On Moral Instruction

[Harry]

I've been reading randomly from the works of Robert Green Ingersoll for the last few days, as a tonic to the strident atheism of current popular writers. Ingersoll was not above hiding an insult or three among his writings and speeches at times, but for the most part he chose his words to carefully suit his audience, which at that time counted far more believers than skeptics.

Two short pieces I read tonight struck me, and I figured I'd share them here, as a tonic to the argumentative, "take-no-prisoners" style of debate evinced by the in-house Devil's Advocate of Kay's who's determined to drive all life from religious intercourse in this forum.

This first speech is not "On Moral Instruction". That will follow shortly. But it is a fine introduction to Ingersoll's style and general outlook on things. Ingersoll has written many things that don't jive with my particular world view, but this one and the one that follows do:

Question. The shorter catechism, Colonel, you may remember says "that man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever." What is your idea of the chief end of man?

Answer. It has always seemed a little curious to me that joy should be held in such contempt here, and yet promised hereafter as an eternal reward. Why not be happy here, as well as in heaven. Why not have joy here? Why not go to heaven now -- that is, to-day? Why not enjoy the sunshine of this world, and all there is of good in it? It is bad enough; so bad that I do not believe it was ever created by a beneficent deity; but what little good there is in it, why not have it? Neither do I believe that it is the end of man to glorify God. How can the Infinite be glorified? Does he wish for reputation? He has no equals, no superiors. How can he have what we call reputation? How can he achieve what we call glory? Why should he wish the flattery of the average Presbyterian? What good will it do him to know that his course has been approved of by the Methodist Episcopal Church? What does he care, even, for the religious weeklies, or the presidents of religious colleges? I do not see how we can help God, or hurt him. If there be an infinite Being, certainly nothing we can do can in any way affect him. We can affect each other, and therefore man should be careful not to sin against man. For that reason I have said a hundred times, injustice is the only blasphemy. If there be a heaven I want to associate there with the ones who have loved me here. I might not like the angels and the angels might not like me. I want to find old friends. I do not care to associate with the Infinite; there could be no freedom in such society. I suppose I am not spiritual enough, and am somewhat touched with worldliness. It seems to me that everybody ought to be honest enough to say about the Infinite "I know nothing;" of eternal joy, "I have no conception;" about another world, "I know nothing." At the same time, I am not attacking anybody for believing in immortality. The more a man can hope, and the less he can fear, the better. I have done what I could to drive from the human heart the shadow of eternal pain. I want to put out the fires of an ignorant and revengeful hell.

From The Brooklyn Divines

[Harry]

Question. How would you convey moral instruction from youth up, and what kind of instruction would you give?

