认识马克思主义无神论的当代价值

<正>(2015年4月15日)《任继愈文集》(十卷本)的出版,是中国学术界的一件盛事。中国无神论学会的杜继文、李申、习五一先生等也积极地投入了文集的编辑工作,花费了不少心血。《文集》的出版,也是中国无神论学会的理事和学者们翘首以盼的一件盛事。任继愈先生是中国无神论学会的创会理事长,从1978年学会成立一直到他2009年逝世,可以说     

中国无神论学会第五次会员代表大会暨2018年学术年会在京召开

<正>以"新时代无神论的使命和任务"为主题的中国无神论学会第五次会员代表大会暨2018年学术年会,12月1日至2日在京隆重召开。中国无神论学会第四届理事会理事长朱晓明作《以思想认识的新飞跃,承担起新时代无神论事业的使命和任务》为主题的工作报告。中国无神论学会授予中国社会科学院荣誉学部委员、世界宗教研究所原所长杜继文先生终身成就奖,     

《科学与无神论》杂志的历史功绩——献给本刊创办二十周年(一)

<正>中国无神论学会会刊《科学与无神论》自1999年9月18日创刊,至2019年9月18日出版总第121期,整整二十年了。这二十年,杂志历经艰难,奋勇前行,功绩显著,远景光明。一、创办中国无神论学会会刊是任继愈先生多年心志     

无神论宣传任重而道远--记《科学与无神论》杂志创刊三周年座谈会

2002年11月27日,中国无神论学会召开了<科学与无神论>杂志创办三周年座谈会.参加座谈会的有中国无神论学会理事长、国家图书馆馆长任继愈,中国无神论学会副事事长、中国科学院院士何祚庥,中国无神论学会的理事和会员,以及科技界、社科界、新闻界等有关专家和学者共30多人.     

生也有涯 学无止境——平原县举行任继愈研究会成立大会暨“任继愈先生的为人与为学”学术研讨会

（本刊讯）在原国家图书馆名誉馆长、中国社会科学院世界宗教研究所名誉所长、中国无神论学会理事长任继愈教授逝世三周年之际,2012年7月11-12日,任继愈研究会成立大会暨＂任继愈先生的为人与为学＂学术研讨会在先生的家乡山东省平原县举行。     

中国无神论学会致中国反邪教协会贺信——中国反邪教协会成立五周年报告会暨2005年年会

2005年11月17日,中国无神论学会在国家图书馆会议室召开第三届理事会第一届理事长会议。任继愈先生主持会议。副理事长李申、张新鹰、申振钰、习五一、郭正谊、龚学增、段启明、杜继文先后发言,总结中国无神论学会2005年年会,讨论近期无神论的研究、宣传、教育等各项工作。会议议定将组建三个专业委员会,分别负责开展学术、教育、联络工作。会议决定将召开若干座谈     

继往开来，努力开创科学无神论事业的新局面——中国无神论学会第三届理事会工作报告

各位理事．各位代表： 大家好!自2005年11月至今2013年8月，中国无神论学会第三届理事会历时近八年。在此期间．中国无神论学会理事长任继愈先生、副理事长郭正谊先生先后因病逝世。对于这两位为中国科学无神论事业作出卓越贡献的前辈．我们表示深切的哀悼。     

中国无神论学会会员代表大会暨二000年学术年会在北京召开

“中国无神论学会会员代表大会暨2000年学术年会“11月1日在北京中国科技会堂隆重召开。来自北京、山西、江苏、辽宁、江西、湖南、河北、山东、河南等省、市的著名学者、反伪科学专家以及学会会员共70多人出席开幕式。中国无神论学会理事长任继愈先生在会上做了题为《弘扬科学精神,提高民族素质》的工作报告。国家宗教事务局局长叶子文同志和中国社会科学院世界宗教研究所党委书记吴云贵同志在开幕式上就宗教信仰自由与无神论研究、宣传     

编者对读者说

诸位读者: 本刊是中国无神论学会主办的刊物,何祚庥先生是中国无神论学会的副理事长。当法轮功信众围攻天津教育学院的事件传来,学会诸同志心里都憋着一股难忍的悲哀。法轮功已经把自己的所谓大法推广、宣传成为一种影响广泛的社会现象,作为一个科学家,     

继承任继愈先生遗愿

今天是本刊创刊十周年的日子。在这样一个日子里,我们来纪念杂志的创办者、中国无神论学会理事长任继愈先生。     

无神论和科学无神论

人类是天然的无神论者。假如人类的历史果然有三百万年,人类有神的历史,最多也不过二十万年左右。在二百八十万年的漫长时期里,人类没有神,也不靠神的指导,发展了智力和能力,完成了自己的进化。近二十万年以来,在自己可以解决问题的范围内,从衣食住行、生儿育女到谋道谋财、治家治国,人们一般也不去求助于神灵。即使那些求助     

Unicorn Atheism

Kripshe treats `god’ as an empty natural kind term such as `unicorn’. She applies Saul Kripke's fresh views about empty natural kinds to `god’. Metaphysically, says Kripshe, there are no possible worlds in which there are gods. Gods could not have existed, given that they do not actually exist and never did. Epistemologically, godlessness is an a posteriori discovery. Kripshe dismisses the gods in the same breath that she dismisses mermaids. Semantically, the perspective Kripshe finds most perspicacious, no counterfactual situation is properly describable as one in which there are gods. Perhaps it is not quite a necessary truth that there are no gods. According to Saul Kripke, failed natural kind terms are ill‐defined. Incorporating ill‐defined terms into declarative sentences yields only mock propositions. Just as the meteorologist has no professional interest in mock thunder, the logician has no professional interest in mock propositions. Kripshe disagrees with agnostics who assign a low probability to `There is at least one god’. The bearers of probabilities must be propositions. Despite this deference to science, Kripshe agrees with the a priori atheist that, necessarily, no future experience could constitute an encounter with a god. Divine revelation is impossible. Kripshe's a posteriori necessary atheism compares favorably to familiar forms of atheism and to non‐cognitivists. It reveals interesting challenges to a coherent formulation of atheism.     

