If you *believe something is correct, is a lie to repeat it?

[jimmo42]

Let's take WMD in Iraq. We know that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD. However, there are many people who still insists that we were justified in invading Iraq because Saddam had WMD. We cannot say that the person "knows" Saddam had WMD, because epistemically you cannot "know" something that is not true. The person might think they know, but they really do not. Still, they continue to claim there were WMD in Iraq. Is this a lie? (Note that I am not saying that these people say we were justified because Bush believed there were WMD, but rather there actually were WMD in Iraq.)

Early Christians made up doctrine (e.g. immaculate conception) that was not based on anything in the bible. However, it seems to them that it "must" be so, so they make claims in support of this. Is that lying?

One of the defintions I have seen includes "with intent to deceive". Others simply say "an inaccurate or false statement." I tend to go with the former, saying that it isn't a lie unless there is a specific intent. Therefore, the two examples I gave are not lies.

On the other hand, let's take a fundie on YouTube who says there are no trasitional fossils (or take Ray Comfort as an example). Assuming this person has been told repeatedly told and shown various lists of transitional fossils (and Comfort most certainly has), however he continues to make the claim. Is this lying? The person believes the Bible is literally true and thus there "cannot" be anything that contradicts it. Would they be lying if their claims are used in support of their beliefs? There intent is to give an impression not supported by the facts. So, this could be considered lying.

I am curious what others think about this.

 

[Prolescum]

Re: If you *believe something is correct, is a lie to repeat

It was common knowledge that Saddam had no weapons, the inspectors had already established it was extremely unlikely that he had them, but was forced to make an early conclusion (within three months IIRC), saying they could not guarantee that there were no weapons. The American government were well aware of this and how flimsy their own evidence was.
Therefore, it was a lie.

The immaculate conception tale is a reflection of Isis giving birth to Horus, a story likely well known to the early church, and also therefore a lie.

Fundies on youtube are just following a long tradition.

 

[Aught3]

Re: If you *believe something is correct, is a lie to repeat

I think we need to draw the distinction between lies and bullshit. Basically, the truth-teller knows the truth and limits himself to statements within his realm of knowledge. The liar also knows the truth but sets out to deliberately deceive. The bullshitter by contrast, doesn't care. He has no knowledge which supports his beliefs but keeps going regardless. It's hard to tell bullshit from lies but in my opinion it rests on what the person knows is true.

 

[jimmo42]

Re: If you *believe something is correct, is a lie to repeat

I think we need to draw the distinction between lies and bullshit. Basically, the truth-teller knows the truth and limits himself to statements within his realm of knowledge. The liar also knows the truth but sets out to deliberately deceive. The bullshitter by contrast, doesn't care. He has no knowledge which supports his beliefs but keeps going regardless. It's hard to tell bullshit from lies but in my opinion it rests on what the person knows is true.

What about a person who believes it and cares, but assumes that based on his beliefs it "must" be true? In his mind, he "knows" it to be true and thus not intending to either deceive (read: lie) or bullshit someone. Granted, YT is full of fundies who make up all sorts of stuff simply to be right feed their own egos. However, I have encountered some who are honestly convinced that the Bible is the inerrant, infallible "word of god" and certain things "must" be true. Such people do care, because the belief the "word of god" is the truth and the things they say, which support that position must be true as well.

It also depends on what we define as "know". We can take the hardcore approach and say you cannot really "know" something which is not true. See Plato's "justified true belief".
However, what goes on in that person's mind when they claim they know something which is false is no different from when they make the same claims about something which is true.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: If you *believe something is correct, is a lie to repeat

I think there are shades of gray here. Just repeating a lie from a trusted source isn't necessarily a lie. Intentionally choosing biased sources, refusing to get multiple independent sources for claims, and otherwise engaging in what is clearly willful avoidance of contrary viewpoints can be a form of lying IMO. Its much less forgivable in the modern age, where reliable and relatively unbiased sources can be easily found.

