From Critique to Reconstruction: The Theoretical Approach of Yun Daiying’s Atheist Thought

I. The Historical Background and Formative Logic of Yun Daiying’s Atheist Thought

一、恽代英无神论思想的历史背景与形成逻辑

(A) The Drive of the Socio-Historical Background

(一)社会历史背景的驱动

Yun Daiying grew up in the late Qing dynasty and the early Republic of China, a period when Chinese society was at a critical stage of historical transition. Domestically, warlords fought among themselves and the economy was in distress; internationally, China faced imperialist aggression. Under the pressure of internal and external troubles, the old and new cultures clashed fiercely, and the ideological sphere was filled with a mixture of religious theology and superstitious beliefs in ghosts and spirits, which posed a serious obstacle to ideological progress.

恽代英成长于晚清和民国初期，这时的中国社会正处于历史转型的关键阶段。国内军阀混战、经济困窘，国际上面临帝国主义的侵略。在内忧外患的压力下，新旧文化激烈碰撞，思想领域充斥着宗教神学与鬼神迷信的混合体，对思想进步构成严重的阻碍。

First, the dual influence of “old superstitions” and “foreign superstitions.” The old culture, as a feudal remnant, still wielded enormous power. Religious theology, secular superstitions, and ideas about ghosts and spirits had long occupied the spiritual domain of the Chinese people, hindering the progress of ideology and culture. Yun Daiying once pointed out: “Now, whether in the marketplace or the countryside, among the people one meets, whether they are loyal gentlemen or petty traders chasing profit, if you press them to talk about ghosts, they can all, drawing on what their ears have heard and their eyes have seen, rattle on confidently in reply.” [1]1 Dai Jitao (1891–1949) was a Kuomintang theorist and early supporter of Sun Yat-sen who later opposed the Communist Party’s class analysis and the application of historical materialism to China’s national revolution. To awaken Chinese thought and break the “old superstitions,” the New Culture Movement introduced the advanced ideas of democracy and science from the West. However, a sophistical theism cloaked in the guise of “science”—spiritualist thought—also poured in. Because China’s “old superstitions” such as feudal superstition and ghost worship were deeply entrenched, the “foreign superstitions” that exploited this opening spread rapidly on this fertile soil. With the support of the Beiyang government, new religious groups represented by the Spiritualist Society were established one after another. Under the banners of “new science” and “superscience,” they vigorously propagated the ideas of the immortality of the soul and the existence of ghosts and spirits, publishing and distributing periodicals such as *Spiritualist Series* and *Spiritualist Monthly*, which profoundly affected the process of China’s ideological emancipation.

首先，“旧迷信”与“洋迷信”的双重影响。旧文化作为封建残余，其势力依然庞大，宗教神学、世俗迷信与鬼神思想长期占据中国人的精神领域，阻碍了思想文化的进步。恽代英曾指出：“今无论市井草野，所遇之人，无论为忠诚君子，或负贩逐利之夫，强之说鬼，类能就其耳之所闻，目之所见，信口滔滔以相答。”新文化运动为了唤醒中国人的思想，破除“旧迷信”，从西方引入了民主和科学的先进思想。然而，披上“科学”外衣的诡辩有神论——灵学思想也随之涌入。由于中国封建迷信、鬼神崇拜等“旧迷信”根深蒂固，趁虚而入的“洋迷信”在这片肥沃的土壤上迅速蔓延。在北洋政府的支持下，以灵学会为代表的新兴宗教团体纷纷成立，打着“新科学”和“超科学”的旗号，大肆宣扬灵魂不灭和鬼神存在说，出版发行《灵学丛刊》《灵学月刊》等期刊，深刻影响了中国思想解放的进程。

Second, the intertwined influence of the religionization of Confucianism and religious aggression. Around the time of the Hundred Days’ Reform in the late Qing, Kang Youwei and others, in an attempt to reform institutions by invoking antiquity, proposed “using the way of spirits to establish teachings,” advocated “honoring Confucius as the state religion,” [2]2 The “four obstacles to knowledge” (四蔽障害) is a term Yun Daiying adapted from classical Chinese philosophical discourse on cognitive biases, here used to critique the epistemic foundations of theism. and called for the establishment of Confucian temples, matching Confucius with Heaven and imitating Christian religious rituals. This tendency to elevate Confucian ethics from secular morality to religious morality became increasingly pronounced. After the Xinhai Revolution, the countercurrent of revering Confucius and restoring antiquity rose again. Kang Youwei continued to advocate “establishing Confucianism as the state religion,” proposing “taking humaneness as the teaching, while also preserving ghosts and spirits,” further blurring the boundary between secular morality and religious morality. This imbued Confucianism with a flavor of religious theology, becoming a countercurrent that obstructed the development of democratic and scientific thought and influenced the direction of the nation’s development. At the same time, imperialist forces, in order to extract economic benefits from China, launched a fervent wave of aggression. They not only applied military pressure and political constraints but also colluded with warlord forces, using Christianity as a tool to carry out cultural aggression against our country. At this point, the spread of Christianity in China was no longer merely a matter of poisoning Chinese thought with religious theology but had escalated into “a tool for foreigners to soften up China.”

其次，儒学宗教化与宗教侵略的交织影响。晚清时期的戊戌变法前后，康有为等人托古改制，提出“以神道设教”，主张“尊孔圣为国教”，设立孔子庙，以孔子配天，效仿基督教的宗教仪式，从而将儒家伦理由世俗道德提升为宗教道德的倾向日益明显。辛亥革命后，尊孔复古的逆流再次兴起，康有为继续主张“定孔教为国教”，提出“以人道为教，而亦兼存鬼神”，进一步模糊了世俗性道德与宗教性道德之间的界限，使儒学萌发出宗教神学的意味，成为阻碍民主科学思想发展的逆流，并影响了国家的发展走向。同时，帝国主义势力为了在中国攫取经济利益，掀起了狂热的侵略浪潮。他们不仅进行武力压迫和政治束缚，还勾结军阀势力以基督教为工具对我国实行文化侵略。此时，基督教在中国的传播已不仅仅是作为宗教神学荼毒中国人的思想，而且上升为“外国人软化中国的工具”。

Faced with the adverse situation of the poisoning of the Chinese people’s spirit and thought, and the crisis of national survival, opposing ghosts, spirits, and religious superstition and spreading scientific and atheist thought became the unshirkable responsibility of Yun Daiying as a progressive figure and patriotic patriot.

面对中国人思想精神饱受毒害的不利局面以及国家民族生死存亡的危机时刻，反对鬼神和宗教迷信、传播科学和无神论思想就成为身为先进人物、爱国志士的恽代英义不容辞的责任。

(B) The Course of Ideological Transformation and Becoming a Marxist

(二)思想转变历程与成为马克思主义者

Before establishing his Marxist faith, Yun Daiying was influenced by various modern ideologies, among which anarchism and utopian socialism had the most profound impact. After being admitted to Zhonghua University in 1913, Yun Daiying began to come into contact with anarchism. He read many works by anarchists, frequently corresponded with anarchists, and clearly expressed his affirmative attitude toward anarchism: “I have believed in anarchism for seven years. I am confident that I understand the truth of anarchism and have studied it carefully.” Among these influences, Yun Daiying was most deeply affected by Kropotkin’s anarcho-communism, yearning for an ideal life of mutual aid society achieved through the improvement of moral customs. In 1917, he founded the Mutual Aid Society, whose purpose was “pooling wisdom and efforts, self-help and helping others,” a name that “takes its meaning from Kropotkin’s new theory of evolution.” [3]3 The Cheng brothers refer to Cheng Hao (1032–1085) and Cheng Yi (1033–1107), Neo-Confucian philosophers of the Song dynasty. Zhu Xi (1130–1200) was the leading figure of the School of Principle in Neo-Confucianism. In reality, however, Yun Daiying’s attitude toward anarchism was always merely to “take its essence.” He once said, “I also do not discuss anarchism with those who advocate it, because most of them are radical, extreme, and strictly speaking, perhaps empty talkers, specious.” Moreover, the purpose of the Mutual Aid Society he established was merely “to serve the country and society.”

恽代英确立马克思主义信仰之前，曾受到多种近代思想的影响，其中无政府主义和空想社会主义的影响最为深远。1913年考入中华大学后，恽代英开始接触无政府主义，他阅读了很多无政府主义者的著作，还经常与无政府主义者进行书信交流，并明确表明了自己对无政府主义的肯定态度：“我信安那其主义已经七年了，我自信懂得安那其的真理，而且曾经细心的研究。”其中，恽代英受克鲁泡特金的无政府共产主义的影响最深，向往通过道德风尚的改善实现互助社会的理想生活，并于1917年创立了以“群策群力，自助助人”为宗旨的互助社，此社名也是“取克鲁泡特金新进化论的意义”。但实际上，恽代英对待无政府主义的态度始终只是“取其精义”。他曾这样说过，“我亦不同主张安那其的人说安那其，因为他们多半是激烈的，急进的，严格的说起来，还怕是空谈的，似是而非的”;而其所组建的互助社之目的也只是“伺候国家，伺候社会”。

Besides anarchist thought, Yun Daiying was also influenced by reformism, utopian socialism, and other ideologies before becoming a Marxist. For a long time, Yun Daiying hoped to save the country through gentle means such as education and reforming social customs. He advocated the theory of saving the nation through education and devoted himself to the educational cause after graduating from university. He also advocated “saving the nation through morality” and “saving the nation through character-building,” regarding “how to cultivate a kind of good force in society” as “the only method that those with aspirations should hold to save the country.” While emphasizing that the fundamental method for solving social problems was “discovering truth and cultivating popular virtue,” he also pointed out that all violent revolutions and assassinations “are not fundamental methods,” and that “Daiying does not approve of using them,” thereby negating violent revolution. These understandings led Yun Daiying to accept utopian socialist ideas such as the Village Movement and the Work-Study Mutual Aid Movement. [4]4 “City of the Great King” is a biblical reference to Jerusalem (see Psalm 48:2), which was conquered by the Roman Empire in 63 BCE, before the time of Jesus. In his diary of November 1919, he wrote: “Tanpu and I talked, and we both approve of organizing a new village in the future,” and expressed related hopes for the new village. In February of the following year, adhering to the hope of “having an opportunity to experiment with a life of ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’” and “having a good foundation for promoting the work-study mutual aid doctrine,” he founded the Liqun Book Society. [5]5 The anti-Christian movement was a series of campaigns in China in the 1920s, often led by the Chinese Communist Party and the Kuomintang left, opposing Christian missionary activity as a form of cultural imperialism. He also proposed that “in the future, we should start from rural primary education to establish the foundation of group undertakings and common life, gradually forming a large capital group to conquer the capitalists and realize socialism.”

