Celebrating Robert G. Ingersoll, “The Great Agnostic”
Robert G. Ingersoll was born on this day, August 11, in 1833. Ingersoll was a Civil War veteran, a lawyer, an orator, and most importantly a humanist. While never describing himself with that exact label, it’s clear by the spectacular speeches and talks he gave throughout his life that Ingersoll was an early champion of humanist values. He advocated for the political rights of African Americans, women, and the poor. On August 11 we honor him and his dedication to reason, critical thought, and humanity.
At the National Theatre in 1884, Ingersoll delivered to a full house his “ Orthodoxy ” speech, a bold address filled with funny quips and progressive desires about the state of religion in the country. To the congressmen-filled audience he joked, “They often pray for the impossible. In the House of Representatives in Washington I once heard a chaplain pray for what he must have known was impossible: ‘I pray thee, O God, to give Congress wisdom.’”
Ingersoll further called upon an end to orthodox understanding of religion, maintaining that it held no place in the civilized world.
It is a religion that no longer satisfies the intelligence of this country; that no longer satisfies the brain…[it] wraps the coffin in darkness and fills the future of mankind with flame and fear….In its place I want humanity, I want good fellowship, I want intellectual liberty—free lips, the discoveries and inventions of genius, the demonstrations of science—the religion of art, music and poetry—of good houses, good clothes, good wages—that is to say, the religion of this world.
While Ingersoll may be seen as ahead of his time, the success and fame he received from his speeches is a testament to the fact that humanist values and progressive principles are foundational to our country. He spread the message of compassion, kindness, and reason to audiences that numbered in the thousands. The Washington Post called him the “Prince of Pagans” and the “plenipotentiary of his satanic majesty,” celebrating his dissent from the conventional wisdom. Despite his close ties and personal connections with representatives, having campaigned for almost every single Lincoln-Republican presidential candidate, Ingersoll himself never entered the public sphere. Although, he had many supporters and fans, it was believed that if a president had appointed him to the cabinet, he would never have survived a Senate hearing unless he agreed to give up his public speeches against Christianity.
Instead Ingersoll served his country, up until his death in 1899, through moving oration that sparked critical thought about the role of religion in our society and government. His 1873 speech, “ Individuality ,” put it best:
The truth is, our government is not founded upon the rights of gods, but upon the rights of men. Our constitution was framed, not to declare and uphold the deity of Christ, but the sacredness of humanity. Ours is the first government made by the people and for the people. It is the only nation with which the gods have had nothing to do. And yet there are some judges dishonest and cowardly enough to solemnly decide that this is a Christian county, and that our free institutions are based upon the infamous law of Jehovah….The Declaration of Independence announces the sublime truth, that all power come from the people.
https://thehumanist.com/commentary/celebrating-robert-g-ingersoll-great-agnostic
Tags
Who is online
93 visitors
I like to hear from the great minds of the past. 19th century intellectuals were very thoughtful.
Personally, I don't understand militant agnosticism / atheism. If someone doesn't believe, that's fine. If someone believes, that's fine. Why should either be upset with the other?
@Bob-Nelson : " Personally, I don't understand militant agnosticism / atheism. If someone doesn't believe, that's fine. If someone believes, that's fine. Why should either be upset with the other?"
Getting upset is never the answer. But I certainly appreciate how one would disapprove of a leader making decisions (that affect many) based on his/her religious beliefs rather than objective reasoning. I also disapprove of the likes of Ken Ham who works full time to indoctrinate the next generation into faith-based reasoning at the expense of critical thinking.
In result, I applaud the efforts of individuals such as the late Christopher Hitchens who unabashedly took on religion with facts, reason and a very sharp wit. Hitchens no doubt would qualify as a ' militant ' atheist.
I certainly appreciate how one would disapprove of a leader making decisions (that affect many) based on his/her religious beliefs rather than objective reasoning.
I agree entirely. But that's a critique of the leader, not of the belief.
I would also insist on a different but relevant point: that most psycho-sociological research seems to show that almost no one actually makes decisions based on objective reasoning. We all make our decisions based on the gut-feeling "values" we acquire very early in life, and then we backfill justifications for the decisions.
