New Site: "Lying for Jesus."
Link. Do you think Christian apologists knowingly lie to defend their faith. I think some do. What evidence can support such a claim? The purpose of the site "is to expose the false claims of Christian apologists one lie at a time." The video below is from "Lying for Jesus."
24 comments:
The page is atrocious with multiple egregious misspellings. I hope that is cleared up quickly.
Yes, I just now noticed that myself, Evan. Regardless, I think it's a worthy question whether or not Christian apologists lie to defend their faith. As I said, I think some do.
A question of curiosity for John or any of the other contributors that were once apologists. Do you think you were ever guilty of this? Did you ever purposely ignore some information or evidence when discussing a topic?
I'm not sure if it's lying so much as bullshitting. Philosopher Harry Frankfurt gives an analysis of bullshit as, roughly, communicating in a way that's unconcerned with the truth in a truth-aimed context. If his analysis is correct, then much apologetics is clearly bullshit. William Lane Craig's debates are paradigm cases of this.
Speaking of Frankfurt's book, On Bullshit, a new book is coming out by philosopher Colin McGinn, entitled Mindfucking: A Critique of Mental Manipulation. I bet it's worth a look, and has relevance to the topic of this post. ;-)
Oh man, I knew there existed creationist museums, but I've never watched a video of one of them. And all I can say is...
I have to visit one!
I think if you went in there with Pastor Deacon Fred in mind, you would walk out of that museum with both of your sides split from laughter. At least I would. Maybe some people would walk out with a headache and a sick stomach.
Hopefully, creationists will become a dying breed and we can buy up their museums and charge admission for top quality entertainment. Maybe even sell snacks at the door! Is it too much to hope that delusional faiths will die out with the roaring laughter of a "do you remember when?" era instead of a slow smothering with reason?
Anyway, I wouldn't know if apologists intentionally lie. One would hope they see the errors they are making. I do believe, though, for sure, that people like Falwell and Robertson are conmen of the highest order. But like I think someone else said, most apologists wouldn't consider it lying. It's more like "framing" the argument to appeal to people in a way that isn't necessarily geared toward sending a message of truth, but instead sending a message that's believable, emotional, or intuitive (yet false).
From what I read, I don't see how these statements could have been made without knowing they were lies.
How do you say that evolution is being damaged by the genetic revolution instead of strengthened by it? Every quote was exactly the oposite of what is true. I think that it has to be intentional and designed for those who don't have an interest in fact checking.
I agree with exapologist here.
I don't know that it is technically "lying" as in speaking a knowing falsehood as much as it is the end result of delusional wishful-thinking dogma posing as science. The young earth creationists (YEC's) start with the premise that the Bible is the final authority on all matters it speaks to and reinterpret the scientific data to fit this presupposition. Any apparent contradictions in the data can be dismissed or reinterpreted by the most unlikely rationalizations & twisted logic so long as the final theory or hypothesis falls into line with the prescribed dogma.
Is it lying?
I don't think so - because I think these people actually believe it.
Are they scientists?
No - because they have no respect or allegiance to the scientific method. If the data doesn't support the Biblically inspired hypothesis, they reinterpret the data to make it fit the already sacrosanct hypothesis.
Is it Bullshit?
Oh yes - & these people should be able to recognize how convoluted & dishonest the process really is but they are not at liberty to confront these secret thoughts because God is listening and watching their every thought.
How do I know all this?
I was once one of them & for me, the nagging doubts that eventually set me free to examine the Christian faith more objectively all go back to the problems of Genesis. To watch this video gives me the willies.
In the world of the YEC's, God does not reward honesty & veracity or faithfulness to the data. God only rewards faithful compliant acquiescence to the tyranny of a literal acceptance of the bronze age science of the book of Genesis.
Thank goodness I'm free of this bullshit.
-evan
This video shows one of the main reasons why I don't believe the Bible anymore. That and the bizzare textual contortions that Old Earthers do to the Bible to try to make it fit with what science teaches of the universe and history of life on earth.
As for apologists lieing I'm not sure. Maybe some of them do when they get backed into a corner or something. As for me I really believed all the shit I use to say. Apologists had me believing that I could prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that God exists and the Bible is His Word. It wasn't until I ran into other Christian Philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga that I started doubting such things.
As for my great knowledge of science that I had I think Shygetz really put me in my place and made me look like an ass when I came here about a year ago. I never lied about the things I was saying. I just thought that they were true.
