People of the Lie

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_III
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Charlemagne_III

Guest
Psychiatrist M. Scott Peck in his book “People of the Lie” argued that the devil seeks to achieve evil in the world by spreading confusion. Confusion is the product of people who lie. We can see this when a liar tries to cover his tracks by telling more lies; he gets easily confused because it is more difficult to remember lies than it is to remember the truth.

Where in society do you think confusion is most rampant?

My #1 candidate would be the philosophy of moral relativism.

Moral relativism confuses because it is based on a profound falsehood: namely, that there are no moral absolutes, and so what appears to be good might be evil, and what appears to be evil might be good. Nor does it seem to bother moral relativists when they utter this moral axiom as if it were a moral absolute.

Do you have a candidate for a source of confusion?

Isaiah 5:20

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”
 
Moral Relativism is certainly top tier. I’d say a couple of others would be:

Religious relativism: the idea that all religions have equal value, and all the “great religious teachers” essentially taught the same thing.

“Scientism”: let’s call it that… the idea that what you see is what you get, and beyond the scientific and mathematical laws, there are no other certainties. This, I think, might even be the root of moral and religious relativism.

Another obscuring factor is “False History,” which teaches essentially that Christianity has been an evil, suppressive force throughout history, and by a certain extension, all religions.
 
Excellent examples…both of you. I couldn’t agree more.
 
(Neo)Darwinism has probably been the greatest lie promoted by the media in recent years. The decline in religious belief is largely due to the propaganda that we are no more than naked apes…
 
The idea of radical individualism is also a candidate. This is a problem of modern philosophy, much of which is rooted in satanism. Society is gravitating towards satanism every day. The media, Hollywood and the music industry is bombarding everyone with the, “Do what thou wilt” mentality. Virtually every pop-music star today is pushing this idea, and society as whole has this mentality. It is the substitution of oneself for God. Many of course are going along unknowingly, but it is a huge problem that plagues society.
 
I think it’s all the above plus the lies of our politicians and news people. And they don’t even seem to get it that we(the public) recognize the lie… And here’s the rub, nothing is done about it. And it trickles down to local communities like it’s nothing… and parents teach their children to lie… I hate that part.
 

Don’t forget “materialism”…​

What do you think of radical empiricism? Or scientific instrumentalism?

Of course, new atheists are unlikely to explicitly subscribe to those philosophies, but they are coherent frameworks for understanding our understanding of the world.

So, outside of the realm of personal experience and knowledge derived from methodical and rigorous scientific inquiry, what do Catholic conservatives want to be credible sources of “truth” or something with positive and objective alethic content? Perhaps, tradition and revelation… or metaphysics that aren’t even obliquely related to human experience.
 
I see a consumer society rooted in hedonism with its underlying assumption that all is otherwise meaningless as the environment in which these lies flourish.

Much follows from efforts to quiet one’s conscience, which would otherwise scream out a warning:
  • moral relativism provides the philosophical justification for doing whatever one wishes.
  • scientism, with its materialistic foundation based on a subject-object dichotomy, contributes to the lies that we are to create our own meaning and moral system, rather than pursuing what is True and Good.
 
Aloysium said:
I see a consumer society rooted in hedonism with its underlying assumption that all is otherwise meaningless as the environment in which these lies flourish.

Much follows from efforts to quiet one’s conscience, which would otherwise scream out a warning:
  • moral relativism provides the philosophical justification for doing whatever one wishes.
  • scientism, with its materialistic foundation based on a subject-object dichotomy, contributes to the lies that we are to create our own meaning and moral system, rather than pursuing what is True and Good.
Click to expand...
An example of this would be the cruel hedonism of a Marquis de Sade, who dismissed the true idea of God because it got in the way of justifying the darkest sins of the flesh.

“Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man” by de Sade.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Between_a_Priest_and_a_Dying_Man
 
Aloysium said:
I see a consumer society rooted in hedonism with its underlying assumption that all is otherwise meaningless as the environment in which these lies flourish.

