God and Santa

[Brian-M]

Still a lie.

A falsehood, not a lie.

A lie is a falsehood asserted with intention to deceive.

If the person asserting the falsehood genuinely believes what they're saying is true, then there is no intention to deceive. In this case they're not lying, they're just wrong.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

A falsehood, not a lie.

A lie is a falsehood asserted with intention to deceive.

If the person asserting the falsehood genuinely believes what they're saying is true, then there is no intention to deceive. In this case they're not lying, they're just wrong.

Splitting hairs to give a bye to religion?

 

[Delvo]

to everybody in the room.

If your meaning is that they don't really believe in their own religion, then the straightforward way to say it, without sounding like you're trying to use the verb "lie" to mean something it doesn't mean, would have been to just say there are no true believers.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If your meaning is that they don't really believe in their own religion, then the straightforward way to say it, without sounding like you're trying to use the verb "lie" to mean something it doesn't mean, would have been to just say there are no true believers.

They are lying. Dancing about the issue won't change that.

 

[Delvo]

What dancing? Where? You're the one who just saw that what you're getting at isn't clear, and chose to respond to it by uselessly repeating the unclarity instead of clarifying it. THAT's dancing around your own meaning.

 

[Brian-M]

Splitting hairs to give a bye to religion?

No. I'm objecting to using equivocation attack religion. There are better ways.

If a person genuinely believes what they're telling you is true, they're not lying.

Wiktionary definition of lie: To give false information intentionally.
Dictionary.com definition of lie: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

If you want to say that the person making an inaccurate statement is wrong, mistaken, deluded or repeating a falsehood... I'm okay with that. If you want to say that their statements are false, wrong, misleading, incorrect, inaccurate or untrue... that's fine by me.

But if the person genuinely believes what they're saying is true, it's not a lie.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Good luck with that.

 

[HansMustermann]

Probably because they're not actually lying, so why would you expect them to 'admit it'?

I think that's the main reason Santa's a crappy analogy for religion. Almost every parent who has told their kid the Santa story also admits they are fully aware it's a fabrication. You won't find this for any religion I'm aware of. We assume it happens in Scientology, but it's not public knowledge like the Santa situation.

eg: I can't think of one parent who talks openly about tricking their kid into First Communion because they wanted to see the kid enjoy the ceremony. They're pretty universally sincere.

Any analogy breaks down if you take it into aspects it wasn't meant to illustrate in the first place.

E.g., similarly you could take Shakespeare's "All The World's A Stage" and argue it's a crap analogy, because where is the lighting? Where is the curtain? Where is the paying audience? Are people actually aware they play a role IRL like actors are on a stage? Etc.

But that's why it's an analogy, not a 100% equivalence. The only 100% equivalence for life is life, and the only 100% equivalence for a theatre play is a theatre play. And the only 100% equivalence for Santa is Santa.

There being aspects that are not part of the analogy is a given for analogies and metaphors. Any analogy, simile, metaphor, allegory, etc, is supposed to only transfer SOME information from one context to another, not to claim that the two domains are 100% equivalent in any attributes or associations imaginable.

So the argument that yeah, but you can take it to silly extremes and then it breaks, is the only thing crappy there.

The analogy with Santa is from the point of view of a believer, i.e., for the Santa side from the child's point of view.

And there it doesn't matter if the one who told you Santa is real is actually a believer too (it could happen, e.g., if you learned from an older sibbling), or if they know they're lying their ass off at you (which actually happens in some religions too, e.g., see the founders of Mormonism or Scientology.) It matters that from the point of view of the believer, it offers just the right amount of carrot and stick, it teaches you that someone watches you all the time, etc. So, yes, it's God with training wheels for children.

For the adults, yes, not so much, but that wasn't what it was supposed to illustrate in the first place.

Heck, if I wanted to be snarky, I could point out that children also already have the same cognitive dissonance manifestations, and keep believing in Santa even in the face of evidence that it can't all be real. E.g., after seeing very different "Santa"s at different malls.