Today we have a leadership that is largely secular, with as core-value "greed is good". Not workin' real well...
@Bob-Nelson : "But that's a critique of the leader, not of the belief."
It is indeed. It is a criticism of acting on faith instead of critical thinking. There is nothing wrong with a belief (using the term in general terms) since we all necessarily function on a system of beliefs. What is important, though, is the weight one assigns to beliefs. For example, holding that a normal human body meeting with concrete from a 30 foot fall will likely be deadly is a well-founded belief. In contrast, holding that the killing of infidels will lead to a glorious afterlife is a belief based purely on faith. No evidence, no formal methods for inferring this, just belief because someone said or wrote that it is true.
"...no one actually makes decisions based on objective reasoning..."
Human beings vary. Of course. Some are quite disciplined thinkers while others seem to operate entirely on gut. Nobody is like Spock but you seem to suggest that there are no human critical thinkers. I accept your observation that human beings cannot achieve pure objective reasoning but not your implication that we are all gut-reactionary and incapable of a good degree of objective reasoning.
your implication that we are all gut-reactionary and incapable of a good degree of objective reasoning
Perhaps I did not explain myself very well. We are quite capable of rational decision making. The scientific method, and all that.
I said that we don't often actually do it.
We count on reflexes and habit for a great deal -- if we actually took the time to collect data and consider all possibilities... we would be paralyzed. So we are accustomed to making decisions on other grounds than rational thought.
Our policy choices (whether they be in our private life or in our public life) are rarely determined by any rational approach. We decide on the basis of emotional values rather than data. Then we retrofit our decision with a cladding of data and analysis.
That's why experts have so little hold on policy.
George W Bush was honest about it, at least: "I follow my gut-feelings!"
The experts exist, They do their studies. They develop rational policy proposals. And then the politicians follow their gut-feelings instead: climate change, abortion, drug policy, and a hundred others, driven by gut-feelings rather than reason.
@Bob-Nelson : " I said that we don't often actually do it."
No offense intended, but that goes without saying. My point of course is that we (human beings) should work harder to think more critically and one of the steps is to break free of religious thinking. That does not mean one must give up belief in one's God (at least the possibility of a god) but rather to just stop accepting something as true because it was written by ancient men in an ostensibly sacred book.
We count on reflexes and habit for a great deal -- if we actually took the time to collect data and consider all possibilities... we would be paralyzed.
Bob, when we speak of critical thinking we are not referring to an extraordinary act of human cognition. We are speaking of fact-based, objective reasoning that is within normal human limits (and thus is flawed). So, yes of course, human critical thinking is nowhere near the level of an analytical machine (or even a Star Trek Spock).
Seems to me we are off-topic. Repeating a summary of my point, I do not agree with militant atheism in the sense of trying to force people to certain beliefs but I am in favor of aggressive debate and education to help counter the indoctrination system that does indeed force people to certain beliefs. In general, I call that system 'religion'.
The fundamental values that govern our decisions are acquired in childhood. And I agree with you that too often parents cloak their lessons in religiosity, perhaps because they are not confident enough in their own standards.
"Critical thinking" is a slightly different subject, IMHO. When we hear/read/see something, we need to wonder about the source's reliability and possible agenda. We need this skepticism regardless of whether we like what we hear/read/see or not. (I wrote an article about the smell test a few months ago.)
I agree that these are not extraordinary, in the sense of "difficult". But I'm afraid they are extraordinary in the sense of "rare".
Agreed
Dear Friends John and Bob: I agree with both your points.
We can all learn from others. Including those with whom we will never agree.
Live and let live.
When people go about shaming themselves by setting up straw man arguments against what they claim I believe (and how would they know that) I simply say this to them. Sounds like what mine and me are doing isn't for you. Fine. Don't do it.
Peace Abundant Blessings and the Harmony Derived from Tolerating Differences While Building on Common Causes.
Enoch.
I simply say this to them. Sounds like what mine and me are doing isn't for you. Fine. Don't do it.
You're a stronger man than I.