Much follows from efforts to quiet one’s conscience, which would otherwise scream out a warning:
  • moral relativism provides the philosophical justification for doing whatever one wishes.
  • scientism, with its materialistic foundation based on a subject-object dichotomy, contributes to the lies that we are to create our own meaning and moral system, rather than pursuing what is True and Good.
Click to expand...
“Moral relativism” is a strawman epithet for moral theories that do not rely on identifying or adhering to what is “True and Good” and that do not fervently militate against the perceived decadence of contemporary morality. One reason why these other theories abjure and do not emphasize what is “True and Good” is that it is epistemologically difficult to identity what “True and Good” as opposed to being a culturally specific mode of behavior that worked within the constraints of a given cultural milieu. Furthermore, these other theories dismiss the practical relevance of what is “True and Good” as it is argued that this concept can be dispensed for a flourishing society. In contrast, other moral theories rely more on the natural moral sentiment of human benevolence and considering the consequences of one’s actions on others’ interests.

From Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion:
And so will all religion, said Philo, except the philosophical and rational kind. Your reasonings are more easily eluded than my facts. The inference is not just, because finite and temporary rewards and punishments have so great influence, that therefore such as are infinite and eternal must have so much greater. Consider, I beseech you, the attachment which we have to present things, and the little concern which we discover for objects so remote and uncertain. When divines are declaiming against the common behaviour and conduct of the world, they always represent this principle as the strongest imaginable (which indeed it is); and describe almost all human kind as lying under the influence of it, and sunk into the deepest lethargy and unconcern about their religious interests. Yet these same divines, when they refute their speculative antagonists, suppose the motives of religion to be so powerful, that, without them, it were impossible for civil society to subsist; nor are they ashamed of so palpable a contradiction. It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural honesty and benevolence has more effect on men’s conduct, than the most pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems. A man’s natural inclination works incessantly upon him; it is for ever present to the mind, and mingles itself with every view and consideration: whereas religious motives, where they act at all, operate only by starts and bounds; and it is scarcely possible for them to become altogether habitual to the mind. The force of the greatest gravity, say the philosophers, is infinitely small, in comparison of that of the least impulse: yet it is certain, that the smallest gravity will, in the end, prevail above a great impulse; because no strokes or blows can be repeated with such constancy as attraction and gravitation.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine.

Hume also notes that justice is an artificial virtue, one that originates from considering the consequences where everyone pursued their immediate self-interest without considering the mutual interests of others. In this case, the opposite of justice is anarchy, as a society without justice is, by definition, disordered and chaotic, and therefore, not conducive to human flourishing and it would be in one’s interest to accept a system of justice if one can appreciate its salutary effects on society and by extension one’s own interests. One’s sense of justice arises from concerns of the integrity of society’s institutions, imposition of values outside of natural benevolence from authorities, and adherence to social convention. Since one’s sense of justice is primarily derived from assimilating the values of one’s predominant culture, a particular form of 'justice" accepted in one particular culture would likely vary in some respects from one from a different region.
 
Hume said:

“It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural honesty and benevolence has more effect on men’s conduct, than the most pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems.”

To a degree Hume is right, because what he says is no different than what is called “natural law” in Catholic theology. We all have an inner voice, a conscience, that helps us tell right from wrong. What Hume does not contend, and this is where his logic fails him (he should have known from experience), is that this quiet voice can be stilled by force or by rationalizations. That is to say, we can not only lie to others, we can lie to ourselves. It is more difficult to lie to yourself if you have a moral imperative from God
staring you in the face. That is the advantage of having a theological system along with the quiet voice of reason.

Hume’s whole philosophy is thoroughly corrupted by simplistic thinking.

He literally dismisses God with a foolish snap of his fingers.
 
As to skeptics in general and Hume in particular, Samuel Johnson said:

“Hume, and other skeptical innovators, are vain men, and will gratify themselves at any expense. Truth will not afford sufficient food to their vanity; so they have betaken, themselves to error. Truth, Sir, is a cow which will yield such people no more milk, and so they are gone to milk the bull.”
 
Charlemagne_III said:
As to skeptics in general and Hume in particular, Samuel Johnson said:

“Hume, and other skeptical innovators, are vain men, and will gratify themselves at any expense. Truth will not afford sufficient food to their vanity; so they have betaken, themselves to error. Truth, Sir, is a cow which will yield such people no more milk, and so they are gone to milk the bull.”
Click to expand...
A delightful analogy, Charlie! You excel in finding pearls of wisdom… 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top