{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-7:a-reply-to-the-rev-dr-plumb",
  "slug": "a-reply-to-the-rev-dr-plumb",
  "title": "A Reply to the Rev. Dr. Plumb",
  "subtitle": "Boston, 1898.",
  "excerpt": "A 1898 Boston interview answering the Reverend Dr. Plumb's attack on Ingersoll and on the Reverend Mr. Mills.",
  "year": 1898,
  "volume": 7,
  "category": "Reply",
  "author": {
    "name": "Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "wikidata": "Q360326",
    "viaf": "44331023"
  },
  "isPartOf": {
    "title": "The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "edition": "Dresden Edition",
    "publisher": "C. P. Farrell",
    "year": 1900
  },
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/",
  "url": "https://thegreatagnostic.com/works/a-reply-to-the-rev-dr-plumb/",
  "wordCount": 2272,
  "body": "• Boston, 1898.\n\nQuestion. Last Sunday the Rev. Dr. Plumb paid some attention to the\nlecture which you delivered here on the 23rd of October. Have you read a\nreport of it, and what have you to say?\n\nAnswer. Dr. Plumb attacks not only myself, but the Rev. Mr. Mills. I\ndo not know the position that Mr. Mills takes, but from what Dr.\nPlumb says, I suppose that he has mingled a little philosophy with his\nreligion and some science with his superstition. Dr. Plumb appears to\nhave successfully avoided both. His manners do not appear to me to be of\nthe best. Why should he call an opponent coarse and blasphemous, simply\nbecause he does not happen to believe as he does? Is it blasphemous to\nsay that this \"poor\" world never was visited by a Redeemer from Heaven,\na majestic being—unique—peculiar—who \"trod the sea and hushed the\nstorm and raised the dead\"? Why does Dr. Plumb call this world a \"poor\"\nworld? According to his creed, it was created by infinite wisdom,\ninfinite goodness and infinite power. How dare he call the work of such\na being \"poor\"?\n\nIs it not blasphemous for a Boston minister to denounce the work of the\nInfinite and say to God that he made a \"poor\" world? If I believed\nthis world had been made by an infinitely wise and good Being, I should\ncertainly insist that this is not a poor world, but, on the contrary,\na perfect world. I would insist that everything that happens is for the\nbest. Whether it looks wise or foolish to us, I would insist that the\nfault we thought we saw, lies in us and not in the infinitely wise and\nbenevolent Creator.\n\nDr. Plumb may love God, but he certainly regards him as a poor mechanic\nand a failure as a manufacturer. There Dr. Plumb, like all religious\npreachers, takes several things for granted; things that have not been\nestablished by evidence, and things which in their nature cannot be\nestablished.\n\nHe tells us that this poor world was visited by a mighty Redeemer from\nHeaven. How does he know? Does he know where heaven is? Does he know\nthat any such place exists? Is he perfectly sure that an infinite God\nwould be foolish enough to make people who needed a redeemer?\n\nHe also says that this Being \"trod the sea, hushed the storm and raised\nthe dead.\" Is there any evidence that this Being trod the sea? Any more\nevidence than that Venus rose from the foam of the ocean? Any evidence\nthat he hushed the storm any more than there is that the storm comes\nfrom the cave of AEolus? Is there any evidence that he raised the dead?\nHow would it be possible to prove that the dead were raised? How\ncould we prove such a thing if it happened now? Who would believe\nthe evidence? As a matter of fact, the witnesses themselves would\nnot believe and could not believe until raising of the dead became so\ngeneral as to be regarded as natural.\n\nDr. Plumb knows, if he knows anything, that gospel gossip is the only\nevidence he has, or anybody has, that Christ trod the sea, hushed the\nstorm and raised the dead. He also knows, if he knows anything, that\nthese stories were not written until Christ himself had been dead for at\nleast four generations. He knows also that these accounts were written\nat a time when the belief in miracles was almost universal, and\nwhen everything that actually happened was regarded of no particular\nimportance, and only the things that did not happen were carefully\nwritten out with all the details.\n\nSo Dr. Plumb says that this man who hushed the storm \"spake as never man\nspake.