So, Sarah Palin saying something stupid about Paul Revere's ride isn't a lie, she's just an ignorant moron. When she refused to correct herself, and put spin on her earlier incorrect statements, she was lying. When her fans tried to alter the Wikipedia entry to match her stupidity, THEY were lying. While their lies were up, if someone went to Wikipedia and saw the edit and repeats it because Wikipedia is generally reliable about past events, that person isn't lying but maybe needs to be more skeptical in general.

 

[jimmo42]

Re: If you *believe something is correct, is a lie to repeat

I most definitely agree there are shades of gray. In fact, that was a key motivation for the question. The only issue I have a problem with is "biased sources." It seems that, no matter what side of an issue you are on, the other side is always baised, but your side is not. I see it a lot even here, where people will wave off any comment by that is anyway positive about the bible as being biased. No reason given, just that if it supports anything in or about the bible it must be baised. If you intentionally choose only source negative towards the bible, use only single sources and simply wave off anything positive towards the bible, would that be a lie in your opinion?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: If you *believe something is correct, is a lie to repeat

I most definitely agree there are shades of gray. In fact, that was a key motivation for the question. The only issue I have a problem with is "biased sources." It seems that, no matter what side of an issue you are on, the other side is always baised, but your side is not. I see it a lot even here, where people will wave off any comment by that is anyway positive about the bible as being biased. No reason given, just that if it supports anything in or about the bible it must be baised. If you intentionally choose only source negative towards the bible, use only single sources and simply wave off anything positive towards the bible, would that be a lie in your opinion?

You seem to also have a hard time spelling "biased"... :lol:

It seems to me that you're creating a false equivalence between various biases, and almost implying that there's no such thing as objective facts. Every "side" of an issue may accuse the other side of bias, but is it true? Does that mean that the truth is always somewhere in the middle, and if so is it near the exact middle or closer to one side or the other? There are levels of bias, even levels of being correct or incorrect. Calling the Earth flat is wrong, but calling it a sphere is also technically wrong, but one position is much closer to the truth than the other. Pi doesn't equal any exact number that we know, but that doesn't mean that 3.1415 and 4.0 are both equally accurate ways to express it.

Plus, I'd love to hear what is "positive" about the Bible? Factual, versus opinion.

 

[Prolescum]

Re: If you *believe something is correct, is a lie to repeat

It seems to me that you're creating a false equivalence between various biases, and almost implying that there's no such thing as objective facts. Every "side" of an issue may accuse the other side of bias, but is it true? Does that mean that the truth is always somewhere in the middle, and if so is it near the exact middle or closer to one side or the other?

Herbal chemist: Eat a jar of bees every day, and you'll avoid bowel cancer.
Scientist: Don't eat any bees.
Man on the Clapham Omnibus: Ah, the truth must be somewhere in the middle; I'll just eat half a jar of bees.

 

[jimmo42]

Re: If you *believe something is correct, is a lie to repeat

It seems to me that you're creating a false equivalence between various biases, and almost implying that there's no such thing as objective facts. Every "side" of an issue may accuse the other side of bias, but is it true?

Well, certainly when dealing with history "objective facts" are very different from "objective facts" when talking about scientific or mathematically principles. Historians talk about likelihood and probability and not certainty. I think in any context, when someone flat out ignores a piece of information simply because it contradicts their beliefs, that is a bias, regardless of what side of the issue you are on.

Does that mean that the truth is always somewhere in the middle, and if so is it near the exact middle or closer to one side or the other?

Naturally it depends on the issue.

There are levels of bias, even levels of being correct or incorrect. Calling the Earth flat is wrong, but calling it a sphere is also technically wrong, but one position is much closer to the truth than the other. Pi doesn't equal any exact number that we know, but that doesn't mean that 3.1415 and 4.0 are both equally accurate ways to express it.

Granted, but I am simply talking about bias whereby someone flat out ingores the source simply because of what or who the source is, somewhat like a reverse "argument to authority". Further, your analogy with pi, is not applicable to history, whether 10 years ago or 2000. We have simply labled a certain mathematically relationship to be "pi", just as the average distance between the sun and earth is an "astronomical unit". It is of little use to call the appropriate values for either one "true".

