May 24, 2009

  • Evaluating Christianity & "Misrepresenting Creationists as Liars"

    Intro:

    The following (lengthy) conversation can be found over on Evaluating Christianity's blog (link, link, and link).  Basically this is an atheist to atheist dispute (that went rather well, actually) regarding how often creationists are accused of "lying" and how I think they probably harbor no actual intention to deceive.   

    On that first link above I commented thus:

    Hey, I’ve been wanting to look into the claim often made of “creationist liars” and it seems to me more often than not (or perhaps just as often as any group of human beings) that inordinate bias is more at work than any willful intent to deceive anyone. Evolutionists just don’t seem to be able to fathom the stark raving madness of that sometimes and too often jump at the easy splash title of “lying for Jesus” when it’s probably just not true. Anyway, what I’m getting at, since you say you “ordinarily” go with B, is a request by me for a link to a really good case (or set of cases) that shows definitively that creationists have an inordinate habit of actually lying rather than being self-deceived. Any help?

    Ben

    MO responds:

    ben: “Anyway, what I’m getting at, since you say you “ordinarily” go with B, is a request by me for a link to a really good case (or set of cases) that shows definitively that creationists have an inordinate habit of actually lying rather than being self-deceived. Any help?”

    How about Morris’ That Their Words May Be Used Against Them. An entire book of quotes without context (or out of context), which makes the people saying them appear to be saying something other than they were actually saying (amusingly torn apart in this review of a review on Amazon). He’s using out-of-context quotes as a weapon. If that isn’t mendacious, I don’t know what is.

    If that doesn’t do it for you, any number of blogs on scienceblogs regularly pick apart big “C” Creationism.

    Essentially, Creationists typically learn just enough science to come to the wrong answer, then pick apart that wrong path to the wrong answer with their own biblically centered wrong path to the answer that’s so far off it isn’t even wrong. Then, when they’re corrected, they ignore the corrections and rephrase the original, nasty version of science that only lives in their heads (the one where Darwin had gaymansex with Hitler while the notorious social-Darwinist Stalin used “Darwinism” to justify the gulags and pogroms, and hordes of atheists forced the USA to keep slaves before banning prayer in church and instituted mandatory gay marriages and complementary abortions). For more, see Ray Comfort’s blog. No, I’m not going to link to it.
    I doubt very much that they see themselves as liars. They have big “T” Truth, you see, and God never mentioned evolution in Genesis, and 6,000 years isn’t enough time for it and Man can’t have common descent preceding Adam & Eve (since one came from a rib and the other from dirt). Besides, if Man came from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?

    Then the next generation takes the last one’s wrongness and repeats it. That’s why you still see cliches like Darwin quote mined and “no transitional fossils”, I think.

    I respond:

    MO,

    Hey, thanks for responding.

    “Essentially, Creationists typically learn just enough science to come to the wrong answer, then pick apart that wrong path to the wrong answer with their own biblically centered wrong path to the answer that’s so far off it isn’t even wrong.”

    Exactly. By your own definition I wouldn’t call that “lying.” That’s passionate ignorance in action that grabs one quote out of context because “that must be what they really meant.” It’s an extreme form of religiously motivated confirmation bias and probably nothing like a willful intent to deceive. I imagine that’s exactly what I’d get out of that Henry Morris book you linked to. You call people like that liars and obviously you’ve just contributed *further* to their delusion-scape because they know full well they weren’t lying and now they think they know one more thing about you. You call honest people liars when disagreed with. Oopsie. Horrible for “evilutionist” PR. “Creationist Liars: They’re not even Lying.” is much more like it. Even if they are lying, you’ve played right into their hands, because they can just lie again. My message is: Stop calling them liars and just stick with showing why they are mistaken. I wish all the sciences blogs would figure that out.

    Ben 

    MO responds:

    When someone says “X” and you point out that what they’re talking about is really “Y”, then they come back and repeat “X”, it’s no longer ignorance. It’s a lie. The first time that Ray Comfort said “X”, he was ignorant. Now, after being repeatedly corrected, when he says “X”, he’s knowingly and willfully lying, whether or not he admits that to himself. That his God is supportive of his position is meaningless. He’s supportive of everybody’s position, even when His support of one person conflicts with his support of another’s (I’ve probably mentioned this before, but theology is the only science where it’s always the other guy whose wrong).

