象和语言。第五，宗教塑造了人们的日常习惯，比如饮食习惯、祈祷和忏悔的习惯、起名字的习惯、服装和佩戴饰品的习惯、对身体的护理要求、纹身或穿刺、站姿坐姿手势的要求，等等。

Recognizing religion’s colonization of the sphere of life—daily behavior, space, habits, and so on—is the first step in liberating atheists from religion’s attraction and control. Eller believes: “Contemporary American atheism, like atheism in most of history, is a series of arguments about and against religion, and the very limited results it has achieved show that its direction of effort is wrong, because the key to victory is not debate, but domination, occupation, destruction, and ultimately institutionalization and naturalization.” Eller emphasizes: atheism should transform from traditional argumentative atheism into an atheism of de-religious colonization; this requires stripping religious language from everyday language, liberating art from religious influence, eradicating religion from its infiltration of society and daily life, and also developing atheism into a more inclusive worldview and life philosophy; all public institutions must be thoroughly secularized, and education, medicine, science, and especially government, must be separated from religion.

意识到宗教对日常行为、空间、习惯等生活领域的殖民，这是将无神论者从宗教的吸引力和控制中解放出来的第一步。艾勒认为：“美国当代的无神论和历史上大部分时间的无神论一样，是一系列关于宗教和反对宗教的争论，它所获得的极为有限的成果表明其努力方向是错误的，因为获胜的关键不是辩论，而是支配、占有、破坏，并最终形成制度化和自然化。”艾勒强调：无神论应当从传统的论辩型无神论转变为去宗教殖民化的无神论，这需要将宗教语言从日常语言中剥离出来，将艺术从宗教影响中解放出来，将宗教从它对社会和日常生活的渗透中铲除，还要把无神论发展为更具包容性的世界观和生活理念；所有的公共机构必须彻底世俗化，教育、医学、科学，尤其是政府，必须与宗教分离。

3. Atheism That Dares to Struggle

三、勇于斗争的无神论

Eller’s atheist thought has a distinct spirit of struggle. Atheists in the United States are a group that is excluded, marginalized, and even stigmatized; social pressure forces many atheists not to dare to publicly disclose their stance; this in turn makes atheists be seen as a very small group, or even a group that does not exist, and these limited members are also regarded as timid, silent people who privately grumble but lack the courage for public action. To break this state of being unseen, unrecognized, and un-respected, atheists must raise their own voices and use positive action to manifest their existence and propagate their ideas.

艾勒的无神论思想具有鲜明的斗争精神。无神论者在美国是被排斥、被边缘化、甚至被污名化的群体，社会压力迫使很多无神论者不敢公开自己的立场；而这又使得无神论者被认为是人数极少、甚至并不存在的一个群体，这些数量有限的成员也被看作是私下满腹牢骚、缺乏公开行动勇气的胆小者、沉默者。要打破这种不被看见、不被承认、不被尊重的状态，无神论者必须发出自己的声音，用积极的行动彰显自身的存在、宣传自己的理念。

Eller believes that it is advisable for atheists to adopt an outspoken, positive posture; even as a minority group, atheists should bravely raise their voices rather than remain silent; this is not only to defend their rights as American citizens, but also to safeguard cultural diversity, science, freedom, and tolerance. To achieve positive action, an important pathway is to establish atheist organizations, to exist and speak publicly in the form of atheist groups. This is similar to the civil rights organizations in American history that fought for the rights of disadvantaged groups such as Black people and women; although not all Black people or women participate in the corresponding organizations, such organizations proclaim the existence and social rights of the entire group. Similarly, atheist organizations should actively participate in social affairs and public life, continuously expand their membership numbers, enhance their social influence, issue declarations on behalf of the atheist group, and attract and influence the general public through many means such as propaganda, education, marches, social activities, and legal litigation.

艾勒认为，无神论者采取一种直言不讳的、积极的姿态是可取的，即使是作为少数群体存在，无神论者也应勇敢地发出声音而不是保持沉默；这不仅是为了捍卫自己作为美国公民的权利，也是为了维护文化的多样性、维护科学、自由和宽容。要做到积极行动，一个重要的途径就是成立无神论者的团体组织，以无神论者团体的形式存在和公开发声。这类似于美国历史中争取黑人权利、女性权利等弱势群体利益的平权组织，虽然并不是所有的黑人或女人都参与相应组织，但这种组织宣示了整个群体的存在和社会权利。类似的，无神论者组织也应积极参与社会事务和公共生活，不断扩充自己的成员数量、增强自身的社会影响力、代表无神论者群体发出宣言，通过宣传、教育、游行、社会活动、法律诉讼等诸多方式来吸引和影响社会大众。