Plus, I'd love to hear what is "positive" about the Bible? Factual, versus opinion.

• In first century Judea there was an itinerant preaches, who had a message of love and caring.
• The bible is a useful historical document.

How's that for two?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: If you *believe something is correct, is a lie to repeat

I'll just address the points of greatest contention:

Granted, but I am simply talking about bias whereby someone flat out ingores the source simply because of what or who the source is, somewhat like a reverse "argument to authority".

That's not a bad thing to do, when the source is demonstrably full of shit, and there's no confirmation from more reliable sources. An unreliable source may be correct on rare occasion, but that's no reason to ever trust it. It may be a formal fallacy in a debate and logic class, but in regular communication and discussion rejecting bad sources and accepting good sources (at least provisionally) is good practice.

• In first century Judea there was an itinerant preaches, who had a message of love and caring.
• The bible is a useful historical document.

How's that for two?

Well, neither are really true, are they? There MAY have been one or more itinerant preachers, and the stories about them under the "SuperJew" heading of "Jesus Christ" MAY have some vague grounding in fact. The miracles attributed to this fictional character cannot be confirmed, and the words associated with him are sometimes good, sometimes evil, often wrong, and in no way original or especially profound. The Bible isn't much use for history by itself (probably true for most books in antiquity to some degree), but it IS an interesting window into the culture of those raping, murdering, psychotic Hebrews. The level of depravity displayed is simply incredible, and probably helps explain the beginnings of antisemitism. It is obviously undeserved now, but back 1800-2000 years ago, the Jews earned most of the hatred people felt for them, based on what they brag about doing in their own holy book.

 

[jimmo42]

Re: If you *believe something is correct, is a lie to repeat

Well, neither are really true, are they? There MAY have been one or more itinerant preachers, and the stories about them under the "SuperJew" heading of "Jesus Christ" MAY have some vague grounding in fact. The miracles attributed to this fictional character cannot be confirmed, and the words associated with him are sometimes good, sometimes evil, often wrong, and in no way original or especially profound. The Bible isn't much use for history by itself (probably true for most books in antiquity to some degree), but it IS an interesting window into the culture of those raping, murdering, psychotic Hebrews. The level of depravity displayed is simply incredible, and probably helps explain the beginnings of antisemitism. It is obviously undeserved now, but back 1800-2000 years ago, the Jews earned most of the hatred people felt for them, based on what they brag about doing in their own holy book.

Sorry, but that is one massive contradiction. :roll:

We can't trust the bible at all, BUT it tells us the "truth" about the nasty things the hebrews did. Can you say "ludicrous"? It's either useful for the good AND bad, or it's useful for neither. It is extremely biased to say we can use it for the bad things but nothing else.

The Bible isn't much use for history by itself (probably true for most books in antiquity to some degree),

Well then, where exactly does one get information about what happened in the past?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: If you *believe something is correct, is a lie to repeat

Seriously jimmo42, re-read what I said. It seems to me that your bias is blinding you right now. There's no contradiction in what I've said at all... although I will clarify that I doubt the Hebrews murdered and raped as many total people as they bragged about doing, I think they exaggerated a bit.

No contradiction there, however: As a book about a culture, it is valuable even if it is legend and exaggeration and somewhat fictionalized. As a history book it gets some things right, other things wrong, and is only useful in the context of confirming information. That's not a criticism that I'm applying unfairly to the Bible, I'm sure that's a standard that historians apply to ALL books from ancient times.

 

[jimmo42]

Re: If you *believe something is correct, is a lie to repeat

and is only useful in the context of confirming information.

Uh, no....That is demonstably incorrect.

There have been a number of cases where the bible has been used to find/discover various locations that were not previously known. Read Silberman and Finkelstein's "The Bible Unearthed" or look at Jodi Magness' TTC course "Holy Land Revealed". Both will show that your statement is incorrect.

