{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-11:science-and-sentiment",
  "slug": "science-and-sentiment",
  "title": "Science and Sentiment",
  "subtitle": "Including \\\"Sowing and Reaping.\\\"",
  "excerpt": "On the relationship between scientific understanding and human feeling — the two great sources of the modern mind.",
  "year": 1895,
  "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/science-and-sentiment/",
  "wordCount": 5329,
  "body": "IT was thought at one time by many that science would do away with\npoetry—that it was the enemy of the imagination. We know now that is\nnot true. We know that science goes hand in hand with imagination. We\nknow that it is in the highest degree poetic and that the old ideas once\nconsidered so beautiful are flat and stale. Compare Kepler's laws with\nthe old Greek idea that the planets were boosted or pushed by angels.\nThe more we know, the more beauty, the more poetry we find. Ignorance is\nnot the mother of the poetic or artistic.\n\nSo, some people imagine that science will do away with sentiment. In my\njudgment, science will not only increase sentiment but sense.\n\nA person will be attracted to another for a thousand reasons, and why\na person is attracted to another, may, and in some degree will, depend\nupon the intellectual, artistic and ethical development of each.\n\nThe handsomest girl in Zululand might not be attractive to Herbert\nSpencer, and the fairest girl in England might not be able to hasten the\npulse of a Choctaw brave. This does not prove that there is any lack\nof sentiment. Men are influenced according to their capacity, their\ntemperament, their knowledge.\n\nSome men fall in love with a small waist, an arched instep or curly\nhair, without the slightest regard to mind or muscle. This we call\nsentiment.\n\nNow, educate such men, develop their brains, enlarge their intellectual\nhorizon, teach them something of the laws of health, and then they may\nfall in love with women because they are developed grandly in body and\nmind. The sentiment is still there—still controls—but back of the\nsentiment is science.\n\nSentiment can never be destroyed, and love will forever rule the human\nrace.\n\nThousands, millions of people fear that science will destroy not only\npoetry, not only sentiment, but religion. This fear is idiotic. Science\nwill destroy superstition, but it will not injure true religion. Science\nis the foundation of real religion. Science teaches us the consequences\nof actions, the rights and duties of all. Without science there can be\nno real religion.\n\nOnly those who live on the labor of the ignorant are the enemies of\nscience. Real love and real religion are in no danger from science. The\nmore we know the safer all good things are.\n\nDo I think that the marriage of the sickly and diseased ought to be\nprevented by law?\n\nI have not much confidence in law—in law that I know cannot be carried\nout. The poor, the sickly, the diseased, as long as they are ignorant,\nwill marry and help fill the world with wretchedness and want.\n\nWe must rely on education instead of legislation.\n\nWe must teach the consequences of actions. We must show the sickly and\ndiseased what their children will be. We must preach the gospel of the\nbody. I believe the time will come when the public thought will be so\ngreat and grand that it will be looked upon as infamous to perpetuate\ndisease—to leave a legacy of agony.\n\nI believe the time will come when men will refuse to fill the future\nwith consumption and insanity. Yes, we shall study ourselves. We shall\nunderstand the conditions of health and then we shall say: We are under\nobligation to put the flags of health in the cheeks of our children.\n\nEven if I should get to heaven and have a harp, I know that I could\nnot bear to see my descendants still on the earth, diseased, deformed,\ncrazed—all suffering the penalties of my ignorance. Let us have more\nscience and more sentiment—more knowledge and more conscience—more\nliberty and more love.\n\nSowing and Reaping\n\nI HAVE read the sermon on \"Sowing and Reaping,\" and I now understand Mr.\nMoody better than I did before. The other day, in New York, Mr. Moody\nsaid that he implicitly believed the story of Jonah and really thought\nthat he was in the fish for three days.\n\nWhen I read it I was surprised that a man living in the century of\nHumboldt, Darwin, Huxley, Spencer and Haeckel, should believe such an\nabsurd and idiotic story.