Answer. I regard Christianity as a failure. Now, then, what is Christianity? I do not include in the word "Christianity" the average morality of the world or the morality taught in all systems of religion; that is, as distinctive Christianity. Christianity is this: A belief in the inspiration of the Scriptures, the atonement, the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, an eternal reward for the believers in Christ, and eternal punishment for the rest of us. Now, take from Christianity its miracles, its absurdities of the atonement and fall of man and the inspiration of the Scriptures, and I have no objection to it as I understand it. I believe, in the main, in the Christianity which I suppose Christ taught, that is. in kindness, gentleness, forgiveness. I do not believe in loving enemies; I have pretty hard work to love my friends. Neither do I believe in revenge. No man can afford to keep the viper of revenge in his heart. But I believe in justice, in self-defence. Christianity -- that is, the miraculous part -- must be abandoned. As to morality -- morality is born, is born of the instinct of self-preservation. If man could not suffer, the word "conscience" never would have passed his lips. Self-preservation makes larceny a crime. Murder will be regarded as a bad thing as long as a majority object to being murdered. Morality does not come from the clouds; it is born of human want and human experience. We need no inspiration, no inspired work. The industrious man knows that the idle has no right to rob him of the product of his labor, and the idle man knows that he has no right to do it. It is not wrong because we find it in the Bible, but I presume it was put in the Bible because it is wrong. Then, you find in the Bible other things upheld that are infamous. And why? Because the writers of the Bible were barbarians, in many things, and because that book is a mixture of good and evil. I see no trouble in teaching morality without miracle. I see no use of miracle. What can men do with it? Credulity is not a virtue. The credulous are not necessarily charitable. Wonder is not the mother of wisdom. I believe children should be taught to investigate and to reason for themselves, and that there are facts enough to furnish a foundation for all human virtue. We will take two families; in the one, the father and mother are both Christians, and they teach their children their creed; teach them that they are naturally totally depraved; that they can only hope for happiness in a future life by pleading the virtues of another, and that a certain belief is necessary to salvation; that God punishes his children forever. Such a home has a certain atmosphere. Take another family; the father and mother teach their children that they should be kind to each other because kindness produces happiness; that they should be gentle; that they should be just, because justice is the mother of joy. And suppose this father and mother say to their children: "If you are happy it must be as a result of your own actions; if you do wrong you must suffer the consequences. No Christ can redeem you; no savior can suffer for you. You must suffer the consequences of your own misdeeds. If you plant you must reap, and you must reap what you plant." And suppose these parents also say: "You must find out the conditions of happiness. You must investigate the circumstances by which you are surrounded. You must ascertain the nature and relation of things so that you can act in accordance with known facts, to the end that you may have health and peace." In such a family, there would be a certain atmosphere, in my judgment, a thousand times better and purer and sweeter than in the other. The church generally teaches that rascality pays in this world, but not in the next; that here virtue is a losing game, but the dividends will be large in another world. They tell the people that they must serve God on credit, but the devil pays cash here. That is not my doctrine. My doctrine is that a thing is right because it pays, in the highest sense. That is the reason it is right. The reason a thing is wrong is because it is the mother of misery. Virtue has its reward here and now. It means health; it means intelligence, contentment, success. Vice means exactly the opposite. Most of us have more passion than judgment, carry more sail than ballast, and by the tempest of passion we are blown from port, we are wrecked and lost. We cannot be saved by faith or by belief. It is a slower process: We must be saved by knowledge, by intelligence -- the only lever capable of raising mankind.

Also from The Brooklyn Divines.

A good place to find most of Ingersoll's writings, and only a quick Google away in case you decide not to bookmark it, as it crops up at the top of the search, is:

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/

[Northcott]

I'm glad I checked this link. Thanks for posting them, Harry. Interesting reading. I disagree with his philosophy, but it's thoughtful enough to leave something behind to chew on.

[Varaj]

I tend to be very materialistic (not in the money grubbing sense but in the here and now non-spiritual sense) when it comes to morals as well.

Good read thanks.

[Northcott]

My disagreement came not with the broader sentiment, but with smaller elements of it. The last sentence, for example, sticks out in my mind: "We must be saved by knowledge, by intelligence -- the only lever capable of raising mankind."

I don't see intelligence or knowledge as being a saving grace in and of themselves. There have been some absolute monsters who were highly intelligent and extremely knowledgeable. Our history is marked by the worst of their kind. I'd say that the role of elevating humanity, our saving grace, falls to compassion. It may be enabled -- enhanced -- by intelligence and knowledge, but without compassion those elements are not necessarily beneficient traits.

[Brynja]

Ed to wit I will play devils advocate and speak to the flip side of that coin.
There have been monsters of the worst sort that have immersed themselves in the spiritual. Savonarola, Torquemada, pick any roman emperor pre or post christianity etc.

I think your assessment is correct but I suggest that we need balance, rather than a one or the other approach.

[Northcott]

Ah, but I'm not suggesting a necessarily spiritual approach! :) I said 'compassion'. An atheist can be just as compassionate as a theist. If there's one thing we can rightly say that Torquemada and his mad ilk fail to possess, it's compassion.

[Brynja]

Ah, but I'm not suggesting a necessarily spiritual approach! :) I said 'compassion'. An atheist can be just as compassionate as a theist. If there's one thing we can rightly say that Torquemada and his mad ilk fail to possess, it's compassion.

A prescient point and a true one, but then I am curious.

Where does compassion spring from?

[Northcott]

A prescient point and a true one, but then I am curious.

Where does compassion spring from?

Social conditioning. Connection with the divine. Evolutionary trait. Alternate philosophy. Depth of experience.

Pick any of the above, any combination of the above, and feel free to add your own choices. :)

[Harry]

Social conditioning. Connection with the divine. Evolutionary trait. Alternate philosophy. Depth of experience.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bl-MynjnCU

:angelsmile:

[Northcott]

Ah, crap! I forgot the "funny-looking guy in a jester's hat" option!