That's not a criticism that I'm applying unfairly to the Bible, I'm sure that's a standard that historians apply to ALL books from ancient times.

Define book! Novel? Any collection of documents? Both the old and new testament are collections of invididual documents, that were written by dozens of different authors, spead out across 500-1000 years. The new testament was written by several different authors, spread out across several decades. Both were compiled into their current form long after they were written. Historiographically, neither should be treated as a single book.

If you are claiming that historians only use ancient documents to "confirm" information, then that too is incorrect. If you are really interested in details of the historical method, I would recommend anything by C.Behan McCullagh or E.H. Carr. Michael Grant's "Greek and Roman Historians" is an interesting perspective on "ancient" historians (they tended to embellish a lot). Michael Oakeschott's "What is History" is also good.

If ancient documents are "only useful in the context of confirming information", just where exactly do historians get the information that needs confirming?

 

[Aught3]

Re: If you *believe something is correct, is a lie to repeat

In reverse order:

It also depends on what we define as "know". We can take the hardcore approach and say you cannot really "know" something which is not true. See Plato's "justified true belief".
However, what goes on in that person's mind when they claim they know something which is false is no different from when they make the same claims about something which is true

I would take the justified true belief definition of knowledge and I realise it is possible to be justified in holding a false position. But that seemed to be the definition of knowledge you used in your OP.

What about a person who believes it and cares, but assumes that based on his beliefs it "must" be true? In his mind, he "knows" it to be true and thus not intending to either deceive (read: lie) or bullshit someone.

If I've understood you correctly, you are now asking about someone who wants to tell the truth, has a false belief, and a justification for that false belief. The example you give is someone believing in the inerrancy of the Bible, but anyone making that claim is clearly bullshitting. They either haven't read the Bible, which is self-contradictory and doesn't match up with the historical record or they have read it and yet bought into inerrancy anyway. Either way they are not justified.

However I could imagine the situation you describe because it happens all the time in science. Sometimes you have evidence for a claim you believe to be true but it turns out later the claim was false. It depends how you frame your explanations of the claim. If you stay within the confines of the evidence you found then you are being honest. If you go outside the confines of the evidence you are making too strong of a claim and bullshitting.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: If you *believe something is correct, is a lie to repeat

There have been a number of cases where the bible has been used to find/discover various locations that were not previously known. Read Silberman and Finkelstein's "The Bible Unearthed" or look at Jodi Magness' TTC course "Holy Land Revealed". Both will show that your statement is incorrect.

Ummm... those discoveries ARE THE CONFIRMING EVIDENCE! Now you're really showing your bias towards fair criticism.

Do you think Jesus walked on water, yes or no? If "yes", based on what?

 

[jimmo42]

Re: If you *believe something is correct, is a lie to repeat

Ummm... those discoveries ARE THE CONFIRMING EVIDENCE!

Then perhaps I misunderstood your comment "only useful in the context of confirming information." It can easily be interpreted in different ways. Are you saying that the bible and other ancient documents are only useful to confirm information from other sources? As I have demonstrated, that is incorrect.

Are you saying that the bible and other ancient documents are only useful when there is other, confirming information? That, too, is incorrect.

Again, the question: If ancient documents are "only useful in the context of confirming information", just where exactly do historians get the information that needs confirming if not from ancient documents? Please be so kind as to answer that question.

Now you're really showing your bias towards fair criticism.

On what do you based that comment? The fact that I have read several books and done audio/video courses on historiography/philosophy of history and the history of the bible? Books and courses done by both christians and non-christians. The fact that I have researched other sources for the historical claims made in the bible? I have looked at both sides and drawn a conclusion. What is not "fair" about that?

Just so we are clear on it, what experience do you have in this area? Are you making claims based on what you want to be true about the bible or do you have actual knowledge? Seems to me that making claims without real knowledge is one of the things that started the discussion.

Do you think Jesus walked on water, yes or no? If "yes", based on what?