Evidential Atheism

Here is a new version of the Evidential Problem of Evil.Theists claim that it is reasonable for atheists to believethat if God did exist, suffering would look just as it does now. I endorse this claim, however it cannot be deployedagainst my argument without the following epistemic principle:what we see makes p likely only if it is reasonable tobelieve it would be discernibly different if p were false. I demonstrate that this principle is mistaken. The paperalso responds to objections from Alvin Plantinga and PeterVan Inwagen that Gods existence is compatible with pointlessnatural evil. In particular, I argue that appeals to vaguenessdo not support the compatibility claim.     

Anselmian Atheism

On the basis of Chapter 15 of Anselm's Proslogion , I develop an argument that confronts theology with a trilemma: atheism, utter mysticism, or radical anti-Anselmianism. The argument establishes a disjunction of claims that Anselmians in particular, but not only they, will find disturbing: (a) God does not exist, (b) no human being can have even the slightest conception of God, or (c) the Anselmian requirement of maximal greatness in God is wrong. My own view, for which I argue briefly, is that (b) is false on any correct reading of what conceiving of requires and that (c) is false on any correct reading of the concept of God. Thus, my own view is that the argument establishes atheism. In any case, one consequence of the argument is that Anselmian theology is possible for human beings only if it lacks a genuine object of study.     

Militant Modern Atheism

Militant modern atheism, whose most eloquent champion is Richard Dawkins, provides an effective and necessary critique of fundamentalist forms of religion and their role in political life, both within states and across national boundaries. Because it is also presented as a more general attack on religion (tout court), it has provoked a severe reaction from scholars who regard its conception of religion as shallow and narrow. My aim is to examine this debate, identifying insights and oversights on both sides. Two distinct conceptions of religion are in play. For Dawkins and his allies (most notably Dan Dennett) religions are grounded in doctrines, propositions about supernatural entities, events and processes which the devout believe. Their beliefs prompt them to actions, which they support or rationalize by reference to the doctrines. Dawkins and Dennett view the acceptance of the doctrines as resting on cognitive misfiring — these are delusions to be outgrown or spells to be broken. By contrast, the religious scholars who criticize the militant atheists often view religion as centered in social practices that inform and enrich human lives. To the extent that there are doctrines that atheists might subject to epistemic evaluation, these are to be viewed as pieces of scaffolding, that are, in principle, dispensable. I argue that militant modern atheism is incomplete (and likely counter‐productive) so long as it fails to attend systematically to the roles religion fulfills in human lives. Yet it is important to achieve public clarity about the literal falsehood of the doctrines on which fundamentalists rely. The challenge is to develop a well‐articulated and convincing version of secular humanism. Meeting that challenge is, I claim, one of the central problems of philosophy today.     

“无神论”与“信仰”

无神论对应的是完全否定任何超自然的存在（包括上帝与灵魂等）的观念体系,作为一种世界观．它的根基是唯物主义。“信仰”属于非理性范畴而与唯物主义风马牛不相及。马克思主义是科学而不是信仰。不幸的是多年来我们有些政治家和理论家把共产主义必然实现的政治信念也表述为‘‘信仰”。以致混淆了科学与宗教的区别。60年的治国经验提供给我们的重要教训之一就是：决不能引导或者放任某种政治信念异化为“信仰”。共产主义者根本不需要诉诸“信仰”来维持对既定目标的遵循。认为无神论者不能离开“信仰”的那些号称共产党员又拒绝承认自己信教．以及一方面追逐着金钱一方面又指责“信钱”就是“没有任何崇高信仰的人”的学者应该重温马克思恩格斯的有关论述。执政党处理与宗教界关系的现行原则是“政治上团结合作,信仰上互相尊重”：信教和不信教以及所信宗教不同的信徒之间在根本利益上是完全一致的：世界观上的差别是“形而上”的问题．将长期存在,应该在民主法制层面保证各自的公民权利,最终由社会文明的发展逐步融解。某些研究宗教问题的专家把“信仰”直接归入“精神价值层面”．必然使一些完全违反道德和法律的“信仰”不能不获得“尊重”．以致“信仰上互相尊重’’这个表述成为鸡肋。建议改用不会产生歧义的说法——“政治上团结合作。世界观上互相尊重”。     

无神论与道德

公共道德建设是目前社会上议论很多的话题,而这个话题又强烈地牵动着有神论和无 神论的敏感神经。自从数百年前开始实行政教分离,有神论逐步退出政治舞台前后,科学、 哲学、文学、艺术,也都先后从有神论的控制之下独立出来。有神论对于社会思想和社会 生活的影响,大体可以用道路越走越不宽广来形容。在这种情况下,有神论方面所能紧紧 抓住的领域,大约也就是道德建设了。     

让无神论走进校园

无神论是和有神论对立的思想体系,社会精神文明的发展已经证明神是不存在的。马克思主义的世界观是唯物主义的世界观,物质是第一性的,意识是第二性的,人的意识,也不过是物质世界长期