    I don’t call “…people liars when disagreed with”. I point out the error, link to the facts and often link to books that further illuminate the bigger story. If they then repeat their original statement later, they no longer have the excuse of simple ignorance. Misstating, say the ToE or the effectiveness of abstinence-only sex-ed programs, based on ignorance is merely ignorant. Knowing what the ToE is or the conclusions of studies of ab-only and deliberately misstating them is no longer ignorance. It’s lying. One who lies is a liar. When confronted with that, I try to explain it again in a different way. Granted, as a lefty-atheist foreigner, my opinion counts for squat in those circles, but if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck…

    ps: To the best of my recollection, after correcting and having those corrections ignored I’ve only called one a liar (and that was phrased as “In other words, there’s a yawning chasm between the accusations and the facts and you don’t care which is which”), and that was only after repeatedly having the exact same thing happen on a variety of subjects. He’d also earlier accused others of “Typical illogical emotional reasoning – ignore the data because it is referenced or discussed by your opponents. Refuse to address studies when they contradict your position. Only listen to people who agree with you”, which broke my irony meter so badly that I had to repeat it back to him.

    People are entitled to their beliefs. They are not, however, entitled to their own facts.

    I respond:

    MO,

    The solipsism of your objectivity is staggering. haha :p No seriously dude. This isn’t an attack. I struggle not to have your exact same mentality there, but I’m pretty sure I’m wrong. Pointing something out to someone and saying “you got served” is all great fun in your own head even if it is clear as crystal and you are right on the money. The problem is that in all likelihood they didn’t process it rationally enough for us to be able to turn around and be justified in calling them liars. That kind of scenario happens often enough and it’s just implausible that each and every theist (in this case) that walks off still believing in the same argument or interpretation of certain facts or quotes is actually harboring a willful intent to deceive. It should be a lie and if all opponents always understood what we were saying to them, that’d be great. But it is a fallacy of composition (in other words all the components are there as you point out, but the structure is much more like bias and delusion than lie) and an abuse of the term to call them liars from their perspective. You said, “I don’t call ‘…people liars when disagreed with.’” I didn’t say you did. I said that was *their interpretation* and an extremely cheap talking point for them to collectively fester on in their embitterment. So not only are they not corrected, but they have something else to distract them even further away from the real issue. Make sense or no?

    Ben

    MO responds:

    “The problem is that in all likelihood they didn’t process it rationally enough for us to be able to turn around and be justified in calling them liars.”

    While one can’t be rationally argued out of a position that one didn’t enter rationally, all we can do is try to help them out. After a certain point, however, we have to move on to the low hanging fruit (not the YECs and the presups). As such, I try, and try again, and again, and move on.

    “…and an abuse of the term to call them liars from their perspective.”

    Saying “no transitional fossils” because that’s what Answersingenesis says is ignorance. After being informed of the many transitional fossils, saying “no transitional fossils” is a lie. Calling it something else because of their worldview doesn’t change the facts of the real world.

    “I said that was *their interpretation* and an extremely cheap talking point for them to collectively fester on in their embitterment.”

    So is everything else. 40,000,000 Muslims went apeshit over some comics. Pat Robertson damns Dover for rejecting ID. The very idea that homosexuals are people too ties some of them up in knots. Catholics popped a bulb over PZ’s eucharist protest (completely ignoring the story that lead to it). Try showing your ACLU card at a Republican rally. They want to feel oppressed. Everything that happens is somehow interpreted as a sign that the Rapture is near (or that the Hidden Imam is ready to climb out of that well). These are not rational people (not that I’m rational, but I try).

    …
    We’re more in agreement than we’re in whatever the opposite of that is. All we can do is show them the trail of breadcrumbs.