Sorry, I don't mean to insult you, but you argue like a fundie. You jump from one extreme to the other: Either the bible is unrealiable or it is 100% accurate. History is not black and white. Just because historians (or I) believe some parts of the bible are true does not imply belief that everything is true. If you want, I can give you naturalistic explanations for all of the miracles in the NT. So, no, I do not believe Jesus actually walked on water. What exactly is your point?

There are many case where the only source of information is the bible. For example, events during the Babylonian exile, the geneology of various kings, Solomon sleeping in the tabernacle to be closer to God in order to better get prophecies more directly. All of these are believed by historians to be true despite having no external sources to confirm them. (Note that in terms of Solomon, historians believe only what he did, not that it would actually give him better prophecies)

If I took the time, I could probably come up with at least a dozen different examples of things only in the bible that historians believe to be true. Just look at the NT. Miracles aside, I can think of of no serious scholar who does not believe Paul did the things attributed to him. You could probably find at least a dozens examples just there.

Just to be clear and to prevent people from going off on an irrelevant tangent, when I say "historians", I am not claiming knowledge of every single historians nor every single one who specializes in ancient history, history of the bible or anything related. Nor am I claiming that every single historians I have ever encountered has the exact same beliefs as I do. For example, Richard Carrier and Robert Price. (Price is a theologian, but is still considered an expert in the historicity of Jesus) Both have different beliefs, but Price even admits that his belief Jesus did not exist is the exception. However, the vast majority of historians (christians and non-christians) that I ever encountered support my position. In fact, the reason I have this position is from reading those books and taking those courses from the experts. Is that any different from your belief in evolution, for example?

Although I considered myself a "well-informed" layman, I am still dependant on the experts for most of my information. After collecting that information, I draw the conclusions I have. What are your sources of information for claims like "The Bible isn't much use for history by itself (probably true for most books in antiquity to some degree)"? Since this is an interesting of mine, I am curious about any information on this subject.

 

[jimmo42]

Re: If you *believe something is correct, is a lie to repeat

If I've understood you correctly, you are now asking about someone who wants to tell the truth, has a false belief, and a justification for that false belief. The example you give is someone believing in the inerrancy of the Bible, but anyone making that claim is clearly bullshitting. They either haven't read the Bible, which is self-contradictory and doesn't match up with the historical record or they have read it and yet bought into inerrancy anyway. Either way they are not justified.

I understand your point, but I am not sure I agree 100%. One can read the bible and come to the conclusion there it is inerrant. There are several books about "bible problems" that address the contradictions, errors, etc. If you believe those explanations, you can come to the conclusion that there are no "problems" in the bible. Alternatively, one can maintain the bible is still infallible, despite apparent problems.

However I could imagine the situation you describe because it happens all the time in science. Sometimes you have evidence for a claim you believe to be true but it turns out later the claim was false. It depends how you frame your explanations of the claim. If you stay within the confines of the evidence you found then you are being honest. If you go outside the confines of the evidence you are making too strong of a claim and bullshitting.

I agree for the most part, but I often see the problem lies in what people consider "evidence". In both history and science, evidence is in the eye of the beholder as it could be interpreted in different ways.

Would you consider M-theory as an explanation for the "fine-tuning" of the universe evidence? It is purely mathematical with no real evidence. However, many people who believe there is no god are biased in searching for a naturalistic explanation and claim this is an explanation. Are they bullshitting?

 

[kenandkids]

Re: If you *believe something is correct, is a lie to repeat

There have been a number of cases where the bible has been used to find/discover various locations that were not previously known. Read Silberman and Finkelstein's "The Bible Unearthed" or look at Jodi Magness' TTC course "Holy Land Revealed". Both will show that your statement is incorrect.

Ummm... those discoveries ARE THE CONFIRMING EVIDENCE! Now you're really showing your bias towards fair criticism.

Do you think Jesus walked on water, yes or no? If "yes", based on what?

Every thread by this guy asserts the same crap, why play along? Spiderman mentions New York, New York is real, ergo Spiderman is real. This has been his entire playbook since his very first post, excepting that he refuses to allow any other mythical character the same treatment he gives christ. It's clear that he has barely read the bible and ignores most knowledge that was commonplace even back in 1800s, back when Kierkegaard himself admitted no evidence and yet called for good christians to have faith regardless.