Heck, I could offer myself as an example there, even. At a very young age, I had the presence of spirit to pull the fale beard off grandma, after figuring out that Santa sounds suspiciously like grandma... and then continued to believe in Santa anyway. As in, right within the next 5 minutes. If this Santa wants to give me toys, of course Santa is real.

 

[blutoski]

Any analogy breaks down if you take it into aspects it wasn't meant to illustrate in the first place.

Yes. Which is why I said delvo's post missed the mark. I interpreted the post to imply that both situations are examples of lying, so parents should have identical responses to accusations of lying for both. I disagreed.

I'm actually not sure what aspects are intended when the analogy is invoked (it may vary with the teller), which is why I think it's terrible. It sounds scrambled, and I think it generally makes the invoker look confused so has a negative impact.

 

[I Ratant]

They are lying. Dancing about the issue won't change that.

.
It's not a lie when it is sincerely believed by the speaker.
Mistaken, yes.
Lie, no.
Detecting the error(s) in what Dad and Mom state is very difficult, with no exposure to other views.
Some people can mature sufficiently to see that errors exist, and stop accepting those.
But most folks are too concerned with living here and now to worry about the future after death, being content with what they've been taught. Doesn't hurt them, and puts that stuff off in the corner while they find their daily bread.

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, technically, at least some people ARE lying to you about religion, as in, deliberately telling falsehoods.

Dan Barker for example admits that he continued to be a preacher for a while after losing his faith, and that he's not the only one. So, yes, we KNOW that there are people who go in front of a congregation every week, not to mention various other occasions, and try to convince you of something they think is false. That's lying for money, by any other name.

Also, judging by how the argument about needing religion to have morals is pretty much THE #1 argument these days, I am convinced that basically a lot of people DO lie to you, hoping it would make you behave. People are very easy to convince that everyone ELSE but them is a worse person and/or more gullible, and I'm under the distinct impression that some just go along with the con because they think it keeps those bad OTHER people in line.

Which, if you think about it, is exactly a Santa-for-grownups kinda situation.

 

[blutoski]

Well, technically, at least some people ARE lying to you about religion, as in, deliberately telling falsehoods.

Absolutely, and in my opinion, these confessions are clear-cut proof of fraud for that individual.

The problem is that extrapolating from the individuals who confess fraud to everybody involved in an activity is not justified when the preponderance of the evidence is that most participants are sincere.

Consider this example: every year, a few medical researchers are disciplined for fabricating data, suppressing contrary results, or other types of publication fraud. Antivaxxers use your argument to extrapolate and propose that because there are a few examples of verified fraud, it's reasonable to assume everybody involved in medical research is a liar.

Skeptics don't accept this because it's a terrible argument.

Also, judging by how the argument about needing religion to have morals is pretty much THE #1 argument these days, I am convinced that basically a lot of people DO lie to you, hoping it would make you behave. People are very easy to convince that everyone ELSE but them is a worse person and/or more gullible, and I'm under the distinct impression that some just go along with the con because they think it keeps those bad OTHER people in line.

I doubt it. I think that's a stretch. Maybe some, but I think these atheists would be more interested in advocating those values in another context, rather than promoting religion to suit a secular goal.

 

[HansMustermann]

I'm not sure I'd call everyone participating in the scam an 'atheist', but, yes, it's my distinct impression that taken individually most people believe in something rather different than the religion they officially endorse. And what's more damning is that they're not even interested to learn exactly what does their supposed religion say.

I do get the impression that for most of them organized religion is more of a way of reassuring themselves they fit in a group, and there is a certain guaranteed group behaviour towards each other, than actually obsessing about Mary's magical hymen or about Jesus flavoured biscuits transforming into meat.

Again, I wouldn't really consider most of them 'atheists', since most do like the idea of going to heavens and stuff. But they don't believe half the stuff they encourage others to believe anyway.

