Ignorant Ingersollic Ingenuity pt2
Application: Ingersoll's "Reasons" for Doubting Inspiration
By way of further demonstration, we are now going to take a selective look at a list of over sixty "reasons" Ingersoll gives for doubting the inspiration of the Bible. (Don't let the number impress you: Many are essentially the same objection as another, reworded and combined with another objection that is likewise a repetition; many others are conceptually the same as others, i.e., objections to the miraculous, with each entry being a cite of a different miracle or miracle set, or an objection to some event that Ingersoll personally found incredible.) This work offers somewhat longer explanations than the one we have just looked at, but we shall see that the five general tactics remain substantially the same, while actual analysis of hard data and familiarity with it remain substantially lacking. (Incidentally, we perhaps see in this list of "reasons" the inspiration for McKinsey's method of list-making in the Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy.)
THE Old Testament must have been written nearly two thousand years before the invention of Printing. There were but few copies, and these were in the keeping of those whose interest might have prompted interpolations, and whose ignorance might have led to mistakes.
This one is a mix of the conspiracy tactic and the bigotry tactic. Skeptics do seem to have abandoned the "printing press" aspect (we only saw that elsewhere with Thomas Paine) but do still pursue the general objection of ancient stupidity. We have discussed elsewhere oral tradition and the preservation capabilities of ancient peoples; and of course we recognize the whiff of conspiracy -- unproven and unprovable, mere "in the air" speculation on Ingersoll's part.
We can consider the next three "reasons" together:
Second. The written Hebrew was composed entirely of consonants, without any points or marks standing for vowels, so that anything like accuracy was impossible, Anyone can test this for himself by writing an English sentence, leaving out the vowels. It will take far more inspiration to read than to write a book with consonants alone.
Third. The books composing the Old Testament were not divided into chapters or verses, and no system of punctuation was known. Think of this a moment and you will see how difficult it must be to read such a book.
Fourth. There was not among the Jews any dictionary of their language, and for this reason the accurate meaning of words could not be preserved. Now the different meanings of words are preserved so that by knowing the age in which a writer lived we can ascertain with reasonable certainty his meaning.
These three objections, which are matched with an objection about the lack of printing presses in the BC era, are again nothing but bigotry and ignorance on Ingersoll's part. For him, perhaps, it would be difficult to have a language with no consonants and written without divison markers of any sort; but perhaps he does not give enough credit to the ancients for their intelligence and discernment! True enough, it is difficult for us moderns to understand, since we have no experience with such things, and any modern Christian will admit this, as I have elsewhere. But this is like complaining that it is impossible to read Chinese because it is written vertically or as an ideogram! We have no indication that variations in methods of written expression (like those of the sort other languages, including ancient Arabic, shared with ancient Hebrew), or the lack of a printed dictionary, ever caused any problem for any ancient civilization. What did Ingersoll think? That ancient people switched the meanings of words at random because they were unable to remember what they actually meant?!? These, at any rate, are a good example of the sort of objections modern skeptics (except the most boorish and insensitive) have wisely abandoned. It is difficult in these politically correct times to make this sort of objection without looking like a charter member of the KKK.
Sixth. It is now admitted by the most learned in the Hebrew language that in our present English version of the Old Testament there are at least one hundred thousand errors. Of course the believers in inspiration assert that these errors are not sufficient in number to cast the least suspicious upon any passages upholding what are called the fundamentals.
This particular objection we have seen from Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and carried on uncritically by Dan Barker -- never mind what those "errors" actually consist of, how they are counted, and how they are overwhelmingly resolved by the science of textual criticism. All Ingersoll and his uncritical followers see is a big, fat number that they can throw in the air to impress the unwary.
Eighth. Other books, not now in existence, are referred to in the Old Testament as of equal authority, such as the books of Jasher, Nathan, Ahijah, Iddo, Jehu, Sayings of the Seers.
Sound familar? It should -- this is the same claim made by sources cited by Larry Taylor which we have refuted elsewhere.
Objections following also make light of differences in selection of canonical books for the canon, never mind critical evaluation of the reasons and contents of the books. It's just the same old story!
Twelfth. The fact that language is continually changing that words are constantly dying and others being born; that the same word has a variety of meanings during its life, shows how hard it is to preserve the original ideas that might have been expressed in the Scriptures, for thousands of years, without dictionaries, without the art of printing, and without the light of contemporaneous literature.
All of this is quite true, as I readily admit elsewhere, but why is this reason to doubt the inspiration of the Bible? It is reason to doubt our own capacities, but for some reason, freethinkers never suppose humans to be at fault where the Biblical record is concerned!
Twenty-first The Chinese, Japanese, Hindus, Tartars, Africans, Eskimo, Persians, Turks, Kurds, Arabs, Polynesians, and many other peoples, are substantially ignorant of the Bible. All the Bible societies of the world have produced only about one hundred and twenty millions of Bibles, and there are about fourteen hundred million people. There are hundreds of languages and tongues in which no Bible has yet been printed. Why did God allow, and why does he still allow, a vast majority of his children to remain in ignorance of his will?