\n\nNow I understand the whole thing. I can account for the amazing\ncredulity of this man. Mr. Moody never read one of my lectures. That\naccounts for it all, and no wonder that he is a hundred years behind the\ntimes. He never read one of my lectures; that is a perfect explanation.\n\nPoor man! He has no idea of what he has lost. He has been living on\nmiracles and mistakes, on falsehood and foolishness, stuffing his mind\nwith absurdities when he could have had truth, facts and good, sound\nsense.\n\nPoor man!\n\nProbably Mr. Moody has never read one word of Darwin and so he still\nbelieves in the Garden of Eden and the talking snake and really thinks\nthat Jehovah took some mud, moulded the form of a man, breathed in its\nnostrils, stood it up and called it Adam, and that he then took one\nof Adam's ribs and some more mud and manufactured Eve. Probably he has\nnever read a word written by any great geologist and consequently still\nbelieves in the story of the flood. Knowing nothing of astronomy, he\nstill thinks that Joshua stopped the sun.\n\nPoor man! He has neglected Spencer and has no idea of evolution. He\nthinks that man has, through all the ages, degenerated, the first pair\nhaving been perfect. He does not believe that man came from lower forms\nand has gradually journeyed upward.\n\nHe really thinks that the Devil outwitted God and vaccinated the human\nrace with the virus of total depravity.\n\nPoor man!\n\nHe knows nothing of the great scientists—of the great thinkers, of the\nemancipators of the human race; knows nothing of Spinoza, of Voltaire,\nof Draper, Buckle, of Paine or Renan.\n\nMr. Moody ought to read something besides the Bible—ought to find\nout what the really intelligent have thought. He ought to get some\nnew ideas—a few facts—and I think that, after he did so, he would be\nastonished to find how ignorant and foolish he had been. He is a good\nman. His heart is fairly good, but his head is almost useless.\n\nThe trouble with this sermon, \"Sowing and Reaping,\" is that he\ncontradicts it. I believe that a man must reap what he sows, that every\nhuman being must bear the natural consequences of his acts. Actions are\ngood or bad according to their consequences. That is my doctrine.\n\nThere is no forgiveness in nature. But Mr. Moody tells us that a man may\nsow thistles and gather figs, that having acted like a fiend tor seventy\nyears, he can, between his last dose of medicine and his last breath,\nrepent; that he can be washed clean by the blood of the lamb, and that\nmyriads of angels will carry his soul to heaven—in other words, that\nthis man will not reap what he sowed, but what Christ sowed, that this\nman's thistles will be changed to figs.\n\nThis doctrine, to my mind, is not only absurd, but dishonest and\ncorrupting.\n\nThis is one of the absurdities in Mr. Moody's theology. The other is\nthat a man can justly be damned for the sin of another.\n\nNothing can exceed the foolishness of these two ideas—first: \"Man can\nbe justly punished forever for the sin of Adam.\" Second: \"Man can be\njustly rewarded with eternal joy for the goodness of Christ.\"\n\nYet the man who believes this, preaches a sermon in which he says that\na man must reap what he sows. Orthodox Christians teach exactly the\nopposite. They teach that no matter what a man sows, no matter how\nwicked his life has been, that he can by repentance change the crop.\nThat all his sins shall be forgotten and that only the goodness of\nChrist will be remembered.\n\nLet us see how this works:\n\nMr. A. has lived a good and useful life, kept his contracts, paid his\ndebts, educated his children, loved his wife and made his home a heaven,\nbut he did not believe in the inspiration of Mr. Moody's Bible. He died\nand his soul was sent to hell. Mr. Moody says that as a man sows so\nshall he reap.\n\nMr. B. lived a useless and wicked life. By his cruelty he drove his wife\nto insanity, his children became vagrants and beggars, his home was a\nperfect hell, he committed many crimes, he was a thief, a burglar, a\nmurderer. A few minutes before he was hanged he got religion and his\nsoul went from the scaffold to heaven. And yet Mr. Moody says that as a\nman sows so shall he reap.\n\nMr. Moody ought to have a little philosophy—a little good sense.\n\nSo Mr. Moody says that only in this life can a man secure the reward of\nrepentance.