So it kinda is like saying that if I like presents, then I'm not really lying to kids about Santa

 

[blutoski]

I'm not sure I'd call everyone participating in the scam an 'atheist', but, yes, it's my distinct impression that taken individually most people believe in something rather different than the religion they officially endorse. And what's more damning is that they're not even interested to learn exactly what does their supposed religion say.

I do get the impression that for most of them organized religion is more of a way of reassuring themselves they fit in a group, and there is a certain guaranteed group behaviour towards each other, than actually obsessing about Mary's magical hymen or about Jesus flavoured biscuits transforming into meat.

Again, I wouldn't really consider most of them 'atheists', since most do like the idea of going to heavens and stuff. But they don't believe half the stuff they encourage others to believe anyway.

So it kinda is like saying that if I like presents, then I'm not really lying to kids about Santa

I'm not sure I can support that, aside from outright scams, I'm stretching my imagination to come up with the scenario you describe. What a person personally believes usually aligns with what they tell their children, because they want their children to share their values and beliefs. This is pretty much a truism, I think, and is not comparable to misunderstanding their religion, so I think you're still conflating the two problems.

The most common examples that come to mind are a) when two parents with different religions raise children together, in which case they may choose to raise the children according to one belief, but even that doesn't mean deception is SOP. Even if one parent suppresses his beliefs for the sake of stability, it's one of millions of pieces of information parents simplify or withold from children until they're old enough to digest more complexity.

The second example that I am aware of is people misrepresenting their faith in an environment where they will experience persecution. I wish this didn't happen, but I don't think this is evidence of poor character.

 

[blutoski]

So it kinda is like saying that if I like presents, then I'm not really lying to kids about Santa

Nah, I say that I think the Santa thing is pretty fun, so that's why I don't think I'm a bad parent for putting my kids through the Santa stage. I also pretend the empty cup my daughter would hand me was full of tea, her sparkly wand turned me into a cat, and that she can make me fart by pulling my pinkie.

This has been making the FB rounds lately:
[Geek parents go all "Night at the Museum" with their kids' toy dinosaurs, turning November into Dinovember.]

Lying is not necessarily evil incarnate.

 

[HansMustermann]

I'm not sure I can support that, aside from outright scams, I'm stretching my imagination to come up with the scenario you describe. What a person personally believes usually aligns with what they tell their children, because they want their children to share their values and beliefs. This is pretty much a truism, I think, and is not comparable to misunderstanding their religion, so I think you're still conflating the two problems.

That wasn't what I was talking about, but... Really? People being honest about their beliefs to their kids? Seriously?

We were just talking about Santa, you know? How's that for low hanging fruits of counterexample? It's something parents tell their kids to believe in, although they personally don't.

And then there's the easter bunny, the tooth fairy, Sandman, Jack Frost, and a whole pantheon for children to believe in. Although their parents don't.

People wanting kids to share their values? People don't even want themselves to share their own values. Most routinely profess to be more acceptable than they actually are, if you give them the slightest hint of what values you want to hear. There's a whole science in the meantime just to pick something resembling the truth from the bullcrap that people will cheerfully tell you about themselves in anonymous surveys.

And for their kids, people at best want their kids to be more like someone better or more successful, and at worst like something that stays out of the way and doesn't need as much attention.

There is a whole body of values people tell their kids, that they mostly don't apply themselves. E.g.,

- you shouldn't just mindlessly follow the crowd (think, "if all your friends jumped off a bridge..."), although mommy and daddy devote hours a day just to being pleasing to one crowd or another. And some would probably actually jump off a bridge if that made them more popular.

- you shouldn't ever tell a lie... although mommy and daddy do. And just flat out lied to you when they professed that value.

- you should take your piano lessons / memorize poetry / whatever extra chore, because it's good for you and you never know when you might need it in the future... and not, say, because mommy and/or daddy like the dose of attention they get when they brag about your results there, while fully knowing that the chance you'll ever need to play the piano in the future is nil.

Etc.

