Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Three kinds of falsehoods: Innocence, interest and intrigue

Three kinds of falsehoods: Innocence, interest and intrigue

Last updated on: January 4, 2012 at 1:50 pm by Fred Clark

Three kinds of falsehoods: Innocence, interest and intrigue 2012-01-04T13:50:07-05:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

If I make a false statement, your response — and your evaluation of me — will depend, in part, on the nature of the statement in question.

I’m speaking here of false statements about matters of fact, instances in which the evidence all points to an undeniable conclusion — false statements that are falsifiable, that are demonstrably false. We’re not talking about opinions, matters of taste, or adherence to theories or tenets of faith. String theory, the doctrine of the Trinity, and the statement “Bieber rules!” all may be wrong. Or not. But those aren’t the kinds of statements I want to discuss here.

Let’s consider three examples — three statements, all of which are demonstrably false. Each is an example of a different kind of false statement. We can classify these, in turn, as innocent, interested and intriguing:

1. “Philadelphia is the capital of Pennsylvania.”

2. “You owe me $423.”

3. “The secret conspiracy of Chimerians is attacking all that is good and pure and true.”

The first example seems like an innocent mistake. Innocent mistakes can be easily corrected. You might gently say something to me along the lines of, “While Philadelphia is the largest city in the state, and was once the capital of the nation, it’s not the capital of Pennsylvania. Harrisburg is.”

And then you could refer me to some authority — an atlas or Google — that could confirm this for me. I would, presumably, accept that authority and that correction. I would probably also be grateful to you for helping me to replace bad information with good.

The second statement is more interested and therefore more interesting. While this is again a simple assertion of fact, that assertion seems to be an attempt to gain advantage through what may be deliberate dishonesty. I stand to gain from this claim while you stand to lose. My interest in this false claim demands that my motives be considered here. The situation requires that you consider that I might not be innocently mistaken, but that I might be lying.

Unlike the first example, my claim that “You owe me $423” cannot be easily checked against some agreed-upon authoritative source like an atlas. Google probably won’t help us sort this out. So it’s likely we’ll end at an impasse in which I am unable to prove that you are obliged to give me money and you are unable to prove that you’re not. And that’s where things will stand.*

If somehow you could prove that you do not owe me $423, you will again have done me the favor of helping me to replace bad information with good. But in this situation I’m less likely to be grateful for this gift of the truth and more likely to grumble that the lousy truth is walking off with what should have been my $423.

The third example above I’m calling an “intriguing” false statement because that word applies in two different senses. The statement is so strange that it may intrigue you. And the statement invites you to cross over into a world of intrigue. In some cases, false statements like this claim may resemble the first example — they may be innocent cases of misinformation. But such conspiratorial claims are often closer to the second example — they are interested claims that seek advantage through a kind of dishonesty.

Your response to my false statement about the Chimerian conspiracy will thus depend in part on what you know about me as a person. If you know me to be somewhat naive and incurious, but basically honest, then you may suspect that I’m just passing along something I heard somewhere and credulously accepted. In that case you might start by saying something like, “Remember how we talked about Coast to Coast AM not being a news program? Well …”

The key thing here will be my response to your response. If I’m innocently mistaken, then — as with the Philadelphia/Harrisburg example — I will be grateful to learn the truth. If I’m not grateful — if I refuse to accept any contrary evidence and become angrily defensive — then you can conclude that I am not innocently mistaken. That anger and defensiveness is an indication that I am invested in this false claim.

The nature of that investment isn’t as obvious as it is in the second example, where I have a clear interest of precisely $423. My interest in the Chimerian conspiracy probably isn’t monetary, but emotional.

“The secret conspiracy of Chimerians is attacking all that is good and pure and true,” I tell you. And just like that I have positioned myself on the side of all that is good and pure and true, and thus convinced myself that I am good and pure and true. That convincing is based on unsubstantiated assertion, so it requires reinforcement. This reinforcement is part of what I’m seeking from you by telling you about the conspiracy.

In this case, I’m not asking you to give me $423, I’m asking you to confirm that I am good and pure and true. If you’ll agree to confirm this for me, then I’ll agree to confirm it for you.

As with the false statement “You owe me $423,” I’m seeking an advantage here, but it’s not an entirely zero-sum advantage in which I take something from you and make it mine. In a sense, I’m inviting you to share with me so that together we can bask in our righteous contrast to the sinister forces of the Chimerians.

In another sense, though, I am seeking advantage at your expense. I’m trying to initiate you into the secret mysteries of those who are enlightened about the Chimerian threat. That gives shape to our relationship, making me the intiated and you the initiate. In the realm of fantastical conspiracies, authority is currency, and by bringing you on board I can increase my share of that authority. All conspiracy theories and all Gnostic forms of mystery religion work a bit like Amway or any other multi-level marketing scheme — the more people I am able to recruit, the greater my influence and share of compensation.

That this compensation is mainly emotional and intangible doesn’t diminish the fact that I am seeking advantage for myself from my false claim about the Chimerians. Just as with the false claim “You owe me $423,” I have an interest in convincing others to accept this claim. And that interest, again, demands that my motives be considered here. It again suggests that I might not be innocently mistaken because I have a potential motive for lying. I may be lying to myself as well as to you, but that’s still lying.

In real life, these three distinct, separate categories of false statements — innocent, interested and intriguing — aren’t always so obviously separate or easy to distinguish. They tend to blur and overlap. Someone making a false statement that coincides with their own interests might still be innocently mistaken. Someone who seems innocently mistaken may have a hidden interest in promoting that falsehood.

For me, the bottom line is always the response to evidence that contradicts the statement. How does the speaker react when faced with the atlas or the Snopes.com page some other piece of evidence demonstrating the falsehood of their false statement? A person who is innocently mistaken may be embarrassed initially, but ultimately they will be glad to know the truth because, being innocent, they prefer truth to falsehood.

A person who is not innocently mistaken prefers the falsehood to the truth because the falsehood serves their interests. Their response to evidence or to correction will always be anger and hostility.

– – – – – – – – – – – –

* Unless I’m powerful enough that my simple assertion doesn’t require any proof to be quasi-legally binding. If, for example, I’m a bank, a utility, a wireless provider, or Sallie Mae — then I may simply be able to take your money on the basis of nothing more than my own false claim. And if so, I may well have a long and well-established track record of doing just that over and over again to thousands of people. Such a history would again demand that my motives be considered, because the pattern points toward the conclusion that, in this hypothetical example, I am both a liar and a swindler. You might not be able to prove that, but you’d be a fool not to suspect it. And you’d be a fool not to band together with all those thousands of others I’ve swindled and demand your money back.

Uncategorized

Satanic baby-killers

Previous Post

January 4, 2012

The blackbirds of Beebe and other omens

Next Post

January 4, 2012 Duverger, Kushner, Bonhoeffer

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which letter contains a section on taming the tongue?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Galatians James Romans Titus