\n\nJust before a man dies, God loves him—loves him as a mother loves her\nbabe—but a moment after he dies, he sends his soul to hell. In the\nother world nothing can be done to reform him. The society of God and\nthe angels can have no good effect. Nobody can be made better in heaven.\nThis world is the only place where reform is possible. Here, surrounded\nby the wicked in the midst of temptations, in the darkness of ignorance,\na human being may reform if he is fortunate enough to hear the words\nof some revival preacher, but when he goes before his maker—before the\nTrinity—he has no chance. God can do nothing for his soul except to\nsend it to hell.\n\nThis shows that the power for good is confined to people in this world\nand that in the next world God can do nothing to reform his children.\nThis is theology. This is what they call \"Tidings of great joy.\"\n\nEvery orthodox creed is savage, ignorant and idiotic.\n\nIn the orthodox heaven there is no mercy, no pity. In the orthodox hell\nthere is no hope, no reform. God is an eternal jailer, an everlasting\nturnkey.\n\nAnd yet Christians now say that while there may be no fire in hell—no\nactual flames—yet the lost souls will feel forever the tortures of\nconscience.\n\nWhat will conscience trouble the people in hell about? They tell us that\nthey will remember their sins.\n\nWell, what about the souls in heaven? They committed awful sins, they\nmade their fellow-men unhappy. They took the lives of others—sent many\nto eternal torment. Will they have no conscience? Is hell the only place\nwhere souls regret the evil they have done? Have the angels no regret,\nno remorse, no conscience?\n\nIf this be so, heaven must be somewhat worse than hell.\n\nIn old times, if people wanted to know anything they asked the preacher.\nNow they do if they don't.\n\nThe Bible has, with intelligent men, lost its authority.\n\nThe miracles are now regarded by sensible people as the spawn of\nignorance and credulity. On every hand people are looking for facts—for\ntruth—and all religions are taking their places in the museum of myths.\n\nYes, the people are becoming civilized, and so they are putting out the\nfires of hell. They are ceasing to believe in a God who seeks eternal\nrevenge.\n\nThe people are becoming sensible. They are asking for evidence. They\ncare but little for the winged phantoms of the air—for the ghosts and\ndevils and supposed gods. The people are anxious to be happy here and\nthey want a little heaven in this life.\n\nTheology is a curse. Science is a blessing. We do not need preachers,\nbut teachers; not priests, but thinkers; not churches, but schools; not\nsteeples, but observatories. We want knowledge.\n\nLet us hope that Mr. Moody will read some really useful books.\n\nShould Infidels Send Their Children to Sunday School\n\nSHOULD parents, who are Infidels, unbelievers or Atheists, send their\nchildren to Sunday schools and churches to give them the benefit of\nChristian education?\n\nParents who do not believe the Bible to be an inspired book should\nnot teach their children that it is. They should be absolutely honest.\nHypocrisy is not a virtue, and, as a rule, lies are less valuable than\nfacts.\n\nAn unbeliever should not allow the mind of his child to be deformed,\nstunted and shriveled by superstition. He should not allow the child's\nimagination to be polluted. Nothing is more outrageous than to take\nadvantage of the helplessness of childhood to sow in the brain the seeds\nof falsehoods, to imprison the soul in the dungeon of Fear, to teach\ndimpled infancy the infamous dogma of eternal pain—filling life with\nthe glow and glare of hell.\n\nNo unbeliever should allow his child to be tortured in the orthodox\ninquisitions. He should defend the mind from attack as he would the\nbody. He should recognize the rights of the soul. In the orthodox Sunday\nschools, children are taught that it is a duty to believe—that evidence\nis not essential—that faith is independent of facts and that religion\nis superior to reason. They are taught not to use their natural\nsense—not to tell what they really think—not to entertain a doubt—not\nto ask wicked questions, but to accept and believe what their teachers\nsay. In this way the minds of the children are invaded, corrupted and\nconquered. Would an educated man send his child to a school in which\nNewton's statement in regard to the attraction of gravitation was\ndenied—in which the law of falling bodies, as given by Galileo, was\nridiculed—Kepler's three laws declared to be idiotic, and the rotary\nmotion of the earth held to be utterly absurd?