I think in many cases it comes down to the deadly sin of envy. Someone who is insecure with their education hates more educated people, and wants to denigrate those people's accomplishments as much as possible. Look at the way some of the more common liars spin falsehood after falsehood, often with mutually-contradictory story lines. They envy the accomplishments of other people, have nothing in their own lives to compare, and so try to throw trash on the other guy's lawn. I suspect there's a lot of self-loathing involved.
Without clicking the link (the title suggests that it would be counterproductive) here's my 2c:
Before we get to *why* they lie, we need to know *if* they lie (knowingly, willingly) or if they honestly believe what they say. AIUI, telling a falsehood that they honestly believe is not really lying.
Now the reality check: There are evolution-deniers on the street who have not five 5 minutes critical thought to the feel-good sound bites they have heard. And there are scam artists who have mastered the art of delivering those sound bites, and baiting critics with Gish-gallop techniques that keeps the ball in the critics' court. And all sorts of "intermediates" in between. To lump all these kinds, and those on the other dimension of YEC-OEC-ID-etc., in one category of "creationists" makes as much sense as peddling creationism/ID.
I have an idea where Michael Medved and Ben Stein fall on the "honest but misled" to "liar" continuum, but I'll withhold judgment for now. I am fairly sure, however, that, if they do lie, it's not for Jesus.
> I blame a piece of lego stuck in the inferior frontal sulcus.
I think it is fairly obvious, lying, aka making things up, is the ONLY alternative available to them because they simply have no traction even if they try to DO ACTUAL RESEARCH. The results contradict their model.
So I am highly skeptical of the "they truly believe" excuse. Believing something that is contradicted by experience is not effective. Outside the broad and generous deference afforded the religious it is considered a mental illness and more often punished than treated.
Then there is the gradient associated with the nature of the lies. It is one thing to lie about the facts of nature, it is yet another thing to lie about what others do and say. In this respect I think the creationists of all ilks have revealed that they are without morals.
-- Here we may reign secure, and in my choyce To reign is worth ambition though in Hell: Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n.
<papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote: > On Nov 7, 3:24 pm, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote: > > This question has been raised in here, time and again.
> > It seems that such prevarication has a long tradition, and it isn't > > just limited to the creationism/ID imbecility.
> > http://www.liarsforjesus.com/ > I think in many cases it comes down to the deadly sin of envy. > Someone who is insecure with their education hates more educated > people, and wants to denigrate those people's accomplishments as much > as possible. Look at the way some of the more common liars spin > falsehood after falsehood, often with mutually-contradictory story > lines. They envy the accomplishments of other people, have nothing in > their own lives to compare, and so try to throw trash on the other > guy's lawn. I suspect there's a lot of self-loathing involved.
Your opinion is matched by Robert Sheaffer who wrote about Christian resentment. Cultists resent being showing to be ignorant, superstitious liars; they resent knowledge and they resent the freedom to spread knowledge.
-- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
<f...@verizon.net> wrote: > On Nov 7, 3:24 pm, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote: > > This question has been raised in here, time and again.
> > It seems that such prevarication has a long tradition, and it isn't > > just limited to the creationism/ID imbecility.
> > http://www.liarsforjesus.com/ > Without clicking the link (the title suggests that it would be > counterproductive) here's my 2c:
> Before we get to *why* they lie, we need to know *if* they lie > (knowingly, willingly) or if they honestly believe what they say. > AIUI, telling a falsehood that they honestly believe is not really > lying.
"The Mind of the Bible Believer," by Edmund D. Cohen explains the mechanisms involved. (So does the book "1984.") Creationists can believe claims they know are false, both at nearly the same time. They know they are lying, but they also believe they are not.
> Now the reality check: There are evolution-deniers on the street who > have not five 5 minutes critical thought to the feel-good sound bites > they have heard. And there are scam artists who have mastered the art > of delivering those sound bites, and baiting critics with Gish-gallop > techniques that keeps the ball in the critics' court. And all sorts > of "intermediates" in between. To lump all these kinds, and those on > the other dimension of YEC-OEC-ID-etc., in one category of > "creationists" makes as much sense as peddling creationism/ID.
> I have an idea where Michael Medved and Ben Stein fall on the "honest > but misled" to "liar" continuum, but I'll withhold judgment for now. I > am fairly sure, however, that, if they do lie, it's not for Jesus.
Stein may have sold his soul for the money.
-- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
>Without clicking the link (the title suggests that it would be >counterproductive) here's my 2c:
>Before we get to *why* they lie, we need to know *if* they lie >(knowingly, willingly) or if they honestly believe what they say.
At what point is repeating a falsehood an honest belief? How many times do they get to ignore those who correct them?
>AIUI, telling a falsehood that they honestly believe is not really >lying.
I understand, but at some point, there is no reason to accept the claim that it is honest belief any more.
