DP>It seems that even as I discovered that `science' had lied to me,
Glenn discovered that the YECs had lied to him.
On Fri, 15 Sep 1995 21:24:39 -0400 Glenn wrote:
GM>We should be held to a higher standard. But I would not use the
term "lie". People would have said that about me when I was a YEC
but I wasn't "lying". I believed what I said, knew the problems and
admitted them, although few others seemed to want to admit problems.
I do believe that with few exceptions, they believe what they teach
so it is not lying. But they are not correct in their teaching about
science.
Then today (tomorrow?) Stephen wrote:
SJ>I am not a YEC, but I am disappointed when I read claims that YEC's
"lie". This is IMHO a naive view of human psychology. It is too easy
for us to believe that those we disagree with are lying. We seem to
underestimate the extent to which metaphysical committments colour our
perecption of reality:
...
The need to find those we disagree with as morally wrong (eg. lying),
rather than intellectually wrong (eg. mistaken), is tempting because
it disqualifies our opponents' ideas as legitimate competitors.
...
I suggest we make it a rule that no matter how much we might think an
YEC (or an evolutonist) is not being fully truthful, we give him/her
the benefit of the doubt and assume that he/she is merely wrong.
***
Ok now. I think this is all a bit of an overreaction to my use of
the word `lie'. I didn't mean it as perjorative, just descriptive.
Looking the word up in American Heritage, the first definition of
a lie is:
A false statement or piece of information deliberately
presented as being true; a falsehood.
As a verb, the second definition:
To convey a false image or impression, e.g. Appearances often lie.
(BTW - I think my usage of the word seems compatible with its usage in
1 John 1:6,10, James 3:14, and Romans 1:25 [NASB].)
Given that the subsequent discussion in my post focussed on
a lack of `love of the truth', I don't see how I was misinterpreted
as judging YECs as `morally wrong'. I do assert that there is some
reckless disregard for truth going on (by just about everyone). I
wasn't singling out a particular group even. Just the opposite.
To become `morally wrong' (as I would suppose Stephen means it), one would
have to deliberately assert a particular fact as true that was *known* to
be false. My use of `lie' does not necessarily imply this. Peoples motives
in saying what they say isn't particularly relevant for exactly the reason
Stephen points out. We cannot *know* their motive, and thus should give them
the benefit of the doubt.
I wasn't asserting anybody was morally wrong. In fact I wasn't asserting
that *anybody* was wrong. Just that the way in which we assert truth
is wrong. I was `lied' to by `science' in the way I described. They
presented something as certainly true that they only `believed' to be true.
I never suggested that `science' presented evolution as true knowing that it
was in fact false.
***
The problem as I see it is that most of us really operate by backfilling
our conceptual frameworks (i.e. paradigm) with the facts as best we can,
and then represent our framework as being proven. It is the rare
individual (Glenn says that he is one) who points out that there were an
awful lot of facts which did not fit within the framework. Nor do we
generally admit that we studied the facts with the express purpose (or
at least expectation) of validating our pre-existing framework.
(If someone overcomes the bias of their initial framework, they usually
have a sense of intellectual advantage, e.g. I used to be a ..., but ...).
Believing something doesn't make it true. That is why we busily pack
in as many facts as we can to *argue* that what we believe *is* true.
If we are willing to assert as truth what we believe with disregard to
whether or not the available facts (observable and deducible) objectively
support our beliefs, then we lie.
This is a standard charge against evolutionists -- they assert that
evolution is true and whenever the facts they previously used to support
evolution are shown to fail, they bristle and say that any particular
set of facts (e.g. darwinism) are unimportant to whether evolution
is true or not. Even if evolution turns out to be true, evolutionists
still would have lied, because they asserted it to be true as a matter
of *fact*, *when* it was not so.
If we are to have integrity, then we must distinguish what we believe
a priori from what we believe based on examination of the evidence.
We must be able to set aside our framework and examine the evidence
with an open mind. Particularly with our mind open to the possibility
that our current framework is in error.
As Steve Clark wrote so well:
> It seems to me that the only one who truly reveres truth is the one who
> knows the limitations of knowledge. All the others, despite their
> protestations otherwise, are only really interested in an apologetic for
> their world view.
My charge was that the love of the truth is rare in most of
the presentations I have heard in the church on any variety of
topics -- not just YECism. This failing is also one I recognize
in myself. As believers we do have a higher calling, and
must learn not to assert things as being `true' when we really do not
know, or just have our opinions.
Is my meaning clearer now?
--Dave