除无政府主义思想外，恽代英在成为一名马克思主义者之前还受到了改良主义、空想社会主义等思想的影响。在很长一段时间里，恽代英都希望能通过教育、改良社会风俗等温和的方式拯救国家。他主张教育救国论，大学毕业后就投身教育事业。他还主张“道德救国”“立品救国”，把“如何能使社会中一种善势力之得以养成”，看作是有志之士“所应持以救国之惟一方法”。他在强调解决社会问题的根本方法为“发明真理，培植民德”之外，还指出一切暴力革命和暗杀“皆非根本方法”，“代英不赞成用之”，否定暴力革命。这些认识使恽代英接受了新村主义、工读互助主义等空想社会主义思想，曾在1919年11月的日记中这样写道：“我与香浦谈，都很赞成将来组织新村”，并提出对新村的有关企望。次年2月，他秉持着为了“有一个实验各尽所能、各取所需的生活的机会”“有一个推行工学互助主义的好根基”的盼望而创立了利群书社，还提出“以后拟从乡村小学教育立团体事业、共同生活的根基，渐成大资本团体，以征服资本家，实现社会主义”。

From the above, it can be seen that before becoming a steadfast Marxist, Yun Daiying’s thought was in a pluralistic and complex state, but its foundation was patriotism and its essential characteristic was democracy. In other words, patriotic thought was the底色 [6]6 The Way (道) – A central concept in Chinese philosophy, here referring to the natural order or moral truth, as distinct from theistic revelation. of Yun Daiying’s thought, running through his entire intellectual career. He once said: “I often recall that when I was thirteen or fourteen years old, what I imagined was only the character of ‘striking the oars midstream’ and ‘clearing the reins to purify the world.’” [7]7 The unity of knowledge and action (知行合一) – A key concept in Neo-Confucian philosophy, particularly associated with Wang Yangming, emphasizing that genuine knowledge inherently leads to action. Before searching for communism, Yun Daiying’s mainstream thought was democracy. This is not only because he published multiple articles such as *New Atheism*, *Skepticism*, *The Reality of Matter*, and *On Faith* to oppose feudal rites and superstitious ideas, and extensively engaged in anti-imperialist patriotic activities, becoming “a vanguard fighter of the New Culture Movement,” but also because he had already recognized the irrationality of social exploitation, advocated democratic equality, and held views on building a bourgeois democratic republic. In his maiden work *On Duty*, published in 1914, he not only stated, “Now, fortunately, the republic has been established,” but also profoundly exposed that the “theory of power,” which leads to inequality in wealth between people, is “the source of all contention in the world,” advocating that everyone should fulfill their due duties and powers. In *On the Original Distinction*, written in 1916, Yun Daiying further analyzed that the fundamental reason for the great chaos after the Xinhai Revolution lay in the unclear relationship between rights and duties, emphasizing that “rights are endowed by heaven, equal, and sacred and inviolable,” and that “everyone has their due rights to enjoy.” These were all “bourgeois democratic political and ethical views of building a democratic republic from the perspective of thought and ethics.” In his 1917 diary, he offered suggestions for the de facto demise of the Republic of China: “I believe that a republic should advocate simplicity and reject vanity.” In 1920, he specially wrote the article *The Ninth Year of the Republic of China*, expressing his sincere hope that the republic

由上可知，在成为一名坚定的马克思主义者之前，恽代英的思想呈现一种多元复杂的状态，但其基础是爱国主义，本质特征是民主主义。换言之，爱国主义思想是恽代英思想的底色，贯穿他整个思想生涯的始终。他曾这样说道：“我常回想到在我十三四岁的时候，所想象的只是‘中流击楫’、‘揽辔澄清’的人格。”在寻找共产主义之前，恽代英的主流思想是民主主义，这不仅因为他发表了《新无神论》《怀疑论》《物质实在论》《论信仰》等多篇文章反对封建礼教和迷信思想，并广泛地展开反帝爱国活动，成为“新文化运动冲锋陷阵的斗士”，更是因为他已经认识到社会剥削的不合理，提倡民主平等，且有建设资产阶级民主共和国的主张。他在1914年发表的处女作《义务论》中不仅表示“顾今则共和幸告成矣”，还深刻揭露了导致人与人之间贫富差距的不平等的“权力论”是“天下争攘之泉源也”，主张人人应各尽其分内的义务和权力；在1916年创作的《原分》中，恽代英进一步分析了辛亥革命后时局大乱的根本原因在于权利与义务关系的不明了，强调“权利者，天赋而平等，神圣不可侵犯之物也”，“人各有其应享之权利”，这些均为“从思想上和伦理上建设民主共和国的资产阶级民主主义的政治观和伦理观”;在1917年的日记中，他对中华民国名存实亡的现状提出建议，“窃以共和国宜崇尚朴实，屏去虚华”;1920年，他特地作了《中华民国九年》一文，表达了自己对民国能够真正实现独立民主的诚恳盼望。可以说，恽代英实际上是由一个民主主义者转变为马克思主义者的。

But this transformation was not accomplished overnight. From March 1920 to early 1921 was a period of rapid change in Yun Daiying’s thought: he began to doubt and abandon many of the doctrines he had previously believed in, yet he did not completely break with them; he began to understand and accept Marxism, and prepared himself to ultimately become a member of the Chinese Communist Party.

但是这种转变不是一蹴而就的。1920年3月到1921年初是恽代英思想急速转变的时期：他开始怀疑与放弃过去自己所信仰的诸多主义，但也没有与这些主义彻底决裂；开始了解与接受马克思主义，并为最终成为一名中国共产党人做准备。

On the one hand, as the Liqun Book Society faced severe operational difficulties, the educational enterprise encountered setbacks, and the Beijing Work-Study Mutual Aid Group declared failure, Yun Daiying began to question anarchism, utopian socialism, reformism, and other ideas and measures, but he had not yet completely abandoned them. In his 1920 article “How to Create a Young China?” Yun Daiying rejected anarchism, pointing out that “if we day by day walk the path of being plundered, yet talk about anarchism, this is merely a heretical way of cutting flesh to feed a tiger, a slanderous act of drawing water from a well to save a man,” but he also said at the same time that “the world should not only be democratic, but also anarchic—these words I truly believe.” In October of the same year, in his article “The Future Dream,” he acknowledged that “the individualistic new village was wrong,” and in the following month’s article “On Socialism,” he attributed the failure of the new village movement to “the altruistic instinct failing to encounter appropriate stimuli” and “excessive neglect of external development,” while its internal successes were also “destroyed and frustrated by partial evil forces, unable to continue to exist.” At the same time, he also pointed out, “I believe the necessity of class revolution is as real as the necessity of the new village.” In his April 1920 “Respectful Notice to the Faculty and Students of Higher Normal Schools,” he still stated that education was “a tool for transforming the world,” showing that he had not yet shaken off reformist thought. Yun Daiying broke more thoroughly with work-study mutualism. In his 1920 “How to Create a Young China?” he stated, “We must know that although work-study is a good thing, it is not an easy thing for those whose life capabilities are insufficient; we should not blindly follow and act rashly.” In a June 1921 letter to Wang Guangqi, he further analyzed that “economic oppression and insufficient ability are the reasons for the failure of the Work-Study Mutual Aid Group,” indicating that he had already abandoned work-study mutualism.

一方面，随着利群书社的经营状况困难重重、教育事业的困境以及北京工读互助团宣告失败，恽代英开始质疑无政府主义、空想社会主义、改良主义等思想与措施，但还没有彻底抛弃。在1920年的《怎样创造少年中国？》一文中，恽代英否定了无政府主义，指出“若我们一天天走受掠夺的路，却谈什么无政府主义，这只是割肉饲虎的左道，从井救人的诬说”，但他同时又说“世界不但应为德莫克拉西的，而且应为安那其的，这些话我实在深信”。同年10月，他在《未来之梦》一文里，承认“个人主义的新村是错了”，并在次月的《论社会主义》一文中，将新村运动的失败归咎于“利他的本能因为遇不着适当的刺激”，“太疏忽了对外的发展”，而对内的成功也被“部分恶势力所摧毁挫丧，不能继续存在”。同时，他又指出“我信阶级革命的必要，与新村的必要一样真实”。在1920年4月的《敬告高等师范教职员及学生》中，他仍表示教育是“改造世界的工具”，可见他还没有摆脱改良主义思想。恽代英对工读互助主义摆脱的更彻底些，在1920年的《怎样创造少年中国？》中，他表示“我们要知道工读虽是好事，究竟在生活能力不充实的人，不是容易做到的事，不要轻易的盲从妄动呢”。在次年6月的《致王光祈》中，他又分析“经济压迫，能力不足，为工读互助团失败的理由”，表明他已经放弃了工读互助主义。

On the other hand, in the course of struggle and practice, Yun Daiying saw the strength of the working class and began to gradually come into contact with and accept Marxism. At the end of 1919, commissioned by *New Youth*, he translated and published Kautsky’s *Class Struggle*, and the following year he translated parts of Engels’ *The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State*. In May 1920, when Yun Daiying compiled a book list for the *Young China Association Series*, he placed *Marx and His Doctrine* first among 26 books, also including works such as *Historical Materialism* and *Bolshevism*, which fully reflected his ideological inclination at the time. In March of the same year, in “How to Create a Young China?” Yun Daiying publicly stated that he did not hold an absolutely negative attitude toward the Marxist theory of class struggle and violent revolution: “I think that any reasonable and sensible person may not believe that political activity or bloodshed is a necessary means; but if they clearly encounter a situation where political activity or bloodshed is a simple and powerful means of transformation, or even see it as the unique and unavoidable means of transformation, there is no reason why they would not approve of adopting political activity or bloodshed as a means.” In his November 1920 article “On Socialism,” he further stated, “Relying on the stimulus of class war, the capitalists can certainly be overthrown, and private ownership can certainly be broken.” It can be seen that the transformation of Yun Daiying’s thought during this period fully prepared him ideologically and theoretically to eventually become a member of the Chinese Communist Party.