\n\nWhy then should an intelligent man allow his child to be taught the\ngeology and astronomy of the Bible? Children should be taught to seek\nfor the truth—to be honest, kind, generous, merciful and just. They\nshould be taught to love liberty and to live to the ideal.\n\nWhy then should an unbeliever, an Infidel, send his child to an orthodox\nSunday school where he is taught that he has no right to seek for the\ntruth—no right to be mentally honest, and that he will be damned for\nan honest doubt—where he is taught that God was ferocious,\nrevengeful, heartless as a wild beast—that he drowned millions of his\nchildren—that he ordered wars of extermination and told his soldiers\nto kill gray-haired and trembling age, mothers and children, and to\nassassinate with the sword of war the babes unborn?\n\nWhy should an unbeliever in the Bible send his child to an orthodox\nSunday school where he is taught that God was in favor of slavery\nand told the Jews to buy of the heathen and that they should be their\nbondmen and bondwomen forever; where he is taught that God upheld\npolygamy and the degradation of women?\n\nWhy should an unbeliever, who believes in the uniformity of Nature, in\nthe unbroken and unbreakable chain of cause and effect, allow his child\nto be taught that miracles have been performed; that men have gone\nbodily to heaven; that millions have been miraculously fed with manna\nand quails; that fire has refused to burn clothes and flesh of men; that\niron has been made to float; that the earth and moon have been stopped\nand that the earth has not only been stopped, but made to turn the other\nway; that devils inhabit the bodies of men and women; that diseases have\nbeen cured with words, and that the dead, with a touch, have been made\nto live again?\n\nThe thoughtful man knows that there is not the slightest evidence that\nthese miracles ever were performed. Why should he allow his children to\nbe stuffed with these foolish and impossible falsehoods? Why should\nhe give his lambs to the care and keeping of the wolves and hyenas of\nsuperstition?\n\nChildren should be taught only what somebody knows. Guesses should not\nbe palmed off on them as demonstrated facts. If a Christian lived in\nConstantinople he would not send his children to the mosque to be taught\nthat Mohammed was a prophet of God and that the Koran is an inspired\nbook. Why? Because he does not believe in Mohammed or the Koran. That is\nreason enough. So, an Agnostic, living in New York, should not allow his\nchildren to be taught that the Bible is an inspired book. I use the word\n\"Agnostic\" because I prefer it to the word Atheist. As a matter of fact,\nno one knows that God exists and no one knows that God does not exist.\nTo my mind there is no evidence that God exists—that this world is\ngoverned by a being of infinite goodness, wisdom and power, but I do\nnot pretend to know. What I insist upon is that children should not be\npoisoned—should not be taken advantage of—that they should be treated\nfairly, honestly—that they should be allowed to develop from the inside\ninstead of being crammed from the outside—that they should be taught\nto reason, not to believe—to think, to investigate and to use their\nsenses, their minds.\n\nWould a Catholic send his children to a school to be taught that\nCatholicism is superstition and that Science is the only savior of\nmankind?\n\nWhy then should a free and sensible believer in Science, in the\nnaturalness of the universe, send his child to a Catholic school?\n\nNothing could be more irrational, foolish and absurd.\n\nMy advice to all Agnostics is to keep their children from the orthodox\nSunday schools, from the orthodox churches, from the poison of the\npulpits.\n\nTeach your children the facts you know. If you do not know, say so. Be\nas honest as you are ignorant. Do all you can to develop their minds, to\nthe end that they may live useful and happy lives.\n\nStrangle the serpent of superstition that crawls and hisses about\nthe cradle. Keep your children from the augurs, the soothsayers, the\nmedicine-men, the priests of the supernatural. Tell them that all\nreligions have been made by folks and that all the \"sacred books\" were\nwritten by ignorant men.