 

[Aught3]

Re: If you *believe something is correct, is a lie to repeat

I understand your point, but I am not sure I agree 100%. One can read the bible and come to the conclusion there it is inerrant. There are several books about "bible problems" that address the contradictions, errors, etc. If you believe those explanations, you can come to the conclusion that there are no "problems" in the bible. Alternatively, one can maintain the bible is still infallible, despite apparent problems.

Sure a person can just believe. That's not really the issue though, it's when they go out to espouse those beliefs that the question of lying arises. There may be some grey area around difficult subjects but on the issue of a historical exodus of slaves from Egypt or the rapid conquest and destruction of Canaan there's not really any question. Even a cursory examination of the historical record would reveal all kinds of problems. The Christian may not abandon their belief at that point but if they continue to try and argue for inerrancy I would say that's bullshit.

I agree for the most part, but I often see the problem lies in what people consider "evidence". In both history and science, evidence is in the eye of the beholder as it could be interpreted in different ways.

Maybe the same evidence can be interpreted in slightly different ways but it's not like there's that much room to maneuver. I think the real issue is how much evidence different people require before they are comfortable with a conclusion. Person A may think they are justified by what person B considers weak evidence, clearly there is room for reasonable disagreement and even mistakes as we reach the limits of current human knowledge.

Would you consider M-theory as an explanation for the "fine-tuning" of the universe evidence? It is purely mathematical with no real evidence. However, many people who believe there is no god are biased in searching for a naturalistic explanation and claim this is an explanation. Are they bullshitting?

Advanced theoretical physics is pretty far removed from the original questions where the truth was more certain. The only thing I know about M-theory is that it builds of string theory which I'm not to keen on due to its lack of results. I've no idea how much evidence supports M-theory so I can't really comment on that part, so I'll just take your word for it. If M-theory does provide a naturalistic explanation (for what, the universe?) then it is correct to say that it provides an explanation, I have no issue with that statement. If someone was going further and saying this definitely is the answer without providing sufficient evidence then I would say they are bullshitting.

 

[jimmo42]

Re: If you *believe something is correct, is a lie to repeat

Every thread by this guy asserts the same crap, why play along? Spiderman mentions New York, New York is real, ergo Spiderman is real. This has been his entire playbook since his very first post, excepting that he refuses to allow any other mythical character the same treatment he gives christ. It's clear that he has barely read the bible and ignores most knowledge that was commonplace even back in 1800s, back when Kierkegaard himself admitted no evidence and yet called for good christians to have faith regardless.

Other people on this forum have repeatedly confirmed the exact same things I am saying and you intentionally ignore all of them. If you choose to be willfully ignorant about how historians do their work, then that is your choice. Willful ignorance is the hallmark of fundamentalist Christians and here you are, once again, demonstrating that very same willful ignorance. All you have ever done is brought up some childish, ludicrous strawman about Spiderman and claim that is my argument. It is not.

I know it is going to extremely hard for you, but why not, just once, provide information from an expert in the field that contradicts what I say. Just once. You provide evidence? How impertinent of me to require you to follow the same rules as you demand of others. Every time you butt into a discussion it is a fundie-like argument, with no facts, no information, only your unsubstantiated opinion and a personal attack on my. So tell us professor, eactly which historians do not use the methods I describe? Any other evidence? No? I didn't think so.

Then there to things you simply make up. Why are you so desperate to show that I am wrong that you have resort to making things up? Do you really think that is intellectually honest? I have repeatedly shown why I have come to the conclusions I have. And YOU? Nothing! Simply wild, unsubstatiated, biased claims.

Let's get back to the original discussion. kenandkids has made statements that are demonstrably wrong, both in terms of what historians do and what I have said. He refuses to change his behaviour/comments based on the facts. Is that lying or simply bullshitting? Since his behaviour is intentional, the answer seems pretty clear to me.