Twenty-second. If the Bible is the foundation of all civilization, of all just ideas of right and wrong, of our duties to God and each other, why did God not give to each nation at least one copy to start with? He must have known that no nation could get along successfully without a Bible, and he also knew that man could not make one for himself. Why, then, were not the books furnished? He must have known that the light of nature was not sufficient to reveal the scheme of the atonement, the necessity of baptism, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, the arithmetic of the Trinity, or the resurrection of the dead.
These two objections stumble on basically the same point. Christian theology of course avers (in line with Romans 1-2) that the Chinese, Japanese, etc., although ignorant of specifics like transubstantiation (and not necessarily in need of knowing it), are not ignorant in general and have had enough revelation to prompt the seeking out of the true God. Whether this allows a path to salvation is another issue (I happen to think that it does, but that few if any have ever found it), but the point is that this is hardly the problem that Ingersoll perceived it to be. Much less should it be allowed to be posed as a problem by someone who is not ignorant of God's will and is just using this objection as a way to score points!
Twenty-fourth. All persons who know anything of constitutions and laws know how impossible it is to use words that will convey the same ideas to all. The best statesmen, the profoundest lawyers, differ as widely about the real meaning of treaties and statutes as do theologians about the Bible. When the differences of lawyers are left to courts, and the courts give written decisions, the lawyers will again differ as to the real meaning of the opinions. Probably no two lawyers in the United States understand our Constitution alike. To allow a few men to tell what the Constitution means, and to hang for treason all who refuse to accept the opinions of these few men, would accomplish in politics what most churches have asked for in religion.
Sound familiar? Yep, it's basically the same thing Robert Price said in another context; but just as it didn't stop Price from running his gator, the Ingersoll yap did not cease to flap because of problems with knowing what words meant. If words never convey the same meaning to all, then why bother writing anything? Wasn't Ingersoll worried that someone would read his work as an velocipede repair manual? And what about studying the intent of the author, or at least trying to ascertain it from background data? What about the earlier objection about the lack of a Hebrew dictionary? If there are so many problems with meaning like this, what the blazes good will it do to have a dictionary in the first place?!? It seems that the disease of deconstructionism had a predecessor in the confused and contradictory arguments of Robert Ingersoll.
Twenty-eighth. It is hard to believe that God talked to Abraham as one man talks to another; that he gave him land that he pointed out; that he agreed to give him land that he never did; that he ordered him to murder his own son; that angels were in the habit of walking about the earth eating veal dressed with butter and milk, and making bargains about the destruction of cities.
Just a sample here: This is one of many "reasons" where Ingersoll holds up some event from the Bible and assumes, by "argument by incredulity", that the very rehearsal of it proves it to be impossible. Question begging at its finest!
Twenty-ninth. Certainly a man ought not to be eternally damned for entertaining an honest doubt about a woman having been turned into a pillar of salt, about cities being destroyed by storms of fire and brimstone, and about people once having lived for nearly a thousand years.
I'm not so sure that someone can be "damned" for refusing to believe one or more of these things, but they will find it hard to maintain a consistent faith -- unless, like some (Clark Pinnock for example) they have no problem living with inconsistencies in their belief. This "reason" at any rate amounts to question-begging: "How dare you damn me for not believing in what I simply assume not to be true!"
Thirty-sixth. Is it because of total depravity that some people refuse to believe that God went into partnership with insects and granted letters of marque and reprisal to hornets; [Ex. xxiii, 28.] that he wasted forty days and nights furnishing Moses with plans and specifications for a tabernacle, an ark, a mercy seat and two cherubs of gold, a table, four rings, some dishes and spoons, one candlestick, three bowls, seven lamps, a pair of tongs, some snuff dishes (for all of which God had patterns), ten curtains with fifty loops, a roof for the tabernacle of rams' skins dyed red, a lot of boards, an altar with horns, ash pans, basins, and flesh hooks, and fillets of silver and pins of brass; that he told Moses to speak unto all the wise-hearted that he had filled with wisdom, that they might make a suit of clothes for Aaron, and that God actually gave directions that an ephod "shall have the two shoulder-pieces thereof joined at the two edges thereof," and gave all the orders concerning mitres, girdles, and onyx stones, ouches, emeralds, breastplates, chains, rings, Urim and Thummim, and the hole in the top of the ephod like the hole of a habergeon?
This is a good one for demonstration of both being out of date and bigotry: Out of date, because as every expert on ancient symbolism is aware, the "hornet" represents the kingdom of Lower Egypt, and this promise was fulfilled in the Egyptian army breaking the power of the Canaanite kings and making them an easier target for Israel. (Some scholars, however, prefer to render the word here "terror" or "discouragement". Perhaps both are intended.) Bigotry, because Ingersoll assumes that just because he does not see any importance in the symbolism of the cultic apparatus, God could not have had any part in it! But for a pre-literate (note: not "ignorant") society, such symbolism was VERY important -- as important, perhaps, as the written message!