If atheists were to establish organizations and actively propagate, what kind of message should they disseminate? Although atheists often privately criticize the errors of religion or the foolishness of theists, such messages are not suitable as content for public propaganda; they would cause atheists to encounter greater hostility and attack. Atheists must convey multifaceted, positive messages to the world, and must also pay attention to the reasonableness and effectiveness of the methods of propagation. Eller believes that direct argument with theists is ineffective, and that speeches and debates are also not good methods; they often provoke defensiveness and resistance, even devolving into shouting matches. His own experience debating theists on television programs corroborates this. Atheism is a result or a conclusion; it is not the process by which a person arrives at a result. Therefore, the goal of propagation is not to directly turn theists into atheists, but rather to adopt an indirect procedure — for example, by teaching reason and critical thinking, enabling people to think independently and thus arrive at the conclusion of atheism on their own. One effective method of propagation is education. Education here refers not only to science education, but should also include training in reason and critical thinking, political education, history education, civic education, cultural diversity training, and so on. People do not necessarily have to participate in actual courses, but these values and principles should all be integrated into the messages that atheists convey. Hence, "atheists are not to propagate the miracle of atheism, but the miracle of history, civil society, tolerance and diversity, the miracle of science and reason." [1]1 Eller, *Atheism and Secularity*, Vol. 2, p. 14. [Note: This is a citation from the source text being discussed; the original English source is not provided, so the translation follows the Chinese quotation.] For propagating ideas, schools and courts are both important arenas of competition. People's workplaces, communities, newspapers, bars, and even all manner of shared living spaces can become cultural battlefields for the struggle over discursive power.

如果无神论者要成立组织、积极传播，他们应当传播什么样的信息呢?虽然无神论者私下常常批评宗教的错误或有神论者的愚蠢，但这样的信息不太适合作为公开宣传的内容，它们会使无神论者遭遇更大的敌视和攻击。无神论者要向世界传递多方面的、积极的信息，还要注意传播方式的合理有效。艾勒认为直接与有神论者争论起不到好的效果，演讲、辩论也不是好的办法，它们往往会引起防御和抵抗，甚至发展成大喊大叫的比赛，他在电视节目中与有神论者辩论的经历也佐证了这一点。无神论是一种结果或者结论，它并不是一个人得出结果的过程，因此传播的目标不是直接把有神论者变成无神论者，而应采取间接的程序——比如通过教授理性和批判性思维，让人们学会独立思考从而自行得出无神论的结论。传播的一个有效方法是教育，这里所说的教育不仅仅是科学教育，还应包括理性和批判性思维训练、政治教育、历史教育、公民教育、文化多样性培训等；人们不一定非要参加实际课程，但这些价值观和原则都应该融入到无神论者传递的信息之中。因此，“无神论者不是要传播无神论的奇迹，而是历史、公民社会、宽容和多样性的奇迹，传播科学和理性的奇迹”。对于传播理念而言，学校和法庭都是重要的竞争场合，人们的工作场所、社区、报纸、酒吧、乃至各种共享的生活空间，都可以成为争夺话语权的文化战场。

Atheists should also maintain a keen sensitivity to religious language and the sacralization of everyday life. Atheists should find ways to eliminate the colonization of religious factors, rather than unconsciously immersing themselves in religious language and religious habits. Simply identifying Christian language, refusing or avoiding the use of religious language, is insufficient. Atheists also need to use their own terminology to express the meanings and concepts of atheism, creating a language and culture that belongs to atheism. Borrowing everyday language, appropriating words from religion, and introducing new vocabulary are all methods that can be used to create an atheist language. Eller once pointed out that the word "evangelism" is a term appropriated by Christianity; its original Greek meaning is "to bring good news," and atheism can also use it for propagation. He also compiled six positive, affirmative good news items akin to an atheist gospel. Among them, the first is: "We are here, and we are not going away." [2]2 Eller, *Atheism and Secularity*, Vol. 2, p. 15. [Note: This is a citation from the source text being discussed; the original English source is not provided, so the translation follows the Chinese quotation.] Eller believes this is the first and most crucial message that must be conveyed: to tell Americans that atheists exist, that atheists have always been by people's side, and that they will exist forever. Because the influence of religion in the United States is so immense, many people do not even know what an atheist is, or that there are atheists in America. Moreover, many atheists feel lonely and helpless because they do not know that there are other people like themselves who are also atheists. The existence of an atheist community is undoubtedly an uplifting piece of good news for them.

