{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-11:crumbling-creeds",
  "slug": "crumbling-creeds",
  "title": "Crumbling Creeds",
  "subtitle": "On the quiet collapse of orthodoxy.",
  "excerpt": "Ingersoll's survey of the religious landscape in the 1890s — the denominations quietly letting go of doctrine after doctrine as the intelligent public drifted away from the old theology.",
  "year": 1893,
  "volume": 11,
  "category": "Essay",
  "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/crumbling-creeds/",
  "wordCount": 2565,
  "body": "THERE is a desire in each brain to harmonize the knowledge that it has.\nIf a man knows, or thinks he knows, a few facts, he will naturally use\nthose facts for the purpose of determining the accuracy of his opinions\non other subjects. This is simply an effort to establish or prove the\nunknown by the known—a process that is constantly going on in the minds\nof all intelligent people.\n\nIt is natural for a man not governed by fear, to use what he knows\nin one department of human inquiry, in every other department that he\ninvestigates. The average of intelligence has in the last few years\ngreatly increased. Man may have as much credulity as he ever had, on\nsome subjects, but certainly on the old subjects he has less. There\nis not as great difference to-day between the members of the learned\nprofessions and the common people. Man is governed less and less by\nauthority. He cares but little for the conclusions of the universities.\nHe does not feel bound by the actions of synods or ecumenical\ncouncils—neither does he bow to the decisions of the highest tribunals,\nunless the reasons given for the decision satisfy his intellect. One\nreason for this is, that the so-called \"learned\" do not agree among\nthemselves—that the universities dispute each other—that the synod\nattacks the ecumenical council—that the parson snaps his fingers at the\npriest, and even the Protestant bishop holds the pope in contempt. If\nthe learned cau thus disagree, there is no reason why the common people\nshould hold to one opinion. They are at least called upon to decide as\nbetween the universities or synods; and in order to decide, they must\nexamine both sides, and having examined both sides, they generally have\nan opinion of their own.\n\nThere was a time when the average man knew nothing of medicine—he\nsimply opened his mouth and took the dose. If he died, it was simply a\ndispensation of Providence—if he got well, it was a triumph of science.\nNow this average man not only asks the doctor what is the matter with\nhim—not only asks what medicine will be good for him,—but insists\non knowing the philosophy of the cure—asks the doctor why he gives\nit—what result he expects—and, as a rule, has a judgment of his own.\n\nSo in law. The average business man has an exceedingly good idea of the\nlaw affecting his business. There is nothing now mysterious about what\ngoes on in courts or in the decisions of judges—they are published in\nevery direction, and all intelligent people who happen to read these\nopinions have their ideas as to whether the opinions are right or wrong.\nThey are no longer the victims of doctors, or of lawyers, or of courts.\n\nThe same is true in the world of art and literature. The average man has\nan opinion of his own. He is no longer a parrot repeating what somebody\nelse says. He not only has opinions, but he has the courage to express\nthem. In literature the old models fail to satisfy him. He has the\ncourage to say that Milton is tiresome—that Dante is prolix—that they\ndeal with subjects having no human interest. He laughs at Young's \"Night\nThoughts\" and Pollok's \"Course of Time\"—knowing that both are filled\nwith hypocrisies and absurdities. He no longer falls upon his knees\nbefore the mechanical poetry of Mr. Pope. He chooses—and stands by his\nown opinion. I do not mean that he is entirely independent, but that he\nis going in that direction.\n\nThe same is true of pictures. He prefers the modern to the old masters.\nHe prefers Corot to Raphael. He gets more real pleasure from Millet and\nTroyon than from all the pictures of all the saints and donkeys of the\nMiddle Ages.\n\nIn other words, the days of authority are passing away.\n\nThe same is true in music. The old no longer satisfies, and there is a\nbreadth, color, wealth, in the new that makes the old poor and barren in\ncomparison.\n\nTo a far greater extent this advance, this individual independence, is\nseen in the religious world. The religion of our day—that is to say,\nthe creeds—at the time they were made, were in perfect harmony with the\nknowledge, or rather with the ignorance, of man in all other departments\nof human inquiry. All orthodox creeds agreed with the sciences of\ntheir day—with the astronomy and geology and biology and political\nconceptions of the Middle Ages. These creeds were declared to be the\nabsolute and eternal truth. They could not be changed without abandoning\nthe claim that made them authority. The priests, through a kind of\nunconscious self-defence, clung to every word. They denied the truth of\nall discovery. They measured every assertion in every other\ndepartment by their creeds. At last the facts against them became\nso numerous—their congregations became so intelligent—that it\nwas necessary to give new meanings to the old words. The cruel was\nsoftened—the absurd was partially explained, and they kept these old\nwords, although the original meanings had fallen out. They became empty\npurses, but they retained them still.