The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1902-06-14
One Of IngersoI's Maxims.

| THE writer was presented at recent
dinner party, when the conversa-
ton, which at first was topical
vagrant and general, as such converse
tlons invariably are, drifted at last into
an animated discussion of Robert In
gersoll and his attitude toward Chris
tlanlty' which protracted the dinner he
Sond the usual limit, but gave it relish
ana seasoning in the form of wit hu-
NOR and sarcasm, which were freely
and literally INDUCED in. It is NOT o,,r
purpose to record the discussion here
III detall, for, while it may be inter
estlng, it may not be at the same time
eoitying' since we would not be sure
mat some personalities were not how
ever good-naturedly, INDUCED in. Suf-
nee 1t to recall such portions only as
VIII be instructive and edifying. as
wen as interesting, to our readers.
The conversation was at this +i,,a
about matters of faith. and Some oro
opportunity asked: What do Won
think of Ingersolrs maxim. 4 believe
as 1 must, not as wiz? 1s
1t true or is it false?" One of the
party took up the question with en-
thusiasm, Immediately declared him
self in favor of the maxim" and ar
gued his point at some length. His
reasoning on the whole was apparently
plausible. until he spoiled it all bv saw
ing Let me illustrate my position by
means of an example-an example is
the only thing that can bring the mat
ter tangibly before the mind: I believe
In the law of abstinence on FRIDAYS
not because will, but because / must"
This example was unfortunate, mas
much as it was matter of discipline
rather than of faith, and it was accord
ingly tabled as being, in the Ian
guage of the law, incompetent, ire
levant and immaterial.v
Others at this point entered into the
discussion and labored long and hard
In the solution of the problem b,1t
with as little, if not less, success
some succeeding only in getting Them
selves into the front line, where thew
became the target for volley fwit and
sarcasm from the opposition. and from.
which they emerged not much The bet
ter. and certainly none the calmer. for
the experience. Here the proposer of
The problem, being a man of broad
charlty, as we'll as of sound logical ac-
qulrements, put an end to the heated
discussion by volunteering his own
opinion. He, too, accepted the max
I'M as true, and followed in substance
the line of argument pursued bv the
first disputant, objecting only to his
example. YOU" said he, were
unhappy in your choice of an
example, but here is one more to the
point: Suppose you return from a visit
to the city, where you read dispatch
at a newspaper office reporting a rail-
road accident, in which my brother
was killed. believe it, not because
Will, but because 1 must; or. in other
words, believe it against my will"
This seemed to satisfy all present. and
with it ended the discussion and the
dinner as well
We judged then, as we do now, that
this was matter by no means I'M
worthy of notice, and hence we re-
solved at the first opportunity to devote
some of our leisure hours to it's careful
study We have since done so. and
after due consideration we have come
to the conclusion that the discussion at
the dinner table was cratic on the
whole, and that the principle or max
inn itself is, under all circumstances,
unphilosophic, false and absurd.
Ingersoll in using these words: II be-
lieye as / must, not as 1 WILL" was
playing to the gallery" and trifling
with the intelligence of his hearers and
readers. In this ne had an object, and