无神论者还应当对宗教语言和日常生活的宗教化现象保持敏锐感。无神论者应当想方设法剔除宗教因素的殖民，而不是不自觉地沉浸在宗教语言和宗教习惯之中。单纯识别基督教语言、拒绝或避免使用宗教语言是不够的，无神论者还需要用自己的术语来表达无神论的意义和概念，创造属于无神论的语言和文化。借用日常语言、挪用来自宗教的词汇、引入新的词汇，都是创造无神论语言可以使用的方法。艾勒曾指出“传福音”一词就是被基督教占用的词汇，其希腊原意是“传送好消息”,无神论也可以用它进行传播；他还整理了六条类似于无神论福音的积极、正面的好消息。其中第一条是“我们在这里，我们不会离开”。艾勒认为，这是必须传达的第一个也是最关键的一个信息，要告诉美国人无神论者是存在的，无神论者一直在人们身边，而且将永远存在。因为美国的宗教影响太过庞大，很多人甚至不知道什么是无神论者、不知道美国有无神论者；还有很多无神论者感到孤独和无助，因为他们不知道有其他人和自已一样也是无神论者，无神论群体的存在对他们无疑是令人振奋的好消息。

Through the de-sacralization of language and the sphere of life, the religious content originally entrenched in space, time, language, art, the body, politics, and other aspects will be eliminated, and atheism will provide new content to fill these positions — for example, using scientific concepts or natural seasonal divisions to redefine time, using non-religious weddings and funerals to redefine the life cycle, creating new events, rituals, or customs, creating new culture and art, and even creating new life and society. Eller acknowledges that he has proposed a grand and extremely difficult-to-achieve vision. Nevertheless, atheists must transcend the original level of speculative argumentation and enter the broader world of culture and life, engaging in unremitting struggle against the religion that exists within it. He also appeals in his text: "As Marx said, we have spent enough time describing the world; the responsibility now is to change it. We must win the whole world." [3]3 Eller, *Atheism and Secularity*, Vol. 2, p. 16. [Note: This is a citation from the source text being discussed; the original English source is not provided, so the translation follows the Chinese quotation. The reference is to Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach."]

通过语言和生活领域的去宗教化，原本盘踞于空间、时间、语言、艺术、身体和政治等方面的宗教内容会被清除，而无神论将提供新的内容来填补这些位置，比如用科学概念或自然节气来重新定义时间，用非宗教婚礼葬礼来重新定义生命周期，创造新的事件、仪式或习俗，创造新的文化和艺术，乃至创造新的生活和社会。艾勒承认，他提出了一个宏大而极难达成的愿景，但无论如何，无神论者必须要超越原有的思辨论证的层面，进入更广泛的文化和生活世界，并与其中存在的宗教进行不懈的抗争。他还在文中呼吁：“正如马克思所说，我们已经花了足够多的时间来描述这个世界；现在的责任是改变它。我们要赢得整个世界。”

IV. Atheism in Continuous Development

四、不断发展的无神论

Rationalism, an anthropological perspective, and the courage to struggle are salient features of Eller's atheist thought; in addition, his atheist thought also has a characteristic — development and evolution.

理性主义、人类学视角、勇于斗争是艾勒无神论思想的显著特征；此外，他的无神论思想还有一个特点——发展与进化。

Promoting the development and evolution of atheism is the starting point and purpose of Eller's writing of books and establishment of theories, and it is also a true portrayal of his own atheist thought. Eller hopes to encourage atheists through his writings, enabling atheism to be better understood and accepted, thereby enhancing the role of atheism in culture and politics. He also hopes to theoretically push atheism in new directions. Atheists should not confine themselves solely to rational argumentation, nor should they be satisfied with repeatedly publishing evidence that God does not exist, repeatedly criticizing fundamentalism, or repeatedly denouncing the violence and suffering of religion. Atheism needs even more to develop new themes and new ideas. Atheism should not merely be about exposing and criticizing the negative impacts of religion; it should also provide positive, affirmative content that can bring vitality and meaning to life. Eller also hopes to transcend the shackles that bind atheism and develop it within a broader context. Judging from his theoretical writings, Eller has basically realized his wish to advance the development and evolution of atheism.