    I respond:

    I do agree many of them probably want to be offended and this channels directly into their dysfunctional cult think cycles. I’m sure this is unavoidable at times, but it seems to me we might pay attention to the *avoidable* times if we want to be better communicators. That’s all I’m saying.

    Ben

    EV posts this in response:

    Commenter Ben then argues that folks like the ICR aren’t really lying, and so people like me shouldn’t call them liars:

    It’s an extreme form of religiously motivated confirmation bias and probably nothing like a willful intent to deceive. I imagine that’s exactly what I’d get out of that Henry Morris book you linked to. You call people like that liars and obviously you’ve just contributed *further* to their delusion-scape because they know full well they weren’t lying and now they think they know one more thing about you. You call honest people liars when disagreed with. … Even if they are lying, you’ve played right into their hands, because they can just lie again. My message is: Stop calling them liars and just stick with showing why they are mistaken. I wish all the sciences blogs would figure that out.

    On the one hand, I think this is good advice for dealing with non-scientists who happen to be creationists — and I try to approach individuals like this without second-guessing their motives. You can see my exchanges with individual people like this all over this site.

    However, I think the rules are different when someone holds themselves out as a professional, and in this case, the ICR’s Brian Thomas identifies himself (in his byline!) as an “M.S.” with the notation that he is the Science Writer for the ICR. I think it’s reasonable to hold someone who is representing himself to the world as an expert to the standards one would expect from such experts.

    Such standards include, at minimum, that if one reads someone else’s research and draws conclusions not present in the original article, you should (1) contact the original author to get his views; (2) represent that author’s views of your conclusions fairly in making your own argument; and (3) submit your argument to a scientific journal for review by other professional academic peers within the respective scientific community. When you bypass all of that — particularly in support of a conclusion that would be Nobel Prize-worthy, if you truly had conclusive evidence that the Universe was 6,000 years old! — you’re quote mining plain and simple.

    The ICR’s Head Science Guy didn’t follow those basic rules of professional competency and courtesy with respect to Mr. Robbins’ research. I think it’s fair to call that “misuse” at best and yes, even “lying.”

    I respond:

    Andrew,

    I was actually thinking of that same distinction in the car yesterday and trying to decide whether it’s justified or not. I definitely agree the “expert” is much more responsible for the intellectual integrity of their claims, and I definitely agree that your three criteria are reasonable expectations for them that they should be held to. But it still seems to me that this forces you into a perspective rut where virtually every single “expert” creationist is now an official liar. Round them all up and in all likelihood every single last one of them supports some position paper on their side that you and I might agree misrepresents the source material. Surely they’ve even read some response from our camp that points that out. Are they really ALL liars? Even most of them? That’s just implausible like the whole mainstream creationist movement is composed of charlatans.

    As it is, this gets instantly complicated because one of your criteria opens up the “Expelled”-esque can of worms and rather than focusing on the issue (whatever it happens to be), we now have to deal with defending against auxiliary politics and conspiracy. That’s a lot of work and a lot of yuck to sort through. Decision theory, in my opinion, would favor, A: Not calling even creationist “experts” liars even if they might be lying since laity typically rally around mainstream position pieces that get lots of attention. B: Politely encouraging and giving partial credit for honoring criteria 1 and 2 since that in and of itself would be progress. C: Allowing our criticism of their papers even in their own journals to partially count as criteria 3 since that’s basically what it is. In other words set aside the “this sucks because it wasn’t published in a mainstream journal” talk and just show qualitatively why it wasn’t published in a mainstream journal.

    I could be wrong and granted I’m not always that polite myself, but I am working towards that goal in the long term and it seems to me that we would be better served that way. We could surely test it. The next big quote-mining fiasco or the next big news splash on PZ Myers blog that has “creationist” and “liar” in the same title…try out a different approach and see if you like those results better. Can’t really hurt can it?

    Thanks for listening. The politics on both sides of this culture war can be very frustrating.

    Ben

    EV graciously posts this in response:

    I suggested the following guidelines for whether atheists should call a particular creationist a liar:

    I think it’s reasonable to hold someone who is representing himself to the world as an expert to the standards one would expect from such experts.