另一方面，恽代英在斗争实践中看到了工人阶级的力量，开始逐渐接触与接受马克思主义。1919年底，他受《新青年》委托翻译出版了考茨基的《阶级斗争》一书，次年又翻译了恩格斯的《家庭、私有制和国家的起源》一书的部分内容。1920年5月，恽代英为《少年中国学会丛书》编辑书单时，把《马克司(思)及其学说》一书放在26套书的首位，同时也包含了《唯物史观》《布尔什塞尔》等书籍，这充分反映了他当时的思想倾向。同年3月，恽代英在《怎样创造少年中国？》中曾公开表示对马克思主义阶级斗争和暴力革命并不持绝对否定的态度，“我想只要平情达理的人，他或者不信政治活动或流血是必要的手段；然果遇着显见政治活动或流血，为简捷有力的改造手段的时候，甚至于显见其为改造的独一无二不可逃避的手段的时候，亦没有不赞成取用政治活动或流血的手段的道理”。在同年11月发表的《论社会主义》一文中，他又表示“凭着阶级战争的激励，资本家固然一定可以推翻，私有制固然一定可以打破”。可以看到，这一时期恽代英思想的转变为他最终成为一名中国共产党人做了充分的思想与理论准备。

During the period from early 1921 to the founding of the Coexistence Society in July, Yun Daiying completed his transformation from a democrat with diverse, complex, and conflicting ideas to a Marxist with communist beliefs. The main factor accelerating this ideological transformation was the great debate over whether socialism was suitable for China’s national conditions. In this debate, Liu Renjing explicitly stated his disapproval of Yun Daiying’s anarchist and new village ideas, sincerely criticizing some of the views in Yun Daiying’s “The Future Dream.” Chen Duxiu also criticized Yun Daiying’s “The Future Dream,” and Lin Yunan expressed to Yun Daiying his inclination toward violent revolution. Although Yun Daiying did not respond to their criticisms, it is clear that these criticisms had a significant impact on his thinking. In an April 1921 letter to Shen Zemin and Gao Yuhan, he expressed complete agreement with Shen Zemin’s view that “the education problem, like all problems, cannot be solved unless the entire social problem is transformed,” indicating that Yun Daiying had completely shaken off the influence of reformist thought. In July 1921, Yun Daiying went to Nanjing to attend the annual meeting of the Young China Association. At this time, internal divisions within the association were severe, and intellectuals with incipient communist ideas engaged in fierce struggle with right-wing elements advocating reformism. Initially, Yun Daiying adopted a conciliatory attitude, but when he realized that the split of the association was inevitable, he resolutely advocated for division. In a November 1921 letter to Yang Zhongjian, Yun Daiying recalled and explained this shift in his stance: “Privately, I have recently come to strongly hope that the association becomes a Bolshevik-type group; this is a great change in my thinking since the annual meeting, and I will elaborate on it in another article soon.” This indicates that Yun Daiying had recognized class struggle, accepted the dictatorship of the proletariat, and hoped to establish a Bolshevik-style political party in China. The Coexistence Society was founded in July 1921, with its purpose being “to actively and practically prepare, to strive for the realization of class struggle and the political power of the laboring peasants, so as to achieve the goal of the common coexistence of humanity.” This fully demonstrates that Yun Daiying had achieved a great transformation in his worldview and had established his faith in Marxism.

1921年初到7月创办共存社的这一时期，恽代英完成了从思想多元复杂且冲突的民主主义者到具有共产主义信仰的马克思主义者的转变。促进其思想加快转变的主要原因是那场关于社会主义是否适合中国国情的大论争。在这场论争中，刘仁静明确提出不赞成恽代英的无政府主义和新村主义思想，诚恳批评了恽代英在《未来之梦》一文中的一些观点，陈独秀也对恽代英的《未来之梦》提出了批评，林育南向恽代英表达了自己对暴力革命的倾向。恽代英虽然未对他们的批评作出回应，但显然这些批评给他的思想带来了很大冲击。1921年4月，在《致沈泽民、高语罕》中，他表示完全同意沈泽民关于“教育问题，正和一切问题一样，非把全部社会问题改造好了，是不得会解决的”的观点，这表明恽代英彻底摆脱了改良主义思想的影响。1921年7月，恽代英前往南京参加了少年中国学会年会。此时学会内部分歧严重，具有初步共产主义思想的知识分子与主张改良主义的右翼分子展开了激烈的斗争。起初，恽代英在其中采取调和的态度，但当他认识到学会分裂已不可避免之时便坚决主张分裂。在1921年11月所作的《致杨钟健》一文中，恽代英回忆并阐述了自己这一立场的转变：“我私意近来并很望学会为波歇维式的团体，这是年会后思想的大改变，不久将另文陈述。”这表明恽代英认可了阶级斗争，承认无产阶级专政，希望能够在中国建立起布尔塞维克式的政党。1921年7月共存社成立，其宗旨是“以积极切实的预备，企求阶级斗争、劳农政治的实现，以达到圆满的人类共存为目的”，这充分地表明恽代英已实现了世界观的伟大转变，确立了对马克思主义的信仰。

Accompanying the course of Yun Daiying’s ideological transformation, his system of atheist thought also underwent a transformation from shallow to deep. Judging from his early works related to atheism, such as *New Atheism*, *Skepticism*, *My Outlook on Life*, *The Reality of Matter*, and *On Faith*, before establishing his Marxist faith, Yun Daiying already held a materialist atheist outlook and used it to analyze religious issues. However, his atheist thought at that time was not yet mature; it not only contained contradictions but also failed to break free from the shackles of historical idealism. After establishing his Marxist faith, Yun Daiying specifically wrote the article *My View on Religion*, using historical materialism to analyze the essence, origin, and laws of development of religion. At this point, his Marxist scientific atheist thought gradually matured.

伴随着恽代英思想转变的历程，其无神论思想体系也经历了由浅入深的转变。从早期的《新无神论》《怀疑论》《我之人生观》《物质实在论》《论信仰》等与无神论的相关著作来看，恽代英在确立马克思主义信仰之前，就已持有唯物主义的无神论观并以此来分析宗教问题，但彼时他的无神论思想还不够成熟，不仅具有矛盾性，也没有冲破历史唯心主义的束缚。在确立马克思主义信仰之后，恽代英专门写作了《我的宗教观》一文，用历史唯物主义来分析宗教的本质、起源和发展规律；此时，他的马克思主义科学无神论思想逐渐走向成熟。

(III) Reflection on and Transcendence of Old Atheism

(三)对旧无神论的反思与超越

“Old atheism” is a term used in contrast to the “new atheism” advocated by Yun Daiying. Its core viewpoint, simply put, takes “whatever one does not know, one does not believe” as its core logic, denying the existence of God. In other words, it holds that the existence of God cannot be explained by human common sense, and therefore concludes that God does not exist.

“旧无神论”是相对于恽代英所提倡的“新无神论”而言的，其核心观点简单来说就是以“凡其所不知者，即为不信”为核心逻辑，否定神的存在；换言之，即认为神的存在是人类无法用常理解释的，因此断定神是不存在的。

However, Yun Daiying criticized its reasoning as overly simplistic and mechanical, overlooking the logical possibility that “not knowing” might also lead to “believing.” Specifically, he questioned the validity of old atheist logic from the two dimensions of the “refined” (雅) and the “vulgar” (俗). From the “refined” dimension, modern Western philosophers, taking the scope of cognition as their basis, divided all things in the world into two parts: the “conceivable” and the “inconceivable.” Conceivable things are those that humans can explain through common sense; inconceivable things are those that humans cannot explain through common sense. They generally held that God belongs to the inconceivable category. For example, Kant believed that although the existence or non-existence of God transcends the scope of cognition, “when one observes the arrangement of the world, which is mutually fitting, one cannot but acknowledge that the work of God is manifest therein”; Spencer proposed that “though Heaven is unknowable, it cannot be said that it must not exist,” and so on. Thus it can be seen that, taking the unknowability of God as their starting point, modern Western philosophers did not directly reach the conclusion of “disbelief” as the old atheists did, but instead inclined toward “belief.” This proves that “not knowing God” logically has two possibilities, “disbelief” and “belief”; therefore, the old atheists’ rebuttal “because we do not know, therefore we do not believe” is untenable in the face of the theist thought of modern Western philosophers. From the “vulgar” dimension, people in the empirical world, whether gentlemen or commoners, can all speak fluently about theistic ideas. Even Edison believed that believing in ghosts and spirits was not entirely without merit. Although they, too, did not know the details of God, they still believed in and discussed God’s existence. Therefore, this overly mechanical and primitive atheist view, which directly deduces “disbelief” from “not knowing,” is insufficient to convince the universal acceptance of theistic thought among the people of the world. Thus it can be seen that old atheism, “disregarding all the traditions of the refined and vulgar, ancient and modern, and the accounts of all nations in the world, arbitrarily asserts that ghosts and spirits are vain and baseless talk,” and although its proposition was broadly correct in direction, its reasons were too mechanical, primitive, and shallow, fundamentally “not permitted by the laws of logic,” and could not achieve a powerful critique of theism.

然而，恽代英批判其推理过于简单机械，忽视了“不知”逻辑同时也可能导向“相信”。具体而言，他从“雅”与“俗”两个维度对旧无神论逻辑的有效性提出了质疑。从“雅”的维度来看，近代西方的哲学家们以认识范围为依据，将天下事物划分为“可思议”与“不可思议”两部分。可思议之事物是指人类能用常理解释的事物，不可思议之事物是指人类无法用常理解释的事物。他们普遍认为，神属于不可思议的范畴。例如，康德认为，虽然神的有无超越了认识范围，但“观世界之布置，适互相宜，即不能不承认有上帝之作为，显于其间”;斯宾塞尔则提出“天虽不可知，然不可谓必无”等。由此可见，同样以神不可知为出发点，近代西方哲学家们并没有像旧无神论者那样直接得出“不信”的结论，反而倾向于“相信”。这证明，“不知神”在逻辑上具有“不信”和“信”两种可能性，因此旧无神论者“因为不知所以不信”的反驳在近代西方哲学家的有神论思想面前是站不住脚的。从“俗”的维度来看，经验世界中的人，无论是君子还是凡夫俗子，都能对有神的思想侃侃而谈。就连爱迪生都认为信鬼神并非全无可取之处。对于神，他们虽然也不知其详，但依然相信并谈论神的存在。因此，从“不知”直接得出“不信”的这种过于机械、原始的无神论观点，并不足以说服天下人对于有神思想的普遍认同。由此可见，旧无神论“不顾古今雅俗一切之传说，与世界各国之称述，武断以为鬼神为虚妄无稽之谈”，其主张虽然大方向正确，但理由过于机械、原始和浅薄，根本“不是逻辑规律所许”，无法实现对有神论的有力抨击。

Yun Daiying recognized that constructing a scientific system of atheism required transcending the limitations of traditional atheism. Drawing on dialectical materialism and historical materialism, he reconstructed the theoretical foundation of atheism with a more systematic philosophical method.

恽代英认识到，构建科学的无神论体系需要超越传统无神论的局限。他借助辩证唯物主义和唯物史观，以更为系统的哲学方法重构无神论的理论基础。

(4) The Theoretical Cornerstone and Core Framework of New Atheism

(四)新无神论的理论基石与核心框架

First, the fundamental stance of atheism is the theory of the reality of matter. Taking the theory of the reality of matter as his foothold, Yun Daiying criticized idealist theism. He believed that theism belongs to the objective school of idealism, which does not recognize the reality of matter and regards God as the “universal mind” that controls the development of the universe, “asserting that all external things and internal mind are phenomena of God.” Yun Daiying criticized the fantastical nature of idealist theism and clearly stated, “I believe that matter must be real.” He pointed out that although we cannot directly see external things, humans can only produce perceptions through the stimulation of external things; therefore, external things necessarily exist. External things are divided into the real and the illusory. The real realm is objective material reality, which does not change according to human subjective will; the illusory realm is entirely subjective activity. Because the real realm necessarily has stable objects of perception, “the real realm can be divided, can be combined, has causes, has effects, while the illusory realm is entirely the opposite.” Therefore, if a certain thing can produce consistent feelings in all people, or consistent sensory experiences in a single person at any time, without changing due to changes in the subject, then we can conclude that this thing is objectively real and does not change according to human will.

