2. The way to be happy, is to make others happy.

21

Other things being equal, that man is happiest who is

nearest just--who is truthful, merciful and intelligent--

in other words, the one who lives in accordance with

the conditions of life.

3. The time to be happy is now, and the place to

be happy, is here.

4. Reason is the lamp of the mind--the only torch

of progress; and instead of blowing that out and de-

pending upon darkness and dogma, it is far better to

increase that sacred light.

5. Every man should be the intellectual proprietor

of himself, honest with himself, and intellectually

hospitable; and upon every brain reason should be

enthroned as king.

6. Every man must bear the consequences, at

least of his own actions. If he puts his hands in

the fire, his hands must smart, and not the hands of

another. In other words: each man must eat the

fruit of the tree he plants.

I can not conceive that the teaching of these doc-

trines would fill penitentiaries, or crowd the gallows.

The doctrine of forgiveness--the idea that somebody

else can suffer in place of the guilty--the notion that

just at the last the whole account can be settled--

these ideas, doctrines, and notions are calculated to fill

22

penitentiaries. Nothing breeds extravagance like the

credit system.

Most criminals of the present day are orthodox be-

lievers, and the gallows seems to be the last round of

the ladder reaching from earth to heaven. The Rev.

Dr. Sunderland, of this city, in his sermon on the assas-

sination of Garfield, takes the ground that God per-

mitted the murder for the purpose of opening the eyes

of the people to the evil effects of infidelity. Accord-

ing to this minister, God, in order to show his hatred

of infidelity, "inspired," or allowed, one Christian to

assassinate another.

Religion and morality do not necessarily go together.

Mr. Talmage will insist to-day that morality is not

sufficient to save any man from eternal punishment.

As a matter of fact, religion has often been the enemy

of morality. The moralist has been denounced by the

theologians. He sustains the same relation to Chris-

tianity that the moderate drinker does to the total-

abstinence society. The total-abstinence people say

that the example of the moderate drinker is far worse

upon the young than that of the drunkard--that the

drunkard is a warning, while the moderate drinker is

a perpetual temptation. So Christians say of moral-

ists. According to them, the moralist sets a worse

23

example than the criminal. The moralist not only in-

sists that a man can be a good citizen, a kind husband,

an affectionate father, without religion, but demon-

strates the truth of his doctrine by his own life;

whereas the criminal admits that in and of himself he

is nothing, and can do nothing, but that he needs

assistance from the church and its ministers.

The worst criminals of the modern world have been

Christians--I mean by that, believers in Christianity--

and the most monstrous crimes of the modern world

have been committed by the most zealous believers.

There is nothing in orthodox religion, apart from the

morality it teaches, to prevent the commission oF crime.

On the other hand, the perpetual proffer of forgiveness

is a direct premium upon what Christians are pleased

to call the commission of sin.

Christianity has produced no greater character than

Epictetus, no greater sovereign than Marcus Aurelius.

The wickedness of the past was a good deal like that

of the present. As a rule, kings have been wicked in

direct proportion to their power--their power having

been lessened, their crimes have decreased. As a

matter of fact, paganism, of itself, did not produce any

great men; neither has Christianity. Millions of in-

fluences determine individual character, and the re-

24

ligion of the country in which a man happens to be

born may determine many of his opinions, without

influencing, to any great extent, his real character.

There have been brave, honest, and intelligent men

in and out of every church.

_Question_. Mr. Talmage says that you insist that,

according to the Bible, the universe was made out of

nothing, and he denounces your statement as a gross

misrepresentation. What have you stated upon that

subject?

_Answer_. What I said was substantially this: "We

"are told in the first chapter of Genesis, that in the

"beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

"If this means anything, it means that God pro-

"duced--caused to exist, called into being--the

"heaven and the earth. It will not do to say that

"God formed the heaven and the earth of previously

"existing matter. Moses conveys, and intended to

"convey, the idea that the matter of which the

"universe is composed was created."

This has always been my position. I did not sup-

pose that nothing was used as the raw material; but

if the Mosaic account means anything, it means that

whereas there was nothing, God caused something to

25

exist--created what we know as matter. I can not

conceive of something being made, created, without

anything to make anything with. I have no more

confidence in fiat worlds than I have in fiat money.

Mr. Talmage tells us that God did not make the uni-

verse out of _nothing_, but out of "omnipotence."

Exactly how God changed "omnipotence" into matter

is not stated. If there was _nothing_ in the universe,

_omnipotence_ could do you no good. The weakest man

in the world can lift as much _nothing_ as God.

Mr. Talmage seems to think that to create something

from nothing is simply a question of strength--that it

requires infinite muscle--that it is only a question of

biceps. Of course, omnipotence is an attribute, not an

entity, not a raw material; and the idea that something

can be made out of omnipotence--using that as the

raw material--is infinitely absurd. It would have

been equally logical to say that God made the universe

out of his omniscience, or his omnipresence, or his

unchangeableness, or out of his honesty, his holiness,

or his incapacity to do evil. I confess my utter in-

ability to understand, or even to suspect, what the

reverend gentleman means, when he says that God

created the universe out of his "omnipotence."

The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, Vol. 05 (of 12) Dresden Edition—Discussions · 第 20 / 68 题