    Such standards include, at minimum, that if one reads someone else’s research and draws conclusions not present in the original article, you should (1) contact the original author to get his views; (2) represent that author’s views of your conclusions fairly in making your own argument; and (3) submit your argument to a scientific journal for review by other professional academic peers within the respective scientific community.

    When you bypass all of that … I think it’s fair to call that “misuse” at best and yes, even “lying.”

    Commenter Ben responds:

    I was actually thinking of that same distinction in the car yesterday and trying to decide whether it’s justified or not. I definitely agree the “expert” is much more responsible for the intellectual integrity of their claims, and I definitely agree that your three criteria are reasonable expectations for them that they should be held to. But it still seems to me that this forces you into a perspective rut where virtually every single “expert” creationist is now an official liar. Round them all up and in all likelihood every single last one of them supports some position paper on their side that you and I might agree misrepresents the source material. Surely they’ve even read some response from our camp that points that out. Are they really ALL liars? Even most of them? That’s just implausible like the whole mainstream creationist movement is composed of charlatans.

    As it is, this gets instantly complicated because one of your criteria opens up the “Expelled”-esque can of worms and rather than focusing on the issue (whatever it happens to be), we now have to deal with defending against auxiliary politics and conspiracy. That’s a lot of work and a lot of yuck to sort through. Decision theory, in my opinion, would favor, A: Not calling even creationist “experts” liars even if they might be lying since laity typically rally around mainstream position pieces that get lots of attention. B: Politely encouraging and giving partial credit for honoring criteria 1 and 2 since that in and of itself would be progress. C: Allowing our criticism of their papers even in their own journals to partially count as criteria 3 since that’s basically what it is. In other words set aside the “this sucks because it wasn’t published in a mainstream journal” talk and just show qualitatively why it wasn’t published in a mainstream journal.

    I could be wrong and granted I’m not always that polite myself, but I am working towards that goal in the long term and it seems to me that we would be better served that way. We could surely test it. The next big quote-mining fiasco or the next big news splash on PZ Myers blog that has “creationist” and “liar” in the same title…try out a different approach and see if you like those results better. Can’t really hurt can it?

    I think it’s worth a shot. Thoughts?

    I respond:

    I’m reminded of the infamous PZ Myers break-in call into the Expelled showing where one of the producers replies to one of PZ’s accusations with, “Isn’t it possible we just have a different perspective?” The only thing those guys are likely going to remember from that incident is that PZ was an ass. It’s all great tribalistic fun to cheer for the bravado of it all, but I have a lot of trouble with that when it entails misrepresenting someone that you are accusing of misrepresenting someone else. It’s too much trouble to psychoanalyze the exact nature of someone’s error and I’d be a lot more proud of my team if they would take the high road a little more often.

    Ben

    RBH responds:

    I take “liar” to mean “one who persistently asserts falsehoods in the face of clear evidence that they’re false.” On that definition there’s no doubt that a lot of creationist leaders are liars.

    However, the question is effectiveness. I’m more comfortable, and I think it’s more effective, saying something like, “That claim is flatly false, and here’s why.” And saying it as often, as firmly, and as coherently as one has the stamina for.

    I know from long experience that won’t affect the hardcore proponents of creationism — they’re a lost cause due to the presuppositionalism built into their epistemology. (Roughly, evidence must be interpreted to conform to presuppositions, rather than presuppositions being subject to test and modification via evidence. (It’s the triumph of Piagetian assimilation over accommodation.)

    The target, as always, is the people in the middle where intellectual movement is possible, and tactics have to be evaluated in the light of their effectiveness with them.

    I respond:

    RBH,

    I suppose if we used your definition of lying then we could call them liars, but I don’t think that’s the proper definition of lying in anything but a metaphorical sense. “They might as well be lying.” Or, “The information they present is a lie.” That’s still a tad inflammatory for no particular reason when you can just say they are wrong as you clearly already do anyway.

    Ben

    Outro:

    I hope I made a difference.  :D

    Ben

Comments (2)

Comments are closed.

Post a Comment