首先，无神论的根本立场是物质实在论。恽代英以物质实在论为立足点，批判唯心主义有神论。他认为，有神论属于唯心主义客观派，不承认物质的实在性，将神视为操控宇宙发展的“普遍之心灵”，“谓一切外物内心，均为神之现象”。恽代英批判了唯心主义有神论的奇幻性，明确提出“吾以为物质必为实在”。他指出，虽然我们不能直接看见外物，但人只有通过外物的刺激才能产生知觉，因此外物是必然存在的。外物有真幻之分，真境是客观的物质实在，不以人的主观意志为转移；而幻境则是完全主观的活动。由于真境必然有稳定的感知对象，“真境可分拆，可集合，有原因，有结果，而幻境一切反是”。因此，如果某一事物能使所有人感受一致，或使一个人在任何时候都拥有一致的感官体验，不会因主体的变化而变化，那么我们就能断定这一事物是客观实在的，不以人的意志为转移。

Second, dialectical materialist epistemology: the unity of doubt and the pursuit of knowledge. Starting from dialectical materialist epistemology, Yun Daiying took the infinity of skepticism, the ascending nature of cognition, and the knowability of truth as the theoretical tools of his new atheism. Based on skepticism, he believed that “evolution in all aspects of the world originates from doubt,” and that only doubt is “the sole tool that promotes world evolution.” Therefore, regarding any matter, we cannot arbitrarily say “believe” or “disbelieve”; “my opinion is that we should maintain a skeptical attitude toward all principles; however, for matters that are doubted, we should investigate them; the results of investigation, we should still treat with a skeptical attitude.” But Yun Daiying’s view of skepticism was clearly different from that of modern Western philosophers; he did not treat skepticism as an end, “but rather regarded skepticism as a means or method for people to pursue truth.” For example, Pyrrho believed that even if humans continuously doubted what they knew, cognition could not advance further, because truth could not be obtained through investigation by humans, and therefore one had to rely on God. Yun Daiying, in contrast, emphasized the infinity and ascending nature of cognition, holding that the scope of human cognition “is by no means fixed and unchanging,” but “expands gradually with the progress of civilization.” Although truth is often finite, conditional, and relative, and there are still “inconceivable things” beyond the scope of human cognition, and the truths known to humans may not be true truths, truth is also unconditional and absolute. These “inconceivable things” are merely governed by scientific principles not yet generally discovered, and are temporarily unknown to people today. Therefore, we cannot arbitrarily attribute them to God. With the continuous progress of human intellect and science, “it is not absolutely impossible for humans to know all things in the world.” “What was formerly considered to have gods can today be partly explained by science; how can we know that what is now considered to have no gods will not, in the future, be partly explained by science, or even entirely explained by science?” The process by which people attain truth is an endless process of transformation and development from relativity to absoluteness. Thus it can be seen that Yun Daiying, starting from doubt, did not ultimately follow the path of the ancient Greek philosopher Pyrrho, “from skepticism to agnosticism and then to the worship of God,” but instead discarded theism, “discovered the knowability of human cognition from doubt, and finally found the goal and destination of doubt and cognition—benefiting humanity.”

其次，辩证唯物主义认识论：怀疑与求知的统一。恽代英从辩证唯物主义认识论出发，以怀疑论的无限性、认识的上升性以及真理的可知性等为其新无神论的理论工具。以怀疑论为基础，他认为“世界各方面的进化，都起源于怀疑”，只有怀疑才是“促世界进化的惟一工具”。因此，对于任何事物，我们不能武断地说“信”或“不信”，“我的意见，是以为对于一切事理，都要存一个怀疑的态度；然而对于怀疑的事理，应该研求；研求出来的结果，我们仍然要用个怀疑的态度看待他”。但恽代英的怀疑观与近代西方哲学家的怀疑观存在明显差异，他并不将怀疑当作目的，“而是把怀疑当作人们追求真理的一种途径或手段”。例如，辟罗(皮浪)认为，纵使人类对所知事物不断地进行怀疑，认识也无法更进一步，因为真理是无法被人研求得到的，因此需要依赖于神。而恽代英则强调认识的无限性和上升性，认为人的认识范围“决非一定而不变”，会“随文明之进化以渐次扩张者也”。虽然真理往往是有限的、有条件的和相对的，且现在仍有处于人认识范围之外的“不可思议者”，人们已知的真理也不一定是真正的真理。但是，真理又是无条件的、绝对的，这些“不可思议者”不过为一般尚未发明之科学原理所支配，因暂不为今人之所知耳。因此，我们不能武断地将其归于神。随着人类智识的不断进步和科学的不断发展，“人欲全知天下事事物物，实非绝对不可能之事”。“昔之以为有神者，在今日已有一部分可以科学解释之，又安知今之所以为不有神者，在他日不更有一部分亦可以科学解释之，或竟全部分尽可以科学解释之乎。”人们达到真理的过程就是一个从相对性走向绝对性的永无止境的转化和发展的过程。由此可见，恽代英从怀疑出发，却并未最终走上古希腊哲学家皮浪“从怀疑发展到不可知论进而到崇神”的道路，而是摒弃了有神论，“从怀疑中发掘了人类认识的可知性，并最终找到了怀疑和认识的目标归宿——益于人类”。

Third, using historical materialism to explain historical laws and the social roots of religion. In his essay “How to Create a Young China?” Yun Daiying clearly stated: “For my part, I strongly believe in the view of historical materialism; it holds that morality evolves with economic evolution.” Yun Daiying’s historical materialism was also closely linked to his revolutionary practice. In his essay “Historical Materialism and the National Revolution,” written in response to Dai Jitao’s opposition to using historical materialism to guide the national revolution, he offered a specialized discussion of historical materialism. He pointed out: “Anyone who does not study history from an idealist perspective, who does not acknowledge that all changes and evolutions in history are due to divine will or the actions of one or two heroes—but instead conducts a comprehensive study of all objective facts to discover their definite material causal relationships—is a ‘historical materialist.’” Yun Daiying not only used historical materialism to analyze revolutionary issues but also to negate the theist view that the objective laws of social and historical development are products of a universal spirit. He recognized that the mode of material production is the decisive force in social development, providing an important theoretical basis for revealing the reasons for believing in gods and the essence of theism.

第三，用唯物史观来阐释历史规律与宗教的社会根源。恽代英在《怎样创造少年中国？》一文中明确指出：我从一方面很信唯物史观的意见，他说道德是随经济演化而演化的。恽代英的唯物史观也与其革命实践活动紧密相连，他在针对戴季陶反对唯物史观指导国民革命所写的《唯物史观与国民革命》一文中，对唯物史观进行了专门论述。他指出：“凡是不以唯心的认识去研究历史，不承认历史上一切变通演化是由于神意或一二英雄所作——而对于一切客观的事实，作一综合的研究，以发现其一定的物质上之因果关系者，便都是个‘唯物史观者'。”恽代英不仅用唯物史观分析革命问题，还用于否定有神论把社会历史发展的客观规律看作是普遍精神的产物。他认可物质资料生产方式是社会发展的决定性力量，为揭示信神的原因与有神论的本质等提供了重要的理论依据。

II. The Main Content of Yun Daiying’s Atheist Thought: From Deconstruction to Reconstruction

二、恽代英无神论思想的主要内容：从解构到重建

Yun Daiying’s system of atheist thought, profound and systematic, mainly encompasses two dimensions: “destruction” (破) and “establishment” (立). “Destruction” is the critique and deconstruction of theism; “establishment” is the construction of a genuine system of moral motivation and life values on the basis of eliminating the space for theism to exist.

恽代英的无神论思想体系，深邃而系统，主要涵盖“破”与“立”两大维度。“破”是对有神论的批判与解构；“立”是在破除有神论存在空间的基础上，建立真正的道德动力和人生价值体系。

(1) “Destruction”: Critique and Negation of Theism

(一)“破”：对有神论的批判与否定

First, negating the existence and substance of God. Yun Daiying upheld a thoroughgoing skepticism, advocating that humanity should maintain a continuous and consistent skeptical attitude. In this process, he identified the “four obstacles to knowledge” (四蔽障害) that hinder humans from approaching absolute truth: the obstacle of custom, the obstacle of belief, the obstacle of the senses, and the obstacle of emotion. Among these, belief in God is a concrete manifestation of the obstacle of belief. Therefore, only by adhering to skepticism and questioning the existence and essence of God can one break through the obstacle of belief and thereby infinitely approach absolute truth.

首先，否定神的存在和本体。恽代英秉持一种彻底的怀疑观，主张人类应持续、一贯地保持怀疑态度。在此过程中，他识别出阻碍人类接近绝对真理的“四蔽障害”：习俗之蔽、信仰之蔽、耳目之蔽及感情之蔽。其中，对神的信仰正是信仰之蔽的具体体现。因此，唯有坚持怀疑论，质疑神的存在及其本质，方能冲破信仰之蔽，进而无限趋近绝对真理。

First, the negation of the existence of God. Yun Daiying firmly believed that the operation of the universe follows specific laws. For example, the theory of biological evolution reveals the inherent laws of the upward development of living things, and socio-economic development also presents a series of objective laws. These all confirm that there are necessary laws behind the development of things. Theists often attribute these laws to the dominion of a conscious, purposeful God. This view essentially regards the entire world as a world of consciousness, excessively exaggerating the role of consciousness. Using examples such as “steam power driving wheels and electric power transmitting messages,” Yun Daiying explained that cosmic activity includes both conscious and unconscious functions. Therefore, attributing the laws of the universe’s operation to God is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable. He explicitly stated: “I can only say that what governs this law is an Unseen Power; I cannot say it is a Supreme Being.” In his view, this “law” is in fact a natural law, an intrinsic, necessary, and spontaneous connection between things, not the embodiment of “God’s” will. Hence, God does not exist. Furthermore, Yun Daiying acknowledged the infinity and upward trajectory of human cognition. With the continuous progress of natural scientific knowledge, the evidence for the non-existence of gods and spirits will become increasingly conclusive.