\n\nTeach them that the world is natural. Teach them to be absolutely\nhonest. Do not send them where they will contract diseases of the\nmind—the leprosy of the soul. Let us do all we can to make them\nintelligent.\n\nWhat Would You Substitute for the Bible as a Moral Guide\n  • Written for The Boston Investigator.\n\nYOU ask me what I would \"substitute for the Bible as a moral guide.\".\n\nI know that many people regard the Bible as the only moral guide\nand believe that in that book only can be found the true and perfect\nstandard of morality.\n\nThere are many good precepts, many wise sayings and many good\nregulations and laws in the Bible, and these are mingled with bad\nprecepts, with foolish sayings, with absurd rules and cruel laws.\n\nBut we must remember that the Bible is a collection of many books\nwritten centuries apart, and that it in part represents the growth and\ntells in part the history of a people. We must also remember that the\nwriters treat of many subjects. Many of these writers have nothing to\nsay about right or wrong, about vice or virtue.\n\nThe book of Genesis has nothing about morality. There is not a line in\nit calculated to shed light on the path of conduct. No one can call that\nbook a moral guide. It is made up of myth and miracle, of tradition and\nlegend.\n\nIn Exodus we have an account of the manner in which Jehovah delivered\nthe Jews from Egyptian bondage.\n\nWe now know that the Jews were never enslaved by the Egyptians; that the\nentire story is a fiction. We know this, because there is not found in\nHebrew a word of Egyptian origin, and there is not found in the language\nof the Egyptians a word of Hebrew origin. This being so, we know that\nthe Hebrews and Egyptians could not have lived together for hundreds of\nyears.\n\nCertainly Exodus was not written to teach morality. In that book you\ncannot find one word against human slavery. As a matter of fact, Jehovah\nwas a believer in that institution.\n\nThe killing of cattle with disease and hail, the murder of the\nfirst-born, so that in every house was death, because the king refused\nto let the Hebrews go, certainly was not moral; it was fiendish. The\nwriter of that book regarded all the people of Egypt, their children,\ntheir flocks and herds, as the property of Pharaoh, and these people and\nthese cattle were killed, not because they had done anything wrong, but\nsimply for the purpose of punishing the king. Is it possible to get any\nmorality out of this history?\n\nAll the laws found in Exodus, including the Ten Commandments, so far as\nthey are really good and sensible, were at that time in force among all\nthe peoples of the world.\n\nMurder is, and always was, a crime, and always will be, as long as a\nmajority of people object to being murdered.\n\nIndustry always has been and always will be the enemy of larceny.\n\nThe nature of man is such that he admires the teller of truth and\ndespises the liar. Among all tribes, among all people, truth-telling has\nbeen considered a virtue and false swearing or false speaking a vice.\n\nThe love of parents for children is natural, and this love is found\namong all the animals that live. So the love of children for parents is\nnatural, and was not and cannot be created by law. Love does not spring\nfrom a sense of duty, nor does it bow in obedience to commands.\n\nSo men and women are not virtuous because of anything in books or\ncreeds.\n\nAll the Ten Commandments that are good were old, were the result of\nexperience. The commandments that were original with Jehovah were\nfoolish.\n\nThe worship of \"any other God\" could not have been worse than the\nworship of Jehovah, and nothing could have been more absurd than the\nsacredness of the Sabbath.\n\nIf commandments had been given against slavery and polygamy, against\nwars of invasion and extermination, against religious persecution in all\nits forms, so that the world could be free, so that the brain might be\ndeveloped and the heart civilized, then we might, with propriety, call\nsuch commandments a moral guide.\n\nBefore we can truthfully say that the Ten Commandments constitute a\nmoral guide, we must add and subtract. We must throw away some, and\nwrite others in their places.\n\nThe commandments that have a known application here, in this world, and\ntreat of human obligations are good, the others have no basis in fact,\nor experience.