Thanks for this. These museums are popping up. I wonder how many there are now? In my home state, Montana, one is opening this summer, the Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum.
If a lie is defined as an intentional attempt to deceive, then as with anything, some are going to lie some will not. I believe that most apologists are sincere in their beliefs and do not intentionally attempt to deceive, but rather believe what they are saying. As for myself, I don't claim to have been an apologist (because I so sucked at it), but I did try to convert people. However, as I went through Bible College and gathered new information, I forced it to fit with my religious beliefs. For example, as I learned about evolution and actual scientific history of the Earth, I became a theistic evolutionist. With each new bit of information, I slowly morphed into a deist, then into a pantheist, then into an atheist.
I swear, something that has me all messed up is that I still feel the need to tell everyone I can about the freedom I've found in giving up Christianity. "The Proselytizing Atheist!" I still act like a religious nut, just as an atheist. It kind of makes me feel like shit, because much of it is probably programming from being a Christian for the first 31 years of my life. Having mostly Christian friends and family, I keep thinking that if they only knew what I now know, they could be free of all the lies too. As a psychologist, I've even been thinking of eventually doing research in this area and work with people who are ready to leave their faith. The implications are just so huge. But, that's off in the future.
I haven't even told my family yet. It took me over 6 months of talking with my wife to "deconvert" her. She required a lot of evidence, just like I did and at first I was very afraid that she wasn’t going to be able to leave our old lives behind. Losing faith was like somebody dying for her. For me, it made me sad and I grieve my wasted past some, but mostly I feel free and more alive. However, I still have fears. I'm even going by my middle name on this website so that my parents or in-laws don't google me and find a posting of mine. My in-laws would reject me and my parents would freak out if they knew I’ve become an atheist. Then, they would always try to reconvert me and my children too. Don't get me wrong, I will tell them, but I think I need to write a long letter that fully explains my position first. I actually don't know how to tell them, or if I even should. Speaking with my understanding of psychology, I'm fairly confident that neither my in-laws, nor my parents would ever lose faith given any amount of evidence. So, I guess I could use some suggestions. As this is off topic, feel free to email me instead. Thanks for listening.
tycannon23@gmail.com
"Ty"
I don't think the leaders of the church are idiots. Smart persons are needed to manage this kind of organisation. In my country the priests are going to a theologic university where they study 4 years of religion and, most importantly, history of religion.
It is impossible that ALL of those who know how the church was formed and understand how religion was created in other parts of the world can maintain their faith. Obviously some of the priests are too stupid to put it all together, or to brainwashed to put their brain to work but all of them?
The church goes hand in hand with politics from the begining and the head of the church must consist of people that are really smart. I am of the belief that the leaders of the church KNOW they are selling BS. But by the time they find the truth it is too late. Very few decide to publicly denounce their religion because they loose their bread. That makes those like John Loftus real heroes.
Do christians lie for their faith? The most recent example was some apologist named Dinesh D'Souza that during a debate with Hitchens used Einstein quote to sugest he was a believer in God and a religious person. How many times Einstein tryed to deny he is religious? How many times Einstein expressed that religion is idiocy?
50 years later you'd think a person of less than average intelligence would get that. But no, an educated smart person still uses this lie for apologetics.
I wonder how accurate can the gospels be when they were written at least 70 years prior to the alleged events when in this era it takes a few years to turn a deist into a full-fledged religious person. (Einstein was accused of being a christian during his life time too)
Its difficult to see someone as clearly smart as William Lane Craig peddle his nonsense and not think he is lying, certainly the only time he and I ever had anything to do with one another, he misinterpreted the question i asked so that he could deliver a standard "atheists are wrong" answer. I don't think my question was unclear and i believe that rather than answer my question, he fabricated a strawman arguement to knock down. Whether or not thats lying i can't say but it is certainly dishonest in the medium in which the question was asked (on his website).
I do wonder how many of the popular YECs and apologists are secretly not believers in their own product. I can see the incentive to not come clean, people like Behe and Craig would not have nearly the readership, respect and sheer income that they do at present were they to openly admit that they brands are bullshit.
I'm not accusing them of not being believers in their product, but i do wonder how many of them keep up pretenses to ensure the flow of pay checks. Its easy to make a man believe a thing if his paycheck depends on it.