其一，否定神的存在。恽代英坚信，宇宙运行遵循特定法则，如生物进化论揭示了生物向上发展的内在规律，社会经济发展亦呈现出一系列客观规律，这些均证实事物发展背后存在着必然法则。有神论者常将这些规律归因为有意识、有目的的神之主宰，此观点实际上将整个世界视为意识的世界，过度夸大了意识的作用。恽代英以“汽力驱动机轮、电力传达消息”等实例，说明宇宙活动既包含有意识作用，亦包含无意识作用。因此，有神论将宇宙运行规律归结为神之所为，显然武断且不合理。他明确指出：“我只能说主宰这法则的是个Unseen Power(看不见的力量)，不能说是Supreme Being(上帝)。”在他看来，此“法则”实为自然规律，是事物间内在的、必然的、自然而然的联系，并非“上帝”的意志体现，故上帝并不存在。此外，恽代英承认人类认识的无限性与上升性，随着自然科学知识的不断进步，天神不存在的证据将愈发确凿。

Second, the negation of the essence of God. God is in fact a product of human imagination. Because of their own imperfection, humans conceive of a perfect God endowed with consciousness and purpose. Yun Daiying believed that this logic itself is questionable, because a being that is not omniscient and omnipotent cannot create an omniscient and omnipotent existence, even in fantasy. He said: “Since those one or two people are not omniscient, the gods and spirits they imagine can by no means be omniscient. Since those one or two people are not omnipotent, the gods and spirits they imagine can by no means be omnipotent. This is very easy to understand.” In addition, Yun Daiying further questioned the omniscience, omnipotence, and perfection of God from the different perspectives of polytheism and monotheism. As for polytheism, different religions have different gods. Who exactly is the truly omniscient and omnipotent being is itself a matter of dispute. As for monotheism, Yun Daiying conducted an in-depth analysis of the Christian God. When Christ is regarded as a subjective existence, people’s love and worship of Christ is in fact love and worship of the ideal self. When Christ is regarded as an objective existence, Christ is also not absolutely perfect. For example, we can still find selfish character traits in Christ. Another example: “Are love and greatness really Christ’s exclusive patent?” The morality upheld by Christ had already appeared in ethical form in Greece and the Eastern countries five hundred years before his birth. Moreover, “Jesus’ personal character certainly has some commendable points, but at most it is no more than that of our country’s Confucius, Mencius, the Cheng brothers, and Zhu Xi.” [3]3 The Cheng brothers refer to Cheng Hao (1032–1085) and Cheng Yi (1033–1107), Neo-Confucian philosophers of the Song dynasty. Zhu Xi (1130–1200) was the leading figure of the School of Principle in Neo-Confucianism. Furthermore, Jesus was originally “a man of a conquered nation”; “Jesus’ ‘City of the Great King’ had long since fallen into the hands of foreign religions and foreign races.” [4]4 “City of the Great King” is a biblical reference to Jerusalem (see Psalm 48:2), which was conquered by the Roman Empire in 63 BCE, before the time of Jesus. Therefore, whether Christ is a subjective or objective existence, there is significant room to question his essence.

其二，否定神的本质。神实为人类想象的产物，人类因自身的不完满而构想出一个完满且拥有意识与目的的神。恽代英认为，这一逻辑本身值得怀疑，因为非全知全能的人类无法创造出一个全知全能的存在，即便只是幻想。他如是说：“彼一二人者，既非全知，则所想象之天神，决无由而全知。一二人者，既非全能，则所想象之天神，决无由而全能，此甚易知也。”此外，恽代英还从多神论与一神论的不同视角出发，进一步质疑了神的全知全能与完满属性。就多神论而言，不同宗教有不同之神，究竟谁才是真正全知全能的存在，本身即存争议。就一神论而言，恽代英对基督教的上帝进行了深入剖析。当基督被视为主观存在时，人们对基督的爱与崇拜实则是对理想自我的爱与崇拜。而当基督被视作客观存在时，基督也并非绝对完满。例如，我们仍能从基督身上发现利己的品格；再如，“实在爱与伟大，何曾是基督的专利？”基督所秉持的道德，在他出现五百年前就已在希腊及东方各国以伦理形式呈现，且“耶稣个人的人格，固然亦有一节可取之处，但亦至多不过如吾国孔孟程朱”。此外，耶稣本就是“亡国之民”，“耶稣的‘大君之城'，早已沦于异教异族之手”。因此，无论基督是主观还是客观存在，其本质均存在重大质疑空间。

Next, revealing the deep-seated reasons for believing in gods. In his “My View on Religion,” Yun Daiying deeply analyzed six major causes of the origin of religion: arising from fear, arising from hope, arising from misrecognition, arising from misunderstanding, arising from aesthetic feeling, and arising from imagination. These six causes can ultimately be reduced to two categories: “instinctive emotions” and “intellectual obscurity.” Among these, instinctive emotions are innate to humans, while intellectual obscurity is rooted in the insufficient development of human cognitive levels caused by the limitations of the material production level at a given stage. This reflects that “Yun Daiying focused on explaining the causes of religion from the perspective of human understanding of society and nature, reflecting his correct grasp of the basic viewpoints of historical materialism.” He analyzed that primitive people, due to extremely low levels of productive forces and extremely backward intellectual levels, could not explain natural phenomena such as the sun, moon, wind, clouds, thunder, and lightning, and felt fear toward the laws of the universe and nature. They therefore imagined an omnipotent god to lead them in avoiding disasters. Although modern people have greatly improved cognitive levels compared to primitive people, they still face unsolved mysteries such as the origin of all things. Therefore, they may continue to mistakenly attribute these to the existence of gods. In Yun Daiying’s view, these people are either without knowledge or have simple knowledge. They lack clear thinking, do not contemplate the fundamental reasons for the existence of religion, and even less recognize the essential laws of the development of things and the upward and infinite nature of human cognition. Thus, they blindly believe in the existence of gods without careful study. As Yun Daiying said regarding the Christian view of God, “Believing in God is a matter of people forcibly imposing an explanation on facts that are incomprehensible to them.”

其次，揭示信神的深层缘由。恽代英在《我的宗教观》中深入剖析了宗教起源的六大原因：起于恐怖、起于希望、起于误认、起于误解、起于美感、起于想象。这六大原因归根结底可归结为“本能的情感”与“智识的暧昧”两大类。其中，本能的情感是人类与生俱来的，而智识的暧昧则根源于一定阶段物质生产水平局限所导致的人类认识水平发展不足，这反映了“恽代英着重从人对社会自然方面的认识来解释宗教产生的原因，反映了他对历史唯物主义基本观点的正确把握”。他分析指出，原始人由于生产力发展水平极端低下，智力水平极为落后，无法解释日月风云、电闪雷鸣等自然现象，又对宇宙自然规律感到恐惧，便想象出全能的神以引领自己躲避灾害。现代人虽较原始人认识水平有极大提升，但仍面临万物本原等未解之谜，因此有可能因误认而继续将其归咎于神的存在。在恽代英看来，这些人或是无智识，或是智识简单，他们缺乏清晰的思维，不会思考宗教存在的根本，更认识不到事物发展的本质规律以及人类认识的向上性与无限性，从而对神的存在不加精密研究便盲目信奉。就如恽代英对基督教中上帝的看法，“信上帝乃人于不可解之事实而强加以解释之谈”。

Although Yun Daiying, when summarizing the reasons for believing in gods, did not explicitly analyze the social roots of theism, nor did he explicitly point out that the origin of theistic fantasy lies in the objective material world, he did clearly state in that article that belief in gods is an “irrational belief.” It appears to give comfort to people in pain, but in reality it “merely makes people forget the urgent necessity of rational material correction.” Therefore, we can consider that Yun Daiying had already recognized that theism serves the purpose of covering up the unjust and unsound world caused by economic oppression and class oppression. That is, the social and historical roots of religion lie in the social and historical conditions composed of various objective factors. This is in fact a supplementary discussion of the social roots of religion.

尽管恽代英在总结信神原因时未明确分析有神论的社会根源，未明确指出有神论幻想的本源在于客观的物质世界。但他在该文中明确指出对神的信仰是一种“非理智的信仰”，看起来是在给痛苦中的人以安慰，实际上是“徒然使人忘了理智的物质上改正的切要”，因此我们可以认为，恽代英已经认识到有神论服务于遮掩由经济压迫和阶级压迫所导致的不公正、不健全世界的目的，即宗教产生的社会历史根源存在于由各种客观因素组成的社会历史条件中，这实际上是对宗教社会根源的补充性论述。

Again, exposing the essential features of theism. Yun Daiying clearly pointed out that God is in fact a product of human subjective imagination. In his “On Skepticism,” he stated categorically: “As far as I know, what religion calls gods and spirits are certainly not the essence of gods and spirits; they are merely the products of the imagination of one or two people.” From the perspective of material realism, the key to distinguishing whether matter has objective reality lies in judging whether a thing is a true realm or an illusory realm. The existence of God cannot achieve consensus among all people, nor can it make a single person have consistent sensory experiences at all times. Therefore, God as an object of perception is unstable and illusory; it must be an illusory realm rather than a true realm, entirely subjective rather than objectively real.

再次，揭露有神论的本质面貌。恽代英明确指出，神实为人类主观想象的产物。他在《怀疑论》中斩钉截铁地表示：“以吾所知，宗教之所谓天神必非天神之本体，不过出于一二人之想象而已。”从物质实在论的观点出发，区分物质是否具有客观实在性，关键在于判断此物是真境还是幻境。神的存在无法使所有人达成一致，也无法使一个人在任何时候都有一致的感官体验，因此神作为感知对象是不稳定的、虚幻的，必然是幻境而非真境，是完全主观的而非客观实在。

Yun Daiying not only believed that all objects of theistic belief and worship are products of psychological fantasy and do not exist objectively, but also further recognized that this fantasy does not arise from nothing; rather, it is a reflection of the natural and social forces manifested in the objective material world. After becoming a Marxist, Yun Daiying published several articles serving the anti-Christian movement of the time, [5]5 The anti-Christian movement was a series of campaigns in China in the 1920s, often led by the Chinese Communist Party and the Kuomintang left, opposing Christian missionary activity as a form of cultural imperialism. profoundly analyzing the essential characteristics of Christianity in the context of imperialist aggression. He therefore called Christianity “a tool for foreigners to soften China” and “a weapon for imperialism to threaten and oppress us,” stating that its power “is entirely built on an economic foundation” and that it preached by relying on economic superiority. It can be seen that Yun Daiying recognized the essence of religion as a tool of class exploitation and oppression in class society. It is precisely because of these external forces that dominate people’s daily lives that people “rely on religion to seek comfort,” conceiving an ideal god, thereby obtaining spiritual and emotional sustenance. God is in fact the ideal self that humans shape in an imperfect and unsound society. Therefore, the essence of theism is that humans created God, not that God created humans.

恽代英不仅认为有神论信仰与崇拜的所有对象均是心理幻想的产物，客观上并不存在，还进一步认识到这一幻想并非凭空而来，而是对客观物质世界表现出来的自然力量与社会力量的反映。在成为马克思主义者之后，恽代英服务于当时的非基督教运动发表了多篇文章，深刻剖析了帝国主义侵略背景下基督教的本质特征，他因此称基督教是“外国人软化中国的工具”、是“帝国主义威胁强压我们的武器”，其势力“完全建筑在经济上面”，是挟经济优势以传教。可见，恽代英看到了宗教在阶级社会中作为阶级剥削和压迫的工具而存在的本质。正是由于这些支配着人们日常生活的外部力量，使人们“靠宗教去求安慰”，构想出一个理想的神，从而获得精神与情感上的寄托。神其实是人类在不完满、不健全的社会中塑造出的理想自我。因此，有神论的实质是人创造了神，而非神创造了人。

Finally, criticizing the social harm of theism. Yun Daiying criticized theism mainly in three dimensions: the paralyzing effect of religion as “irrational comfort,” its hindrance to the development of science and knowledge, and its function as a tool of class oppression and national aggression. Yun Daiying severely criticized religion for using a false “theory of comfort” to paralyze people’s minds, diverting people’s attention from the imperfect and unsound real world and turning them toward God for solace. This “irrational comfort” easily “leads people to laziness, leads people astray,” and even makes people forget “the urgent necessity of rational material correction,” thereby hindering the development of human society and civilization. Therefore, what humanity needs is not an irrational belief like theism that makes people lazy, but rather to analyze the existence of God from the standpoint of materialism, to overcome emotion with reason, to carry out material correction, and to strive to break the imperfection and unsoundness of the real world. As Yun Daiying said, “If humans can thoroughly understand the biological view of life and the economic view of history, and everyone works hard to find a long-term and stable solution, that may well be the fundamental resolution of all problems.”