\" Did the Doctor ever read Zeno? Zeno, who denounced human slavery\nmany years before Christ was born? Did he ever read Epicurus, one of the\ngreatest of the Greeks? Has he read anything from Buddha? Has he read\nthe dialogues between Arjuna and Krishna? If he has, he knows that every\ngreat and splendid utterance of Christ was uttered centuries before he\nlived. Did he ever read Lao-tsze? If he did—and this man lived many\ncenturies before the coming of our Lord—he knows that Lao-tsze said \"we\nshould render benefits for injuries. We should love our enemies, and\nwe should not resist evil.\" So it will hardly do now to say that Christ\nspake as never man spake, because he repeated the very things that other\nmen had said.\n\nSo he says that I am endeavoring to carry people back to a dimly groping\nSocrates or a vague Confucius. Did Dr. Plumb ever read Confucius? Only a\nlittle while ago a book was published by Mr. For-long showing the origin\nof the principal religion and the creeds that have been taught. In this\nbook you will find the cream of Buddha, of Christ, of Zoroaster, and you\nwill also find a few pages devoted to the philosophy of Confucius; and\nafter you have read the others, then read what Confucius says, and you\nwill find that his philosophy rises like a monolith touching the clouds,\nwhile the creeds and sayings of the others appear like heaps of stone or\npiles of rubbish. The reason of this is that Confucius was not simply\na sentimentalist. He was not controlled entirely by feeling, but he had\nintelligence—a great brain in which burned the torch of reason. Read\nConfucius, and you will think that he must have known the sciences of\nto-day; that is to say, the conclusions that have been reached by modern\nthinkers. It could have been easily said of Confucius in his day that he\nspake as never man had spoken, and it may be that after you read him\nyou will change your mind just a little as to the wisdom and the\nintelligence contained in many of the sayings of our Lord.\n\nDr. Plumb charges that Mr. Mills is trying to reconstruct theology.\nWhether he is right in this charge I do not know, but I do know that I\nam not trying to reconstruct theology. I am endeavoring to destroy it.\nI have no more confidence in theology than I have in astrology or in\nthe black art. Theology is a science that exists wholly independent of\nfacts, and that reaches conclusions without the assistance of evidence.\nIt also scorns experience and does what little it can to do away with\nthought.\n\nI make a very great distinction between theology and real religion. I\ncan conceive of no religion except usefulness. Now, here we are, men\nand women in this world, and we have certain faculties, certain senses.\nThere are things that we can ascertain, and by developing our brain we\ncan avoid mistakes, keep a few thorns out of our feet, a few thistles\nout of our hands, a few diseases from our flesh. In my judgment, we\nshould use all our senses, gathering information from every possible\nquarter, and this information should be only used for the purpose of\nascertaining the facts, for finding out the conditions of well-being, to\nthe end that we may add to the happiness of ourselves and fellows.\n\nIn other words, I believe in intellectual veracity and also in mental\nhospitality. To me reason is the final arbiter, and when I say reason,\nI mean my reason. It may be a very poor light, the flame small and\nflickering, but, after all, it is the only light I have, and never with\nmy consent shall any preacher blow it out.\n\nNow, Dr. Plumb thinks that I am trying to despoil my fellow-men of their\ngreatest inheritance; that is to say, divine Christ. Why do you call\nChrist good? Is it because he was merciful? Then why do you put him\nabove mercy? Why do you call Christ good? Is it because he was just? Why\ndo you put him before justice? Suppose it should turn out that no such\nperson as Christ ever lived. What harm would that do justice or mercy?\nWouldn't the tear of pity be as pure as now, and wouldn't justice,\nholding aloft her scales, from which she blows even the dust of\nprejudice, be as noble, as admirable as now? Is it not better to love,\njustice and mercy than to love a name, and when you put a name above\njustice, above mercy, are you sure that you are benefiting your\nfellow-men?