How, in the desert of Sinai, did the Jews obtain curtains of fine linen? How did these absconding slaves make cherubs of gold? Where did they get the skins of badgers, and how did they dye them red? How did they make wreathed chains and spoons, basins and tongs? Where did they get the blue cloth and their purple? Where did they get the sockets of brass? How did they coin the shekel of the sanctuary? How did they overlay boards with gold? Where did they get the numberless instruments and tools necessary to accomplish all these things? Where did they get the fine flour and the oil? Were all these found in the desert of Sinai? Is it a sin to ask these questions? Are all these doubts born of a malignant and depraved heart? Why should God in this desert prohibit priests from drinking wine, and from eating moist grapes? How could these priests get wine?
It isn't evidence of a depraved heart, no -- just evidence of a bigot who thinks that ancient people sat around in the mud scratching themselves all day. On the contrary, they had commerce, they had skills, and they had agriculture. Perhaps a thousand years from now some equally bigoted person will ask how Robert Ingersoll got the leather to make his shoes and food to put on his table.
Must we believe that God sanctioned and commanded all the cruelties and horrors described in the Old Testament; that he waged the most relentless and heartless wars; that he declared mercy a crime; that to spare life was to excite his wrath; that he smiled when maidens were violated, laughed when mothers were ripped open with a sword, and shouted with joy when babes were butchered in their mothers' arms? Read the infamous book of Joshua, and then worship the God who inspired it if you can.
I have a question: Where is it said that God "smiled", "shouted with joy", etc. at such things? On the contrary. I think that God gave these people plenty of chances to repent; every moment of their life was a chance. He gave them plenty of chances to save themselves, as Glenn Miller has shown. And I am quite sure that God was saddened at having to do what needed to be done, but was nevertheless required: For it is written that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. (And incidentally, the "violation of maidens" is nowhere prescribed as part of the paradigm.)
I cannot believe that God killed fifty thousand men for looking into a box.
We have addressed this before -- the number was more in the line of 70 -- but note here a certain polemical tactic: This was not just a "box" but the Ark of the Covenant. To Ingersoll it is just a "box" because he ascribes no value to it; but for the Israelites (and we argue in fact) it was the focal point of God's presence. One is reminded here of Ken Smith's description of the priestly vestments as merely "underwear". The reducing of the sacred to the profane scores well polemically, but realistically, it misses the entire point.
Must we believe, in order to be good and tender fathers and mothers, that because some "little children" mocked at an old man with a bald head, God -- the same God who said, "Suffer little children to come unto me" -- sent two she-bears out of the wood and tare forty-two of these babes? Think of the mothers that watched and waited for their children. Think of the wailing when these mangled ones were found, when they were brought back and pressed to the breasts of weeping women. What an amiable gentleman Mr. Elisha must have been.
Again, we've dealt with this before -- Ingersoll plays the emotional card of wailing mothers well enough, but the fact is that there probably were not any -- and that these kids were old enough to know better.
|
Conclusion
We have only briefly sampled the works of Robert Ingersoll, but that is all that has been necessary. His other objections are the same we have dealt with before or are beyond are scope. The remainder above tell us enough of this man to realize that he, who is the idol of skeptics worldwide, deserves not even a modicum of respect.
It is the most supreme irony that Ingersoll, in the preface to the work "Some Mistakes of Moses," said the following:
One of the first things I wish to do, is to free the orthodox clergy. I am a great friend of theirs, and in spite of all they may say against me, I am going to do them a great and lasting service. Upon their necks are visible the marks of the collar, and upon their backs those of the lash. They are not allowed to read and think for themselves. They are taught like parrots, and the best are those who repeat, with the fewest mistakes, the sentences they have been taught. They sit like owls upon some dead limb of the tree of knowledge, and hoot the same old hoots that have been hooted for eighteen hundred years. Their congregations are not grand enough, nor sufficiently civilized, to be willing that the poor preachers shall think for themselves. They are not employed for that purpose. Investigation is regarded as a dangerous experiment, and the ministers are warned that none of that kind of work will be tolerated. They are notified to stand by the old creed, and to avoid all original thought, as a moral pestilence. Every minister is employed like an attorney -- either for plaintiff or defendant, -- and he is expected to be true to his client. If he changes his mind, he is regarded as a deserter, and denounced, hated, and slandered accordingly. Every orthodox clergyman agrees not to change. He contracts not to find new facts, and makes a bargain that he will deny them if he does. Such is the position of a Protestant minister in this nineteenth century. His condition excites my pity; and to better it, I am going to do what little I can.
Indeed! What this describes more than anything is the school of skeptics who have today eagerly and obligingly followed in Ingersoll's unenlightened footsteps, taking upon themselves all except his most obvious bigotries. Today it is they who hoot Ingersoll's arguments uncritically, let Ingersoll do their thinking for them rather tham think for themselves, and stand by defending him though his arguments have been defeated or shown irrelevant a thousand times over. This malicious, faith-destroying breed do not deserve any of our pity, for they have willingly sown their own seeds of destruction -- and make it their business to spread their nonsense to others who are starving for the good news. Better to have a millstone toed around your neck than to be a disciple of the late Robert Ingersoll. |
