Lying is the Root of all Religion

[Some Schmo]

I just read an article about how Mike Huckabee is producing propaganda for kids.

It occurred to me after reading it that the primary feature of any religion is outright lying. Lying about your experiences, lying about the unknown, and especially lying about reality. Fast & Testimony meetings were essentially a let's lie on an empty stomach event every month to see who could tell the biggest whopper. If these are supposed to be testimonies, it's really just a Fast & Perjury meeting.

Missionaries spend their own family's money to spread lies for the church. How many lies go unattended at a temple recommend meeting? (I know I had to lie to qualify, because what male teenager doesn't masturbate?) How many members lie to each other about their lives just to keep up the appearance of piety? At any given service, you are bombarded with BS virtue signaling.

Every single time someone says God told me... they are lying through their teeth. I realize a lot of it is people simply lying to themselves where other people can hear them, but it's clear dishonesty either way.

And it makes sense. Religion only works if people lie. You have to, or your church will go broke. Lying is the only thing protecting the bottom line. So naturally, it's a simple transition from lying for your religion to lying for your political party.

[Dr. Shades]

I think you're being overly cynical.

Missionaries aren't lying if they sincerely believe they're telling the truth. Plus, I don't think the speakers in Fast & Testimony Meeting are perjuring themselves wholesale; I think the vast majority sincerely believe what they're saying. I know I never intentionally lied in either Fast & Testimony Meeting or on my mission, that's for sure.

If our rank-and-file Mormon friends tell whoppers, those are simply the frenzied imaginations of a deranged mind, not outright lies, methinks. It's the leaders and founders of religions that tell the lies necessary to get the movements started, not the sincere dupes.

[Res Ipsa]

I think you're being overly cynical.

Missionaries aren't lying if they sincerely believe they're telling the truth. Plus, I don't think the speakers in Fast & Testimony Meeting are perjuring themselves wholesale; I think the vast majority sincerely believe what they're saying. I know I never intentionally lied in either Fast & Testimony Meeting or on my mission, that's for sure.

If our rank-and-file Mormon friends tell whoppers, those are simply the frenzied imaginations of a deranged mind, not outright lies, methinks. It's the leaders and founders of religions that tell the lies necessary to get the movements started, not the sincere dupes.

I'd go farther than that. Each of us has a brain that has evolved with powerful biases that work hard to confirm what we see, hear, read, etc. with our pre-existing world view. I dispute that they represent the "frenzied imaginations of a deranged mind." They represent normal brain functioning. I don't think we could function as human beings if our brains questioned every assumption, every belief, all the time. The brain is a very powerful story telling machine that attempts to create a consistent story that we can live with using the minimal amount of energy possible. While there are undoubtedly con men who promote homeopathy, there are a huge numbers of people who sincerely believe that homeopathic medicines are cures for certain symptoms.

in my opinion, what Some Schmo is doing here is extremely harmful to society. He's dismissing a huge part of the world's population as being 100% dishonest. Shades is doing something a little less extreme, but similarly harmful. He's claiming that normal brain functioning is evidence of a "deranged mind." Dismissing a huge portion of the world's population as having deranged minds based on differing worldviews gives license to treat them as less than fully functional fellow humans. Drawing those kinds of distinctions has never led to a good place.

[Dr. Shades]

That’s good food for thought, Res Ipsa. Thank you.

[Some Schmo]

I did say a lot of it was people lying to themselves. I suppose that qualifies as "normal brain functioning."

Pointing out that religion is based on lies is harmful to society? Alrighty then. A little over the top, but ok.

[yellowstone123]

Thanks you, Schmo. As a young man in the early 80s in Southern Calif, people my age would say I know the church is true. I would listen and then respond and say you don’t know but hope, believe and feel it’s true. Now at age 61, I can’t believe how close I was. This was pre internet. I would say the same thing today. You hope, believe and feel it’s true. If you used those three words instead of using know in the early 80s, some would say it would lead to a more serious discussion.

[Some Schmo]

I will just point out a couple of things (reminders, really):

- I have never advocated for treating anyone unfairly. I've been clear on several occasions that nobody should be treated poorly just because they are different.

- Once again, I will point out that my criticism is of religion, and the requirements it makes of people. Religious people are mostly victims in this scenario, engaged in a game of telephone where what they repeat are the lies they've been told ad nauseam, lies they've invested in.

I don't feel bad pointing out obvious facts.

[Res Ipsa]

I did say a lot of it was people lying to themselves. I suppose that qualifies as "normal brain functioning."

Pointing out that religion is based on lies is harmful to society? Alrighty then. A little over the top, but ok.

It does. Our brains lie to "ourselves" constantly. If they didn't, we literally could not function. And there is a ton of evidence that our brains value telling a consistent story over telling the truth. in my opinion, using "lying to themselves" as a substitute for "believing false things" creates a very false picture of what these others are actually doing.

The same with the basis of religion: Saying that religion is based on lies involves a moral judgment that none of us have a basis for making. Do they have origin stories that are not true? Sure. Can those origin stories be traced to an individual group who communicated something that they knew was false? No.

Declaring that something is harmful to society because it originated in falsity isn't really based on evidence. The U.S. was founded, in part, on the notion that "All men are created equal" even though it actually meant "All White Males who own land" are created equal. And yet, over time, changes that have moved us closer to that claim have been beneficial: ending slavery, ending race-based voting restrictions, extending the vote to women, extending property ownership to women, etc.

Christianity, regardless of the truthfulness of its origin story, promotes the Golden Rule. Is that harmful to society?

Religion, and its effect on society, is complicated -- just like everything else about humanity. Emotional black and white narratives are a huge part of what's killing our society today.

[Some Schmo]

Maybe I should draw a distinction between lying and telling lies. The distinction is in the person's intent. If a person is lying, they know it. If a person is telling lies, they could just be repeating something they've heard.

No matter what, religion depends on people telling lies, whether they know it or not. I concede that it's not accurate to say that everyone is lying (and I imagine many people really believe their thing), but they most certainly are telling lies on the regular.

I am not saying they are all 100% dishonest. That's a crazy extrapolation.

Christianity, regardless of the truthfulness of its origin story, promotes the Golden Rule. Is that harmful to society?

It also promotes hate toward the LGBTQ community and wants to control women's bodies, which runs counter to their promotion of the Golden Rule.

Emotional black and white narratives are a huge part of what's killing our society today.

I don't consider it an emotional black and white narrative.

[Res Ipsa]

Maybe I should draw a distinction between lying and telling lies. The distinction is in the person's intent. If a person is lying, they know it. If a person is telling lies, they could just be repeating something they've heard.

No matter what, religion depends on people telling lies, whether they know it or not. I concede that it's not accurate to say that everyone is lying (and I imagine many people really believe their thing), but they most certainly are telling lies on the regular.

Why choose the term "telling lies" rather than "saying false things." Doesn't the first involve some kind of moral judgment that the second doesn't? If I make a factual statement that I'm wrong about, why does the word "lie" apply at all? It seems to me that there is a judgmental implication about the word "lie" that appeals to emotion.

I am not saying they are all 100% dishonest. That's a crazy extrapolation.

Christianity, regardless of the truthfulness of its origin story, promotes the Golden Rule. Is that harmful to society?

It also promotes hate toward the LGBTQ community and wants to control women's bodies, which runs counter to their promotion of the Golden Rule.

Does it? Or do some Christians do that?

Emotional black and white narratives are a huge part of what's killing our society today.

I don't consider it an emotional black and white narrative.

In terms of black and white narratives or emotional narratives, how does your thread title differ from "Progressives hate America and want to destroy it?"