\n\nMany of the regulations found in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and\nDeuteronomy, are good. Many are absurd and cruel.\n\nThe entire ceremonial of worship is insane.\n\nMost of the punishment for violations of laws are un-philosophic and\nbrutal.... The fact is that the Pentateuch upholds nearly all crimes,\nand to call it a moral guide is as absurd as to say that it is merciful\nor true.\n\nNothing of a moral nature can be found in Joshua or Judges. These books\nare filled with crimes, with massacres and murders. They are about the\nsame as the real history of the Apache Indians.\n\nThe story of Ruth is not particularly moral.\n\nIn first and second Samuel there is not one word calculated to develop\nthe brain or conscience.\n\nJehovah murdered seventy thousand Jews because David took a census of\nthe people. David, according to the account, was the guilty one, but\nonly the innocent were killed.\n\nIn first and second Kings can be found nothing of ethical value. All\nthe kings who refused to obey the priests were denounced, and all the\ncrowned wretches who assisted the priests, were declared to be the\nfavorites of Jehovah. In these books there cannot be found one word in\nfavor of liberty.\n\nThere are some good Psalms, and there are some that are infamous. Most\nof these Psalms are selfish. Many of them, are passionate appeals for\nrevenge.\n\nThe story of Job shocks the heart of every good man. In this book there\nis some poetry, some pathos, and some philosophy, but the story of this\ndrama called Job, is heartless to the last degree. The children of\nJob are murdered to settle a little wager between God and the Devil.\nAfterward, Job having remained firm, other children are given in the\nplace of the murdered ones. Nothing, however, is done for the children\nwho were murdered.\n\nThe book of Esther is utterly absurd, and the only redeeming feature in\nthe book is that the name of Jehovah is not mentioned.\n\nI like the Song of Solomon because it tells of human love, and that is\nsomething I can understand. That book in my judgment, is worth all the\nones that go before it, and is a far better moral guide.\n\nThere are some wise and merciful Proverbs. Some are selfish and some are\nflat and commonplace.\n\nI like the book of Ecclesiastes because there you find some sense, some\npoetry, and some philosophy. Take away the interpolations and it is a\ngood book.\n\nOf course there is nothing in Nehemiah or Ezra to make men better,\nnothing in Jeremiah or Lamentations calculated to lessen vice, and only\na few passages in Isaiah that can be used in a good cause.\n\nIn Ezekiel and Daniel we find only ravings of the insane.\n\nIn some of the minor prophets there is now and then a good verse, now\nand then an elevated thought.\n\nYou can, by selecting passages from different books, make a very good\ncreed, and by selecting passages from different books, you can make a\nvery bad creed.\n\nThe trouble is that the spirit of the Old Testament, its disposition,\nits temperament, is bad, selfish and cruel. The most fiendish things are\ncommanded, commended and applauded.\n\nThe stories that are told of Joseph, of Elisha, of Daniel and Gideon,\nand of many others, are hideous; hellish.\n\nOn the whole, the Old Testament cannot be considered a moral guide.\n\nJehovah was not a moral God. He had all the vices, and he lacked all the\nvirtues. He generally carried out his threats, but he never faithfully\nkept a promise.\n\nAt the same time, we must remember that the Old Testament is a natural\nproduction, that it was written by savages who were slowly crawling\ntoward the light. We must give them credit for the noble things they\nsaid, and we must be charitable enough to excuse their faults and even\ntheir crimes.\n\nI know that many Christians regard the Old Testament as the foundation\nand the New as the superstructure, and while many admit that there are\nfaults and mistakes in the Old Testament, they insist that the New is\nthe flower and perfect fruit.\n\nI admit that there are many good things in the New Testament, and if we\ntake from that book the dogmas of eternal pain, of infinite revenge, of\nthe atonement, of human sacrifice, of the necessity of shedding blood;\nif we throw away the doctrine of non-resistance, of loving enemies,\nthe idea that prosperity is the result of wickedness, that poverty is a\npreparation for Paradise, if we throw all these away and take the good,\nsensible passages, applicable to conduct, then we can make a fairly good\nmoral guide,—narrow, but moral.