>Now the reality check: There are evolution-deniers on the street who >have not five 5 minutes critical thought to the feel-good sound bites >they have heard. And there are scam artists who have mastered the art >of delivering those sound bites, and baiting critics with Gish-gallop >techniques that keeps the ball in the critics' court. And all sorts >of "intermediates" in between. To lump all these kinds, and those on >the other dimension of YEC-OEC-ID-etc., in one category of >"creationists" makes as much sense as peddling creationism/ID.
>I have an idea where Michael Medved and Ben Stein fall on the "honest >but misled" to "liar" continuum, but I'll withhold judgment for now. I >am fairly sure, however, that, if they do lie, it's not for Jesus.
I will say that any group that claims to be doing science and is anti-evolution is an organization of liars. This includes, but is not limited to the liars at Answers in Genesis, the Creation Research Society, the Institute for Creation Research, and the Discovery Institute. They and their hangers on are demonstrably liars.
In article <4qvdf599768u7jt3aipb6m6o4pe5kos...@4ax.com>,
Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote: > On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 18:50:49 -0800 (PST), Frank J > <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
[...]
> > I have an idea where Michael Medved and Ben Stein fall on the "honest > > but misled" to "liar" continuum, but I'll withhold judgment for now. I > > am fairly sure, however, that, if they do lie, it's not for Jesus.
> Stein may have sold his soul for the money.
* What would you do if you were a comedian with no sense of humor?
>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 18:50:49 -0800 (PST), Frank J >> <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>[...]
>> > I have an idea where Michael Medved and Ben Stein fall on the "honest >> > but misled" to "liar" continuum, but I'll withhold judgment for now. I >> > am fairly sure, however, that, if they do lie, it's not for Jesus.
>> Stein may have sold his soul for the money.
>* >What would you do if you were a comedian with no sense of humor?
<earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote: > In article <4qvdf599768u7jt3aipb6m6o4pe5kos...@4ax.com>, > Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> > On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 18:50:49 -0800 (PST), Frank J > > <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> [...]
> > > I have an idea where Michael Medved and Ben Stein fall on the "honest > > > but misled" to "liar" continuum, but I'll withhold judgment for now. I > > > am fairly sure, however, that, if they do lie, it's not for Jesus.
> > Stein may have sold his soul for the money. > * > What would you do if you were a comedian with no sense of humor?
Get my own TV series like Jerry Seinfeld did, I hope.
-- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
On Nov 7, 8:24 pm, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
>Why do Creationists lie?
Because Creationists feel that they are stating the obvious, and so feel secure enough to cut corners in arguing their case. They think logic and science are deliberate distractions.
>AusShane <quar...@live.com> eyed the audience and in choked emotion >intoned: news:665c961c-c66e-4eef-ac58- >0d52635f8...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>> On Nov 8, 6:24 am, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote: >>> This question has been raised in here, time and again.
>>> It seems that such prevarication has a long tradition, and it isn't >>> just limited to the creationism/ID imbecility.
>> I blame a piece of lego stuck in the inferior frontal sulcus.
>I think it is fairly obvious, lying, aka making things up, is the ONLY >alternative available to them because they simply have no traction even if >they try to DO ACTUAL RESEARCH. The results contradict their model.
>So I am highly skeptical of the "they truly believe" excuse. Believing >something that is contradicted by experience is not effective. Outside the >broad and generous deference afforded the religious it is considered a >mental illness and more often punished than treated.
>Then there is the gradient associated with the nature of the lies. >It is one thing to lie about the facts of nature, it is yet another thing >to lie about what others do and say. In this respect I think the >creationists of all ilks have revealed that they are without morals.
Let me suggest a pop-psychology explanation.
"Control freaks" resort to lying as a means for control. If you outright lie to someone, you have them at a disadvantage. The person being lied to, even if they suspect that they are being lied to, what are they to do? It is considered impolite to say, "You are lying". Highly so, if I cannot *demonstrate* that you are lying, which means that I have to establish that what you are saying is false, *and* that you know that it is false.
-- ---Tom S. the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to the currant jelly. Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Reality for a Creationist is s social construction. Truth is determined by people of the right sort (moral, my tribe, high status, mommy and daddy, etc.) and what they agree on. So you can't really lie about non-living things, or even social facts. If Rush Limbaugh Speaks for Us, and he says that it's unconstitutional to prevent teaching God's WordŽ in public schools in the US, then it's true.
If Pastor Jones says that the bible is true, it's literal, and it says that we're holy golems and not monkeys, then that's what it says.
Anything said to persuade people of the greater truth is fair game, because it's all *made-up stuff anyway*. Like the US of A - it's real, ain't it? But it only exists because we agree that it exists. Reality is what we say it is, right? <chorus of murmured agreement in the background>
I'm not saying that Creationists consciously think this; I'm saying that this is how they have learned reality is determined in *all arenas: legal, political, economic, medical, and biological. When we talk about testing against reality, they really don't hear it. They are instead trying to learn how the form of rhetoric we use is shaped, and ape those arguments back at us. They get frustrated and angry when we dismiss them because their arguments lack *content; they are pretty sure they have the argument properly constructed, and sometimes they do - but there's no "there" there.
Kermit, who really wishes that enough other people agreed that he was rich. That's all it would take.
|
