How does pretending a claim is unrefuted/unrefutable differ from lying?

Question

If you believe that lying is morally wrong, what is the difference between lying (claiming, for example, that speciation has never been observed) and pretending your claim has never been refuted successfully (saying that the experiments demonstrating speciation never happened)? Aren't both lies?

I ask because I'm trying to understand why the people who want me to believe in their RELIGIOUS beliefs about creation and the superiority of their religion seem to play very hard and fast with the truth, and I'm pretty sure they aren't supposed to lie to begin with, according to their religion.

(Oh, and for those who'd like to attack me for asking this, posts begining "you atheists" will be ignored. I'm not an atheist.)

The answer that seems to make the most sense to me is that these people find lying 100% okay if it furthers their god, and I know I'm not interested in a god who'd be furthered by lies.

If religion is based on faith not fact, why misrepresent any facts at all then, and not just stick to faith?

Observed instances of speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
The problem is that creationists often don't use a biological definition of species, so we can show it again and again and again and they say "that's not speciation" why they use the term species but not the definition that goes with the term is beyond me.

Answer 1

oh you mean like those statistics saying that 50% of all children adopted by gay parrents are abused? and that 90% of all gay men a pedophiles?

it doesnt differ from lying, in the scientific cummunity it is considered fraud, and it is very unethical. making up statistics, or forguring a study to pertain a particular image will cause you to be shunned by the scientific community...

Answer 2

I don't think that there is any moral difference.

There is of course a huge practical difference - the believers readily excuse the kind of dishonesty that supports their belief system, and apparently don't feel any guilt for telling that kind of lie.

I see the point about ignorance not being a lie, but what about when it is obviously willful ignorance, as it is so often in the cases she's referring to?

If that kind of willful ignorance is not the moral equivalent of lying, then we're simply and completely throwing out honesty as a value.

I do think that Batgirl (below) makes a good point. There are atheists who mistakenly claim that the lack of proof that there is a god somehow proves that there is no god. As she says, we go around and around on that, and I recognize that I'm quick to dismiss that kind of comment from an atheist as mere misstatement or ignorance, and it never occurs to me to wonder if it rises to the level of dishonesty. It should occur to me to do that - it's a persistent false claim made by our side, and one that we should all know better than to make.

Answer 3

First of all, I am a Christian who does not want you to believe anything. You have your own belief system. I would never attempt to tell you that my beliefs are superior to yours.

As far as I know, no one has ever proven unequivocally that there is no God. No one has ever proven that there IS a God.
Both of those are the truth, as far as I know.


There was a guy earlier who said he could PROVE that there is no God because there is no proof that there is one and told us not to say that there is a God because there is no proof that there isn't one. Does that make sense? Heck, no.
We're just going around in circles.


I hope this partly answers your question, but I am sure that there are those who disagree with me. That's cool, too.

Have a good day!

P.S. I know what you mean about people who begin questions or answers with "You ."
It's annoying as well as rude.

Answer 4

Lying has to do with purposefully imparting information that you know to be false. Making claims that you believe are true but that are in fact erroneous is not lying, it is a demonstration of ignorance on the subject.

If a person makes claims like you give examples of and they know that those claims are false then they are lying. If they make those claims because they have heard or read them and think they are true when in reality they have been successfully refuted, that's ignorance.

Answer 5

Are they intentionally lying, or just don't know the whole truth. You, being a biologist would have information that I (or most of us) wouldn't have. But I am open to debate. I am in no way a biologist, so I may not understand. But has one species turned (evolved) into another? what I have read discounts all but micro evolution. But in any case, God wouldn't want me to lie about something to further "the cause".

Answer 6

I don't think ignorance qualifies as a lie.
People can believe the most amazing things, like the earth is hollow, look at the omega point theory as a proof for the existence of god, or you can pick and choose which urban myth you like most. Otherwise quite intelligent people can fall for such things with surprising ease.

Answer 7

The difference is basic: You "know" when you are lying, when you are speculating, you don't "know." Religion may be many things, but it is not a lie, because no one can prove the truth one way or the other. The lie is the people who say they "know" when they don't. Faith and knowledge are two very different things.

Answer 8

I think you mean "playing fast and LOOSE with the truth"...

That having been said, I don't think their intention is to wilfully deceive; they're either ignorant of how much science has proven as fact, or their own brand of "logic" assures them that whatever the scientists have demonstrated "doesn't really count" because, by definition, their scripture CANNOT be wrong....

Answer 9

The first person they lie to is themselves. Once they have themselves convinced, it's no longer a lie, but a belief.

Answer 10

Telling a lie and pretending its not a lie is worse than just telling a lie.