最后，批判有神论的社会危害。恽代英主要在宗教作为“非理智的安慰”的麻痹作用、对科学与智识发展的阻碍以及作为阶级压迫和民族侵略的工具三个维度上对有神论展开批判。恽代英严厉批判了宗教利用虚假的“安慰论”麻痹人心，将人们的视线从不圆满、不健全的现实世界移开，转向神寻求慰藉。这种“非理智的安慰”容易“引人懒惰，引人入于歧途”，甚至使人忘却“理智的物质上改正的切要”，从而阻碍人类社会与文明的发展。因此，人类所需的并非如有神论这种使人懒惰的非理智信仰，而是应站在唯物主义的高度分析神的存在，用理智战胜情感，进行物质上的改正，努力打破现实世界的不圆满与不健全。正如恽代英所言，“人类若真能把生物学的人生观、经济学的历史观，懂得透彻，大家努力图个长治久安之策，未始非一切问题的根本解决”。

Theism also seriously obstructs the evolution of human intellect and the progress of scientific research. First, Yun Daiying held: “If one must, like the religious, establish a firm faith, then in the future it will inevitably become a burden on the evolution of their intellect.” People who hold theistic beliefs often firmly believe in God, and even if God conflicts with the Way (道), they will abandon the Way and follow God. In this way, it is bound to affect people’s spirit of doubt, thereby obstructing the evolution of human intellect. Second, from a historical perspective, theism and science are inherently mutually exclusive and incompatible. As Yun Daiying said, “The worst defect of believing in miracles is that it slackens and obstructs the progress of scientific research.”

有神论还会严重阻碍人类智识的进化与科学研究的进步。首先，恽代英认为：“如必如宗教家，为之立一坚固之信仰，则异日必为其智识进化之累矣。”持有神论信仰的人往往笃信于神，即便神与道相互冲突，也会弃道从神。如此一来，势必会影响人们的怀疑精神，从而阻碍人类智识的进化。其次，有神论与科学从历史角度来看本就相互排斥、互不兼容。正如恽代英所言，“信神迹最坏的毛病，是松懈而且阻碍科学研究的进步”。

Furthermore, theism also becomes a tool of class oppression and foreign aggression. When analyzing the imperialist policy of aggression, Yun Daiying pointed out that imperialist countries, to meet the needs of their own capitalist development, carry out economic aggression against weak and small countries through military force and political power; at the same time, to tame them into forgetting hatred and resistance, they often combine this with a policy of appeasement and carry out cultural aggression. Yun Daiying believed that theistic thought was precisely one of the important means of this “policy of appeasement,” mainly reflected in two aspects: First, theism, as an “irrational faith,” provides psychological comfort to weak and small nations suffering aggression, oppression, and facing existential crises and developmental difficulties, making them forget or even abandon active resistance, thereby consolidating the fruits of imperialist aggression. For example, “propagating the superstition of God, Jesus, heaven, and hell, so that weak and small nations pay no attention to the immediate suffering they experience, but instead hope to cultivate their moral conduct in order to seek future happiness in the illusory and vague.” Second, theistic organizations often collude with imperialism, using the pretext of conveying divine will and promoting divinity to carry out actions that appear beneficial to society but are in fact hypocritical acts built on exploitation, cloaking their shameless deeds in the garb of legitimacy and rationality under the cover of divine charity, thereby undermining the national spirit of weak and small nations. For example, although Christianity advocates “saving the nation through personality” and has done many public welfare projects that seem beneficial to society, church schools “completely disregard students’ psychology and teaching methods,” and Christian hospitals also disregard patients’ interests; they are all “mainly deceiving people into becoming their followers.” Just as “we admit that roast pig is delicious, but we cannot burn down the house to get this kind of roast pig,” imperialism used the “roast pig”-like Christian charity to cover up the fact that it had already set fire to the “house” on which the Chinese nation depends for survival, causing great harm to the Chinese people’s national spirit.

另外，有神论还会成为阶级压迫和对外侵略的工具。恽代英在分析帝国主义的侵略政策时指出，帝国主义国家为了自身资本主义发展的需要，会通过武力和政治势力对弱小国家实施经济侵略；同时，为了驯服他们忘记仇恨与反抗，往往又配合以怀柔政策，施行文化侵略。恽代英认为有神思想正是这种“怀柔政策”的重要手段之一，这主要体现在两个方面：一是有神论作为“非理智的信仰”，通过给正遭遇侵略、压迫以及处在民族生存危机与发展困境中的弱小民族心理安慰，使他们忘记甚至放弃行动上的反抗，从而巩固帝国主义的侵略成果。例如“宣传上帝耶稣天堂地狱的迷信，使弱小民族不注意眼前所受切身的痛苦，而希冀修身行道，以求将来的幸福于虚无缥缈之中”。二是有神论组织往往与帝国主义相勾结，以传达神意、发扬神性为由开展一些看似有益于社会，实则是建立在剥削基础上的假仁假义的行为，以神的慈善事业为遮掩为自身的无耻行径披上正当性、合理性的外衣，破坏弱小民族的民族精神。例如，基督教虽然主张“人格救国”，并做了很多看似有益于社会的公益事业，但教会学校“全不管学生心理、教学方法”，基督教医院也不管病人的利益，它们都“主要是在骗人做他们的教徒”。正如“我们认承烤猪是好吃的，但是我们不能烧了房子去得着这种烤猪”，帝国主义利用“烤猪”般的基督教慈善事业掩盖了其已纵火烧掉中华民族赖以生存的“房屋”的事实，对中国人的民族精神产生了极大伤害。

In summary, through his critique of theism, Yun Daiying revealed the irrationality and harm of theism from philosophical and social levels, laying a theoretical foundation for establishing an atheist thought based on science and reason. The next section will explore how, on the basis of this “destruction,” he constructed a positive moral system and life values.

综上，通过批判有神论，恽代英从哲学与社会层面揭示了有神论的不合理性与危害，为建立以科学和理性为基础的无神论思想奠定了理论基础。下一部分将探讨他如何在“破”的基础上，构建积极的道德体系与人生价值观。

(II) “Establishment”: The Construction of Moral Motivation and Life Values

(二)“立”：道德动力与人生价值的构建

On the basis of critiquing theistic thought, Yun Daiying further explored how to construct a moral system and the meaning of life within an atheist framework. His thought on “establishment” mainly includes opposing fideism, exploring the origin of the concept of human goodness, revealing the roots of intellect, and reinterpreting the purpose and value of life.

在批判有神论思想的基础上，恽代英进一步探讨了如何在无神论框架下构建道德体系和人生意义。其“立”的思想主要包括反对信仰主义、探讨人善观念的来源、揭示智识的根源以及对人生目的与价值的再解读。

First, abandoning fideism and advocating the integration of love and intellect. Although Yun Daiying acknowledged that faith, to a certain extent, has the function of inspiring people toward goodness, pointing out that faith can “make the timid brave, the weak strong, the scattered diligent, the restless tranquil; the great achievements recorded in history are too numerous to list,” he resolutely opposed taking faith as the sole or primary moral motivation. He believed that faith is essentially a state of “knowing the what but not the why.” Furthermore, “the consistency of faith and intellect is a matter of chance”; conflict is more common. Intellect often seeks to break the bonds of faith, while faith often attempts to block the expansion of intellect. If one abandons intellect for the sake of faith, it is tantamount to cutting off the root of cultural progress; “this function merely leads us into a state of confusion and ignorance,” becoming “an obstacle to brave moral progress,” and therefore “absolutely has no value worth preserving.”

首先，摒弃信仰主义，倡导爱与智的融合。恽代英虽承认信仰在一定程度上具有激励人心向善的功用，指出信仰能够“使怯者勇，弱者强，散漫者精进，躁乱者恬静，历史所载，其伟大之成绩，不可缕数”。然而，他坚决反对将信仰作为唯一或主要的道德动力。他认为信仰本质上是一种“知其然而不知其所以然”的状态。此外，“信仰与智识一致，乃偶然之事”，冲突是更为常见的，智识常欲破除信仰的束缚，而信仰则往往试图闭塞智识的拓展。若因信仰而摒弃智识，无异于自绝文化进步之根源，“此等功用，不过引导吾人于迷惑愚妄之境地”，成为“勇猛进德之妨碍”，因此“绝对无保存之价值也”。

At the same time, regarding faith in God as one form of faith, Yun Daiying conducted a deeper analysis of its drawbacks. He proposed that besides faith in God, there exist other forms of faith, such as “faith in legal sanctions, faith in social sanctions, faith in the sanctions of conscience,” and the efficacy of these three types of faith is no less than that of faith in divine sanctions. More importantly, these faiths are direct reflections of current social customs and habits; compared to the eternal and unchanging divine sanctions, they are inherently more rational. Therefore, Yun Daiying believed that faith cannot serve as a talisman for theism: for those lacking intellect or of simple intellect, it is better to believe in more rational laws, social norms, and conscience than to believe in God. For those with a certain level of intellect, they must strive to abandon faith and seek other moral motivations.

同时，神之信仰作为信仰的形式之一，恽代英对其弊端进行了更为深入的剖析。他提出，除了对神的信仰，还存在诸如“信仰法律制裁，信仰社会制裁，信仰良心制裁”等其他形式的信仰，且这三种信仰的效力并不亚于神之制裁的信仰。更重要的是，这些信仰是当下社会风俗习惯的直接反映，相较于永恒不变的神之制裁，它们在本质上更为合理。因此，恽代英认为，信仰并不能成为有神论的护身符：对于智识匮乏或智识简单之人而言，与其信仰神，不如信仰更为合理的法律、社会规范与良心。而对于有一定智识之人而言，更要努力抛弃信仰，寻找其他的道德动力。

Yun Daiying proposed: “Intellect and love are the eternal and indestructible original forces of morality.” Regarding love, it encompasses a broad range including father-son love, brotherly love, conjugal love, universal love, benevolence, and so on; the emotion of love is the source of moral behavior. Therefore, by striving to stimulate and cultivate various forms of natural love, even if one abandons the spur of faith, one can still cultivate good moral conduct. Regarding intellect, he drew on the concept of the unity of knowledge and action (知行合一), believing that the reason people do not do good lies fundamentally in their failure to recognize the true essence of morality. Once humanity reaches a state of true wisdom, there is no need to borrow the constraints of faith, let alone the constraints of divine power; one can naturally practice morality.

