本文以理论范式为切口，基于文献研究和比较研究的方法，对马克思宗教批判的思想资源、发展历程、思想史遭际和当代价值进行了系统考察。马克思是在黑格尔宗教哲学体系瓦解的背景下展开宗教批判的。黑格尔宗教哲学以观念论范式作为方法论基础，他将宗教存在的根据归结为精神，并基于精神对宗教进行理性化的阐释。青年黑格尔派总体上延续了观念论范式，他们基于精神的不同形式对宗教展开了丰富多样的批判。其中，费尔巴哈迈出了超越观念论范式的关键一步，他从人的本质出发批判宗教，试图实现宗教存在根据的现实转向，虽然人的本质还具有抽象性，但是这成为马克思宗教批判的重要起点。马克思在宗教批判的过程中完成了由观念论范式向唯物史观范式的转换。在《德法年鉴》中，马克思吸收了前人宗教批判的成果，尝试超越观念论范式，他把人的本质归结为国家和社会，并将现实异化视为宗教异化的根源。在《德意志意识形态》中，马克思以青年黑格尔派为典型系统清理观念论范式，进而创立唯物史观范式，最终完成宗教批判的范式转换。唯物史观范式以现实的人及其物质生产作为理论基点，科学地揭示了宗教的起源、本质、功能和发展趋势，实现了对观念范式的超越。在《资本论》及其手稿中，马克思在政治经济学语境中运用唯物史观范式具体地和历史地分析了宗教现象，并将宗教批判与拜物教批判联系起来，完成了宗教批判与政治经济学的结合。马克思基于唯物史观范式的宗教批判受到西方部分学者的质疑，其中较为典型的质疑来自马克斯·韦伯。韦伯的宗教社会学范式以多重因果论，即经济要素、政治要素、宗教要素之间复杂的因果关系，来反对唯物史观范式的经济决定论。实际上，唯物史观所强调的本质层面的经济决定性，是在现象层面中各要素之间相互作用的基础上，作为一种趋势而确立的。在这个意义上，宗教社会学范式不仅不是对唯物史观范式的否定，反而在经验层面提供了实证支撑。在当代，探析马克思宗教批判背后的理论范式具有重要的价值。就理论价值而言，它有助于从思维方式上将马克思主义同宗教神学区分开来，回应当代西方部分学者把马克思主义神学化的做法。就现实价值而言，它有助于从唯物史观出发正确看待当下的宗教现象，为宗教政策的制定提供理论基础。

Taking the theoretical paradigm as an entry point,this paper systematically examines the ideological resources,development history,ideological-historical encounters and contemporary values of Marx‘s religious critique based on the methods of documentary and comparative studies.Marx launched his religious critique against the background of the disintegration of Hegel‘s philosophy of religion system. Hegel‘s philosophy of religion took the idealism paradigm as its methodological basis,attributed the basis of religious existence to spirit,and rationalized religion on the basis of spirit. The Young Hegelians continued the idealism paradigm in general, and they developed a rich and diverse critique of religion based on different forms of spirituality. Among them, Feuerbach took a key step beyond the idealism paradigm by critiquing religion from the nature of man, trying to realize the realistic turn of the basis of religious existence, although the nature of man is still abstract, but it became an important starting point for Marx‘s religious critique.In the course of his religious critique, Marx completed the transformation from the idealism paradigm to the materialist-historical paradigm. In the German and French Annals, Marx absorbed the results of his predecessors‘ religious criticism and tried to go beyond the idealism paradigm; he attributed the essence of man to the state and society and regarded the alienation of reality as the root of religious alienation. In The German Ideology, Marx systematically cleansed the idealism paradigm with the Young Hegelians as the typical example, and then created the materialist-historical paradigm, finally completing the paradigm shift of religious criticism. Taking the real human being and his material production as the theoretical base, the materialist-historical paradigm scientifically reveals the origin, essence, function and development trend of religion, and achieving a transcendence of the idealism paradigm. In Capital and its manuscripts, Marx used the materialist-historical paradigm to analyze the phenomenon of religion concretely and historically in the context of political economy and to link the critique of religion with the critique of fetishism, completing the combination of the critique of religion and political economy.Marx‘s critique of religion based on the materialist-historical paradigm has been challenged by some Western scholars, with a more typical challenge coming from Max Weber. Weber‘s sociological paradigm of religion opposes the economic determinism of the materialist-historical paradigm with multiple causality, i.e., the complex causal relationship between the economic, political, and religious elements. In fact, the economic determinism at the essential level emphasized by the materialist historical view is established as a trend based on the interaction between the elements in the phenomenal level. In this sense, the sociological paradigm of religion is not only not a rejection of the materialist-historical paradigm, but provides empirical support at the empirical level.In contemporary times, it is of great value to explore the theoretical paradigm behind Marx‘s religious critique. In terms of theoretical value, it helps to distinguish Marxism from religious theology in terms of ways of thinking, and responds to the theologizing of Marxism by some contemporary Western scholars. In terms of practical value, it helps to correctly view the current religious phenomenon from a materialistic historical perspective and provides a theoretical basis for the formulation of religious policies.