\n\nOf course, many important things would be left out. You would have\nnothing about human rights, nothing in favor of the family, nothing for\neducation, nothing for investigation, for thought and reason, but still\nyou would have a fairly good moral guide.\n\nOn the other hand, if you would take the foolish passages, the extreme\nones, you could make a creed that would satisfy an insane asylum.\n\nIf you take the cruel passages, the verses that inculcate eternal\nhatred, verses that writhe and hiss like serpents, you can make a creed\nthat would shock the heart of a hyena.\n\nIt may be that no book contains better passages than the New Testament,\nbut certainly no book contains worse.\n\nBelow the blossom of love you find the thorn of hatred; on the lips that\nkiss, you find the poison of the cobra.\n\nThe Bible is not a moral guide.\n\nAny man who follows faithfully all its teachings is an enemy of society\nand will probably end his days in a prison or an asylum.\n\nWhat is morality?\n\nIn this world we need certain things. We have many wants. We are exposed\nto many dangers. We need food, fuel, raiment and shelter, and besides\nthese wants, there is, what may be called, the hunger of the mind.\n\nWe are conditioned beings, and our happiness depends upon conditions.\nThere are certain things that diminish, certain things that increase,\nwell-being. There are certain things that destroy and there are others\nthat preserve.\n\nHappiness, including its highest forms, is after all the only good, and\neverything, the result of which is to produce or secure happiness, is\ngood, that is to say, moral. Everything that destroys or diminishes\nwell-being is bad, that is to say, immoral. In other words, all that is\ngood is moral, and all that is bad is immoral.\n\nWhat then is, or can be called, a moral guide? The shortest possible\nanswer is one word: Intelligence.\n\nWe want the experience of mankind, the true history of the race. We want\nthe history of intellectual development, of the growth of the ethical,\nof the idea of justice, of conscience, of charity, of self-denial. We\nwant to know the paths and roads that have been traveled by the human\nmind.\n\nThese facts in general, these histories in outline, the results reached,\nthe conclusions formed, the principles evolved, taken together, would\nform the best conceivable moral guide.\n\nWe cannot depend on what are called \"inspired books,\" or the religions\nof the world. These religions are based on the supernatural, and\naccording to them we are under obligation to worship and obey some\nsupernatural being, or beings. All these religions are inconsistent with\nintellectual liberty. They are the enemies of thought, of investigation,\nof mental honesty. They destroy the manliness of man. They promise\neternal rewards for belief, for credulity, for what they call faith.\n\nThis is not only absurd, but it is immoral.\n\nThese religions teach the slave virtues. They make inanimate things\nholy, and falsehoods sacred. They create artificial crimes. To eat meat\non Friday, to enjoy yourself on Sunday, to eat on fast-days, to be happy\nin Lent, to dispute a priest, to ask for evidence, to deny a creed, to\nexpress your sincere thought, all these acts are sins, crimes against\nsome god. To give your honest opinion about Jehovah, Mohammed or Christ,\nis far worse than to maliciously slander your neighbor. To question\nor doubt miracles, is far worse than to deny known facts. Only the\nobedient, the credulous, the cringers, the kneelers, the meek, the\nunquestioning, the true believers, are regarded as moral, as virtuous.\nIt is not enough to be honest, generous and useful; not enough to be\ngoverned by evidence, by facts. In addition to this, you must believe.\nThese things are the foes of morality. They subvert all natural\nconceptions of virtue.\n\nAll \"inspired books,\" teaching that what the supernatural commands\nis right, and right because commanded, and that what the supernatural\nprohibits is wrong, and wrong because prohibited, are absurdly\nunphilosophic.\n\nAnd all \"inspired books,\" teaching that only those who obey the\ncommands of the supernatural are, or can be, truly virtuous, and that\nunquestioning faith will be rewarded with eternal joy, are grossly\nimmoral.\n\nAgain I say: Intelligence is the only moral guide.\n"
}