_Question_. What have you to say in reply to the letter in to-
day's _Times_ signed R. H. S.?
_Answer_. I find that I am accused of "four flagrant wrongs," and
while I am not as yet suffering from the qualms of conscience, nor
do I feel called upon to confess and be forgiven, yet I have
something to say in self-defence.
As to the first objection made by your correspondent, namely, that
my doctrine deprives people of the hope that after this life is
ended they will meet their fathers, mothers, sisters and brothers,
long since passed away, in the land beyond the grave, and there
enjoy their company forever, I have this to say: If Christianity
is true we are not quite certain of meeting our relatives and
friends where we can enjoy their company forever. If Christianity
is true most of our friends will be in hell. The ones I love best
and whose memory I cherish will certainly be among the lost. The
trouble about Christianity is that it is infinitely selfish. Each
man thinks that if he can save his own little, shriveled, microscopic
soul, that is enough. No matter what becomes of the rest.
Christianity has no consolation for a generous man. I do not wish
to go to heaven if the ones who have given me joy are to be lost.
I would much rather go with them. The only thing that makes life
endurable in this world is human love, and yet, according to
Christianity, that is the very thing we are not to have in the
other world. We are to be so taken up with Jesus and the angels,
that we shall care nothing about our brothers and sisters that have
been damned. We shall be so carried away with the music of the
harp that we shall not even hear the wail of father or mother.
Such a religion is a disgrace to human nature.
As to the second objection,--that society cannot be held together
in peace and good order without hell and a belief in eternal torment,
I would ask why an infinitely wise and good God should make people
of so poor and mean a character that society cannot be held together
without scaring them. Is it possible that God has so made the
world that the threat of eternal punishment is necessary for the
preservation of society?
The writer of the letter also says that it is necessary to believe
that if a man commits murder here he is destined to be punished in
hell for the offence. This is Christianity. Yet nearly every
murderer goes directly from the gallows to God. Nearly every
murderer takes it upon himself to lecture the assembled multitude
who have gathered to see him hanged, and invite them to meet him
in heaven. When the rope is about his neck he feels the wings
growing. That is the trouble with the Christian doctrine. Every
murderer is told he may repent and go to heaven, and have the
happiness of seeing his victim in hell. Should heaven at any time
become dull, the vein of pleasure can be re-thrilled by the sight
of his victim wriggling on the gridiron of God's justice. Really,
Christianity leads men to sin on credit. It sells rascality on
time and tells all the devils they can have the benefit of the
gospel bankrupt act.
The next point in the letter is that I do not preach for the benefit
of mankind, but for the money which is the price of blood. Of
course it makes no difference whether I preach for money or not.
That is to say, it makes no difference to the preached. The
arguments I advance are either good or bad. If they are bad they
can easily be answered by argument. If they are not they cannot
be answered by personalities or by ascribing to me selfish motives.
It is not a personal matter. It is a matter of logic, of sense--
not a matter of slander, vituperation or hatred. The writer of
the letter, R. H. S., may be an exceedingly good person, yet that
will add no weight to his or her argument. He or she may be a very
bad person, but that would not weaken the logic of the letter, if
it had any logic to begin with. It is not for me to say what my
motives are in what I do or say; it must be left to the judgment
of mankind. I presume I am about as bad as most folks, and as good
as some, but my goodness or badness has nothing to do with the
question. I may have committed every crime in the world, yet that
does not make the story of the flood reasonable, nor does it even
tend to show that the three gentlemen in the furnace were not
scorched. I may be the best man in the world, yet that does not
go to prove that Jonah was swallowed by the whale. Let me say
right here that if there is another world I believe that every soul
who finds the way to that shore will have an everlasting opportunity
to do right--of reforming. My objection to Christianity is that
it is infinitely cruel, infinitely selfish, and I might add infinitely
absurd. I deprive no one of any hope unless you call the expectation
of eternal pain a hope.
_Question_. Have you read the Rev. Father Lambert's "Notes on
Ingersoll," and if so, what have you to say of them or in reply to
them?
_Answer_. I have read a few pages or paragraphs of that pamphlet,
and do not feel called upon to say anything. Mr. Lambert has the
same right to publish his ideas that I have, and the readers must
judge. People who believe his way will probably think that he has
succeeded in answering me. After all, he must leave the public to
decide. I have no anxiety about the decision. Day by day the
people are advancing, and in a little while the sacred superstitions
of to-day will be cast aside with the foolish myths and fables of
the pagan world.
As a matter of fact there can be no argument in favor of the
supernatural. Suppose you should ask if I had read the work of
that gentleman who says that twice two are five. I should answer
you that no gentleman can prove that twice two are five; and yet
this is exactly as easy as to prove the existence of the supernatural.
There are no arguments in favor of the supernatural. There are
theories and fears and mistakes and prejudices and guesses, but no
arguments--plenty of faith, but no facts; plenty of divine revelation,
but no demonstration. The supernatural, in my judgment, is a
mistake. I believe in the natural.
--_The Times_, Buffalo, New York, May 19, 1884.