Do I believe that some "apologists" (the term itself is incredibly vague if Benny Hinn is lumped amongst them) lie. Yes, of course. It seems to me that is inevitable in a tradition/philosophy/religion like Christianity in which there are two billion followers. Of course, (and no John im not accusing you of the fallacy) this means relatively little in the great score of things. Plenty of atheists, pantheists, deists, platonists etc etc manipulate facts as well, ive even seen such manipulation of facts on the very comments made to this post. With that said however, any website that spends bulk of its time rightly debunking young-earth creationism is at least a boon scientifically in my book.
Ty said: I swear, something that has me all messed up is that I still feel the need to tell everyone I can about the freedom I've found in giving up Christianity. "The Proselytizing Atheist!" I still act like a religious nut, just as an atheist. It kind of makes me feel like shit...
Try this.
We atheists can stand to laugh at ourselves sometimes.
On topic, I think that some people undoubtedly Lie for Jesus, and it really burns me up. I think the only practical way to determine a lie is if someone says something that they know or reasonably should know is false. For example, if someone says the sun revolves around the Earth, then unless they are six years old, they SHOULD know that's a lie. But just to be sure, I normally give faulty apologists real information and point out how they can check it. If they then continue in their lie, then they are Lying for Jesus, because they have been informed that what they are saying is untrue and they have been directed to other sources, yet they refuse to do the fact-checking that is incumbent upon them.
"The Proselytizing Atheist!"
i think it is just part of human nature. the drive to share for the benifit of others - obviously at some point, sharing was selected for much more highly than selfishness. the squirrel finds a great patch of lawn under an oak tree covered with acorns. does she run tell all her squirrel friends about it so they can harvest them together? no, she and maybe her mate quickly gather and stash as many as they possibly can for their own future use. if we as humans find such bounty, we stuff a few in our pocket and run back to the tribe and say come see what i found! you discover a new restaurant and you tell everyone you know. you try a new product, take a new path on a walk and find something beautiful, and the need to share it is nearly overwhelming. even if you eat at the restaurant alone the first time, all the while you are planning who you are going to tell and what you are going to say. so of course, having discovered the freedom and joy of atheism, you want others to have it. you see them wasting time, you see them doing almost the right things but not quite because their reasons are wrong, you see them saying silly things like the path of the storm being a miracle, you hear them tell about praying for some thing or giving money to their church. it is all nearly too much to let all that go on when you care about them.
but the thing we have to remember is most people are not ready to give it up and many never will be. it does them good in some ways. a widow whose only joy is thoughts of being with her husband again in some afterlife does not have the years left to find any solace in another way of thinking, even if you KNOW she would be taking greater joy in current friends and young family members if she gave up that thinking.
so, we try to keep our yaps shut as much as we can, we try to watch for when others might be receptive and give them as much as they can handle or maybe a bit more as a challenge, and we save the full on rants for idiots that deserve it who shall remain nameless but you probably all know a few that i am thinking about right now. sometimes, this place is a vent for me that keeps me from pushing someone i care about too far with this stuff. sigh, roll my eyes, count to ten, and go to the computer and log on here and bust on --- or ------ or --- or ----- some more . . .
I think Evan really hit the nail on the head when he said..
Oh yes - & these people should be able to recognize how convoluted & dishonest the process really is but they are not at liberty to confront these secret thoughts because God is listening and watching their every thought.
Doubt is the work of the devil or our sinful nature. How do we know this? The Bible tells us so.
So It's not that they don't have doubts, but they see them as a part of the supernatural landscape that was prophetized long before we existed. And if God was so wise that he could foresee the doubts they are actually experiencing then he really must exist, right?
It simply serves to reinforce the superstitious notion there is some kind of spiritual power struggle or warfare going in the world that impacts them personally. And if such struggle does exist, they must to choose one side or the other. Given their perceived choices, they choose God.
Do apologists lie?
The notion of "Plausible Deniability" notwithstanding, lying implies intent to misinform, so I think it is a virtual certainty that most apologists do not lie, per se. Certainly they misinform, but it is the intent to do so which is at issue in the question posed.
That being said, it is equally true that many apologists are guilty of proselytizing willing ignorance, which is tantamount to lying. I feel rather strongly that the more aptitude and intelligence one possesses, the more responsibility one has to avoid ignorance -- especially to uncover it. It is impossible to conceive of some of these apologists as anything other than intelligent persons, yet they insist that their asinine positions are true.