推动无神论的发展和进化是艾勒著书立说的出发点和目的所在，也是他自己的无神论思想的一个真实写照。艾勒希望通过自己的著作来鼓励无神论者，让无神论得到更好的理解和接受，进而增强无神论在文化和政治中的作用。他还希望在理论上推动无神论走向新的方向，无神论者不应当仅仅局限于理性论证，不应当满足于一遍遍地发表上帝不存在的证据、重复地批判原教旨主义、反复地控诉宗教的暴力和痛苦等，无神论更需要发展出新的主题和新的思想。无神论不应当仅仅是揭露和批判宗教的负面影响，它还应当提供积极的、正面的、能给生活带来活力和意义的内容。艾勒还希望能够超越束缚无神论的枷锁，把它放在更广泛的背景下来发展。从艾勒的理论著作来看，他基本实现了自己推进无神论发展进化的愿望。

Eller's atheist thought begins with using rational speculation to reveal the falsity and errors of religious arguments, then focuses on demonstrating the unity of atheism and reason. Later, recognizing the inadequacy of rationalism, he calls on atheists not to stop at debate, but to be vigilant against and resist the erosion and control of language, thought, and the sphere of life by religion. This in itself constitutes a development and evolution of atheist thought. He calls for the establishment of atheist organizations, the open and active propagation of atheism, and reflection on specific matters such as what content should be propagated and by what methods. Moreover, he himself tirelessly practices the propagation of atheism in real life. This has promoted the development and evolution of the practice of atheist propagation. He has indeed placed atheism within a broader context, correcting the narrow understanding of American atheists who equate religion with Christianity and atheism with opposing Christianity and opposing religious belief. He emphasizes that religion is not only a belief system; it is also an institutional system, a language and mode of thinking, and an entire set of life patterns under its shadow. To oppose it, atheists must spare no effort in identifying and eliminating religious factors at every link, filling the gaps with atheist content, and constructing an atheist system of language, meaning, and value. From rational debate to the struggle for discursive power, and then to the reconstruction of life's meaning, Eller has set higher demands for atheists and also provided a new route for the development of atheism.

艾勒的无神论思想从以理性思辨揭示宗教论证的虚假、错误出发，继而着力论证无神论和理性的统一；再后来认识到理性主义的不足，呼吁无神论者不能止步于论辩，要警惕和对抗宗教对语言、思维和生活领域的侵蚀和控制；这本身就是对无神论思想的发展和进化。他呼吁建立无神论者组织，公开积极地传播无神论，并且思考应当传播什么样的内容、以什么方式传播等具体事项，而且他自己也在现实生活中不遗余力地践行着无神论的传播；这推动了无神论传播实践的发展和进化。他也确实把无神论放在更广泛的背景之下，纠正了美国无神论者把宗教等同于基督教、把无神论等同于反对基督教、反对宗教信仰的狭隘认识。他强调，宗教不仅是一个信仰体系，它还是一种制度体系、一种语言和思维方式、以及在其笼罩下的一整套生活模式。无神论者要与之对抗，需要不遗余力地从各个环节辨别和剔除掉宗教因素，并且以无神论的内容填充其空隙，构建无神论的语言、意义和价值体系。从理性论辩到话语权的争夺，再到生活意义的重构，艾勒向无神论者提出了更高的要求，也为无神论的发展提供了一个新的路线。

Eller’s atheist thought also has its limitations and shortcomings. On the one hand, the content he fills into atheism is too vast, burdening atheism with a weight it can hardly bear. Atheism is indeed rational, scientific, and natural, and it can also be positive, combative, and pioneering, but it is after all not a complete worldview and methodology and cannot be used to guide many areas of life. Atheism is primarily a stance and viewpoint that upholds reason and science while opposing theology and superstition. Even if it is equated with rational and scientific thinking, or developed, as he later hoped, into “disbeliefism” or “the theory of non-credulity,” it is still insufficient to bear alone the vision of emancipating thought, developing culture, creating the meaning of life, or even changing the entire world; these alone cannot sustain such a grand transformative mission. On the other hand, although Eller was aware of the limitations of rationalism and Western-centrism, he could not completely free himself from their influence. For example, although Eller suggested establishing atheist organizations to actively spread and promote social change, he particularly endorsed the concept of “collective irrationality,” believing that religion is collective and irrational, while atheism tends more toward the independent thinking of the rational individual, to the point of doubting whether atheists can form effective collectives. As another example, when examining cases of de-religionization, he mentioned the communist experiments of the Soviet Union and China, as well as the religious reform of Henry VIII in sixteenth-century England, but he chose the latter for analysis and discussion. His reason was that atheism in the Soviet Union and China was too closely tied to communism and had not lasted long enough, whereas the de-religionization effect in England was more pronounced and lasted longer. But if it were not for his natural affinity for Anglo-American culture and his unfamiliarity with and rejection of communism, then purely from the perspective of examining a regime’s de-religionizing transformation of the social sphere, the ongoing, democratic, and contemporary discussion of atheism is clearly more valuable as a reference than the sixteenth-century, autocratic, long-past transformation.