Most stuff people tell their kids is actually not even for the kid's good, as just making him/her something easier to deal with. (From the constant surveillance of Santa, to "if all your friends jumped off a bridge..." and beyond, that's the gist of it.) And in some cases something that mommy and/or daddy can brag about.

If they actually taught you their real values... well, a lot of parent-child talks would be different. And probably horrify most people.

The most common examples that come to mind are a) when two parents with different religions raise children together, in which case they may choose to raise the children according to one belief, but even that doesn't mean deception is SOP. Even if one parent suppresses his beliefs for the sake of stability, it's one of millions of pieces of information parents simplify or withold from children until they're old enough to digest more complexity.

Right, I guess one doesn't believe in Santa, and the other doesn't believe in the Tooth Fairy. Hell of a mixed marriage that. So, I guess, better get the kids to believe in both, just in case

The second example that I am aware of is people misrepresenting their faith in an environment where they will experience persecution. I wish this didn't happen, but I don't think this is evidence of poor character.

People mis-represent their beliefs and values even in a <bleep>ing anonymous survey. That's why there's a whole science in how to phrase it and how to randomize it. People will even profess two mutually incompatible beliefs on two surveys, if they get enough of a hint in the phrasing of what someone would like to hear. Or just because the "yes" choice was about polar opposites.

Seriously, even asking "are you for sending more troops in Afghanistan?" vs "should we pull out the troops in Afghanistan?" yields different results, because people have a tendency to be agreeable and answer "yes". Whatever the question is. That's why you end up randomizing phrases in such polls.

But anyway, if by "persecution", you mean "won't be as popular with Mrs Jones, who actually also fakes being devout to fit in that group", yeah, lots of people seem to be into religion because of that. Or into football, for that matter.

 

[HansMustermann]

Nah, I say that I think the Santa thing is pretty fun, so that's why I don't think I'm a bad parent for putting my kids through the Santa stage. I also pretend the empty cup my daughter would hand me was full of tea, her sparkly wand turned me into a cat, and that she can make me fart by pulling my pinkie.

This has been making the FB rounds lately:
[Geek parents go all "Night at the Museum" with their kids' toy dinosaurs, turning November into Dinovember.]

Lying is not necessarily evil incarnate.

I didn't say it was necessarily evil in the first place. I'm just saying that people do lie about their beliefs. Even if it's for fun, or fitting together in a group, or seeming like an agreeable person to the nice fellow doing a poll. I know I'm repeating myself, but the bar really is that low. But yeah, people do lie. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

.
It's not a lie when it is sincerely believed by the speaker.
Mistaken, yes.
Lie, no.
Detecting the error(s) in what Dad and Mom state is very difficult, with no exposure to other views.
Some people can mature sufficiently to see that errors exist, and stop accepting those.
But most folks are too concerned with living here and now to worry about the future after death, being content with what they've been taught. Doesn't hurt them, and puts that stuff off in the corner while they find their daily bread.

They were lied to, they repeat the lies. I don't give byes to religion.

 

[blutoski]

That wasn't what I was talking about, but... Really? People being honest about their beliefs to their kids? Seriously?

Yep. Seriously. Santa, tooth fairy, oontsie-tah, detachable fingers, they're not everyday stuff, and parents usually explain it was a joke sometime in elementary school. Religion is the opposite from what I can tell, which is why I think it's a poor analogy.

People wanting kids to share their values? People don't even want themselves to share their own values. Most routinely profess to be more acceptable than they actually are, if you give them the slightest hint of what values you want to hear. There's a whole science in the meantime just to pick something resembling the truth from the bullcrap that people will cheerfully tell you about themselves in anonymous surveys.

There is a whole body of values people tell their kids, that they mostly don't apply themselves. E.g.,

- you shouldn't just mindlessly follow the crowd (think, "if all your friends jumped off a bridge..."), although mommy and daddy devote hours a day just to being pleasing to one crowd or another. And some would probably actually jump off a bridge if that made them more popular.

- you shouldn't ever tell a lie... although mommy and daddy do. And just flat out lied to you when they professed that value.