\n\nSlowly but surely came the time when this course could not longer be\npursued. The words must be thrown away—the creeds must be changed—they\nwere no longer believed—only occasionally were they preached. The\nministers became a little ashamed—they began to apologize. Apology is\nthe prelude to retreat.\n\nOf all the creeds, the Presbyterian, the old Congregational, were the\nmost explicit, and for that reason the most absurd. When these creeds\nwere written, those who wrote them had perfect confidence in their\ntruth. They did not shrink because of their cruelty. They cared nothing\nfor what others called absurdity. They failed not to declare what they\nbelieved to be \"the whole counsel of God.\"\n\nAt that time, cruel punishments were inflicted by all governments.\nPeople were torn asunder, mutilated, burned. Every atrocity was\nperpetrated in the name of justice, and the limit of pain was the limit\nof endurance. These people imagined that God would do as they would do.\nIf they had had it in their power to keep the victim alive for years in\nthe flames, they would most cheerfully have supplied the fagots.\nThey believed that God could keep the victim alive forever, and that\ntherefore his punishment would be eternal. As man becomes civilized he\nbecomes merciful, and the time came when civilized Presbyterians and\nCongregationalists read their own creeds with horror.\n\nI am not saying that the Presbyterian creed is any worse than the\nCatholic. It is only a little more specific. Neither am I saying that it\nis more horrible than the Episcopal. It is not. All orthodox creeds are\nalike infamous. All of them have good things, and all of them have bad\nthings. You will find in every creed the blossom of mercy and the oak of\njustice, but under the one and around the other are coiled the serpents\nof infinite cruelty.\n\nThe time came when orthodox Christians began dimly to perceive that\nGod ought at least to be as good as they were. They felt that they\nwere incapable of inflicting eternal pain, and they began to doubt the\npropriety of saying that God would do that which a civilized Christian\nwould be incapable of.\n\nWe have improved in all directions for the same reasons. We have better\nlaws now because we have a better sense of justice. We are believing\nmore and more in the government of the people. Consequently we are\nbelieving more and more in the education of the people, and from that\nnaturally results greater individuality and a greater desire to hear the\nhonest opinions of all.\n\nThe moment the expression of opinion is allowed in any department,\nprogress begins. We are using our knowledge in every direction. The\ntendency is to test all opinions by the facts we know. All claims are\nput in the crucible of investigation—the object being to separate the\ntrue from the false. He who objects to having his opinions thus tested\nis regarded as a bigot.\n\nIf the professors of all the sciences had claimed that the knowledge\nthey had was given by inspiration—that it was absolutely true, and that\nthere was no necessity of examining further, not only, but that it was\na kind of blasphemy to doubt—all the sciences would have remained\nas stationary as religion has. Just to the extent that the Bible was\nappealed to in matters of science, science was retarded; and just to\nthe extent that science has been appealed to in matters of religion,\nreligion has advanced—so that now the object of intelligent\nreligionists is to adopt a creed that will bear the test and criticism\nof science.\n\nAnother thing may be alluded to in this connection. All the countries\nof the world are now, and have been for years, open to us. The ideas\nof other people—their theories, their religions—are now known; and we\nhave ascertained that the religions of all people have exactly the\nsame foundation as our own—that they all arose in the same way, were\nsubstantiated in the same way, were maintained by the same means, having\nprecisely the same objects in view.\n\nFor many years, the learned of the religious world were examining the\nreligions of other countries, and in that work they established certain\nrules of criticism—pursued certain lines of argument—by which they\noverturned the claims of those religions to supernatural origin. After\nthis had been successfully done, others, using the same methods on our\nreligion, pursuing the same line of argument, succeeded in overturning\nours. We have found that all miracles rest on the same basis—that all\nwonders were born of substantially the same ignorance and the same fear.\n\nThe intelligence of the world is far better distributed than ever\nbefore. The historical outlines of all countries are well known.