A former associate of mine (I'd call him a friend, but I imagine he'd disagree in principle) is a prime example. He is a very intelligent fellow, with a reasonable grasp on most current scientific methodology, yet he is also a Young Earth Creationist. He is well aware of the inconsistencies this position entails, and has even supported the ridiculous notion of "light in-transit" to explain the light we see from galaxies billions of light-years distant.
This wanton disregard for truth and fact, coupled with the presupposed insistence on biblical inerrancy, is arrogant, ignorant, and misleading, and it is a set of crimes of which all [literalist] apologists are guilty. Even for the non-literalists, there exist these crimes, just in different areas.
Apologism is necessarily an intentional "reinterpretation" of facts, with the expressed purpose of getting the facts to fit the presupposed "theory". In this way, it is most certainly lying, and when the person doing the "apologizing" is otherwise highly intelligent, their excuses come up lame.
A failure to examine the facts, to apply Occam's razor, and to be open to new and better explanations is intentional deception of a personal nature, and passing this on to others as "gospel" truth is so much the worse.
--
Stan
Brian_E, no, I did not purposely ignore some information or evidence when discussing a topic as a Christian. I never lied for Jesus. And I am not now lying for atheism either.
In what ways to do Christian apologists lie? Can somebody give me a specific person (Strobel, Zacharias, etc) and also the lies that they tell? Also maybe where they said such as in a book or at university? Thanks.
The way that I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. This gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, if in some historically contingent circumstances,the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity. I don’t think that that controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, and I should regard that simply as a result of the contingent circumstances that I am in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time I would discover that in fact that the evidence—if I could get the correct picture—would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me.
William Lane Craig on Dealing with Doubt
If you don't believe that contrary evidence makes your position less likely, how can anything you say be a lie?
I do think some know they are lying, such as; Kent Hovind, Ted Haggard, etc. but these people typically, only debate and discuss these issues with others that share the same opinion or who aren't intelligent enough to have an educated opinion. It's easy to sit around and convince like minded people that your beliefs are true because, to them, its so obvious. What I am saying is I think, for the most part, these people operate outside of the real world. They run in their circles and, in the end, they only answer to other like minded groups.
This is why I think its funny when Christians debate Atheists or Creationists debate Evolutionists and why they get their asses handed to them. They really do think their "arguments" hold ground. The argument sounded convincing when they heard it in Sunday School but when used in a debate it just doesn't hold water. Ex: Watchmaker argument or Pascal's Wager, etc. These are arguments that only convince those who already believe.
Creationists do not have to know any real science because their target audience is even more ignorant about how science and academia really work, therefore, they will accept anything as long as it backs up their world view and sounds "smart."
So are they lying? Yeah, they willingly deceive people keeping them from the truth and refuse to accept any information that doesn't conform to their belief system. Deception to me is a form of lying even if you are not willfully deceiving people.
This site is a lie for Jesus. Notice the URL!
http://www.knowreligion.net/lfj/apologists.php?name=Gregory%20Koukl
“So, in abbreviated form, the reasoning goes like this: I ought to be unselfish because it is better for the group, which is better for the species, which is better for me. So why ought I be unselfish? Because it is better for me" -- (Gregory Koukl) http://str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5237
Morality is not just about helping others because it benefits you as an individual during your life time. Evolutionary survival is not about the survival of the individual but rather about the race, producing offspring and helping to ensure future generations can survive to continue on the legacy. -- Joe of Lying for Jesus
------------------------
I saw the above on the website. Notice that "group selection" is invoked to explain morality ("but rather about the race"). Having read a few of Richard Dawkins books I know to be weary of that type of language. As far as Dawkins is concerned (as well as other biologists), group selection cannot work, and it is the survival of the individual that drives evolution. This principle can also be expressed in terms of the survival of the genes in individuals - selfish genes. It's an argument that I am not qualified to give in detail, so I will respectfully defer to Richard Dawkins' great book, The Selfish Gene.
The point is that the ostensible defender of reason loses a lot of credibility for making incorrect claims like that about the science of evolution. I wonder if it might be sarcasm or just someone trying to cash in on the present controversy without really having studied the topics. Why make an ignorant claim like that? When a true defender of reason doesn't know something, he or she usually refrains from commenting on it.
Anyone else notice this or similar problems? In the meanwhile, read everything you see there with a skeptical eye (you always do anyway, right?)!
Post a Comment