恽代英提出：“智与爱为千古不磨之道德原动力。”关于爱，它涵盖了父子之爱、兄弟之爱、夫妇之爱、博爱、仁慈等广泛范畴，爱的情感是道德行为的源泉。因此，努力激发和培养各方面的自然之爱，即便摒弃信仰的鞭策，也能养成良好的道德品行。关于智，他借鉴知行合一的理念，认为人之所以不为善，根源在于尚未认识到道德的真谛。一旦人类达到真正的智慧境界，便无需假借信仰的约束，更无需假借神力的约束，自然能践行道德。

From the above, it can be seen that while demolishing the foundation of theism, Yun Daiying constructed a new system of moral motivation for humanity. For those whose intellect is not yet sufficient to recognize morality, although they have lost faith in God, they can still restrain their behavior through faith in law, social norms, and conscience. At the same time, their intellect should be enlightened through education, and their deep love should be cultivated, so that love and intellect together become the inexhaustible driving force guiding and spurring human behavior.

由上可知，恽代英在破除有神论存在根基的同时，为人类构建了新的道德动力体系。对于智识尚不足以认识道德的人而言，虽失去了对神的信仰，但可通过信仰法律、社会规范及良心来约束自己的行为。与此同时，应通过教育启发其智识，培养其深厚的爱心，使爱与智共同成为指引和鞭策人类行为的不竭动力。

Second, analyzing the intrinsic origins of the concept of human goodness. Theism often requires people to do good and accumulate virtue, believing that the concept of goodness or the pursuit of morality originates from God’s command, rather than being rooted in human experience and sympathy. However, Yun Daiying held a different view. First, the essence of “goodness” is humanity’s moral right to pursue its own happiness. Human moral behavior does not originate from divine will or the urging of faith, but rather “from seeking welfare for survival, and from practicing morality for seeking welfare”; it is a natural result of seeking benefits for oneself, a “means of obtaining happiness.” Therefore, “goodness” is not a moral duty of humanity, but a moral right; “anyone who wishes to survive for one day should do good for that day, in order to seek their happiness.” Second, goodness, as a moral right of humanity, is not bestowed by God. Regarding the origin of “goodness,” Yun Daiying believed there are no more than two reasons: one is the result of repeated experience; humanity gradually distinguishes good from evil through continuous practice, and under the influence of “the experience of ancestors over thousands of years,” “the experience of contemporaries,” and “one’s own experience,” gradually understands that doing good to others is a favorable condition for success; the other is the function of psychological sympathy, which is an innate instinct of humanity in a social environment, “naturally existing, naturally developing,” a characteristic that arises spontaneously, not following divine will or any super-empirical existence.

其次，剖析人善之观念的内在渊源。有神论往往要求人行善积德，认为善的观念或对道德的追求源自神的要求，而非根植于人类的经验和同情。然而，恽代英对此持不同见解。其一，“善”的本质是人类为追求自身幸福而在道德上的权利。人类的道德行为不是源于神的旨意和信仰的督促，而是“为生存而求福利，为求福利而践履道德”，是为自身谋利益时自然而然的结果，是“获幸福之凭借也”。因此，“善”不是人类在道德上的责任，而是道德上的权利，“凡人欲生存一日，即当为一日之善，以求其幸福”。其二，善作为人类道德上的权利，也不是神赋予的。关于“善”的来源，恽代英认为不外乎两种原因，一是反复经验之结果，人类在不断的实践中逐渐分辨出善与恶，在“数千年祖宗之经验”“并世人民之经验”及“吾自身之经验”的作用下逐渐明白与人为善才是成功的有利原因；二是为心理同情之作用，这是人类在群居环境下天生的本能，“自然存在，自然发达”，是自生而有的特性，并非遵循神意或超经验的存在。

Third, he sought the root of human knowledge. Theism usually holds that human knowledge originates from divine revelation. Yun Daiying subjected this to deep analysis, arguing that this notion arises from two causes: one is “incorrect and stubborn prejudices that are logically untenable, so they can only be pawned off as divine revelation to deceive the world.” That is, since this knowledge is inherently incorrect and makes no sense in reason, it can only be explained by relying on divine revelation. The other is knowledge obtained from unconscious experience or reasoning. “This knowledge suddenly wells up from the unconscious psychological aspect—or, as it is translated, ‘the subconscious’—and we ourselves do not know why it happens, so we marvel at it as something miraculous and attribute it to divine revelation.” Yun Daiying countered that attributing everything to divine revelation is actually a manifestation of a lack of knowledge. For example, religious advocates promote the practice of fasting, leading believers to think that the mental clarity and spiritual vitality felt after fasting are the work of divine revelation. Yet from a scientific perspective, this is actually the physiological effect of fasting itself on the human body, but religious advocates attribute this effect to God’s revelation. This is a powerful proof of the despicable means by which theists exploit people’s lack of knowledge to deceive them and consolidate religious authority.

再次，寻找人智识的根源。有神论通常主张人的智识来源于天启。恽代英对此进行了深入剖析，认为这一观念源于以下两种原因：一是“不正确的妄执偏见，于论理既不可通，则惟有托之天启之说，以欺世人”。即本来这些智识就是不正确的，于理上并不通，只能依靠天启来解释。二是由不自觉的经验或推理而得之智识。“此智识从不自觉的心理方面或译‘在潜意识’忽然涌出，吾人自身亦复不知其所以然，于是诧为神奇，归之天启。”恽代英反驳道，将一切事物都归结为神的启示，实则是智识缺乏的表现。例如，宗教家主张禁食仪式，使教徒认为禁食后感到脑力清醒、精神活泼是天启的功劳。然而从科学角度来看，这实际上是禁食本身在生理上给人带来的功效，而宗教家却将这一功效归结为上帝的启示。这正是有神论者利用人们智识的缺乏来欺骗人、巩固宗教权威的卑劣手段的有力证明。

Finally, he re-examined the purpose and value of life by negating the sacred purpose and unique value of human life. Creationism often dominates people’s understanding of the purpose and value of life. Yun Daiying offered a forceful rebuttal. He first questioned the purpose of human existence as assigned by creationism. As for why humans live, “theologians hold that humans live to carry out God’s commands,” believing that since humans were created by God, their creation must have some purpose. However, Yun Daiying argued that so-called creation is merely a religious claim. Since the creator itself does not exist, the teleology of creation is even more untenable. He believed that true human life should be purposeless. Because so-called purpose is a result of volitional activity, and volitional activity is not innate to humans but is acquired through the psychological evolution of the later environment. Therefore, human conception and birth are both purposeless. Furthermore, Yun Daiying opposed the creationist view that endows human life with unique value. Regarding the value of human existence, Christianity holds that God created humans and that humans share in God’s spirituality. But Yun Daiying believed that humans are not unique in nature; humans live without purpose, just as cattle, dogs, sheep, and pigs live without purpose. Human existence itself has no unique value, just as the existence of cattle, dogs, sheep, and pigs has no value. Religious creationism often endows humans with a value that transcends all things in the world; in Yun Daiying’s view, this actually stems from human arrogance.

最后，通过否定人生的神圣目的和人的独特价值，来对人生目的与人生价值进行再审视。造物论往往支配着人们对人生目的和价值的认知。恽代英对此进行了有力反驳。他首先质疑造物论赋予人的生存目的。关于人为何而生存，“神学家以人类为奉行神命而生存”，认为人既为神所造，其被造必然出于某种目的。然而，恽代英认为，所谓造物只是宗教的说法。造物主本身就不存在，造物的目的论更是站不住脚。他认为，真正的人生应是无目的的。因为所谓目的，是意志活动的一种结果，而意志活动并非人生来就有，而是靠后天心理进化得来的。因此，人的投胎和诞生都是无目的的。此外，恽代英还反对造物论赋予人生以独特的价值。关于人生存的价值，基督教认为上帝造人，人分有上帝的灵性。但恽代英认为，人类在自然界中并非独特存在，人类无目的而生存，就如同牛狗羊猪无目的而生存一样。人类生存本身并无独特价值，就如同牛狗羊猪的生存无价值一样。而宗教造物论往往赋予人类超越世间万物的价值，在恽代英看来，这实际上源于人类的自大心理。

In summary, at the level of “construction,” Yun Daiying not only reconstructed faith, goodness, knowledge, and the meaning of life but also laid the foundation for an atheist moral system through the methodology of science and reason. His thought manifests the practicality and theoretical innovation of Chinese Marxist atheist thought, providing profound philosophical and ideological inspiration for modern society.

综上所述，恽代英在“立”的层面上，不仅对信仰、善、智识及人生意义进行了重构，还通过科学和理性的方法论为无神论道德体系奠定了基础。他的思想彰显了中国马克思主义无神论思想的实践性和理论创新性，为现代社会提供了深刻的哲学与思想启示。

III. Historical Evaluation of Yun Daiying’s Atheist Thought

三、恽代英无神论思想的历史评价

Yun Daiying’s atheist thought, as an important developmental achievement of the modern Chinese atheist trend, not only had a profound impact at the time but also holds undeniable value for the present. However, limited by the historical context, his thought inevitably has certain limitations.

恽代英的无神论思想，作为近代中国无神论思潮的重要发展成果，不仅在当时产生了深远影响，而且对当代亦具有不可忽视的价值。然而，受限于时代背景，其思想也不可避免地存在一定的局限性。

(I) The Value of Yun Daiying’s Atheist Thought

(一)恽代英无神论思想的价值

As an outstanding leader during the May Fourth New Culture Movement and the Great Revolution period, Yun Daiying’s atheist thought made remarkable contributions to the revolutionary practices of the time, such as the anti-feudal and anti-Confucian trends and the anti-Christian movement.

作为五四新文化运动和大革命时期的杰出领导人，恽代英的无神论思想为当时的反封建、反孔教思潮以及非基督教运动等革命实践做出了卓越贡献。

First, it broke the shackles of feudal thought. Through lectures, founding newspapers and journals, writing articles, and correspondence, Yun Daiying used the weapons of science and reason to spread atheist thought. He criticized the constraints of feudal superstition and ghost-and-spirit worship on people’s minds, shook the foundation of traditional religious concepts in Chinese society, and effectively curbed the spread of theism. This thought inspired the Chinese people to recognize the social nature and harm of religion, sparked an ideological upsurge in the pursuit of science, knowledge, and truth, and injected important momentum into the development of the scientific spirit in the May Fourth Movement.

