Have we established that Christians who lie unintentionally, are not actually lying by definition, they are just mistaken or misinformed and haven’t investigated the true science or origins of the subject in question?

There are though examples of Christians who continue to promote world views and inaccurate explanations long after they themselves are aware of them being wrong. Daniel Dennett discusses these examples and for some of these Christians, it seems they have chosen to carry on promoting these views and actually living the lie, to me this is an even more complex situation to understand fully than just a persons ignorant regurgitations.

MARTIN UK - 05 December 2011 03:34 AM

Have we established that Christians who lie unintentionally, are not actually lying by definition, they are just mistaken or misinformed and haven’t investigated the true science or origins of the subject in question?

I don’t think it’s quite that simple. I think the OP is on to something, but it goes too far. Denial, for example, is a form of deception, or lying, but sometimes denial can be a learned behavior of which the denier isn’t at all cognizant. Other forms of denial can be much more proactive. All forms of denial can arguably be lying, but active denial, I’d argue, clearly is.

For starters ...

SkepticX - 05 December 2011 05:52 AM

MARTIN UK - 05 December 2011 03:34 AM

Have we established that Christians who lie unintentionally, are not actually lying by definition, they are just mistaken or misinformed and haven’t investigated the true science or origins of the subject in question?

I don’t think it’s quite that simple. I think the OP is on to something, but it goes too far. Denial, for example, is a form of deception, or lying, but sometimes denial can be a learned behavior of which the denier isn’t at all cognizant. Other forms of denial can be much more proactive. All forms of denial can arguably be lying, but active denial, I’d argue, clearly is.

For starters ...

I think your right Skep and sorting out the language and definitions is only the start of it. Plus the title is a very general question.

MARTIN UK - 05 December 2011 05:56 AM

I think your right Skep and sorting out the language and definitions is only the start of it. Plus the title is a very general question.

Yeah, the OP frankly wasn’t the best intro to get into these issues.

We kinda have to pick that ball up off the ground in order to get any yardage out of it, as the sports fans say.

http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/How-the-Public-Resolves-Conflicts-Between-Faith-and-Science.aspx

When asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief, nearly two-thirds (64%) of people say they would continue to hold to what their religion teaches rather than accept the contrary scientific finding, according to the results of an October 2006 Time magazine poll

Deception or not?

Self deception….....at the very least.

Or perhaps we can say that deception is what one does to others and delusion is what one does to one’s self…...generally anyway.

There is a big question being discussed as a preamble to the original topic in that if you truly believe in what you are saying, is it still a LIE?

Lets look at the prime examples in politics,
~ was GWBush lying about “Weapons of mass destruction” ???
~ was Bill C lying about “I did not have sex with that woman” ???

GW was clearly wrong to begin a war based on weapons that turned out to be fictional.
But was he lying? Later events made it quite clear that he was telling a fib.

I say, he either did know, or should have known that his information was suspect and unreliable.
Others give him a FREE PASS, I don’t.

Bill obviously did have a little tryst. He tried to lie his way past it, then bluff on a technicality. All of us would avoid total honesty in the matter of our sex lives. What he should have done was follow the example of PE Trudeau of Canada and refused to answer questions on his sex life. The law found Bill Guilty. I would have given him a conditional free pass, because the question was digging into a private matter that did not deserve public attention, but must agree that he did tell a fib.

If you pass off information that you could know or should know to be false, then you are lying. Ignorance is not accepted as an excuse to break the law.
If we have one standard for politics, law, and personal lives, can we really toss it out and adopt an entirely different standard for religions?  I think not.