\n\nIf Dr. Plumb wanted to answer me, why did he not take my argument\ninstead of my motive? Why did he not point out my weakness instead\nof telling the consequences that would follow from my action? We have\nnothing to do with the consequences. I said that to believe without\nevidence, or in spite of evidence, was superstition. If that definition\nis correct, Dr. Plumb is a superstitious man, because he believes at\nleast without evidence. What evidence has he that Christ was God? In\nthe nature of things, how could he have evidence? The only evidence\nhe pretends to have is the dream of Joseph, and he does not know that\nJoseph ever dreamed the dream, because Joseph did not write an account\nof his dream, so that Dr. Plumb has only hearsay for the dream, and the\ndream is the foundation of his creed.\n\nNow, when I say that that is superstition, Dr. Plumb charges me with\nbeing a burglar—a coarse, blasphemous burglar—who wishes to rob\nsomebody of some great blessing. Dr. Plumb would not hesitate to tell a\nMohammedan that Mohammed was an impostor. He would tell a Mormon in\nUtah that Joseph Smith was a vulgar liar and that Brigham Young was\nno better. In other words, if in Turkey, he would be a coarse and\nblasphemous burglar, and he would follow the same profession in Utah. So\nprobably he would tell the Chinese that Confucius was an ignorant\nwretch and that their religion was idiotic, and the Chinese priest would\ndenounce Dr. Plumb as a very coarse and blasphemous burglar, and Dr.\nPlumb would be perfectly astonished that a priest could be so low, so\nimpudent and malicious.\n\nOf course my wonder is not excited. I have become used to it.\n\nIf Dr. Plumb would think, if he would exercise his imagination a\nlittle and put himself in the place of others, he would think, in all\nprobability, better things of his opponents. I do not know Dr. Plumb,\nand yet I have no doubt that he is a good and sincere man; a little\nsuperstitious, superficial, and possibly, mingled with his many virtues,\nthere may be a little righteous malice.\n\nThe Rev. Mr. Mills used to believe as Dr. Plumb does now, and I suppose\nhe has changed for reasons that were sufficient for him. So I believe\nhim to be an honest, conscientious man, and so far as I am concerned, I\nhave no objection to Mr. Mills doing what little he can to get all the\nchurches to act together. He may never succeed, but I am not responsible\nfor that.\n\nSo I have no objection to Dr. Plumb preaching what he believes to be the\ngospel. I admit that he is honest when he says that an infinitely good\nGod made a poor world; that he made man and woman and put them in the\nGarden of Eden, and that this same God before that time had manufactured\na devil, and that when he manufactured this devil, he knew that he would\ncorrupt the man and woman that he had determined to make; that he could\nhave defeated the devil, but that for a wise purpose, he allowed his\nSatanic Majesty to succeed; that at the time he allowed him to succeed,\nhe knew that in consequence of his success that he (God) in about\nfifteen or sixteen hundred years would be compelled to drown the whole\nworld with the exception of eight people. These eight people he kept for\nseed. At the time he kept them for seed, he knew that they were totally\ndepraved, that they were saturated with the sin of Adam and Eve, and\nthat their children would be their natural heirs. He also knew at the\ntime he allowed the devil to succeed, that he (God), some four thousand\nyears afterward, would be compelled to be born in Palestine as a babe,\nto learn the carpenter's trade, and to go about the country for three\nyears preaching to the people and discussing with the rabbis of his\nchosen people, and he also knew that these chosen people—these people\nwho had been governed and educated by him, to whom he had sent a\nmultitude of prophets, would at that time be so savage that they would\ncrucify him, although he would be at that time the only sinless being\nwho had ever stood upon the earth. This he knew would be the effect of\nhis government, of his education of his chosen people. He also knew at\nthe time he allowed the devil to succeed, that in consequence of that\nsuccess a vast majority of the human race would become eternal convicts\nin the prison of hell.\n\nAll this he knew, and yet Dr. Plumb insists that he was and is\ninfinitely wise, infinitely powerful and infinitely good. What would\nthis God have done if he had lacked wisdom, or power, or goodness?\n\nOf all the religions that man has produced, of all the creeds of\nsavagery, there is none more perfectly absurd than Christianity.\n"
}