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.     

Atheism and the ultimate thou

International Journal for Philosophy of Religion -     

中国无神论学会与无神论宣传--在一次会上和美国基督教人士座谈宗教与无神论问题的发言

一、中国无神论学会的成立与工作 1.成立与中断 中国无神论学会成立于1978年年底。在最初几年里,每年都有年会。年会最多时有二三百人参加。 年会起初侧重于无神论历史的研究,出版了《中国无神论史》、《中国无神论资料》等书。     

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。     

“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”。     

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     

中国共产党和科学无神论——纪念中国共产党诞生八十周年

一、科学无神论是奠基于科学基础上的彻底的无神论 　　无神论是在有神论产生以后产生的、和有神论对立的思想体系,也是在批评有神论的过程中产生的理论体系.没有有神论,无神论也不会产生;而只要有神论存在,就有无神论在做着它的对立面.……     

The Presumption of Atheism

…what would be wise expediency?—to try and determine the best consequences by concealment, or to brave other consequences for the sake of that openness which is the sweet fresh air of our moral life.     

无神论事业在发展

<正>本期刊载的文章,大多选自去年底在上海召开的中国无神论学会年会的论文。这些论文涉及的深度和广度,都超过了以往。自然,与会学者所代表的学术领域和理论水平,也都有新的扩大和提高。这种状况说明,在学术界,有更多的人理解和赞成科     

韩愈的无神论思想

韩愈(公元786～824年),字退之,唐朝河阳 (今河南孟县)人,是著名的文学家,唐宋八大家之一,唐朝古文运动的领军人物。他与唐朝另一文学宗师柳宗元开创的韩柳文体对中国古代文学艺术产生了广泛深远的影响,这种影响直到“五四”新文化运动才慢慢衰退。难能可贵的是,韩愈不仅文学造诣非凡,还是古代为数不多的具有朴素无神论思想的士大夫之一。当时的陕西凤翔法门寺有佛塔一座,内藏释迦牟尼佛指骨一节,三十年一开塔。据传开塔之年,必定人和年丰。唐宪宗元和十四年