艾勒的无神论思想也有其局限性和不足之处，一方面是他填充进无神论的内容过于庞大，这给无神论扣上了难以承担的重负。无神论固然是理性的、科学的、自然的，也可以是积极的、斗争的、开创性的，但它毕竟不是一种完整的世界观和方法论，不能用于指导生活的众多领域。无神论主要是关于坚持理性与科学、反对神学和迷信的立场和观点，即使把它等同于理性和科学思维，或者像他后来所希望的发展为“去轻信主义”或“不轻信论”,也不足以独自承担起解放思想、发展文化、创造生活的意义乃至改变整个世界的愿景；仅凭它们不足以支撑起如此宏大的变革使命。另一方面，艾勒虽然意识到了理性主义和西方中心主义的局限性，但无法完全摆脱它们的影响。比如艾勒虽然建议成立无神论组织，积极传播和推动社会变革，但他又特别认同“集体无理性”,认为宗教是集体的、无理性的，而无神论更倾向于理性个人的独自思考，以至于对无神论者能否形成有效的集体感到怀疑。再比如，考察去宗教化的案例时他提到了苏联、中国的共产主义尝试和十六世纪英格兰亨利八世的宗教改革，但他选择了后者进行分析论述。他的理由是苏联和中国的无神论与共产主义的关系过于紧密，而且持续的时间不够长，英格兰的去宗教化效果更明显、持续时间更长。但如果不是他对英美文化的天然亲近感和对共产主义的陌生与排斥，仅从考察政权对社会领域的去宗教化变革而言，现代社会的、民主的、正在持续的无神论探讨显然比十六世纪的、帝制的、早已远去的变革更有参考价值。

In sum, Eller’s atheist thought integrates a vast amount of historical, religious, scientific, philosophical, and anthropological knowledge, while also closely combining with the evolution and development of atheism and the circumstances and actions of atheists, possessing theoretical innovation and practical inspiration. His works present, from multiple aspects, the ideological conflicts and struggles between religious forces and atheists, depict the development of atheism in the United States and the actual situation of atheists, and expose the enormous influence of religious belief and its organizational groups on American politics, culture, economic activities, and even personal life philosophies. His theory is extremely valuable for our understanding of American culture and for studying the development and dissemination of atheism within different cultural systems. In particular, Eller’s examination and analysis of religious culture from an anthropological perspective broadens the path for the development of atheism. Atheists can not only engage in argument and struggle from conventional perspectives such as rationalism, the scientific spirit, objective reality, and secular experience, but can also conduct analysis from anthropological and cross-cultural perspectives. By transcending the limitations of thinking within a particular cultural sphere, they can connect ideas, culture, and real life as a whole, thereby carrying out a systematic critique of religious belief and its entire cultural and control system. This is quite enlightening for our study of theoretical innovation in atheism, for thinking about how to more effectively oppose superstition and promote science in real life, and for enhancing the public’s rational thinking and spiritual strength, as well as forming a correct worldview.

总之，艾勒的无神论思想融合了大量的历史、宗教、科学、哲学和人类学知识，同时又和无神论的发展演进、无神论者的境遇和行动紧密结合，具有理论创新性和实践启发性。他的著作从多个方面呈现了宗教势力与无神论者之间的思想冲突与斗争，描绘了美国无神论的发展状况和无神论者的现实处境，揭露了宗教信仰及其团体组织对美国的政治、文化、经济活动乃至个人生活理念的巨大影响。其理论对我们了解美国文化、研究无神论在不同文化体系中的发展与传播来说极具价值，特别是艾勒从人类学视角对宗教文化所进行的审视和剖析，为无神论的发展拓宽了路径。无神论者不仅可以从常规的理性主义、科学精神、客观现实、世俗经验等角度展开论辩与斗争，还可以从人类学和跨文化的视角展开分析，在超出某一特定文化圈思维局限的情况下，把理念、文化与现实生活进行整体的串联，从而对宗教信仰及其一整套文化和控制体系进行系统性批判。这对于我们研究无神论的理论创新，思考如何在现实生活中更有效地反对迷信、宣传科学，提升大众的理性思维和精神力量、形成正确的世界观等，颇具启发意义。

(About the authors: Ping Huijiang, Lecturer, School of Marxism, China West Normal University; Chen Fayang, Associate Professor, School of Marxism, China West Normal University)

（作者简介：平慧江，西华师范大学马克思主义学院讲师；陈发扬，西华师范大学马克思主义学院副教授）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心