- you should take your piano lessons / memorize poetry / whatever extra chore, because it's good for you and you never know when you might need it in the future... and not, say, because mommy and/or daddy like the dose of attention they get when they brag about your results there, while fully knowing that the chance you'll ever need to play the piano in the future is nil.

I'm worried that you're projecting

I'm not sure I understand your examples. Do you mean there's a discrepancy between values and action? That's hypocrisy, but it's not lying.

For example, I think drinking is unhealthy and should be avoided and this is what I tell my kids. I also drink. The second sentence does not mean the first sentence was a lie. Both are true.

That conflation is actually a fallacy called Tu Coque.



Or do you mean people lack insight and will be sure they're valuing something for a good reason, when the real reason may be very different and morally questionable or selfish? I would still submit that this is an example of sincerely providing incorrect information rather than lying.

The grey area is when it's really so self-evident that self-deception is doubtful. Hello Oral Roberts.

Right, I guess one doesn't believe in Santa, and the other doesn't believe in the Tooth Fairy. Hell of a mixed marriage that. So, I guess, better get the kids to believe in both, just in case

? I don't understand the analogy. But I've already explained that I don't see much similarity between religion and santa, tooth fairy, &c. That's my main point.

I think the closest I can get to making sense of your analogy is my situation: my wife is from a very poor island in the Caribbean, so she didn't really grow up with Santa or Tooth Fairy or Oontsie-Tah and doesn't really want to tell our children about them. But she does love to tell them about the Blue Woman, Aunt Nancy, Jab-Jab and the Dolphin Girl, which are the myths she had fun with as a child.

When I was a boy, my best friend for a few years was a grandson of Dan George, and he would tell us children's stories from his culture that have a similar exposure when kids got over. I'm sure his grandchildren believed them for a few years. Point is that his non-native wives didn't want to tell their kids these stories and the pressure to westernize strained those marriages.

People mis-represent their beliefs and values even in a <bleep>ing anonymous survey. That's why there's a whole science in how to phrase it and how to randomize it. People will even profess two mutually incompatible beliefs on two surveys, if they get enough of a hint in the phrasing of what someone would like to hear. Or just because the "yes" choice was about polar opposites.

Seriously, even asking "are you for sending more troops in Afghanistan?" vs "should we pull out the troops in Afghanistan?" yields different results, because people have a tendency to be agreeable and answer "yes". Whatever the question is. That's why you end up randomizing phrases in such polls.

Yes, but as somebody who has had to design these surveys, I think you're assuming deception when the more mundane answer is that framing changes the way people interpret questions and in most cases they are answering sincerely. Discepant responses are not proof of falsification. Also: there is fudge-checking, but one set of surveys indicates that lying in surveys declines dramatically if there is any chance of followup or consequences. As you point out: people lie a lot in anonymous surveys. People lie less when their identity is attached to a survey. I'm going to speculate that people lie less to their kids whom they love and expect to care for them in old age, than to anonymous surveyors they probably don't like and will never meet again.

So again: a poor analogy due to critical and material differences.

But anyway, if by "persecution", you mean "won't be as popular with Mrs Jones, who actually also fakes being devout to fit in that group", yeah, lots of people seem to be into religion because of that. Or into football, for that matter.

No, I mean like my Mennonite relatives in Lithuania who pretended to be atheist when the Stalinist government was arresting Mennonites because of their religious adherence back in the 1940s. They did not, however, carry this deception to their children, as they wanted to pass on their values and beliefs.

 

[blutoski]

I didn't say it was necessarily evil in the first place. I'm just saying that people do lie about their beliefs. Even if it's for fun, or fitting together in a group, or seeming like an agreeable person to the nice fellow doing a poll. I know I'm repeating myself, but the bar really is that low. But yeah, people do lie. That's all I'm saying.

OK: I agree that people do lie.

I don't think we disagreed about this; I'm sorry I got off topic a bit but I needed an excuse to post that story about the dinosaur toys.