\nThe arguments for and against all systems of religion are generally\nunderstood. The average of intelligence is far higher than ever before.\nAll discoveries become almost immediately the property of the whole\ncivilized world, and all thoughts are distributed by the telegraph and\npress with such rapidity, that provincialism is almost unknown. The\negotism of ignorance and seclusion is passing away. The prejudice of\nrace and religion is growing feebler, and everywhere, to a greater\nextent than ever before, the light is welcome.\n\nThese are a few of the reasons why creeds are crumbling, and why such a\nchange has taken place in the religious world.\n\nOnly a few years ago the pulpit was an intellectual power. The pews\nlistened with wonder, and accepted without question. There was something\nsacred about the preacher. He was different from other mortals. He had\nbread to eat which they knew not of. He was oracular, solemn, dignified,\nstupid.\n\nThe pulpit has lost its position. It speaks no longer with authority.\nThe pews determine what shall be preached. They pay only for that which\nthey wish to buy—for that which they wish to hear. Of course in every\nchurch there is an advance guard and a conservative party, and nearly\nevery minister is obliged to preach a little for both. He now and then\nsays a radical thing for one part of his congregation, and takes it\nmostly back on the next Sabbath, for the sake of the others. Most of\nthem ride two horses, and their time is taken up in urging one forward\nand in holding the other back.\n\nThe great reason why the orthodox creeds have become unpopular is, that\nall teach the dogma of eternal pain.\n\nIn old times, when men were nearly wild beasts, it was natural enough\nfor them to suppose that God would do as they would do in his place, and\nso they attributed to this God infinite cruelty, infinite revenge. This\nrevenge, this cruelty, wore the mask of justice. They took the ground\nthat God, having made man, had the right to do with him as he pleased.\nAt that time they were not civilized to the extent of seeing that a God\nwould not have the right to make a failure, and that a being of infinite\nwisdom and power would be under obligation to do the right, and that\nhe would have no right to create any being whose life would not be a\nblessing. The very fact that he made man, would put him under obligation\nto see to it that life should not be a curse.\n\nThe doctrine of eternal punishment is in perfect harmony with the\nsavagery of the men who made the orthodox creeds. It is in harmony with\ntorture, with flaying alive and with burnings. The men who burned\ntheir fellow-men for a moment, believed that God would burn his enemies\nforever.\n\nNo civilized men ever believed in this dogma. The belief in eternal\npunishment has driven millions from the church. It was easy enough for\npeople to imagine that the children of others had gone to hell; that\nforeigners had been doomed to eternal pain; but when it was brought\nhome—when fathers and mothers bent above their dead who had died in\ntheir sins—when wives shed their tears on the faces of husbands who had\nbeen born but once—love suggested doubts and love fought the dogma of\neternal revenge.\n\nThis doctrine is as cruel as the hunger of hyenas, and is infamous\nbeyond the power of any language to express—yet a creed with this\ndoctrine has been called \"the glad tidings of great joy\"—a consolation\nto the weeping world. It is a source of great pleasure to me to know\nthat all intelligent people are ashamed to admit that they believe\nit—that no intelligent clergyman now preaches it, except with a preface\nto the effect that it is probably untrue.\n\nI have been blamed for taking this consolation from the world—for\nputting out, or trying to put out, the fires of hell; and many orthodox\npeople have wondered how I could be so wicked as to deprive the world of\nthis hope.\n\nThe church clung to the doctrine because it seemed a necessary excuse\nfor the existence of the church. The ministers said: \"No hell, no\natonement; no atonement, no fall of man; no fall of man, no inspired\nbook; no inspired book, no preachers; no preachers, no salary; no hell,\nno missionaries; no sulphur, no salvation.\"\n\nAt last, the people are becoming enlightened enough to ask for a better\nphilosophy. The doctrine of hell is now only for the poor, the ragged,\nthe ignorant. Well-dressed people won't have it. Nobody goes to hell\nin a carriage—they foot it. Hell is for strangers and tramps. No soul\nleaves a brown-stone front for hell—they start from the tenements, from\njails and reformatories. In other words, hell is for the poor. It is\neasier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a poor man\nto get into heaven, or for a rich man to get into hell. The ministers\nstand by their supporters. Their salaries are paid by the well-to-do,\nand they can hardly afford to send the subscribers to hell. Every creed\nin which is the dogma of eternal pain is doomed. Every church teaching\nthe infinite lie must fall, and the sooner the better.—The Twentieth\nCentury, N, Y., April 21,1890.\n"
}