其一，破除封建思想桎梏。恽代英通过宣讲、创办报刊、撰写文章和通信交流等方式，利用科学与理性的武器传播无神论思想。他批判封建迷信和鬼神崇拜对人们思想的禁锢，动摇了传统宗教观念在中国社会的根基，有力地遏制了有神论的蔓延。这一思想启发了中国人民认清宗教的社会本质和危害，掀起了追求科学、智识与真理的思想热潮，为五四运动中的科学精神发展注入了重要动力。

Second, it opposed the cultural aggression of imperialism. During the Great Revolution period, imperialist countries carried out cultural aggression in China through Christianity. As a leading figure in the anti-Christian movement, Yun Daiying successively wrote articles such as “Christianity and Personality to Save the Nation,” “Why We Oppose Christianity,” “Jesus, Confucius, and Revolutionary Youth,” and “Oppose the Cultural Aggression of Imperialism,” profoundly exposing the essence of Christianity as merely a tool for foreigners to soften China. He played an irreplaceable role in promoting the national spirit and anti-imperialist thought, making an indelible contribution to awakening the Chinese people from the fog of religion and advancing the revolutionary struggle.

其二，反对帝国主义文化侵略。在大革命时期，帝国主义国家通过基督教在中国实施文化侵略。作为非基督教运动的领袖人物，恽代英先后撰写了《基督教与人格救国》《我们为什么反对基督教》《耶稣、孔子与革命青年》《反对帝国主义的文化侵略》等文章，深刻揭露基督教实在只是外国人软化中国的工具的实质。他在宣传民族精神与反帝思想方面发挥了不可替代的作用，为中国人民从宗教迷雾中觉醒并推动革命斗争做出了不可磨灭的贡献。

Third, it laid the cornerstone for the Sinicization of Marxist atheism. Contemporary Marxists often helped people break free from the bonds of religious theology and superstition by criticizing religious theism; for example, “Qu Qiubai, through exposing and criticizing the essence of religious theism, provided a powerful ideological weapon for people to understand and oppose religious theism.” [8]8 Qu Qiubai (1899–1935) was a leading figure in the early Chinese Communist Party and a Marxist theorist, known for his work on philosophy and cultural theory. But Yun Daiying not only criticized religious theism but also criticized old traditional atheism, taking its essence and discarding its dross; this undoubtedly increased the depth of his atheist thought. Yun Daiying’s critique and reflection on old atheism fundamentally broke away from the relatively weak and shallow way mechanical materialism criticized theism, effectively preventing a counterattack by theist thought, and more firmly laid the foundation for the Sinicization of Marxist scientific atheism. In addition, after completing his critique of theism, Yun Daiying reconstructed a theoretical system of moral motivation and the meaning of life within the framework of atheism, achieving the complete process of his Marxist atheist thought system from deconstruction to reconstruction—something that was innovative and practically valuable both then and now. This contribution not only enriched the ideological treasury of the Chinese proletariat but also provided valuable ideological resources for later Marxists.

其三，奠定马克思主义无神论中国化的基石。同时代的马克思主义者往往是通过批判宗教有神论的方式，来帮助人们摆脱宗教神学和迷信的束缚；例如“瞿秋白通过对宗教有神论本质的揭露和批判，为人们认识和反对宗教有神论提供了有力的思想武器”。而恽代英不仅批判宗教有神论，还批判旧有的传统无神论，取其精华去其糟粕；这无疑增加了其无神论思想的厚度。恽代英对旧有无神论思想的批判与反思，从根本上摆脱了机械唯物主义对有神论相对无力与浅薄的批判方式，有效地预防了有神论思想的反扑，更加牢固地为马克思主义科学无神论中国化奠定了基础。此外，恽代英在完成对有神论的批判后，还在无神论框架下为人类重构了道德动力和人生意义理论体系，实现了其马克思主义无神论思想体系从解构到重建的完整过程，这在当时乃至现在都是具有创新意义和实践价值的。他的这一贡献，不仅丰富了中国无产阶级的思想宝库，也为后来的马克思主义者提供了宝贵的思想资源。

(II) The Limitations of Yun Daiying’s Atheist Thought

(二)恽代英无神论思想的局限性

Although the contributions of Yun Daiying’s atheist thought cannot be ignored, his theory still has limitations in terms of logical consistency and contemporary applicability.

尽管恽代英无神论思想的贡献不可忽视，但其理论在逻辑一致性和当代适用性方面仍存在局限性。

First, logical contradictions. In his early period, Yun Daiying was influenced to a certain extent by empiricism, positivism, and Kantian idealism, and did not fully digest and absorb Marxist atheism, leading to inconsistencies in his atheist thought. For example, when negating theism, he emphasized that God is a “product of human fantasy,” but at the same time proposed that we cannot determine whether the power controlling the operation of the universe is conscious or unconscious. This argument shows that his materialist stance had “ambiguity,” which in turn made his atheist thought prone to logical difficulties and made his understanding of the roots and essence of theism appear “insufficiently thorough” compared with contemporary Marxists. For instance, in his early period, when revealing the roots of religion, Yun Daiying did not explicitly raise the social roots of religion; when discussing the essence of religion, he did not, like Li Dazhao, explicitly put forward views such as that the “essence of religion is the embodiment of unequal relations” and that it is “entirely a reflection of the material and economic conditions of human society”; it should be noted that later, in constructing his Marxist atheist thought system, Yun Daiying shed this “lack of thoroughness.” [9]9 Li Dazhao (1889–1927) was a co-founder of the Chinese Communist Party and a pioneering Marxist intellectual in China. Furthermore, when criticizing theism as “dogmatic and superstitious,” although he repeatedly affirmed the correctness of atheism, he also advocated “not absolutely opposing the existence of God,” which also reflects the limitations of his skeptical thought and weakened the force of his defense of atheism. Yun Daiying firmly believed that God is merely a product of human fantasy: “The more we are willing to study from the perspective of reason, the more we see that the existence of God is dogmatic and superstitious”; but on the other hand, he expressed that he “would not absolutely oppose the existence of God,” and held a “skeptical” attitude toward God’s existence, arguing that “I still think that both belief and disbelief are improper dogmatism.” This overemphasis on a skeptical attitude has long been controversial.

第一，逻辑上的矛盾性。恽代英早期在一定程度上受到经验主义、实证主义以及康德唯心主义的影响，对马克思主义无神论没有完全消化吸收，这导致其无神论思想存在前后不一致的现象。例如，他在否定有神论时强调神是“人类幻想的产物”，但同时提出我们无法断定操控宇宙运行的权力到底属有意识还是无意识的。这一论述表明，他的唯物主义立场存在“模糊性”，继而使其无神论思想容易陷入逻辑困境，也使他对有神根源和本质的认识与同时期的马克思主义者相比显得“不够彻底”。例如，恽代英早期在揭示宗教根源时并没有明确提出宗教的社会根源，在谈到宗教本质时他也没有像李大钊那样明确提出宗教“本质就是不平等关系的体现”“完全是人间社会物质经济情形之反映”等观点；需要指出的是，后来恽代英在马克思主义无神论思想体系的建构中摆脱了这种“不彻底性”。此外，恽代英在批判有神论为“武断、迷信”时，虽多次肯定无神论的正确性，却也主张“不至绝对反对神的存在”，也体现了其怀疑论思想的局限性，削弱了对无神论捍卫的力度。恽代英坚信神只是人们幻想出来的产物，“我们只要越肯从理智上研究，便越见上帝的存在是武断，是迷信”;但另一方面，他又表示“不至绝对反对神的存在”，并对神的存在持“怀疑论”态度，认为“我仍想信与不信，都是不应当的武断”。这种过分强调怀疑论的态度一直饱受争议。

Second, the fierce critique of Christianity lacked dialectical nuance. In the historical context of the time, Christianity was exploited by imperialism and became a tool of cultural aggression, and Yun Daiying subjected it to vehement condemnation. However, in some of his rhetoric he failed to fully embody the dialectical thinking of Marxism, and this can easily be interpreted as a “demonization” of religion.

第二，对基督教的激烈批判缺乏辩证性。在当时的历史背景下，基督教被帝国主义利用，并成为文化侵略的工具，恽代英对其进行了强烈抨击。然而，他在一些言辞上未能充分体现马克思主义的辩证思维，容易被解读为对宗教的“妖魔化”。

Third, there is insufficient adaptability to contemporary society. Yun Daiying’s atheist thought was deeply influenced by the concept of class struggle, and his theory focused on breaking the obstacles religion posed to revolution. Yet, with the disappearance of the exploiting classes and the establishment of a socialist society, the struggle between atheism and theism is no longer a primary manifestation of class struggle; it has become a difference between advanced and backward thinking. That is, “the struggle between atheism and theism, on the whole, is no longer a reflection of intense class struggle, but basically a reflection of the difference between advanced and backward thinking among the people. Because the exploiting classes have been eliminated.” [10]10 This quotation reflects the official Chinese Communist Party position, articulated after the elimination of the landlord and capitalist classes in the 1950s, that religious belief is no longer a class enemy but a matter of personal ideological lag within the people. Therefore, the content of Yun Daiying’s atheist thought needs to be updated to a certain extent in order to adapt to the development of contemporary society.

第三，与当代社会的适应性不足。恽代英的无神论思想深受阶级斗争观念的影响，其理论着眼于打破宗教对革命的阻碍。然而，随着剥削阶级的消亡和社会主义社会的建立，无神论与有神论的斗争已不再是阶级斗争的主要表现，而成为思想先进与落后之间的差异；即“无神论和有神论的斗争，总的来说，已不再是激烈的阶级斗争的反映，而基本上是人民内部先进与落后的思想的反映。因为剥削阶级已经被消灭”。因此，恽代英的无神论思想的内容在一定程度上需要更新，以适应当代社会的发展。

In summary, as an important early revolutionary leader of the Communist Party of China, Yun Daiying was a pioneer in the development of Marxist atheist thought in China. His atheist thought not only strongly criticized the constraints of feudal superstition and religious thought on society, but also provided a theoretical basis for the dissemination of atheism through scientific and rational means, promoting the popularization of the scientific spirit and the emancipation of thought. Although his thought, due to the limitations of the era, has shortcomings in logical consistency and contemporary adaptability, its contribution to the Sinicization of Marxist atheism is indelible. Studying the value and limitations of Yun Daiying’s atheist thought not only helps to understand his ideological system more comprehensively, but also provides profound inspiration for the propaganda and education of atheism in modern society.

综上所述，恽代英作为中国共产党早期的重要革命领袖，是马克思主义无神论思想在中国发展的开拓者。他的无神论思想不仅强烈批判了封建迷信和宗教思想对社会的禁锢，还通过科学理性的方式为无神论的传播提供了理论依据，推动了科学精神的普及和思想的解放。尽管其思想因时代局限性而在逻辑一致性和当代适应性上存在不足，但其对马克思主义无神论中国化的贡献是不可磨灭的。研究恽代英无神论思想的价值与局限性，不仅有助于更加全面地理解其思想体系，也为现代社会无神论的宣传与教育提供了深刻启示。

(Author bios: Li Yong, Associate Researcher at the Center for Judaic and Inter-Religious Studies, Shandong University; Deng Ying, Master’s student at the Center for Judaic and Inter-Religious Studies, Shandong University)

（作者简介：李勇，山东大学犹太教与跨宗教研究中心副研究员；邓颖，山东大学犹太教与跨宗教研究中心硕士研究生）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心