Image: Illustration by Richard Mia
In Andrew Lloyd Webber’s 1970 rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar, a skeptical Judas Iscariot questions with faux innocence (“Don’t you get me wrong/I only want to know”) the messiah’s deific nature: “Jesus Christ Superstar/Do you think you’re what they say you are?”
Although I am skeptical of Jesus’ divine parentage, I believe he would have answered Judas’s query in the affirmative. Why? Because of what the legendary evolutionary theorist Robert Trivers calls “the logic of deceit and self-deception” in his new book The Folly of Fools (Basic Books, 2011). Here’s how it works: A selfish-gene model of evolution dictates that we should maximize our reproductive success through cunning and deceit. Yet the dynamics of game theory shows that if you are aware that other contestants in the game will also be employing similar strategies, it behooves you to feign transparency and honesty and lure them into complacency before you defect and grab the spoils. But if they are like you in anticipating such a shift in strategy, they might pull the same trick, which means you must be keenly sensitive to their deceptions and they of yours. Thus, we evolved the capacity for deception detection, which led to an arms race between deception and deception detection.
This article was originally published with the title Lies We Tell Ourselves.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
16 Comments
Add CommentThe self deception of Jesus not only failed to generate reproductive success, but was so irritating and threatening to the officials of his culture that they had him and most of his apostles executed for it, leaving no known progeny behind. For several centuries afterward, anyone known to be a follower of this same deception was subject to a similar fate. Somehow I'm failing to see the evolutionary advantage in this. Not sharing in Mr. Shermer's view of Christ, my personal suggestion to him might be that he read his own article to himself while standing in front of a mirror.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"This above all: to thine own self be true,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man."
Hamlet Act 1, scene 3, 78–82
Dr. Shermer forgets the skeptics' fundamental principle, Occam's razor (sometimes called KISS: Keep It Simple Stupid!). Why invoke all the convoluted complexity of the 3 behavioral clues to explain what is so simply explained by Shakespeare's quote. Being honest brings peace of mind, reduces stress and saves energy for survival tasks. It builds social relations that also conserve social energy for complex tasks like science.
Sorry Michael, but you're deceiving yourself about Trivers' overly complicated theory. Just send Trivers a note and seal it with a KISS.
BTW: Jesus simplified life by reducing behavior (and energy consumption) to selfless love, not selfish (energy consuming) deception. Twisting his teachings to make them sound selfish is the ultimate disservice to him. Shame on you.
I was not pleased by this column. I suppose I am a Buddhist if I identify with any religion. However, I respect those who profess faith. So, if one is going to speak of lies, why focus on Christ? Why not Moses who specifically claimed to have a dialog with God? Why not question one who came after Christ? Is Shermer a coward, afraid of being targeted as have been a number of people recently?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've looked forward to the next publication of Scientic American for over 50 years and never have been so offended by a gratuitous attack on something that everyone understands is beyond science.
So why? Is it political? Is it just nastiness - a hatred of Christians?
I'm no student of the Christian bible, but I don't recall direct quotes in the New Testament of Jesus that can be legitimately attacked as lies. Perhaps I'm wrong, but Shermer cites no quotations of the words of Jesus for his argument that Jesus was a liar.
The only quote ascribed to Jesus is from Andrew Lloyd Webber. (I saw a production of Jesus Christ Superstar for the first time just a month ago and was entranced by it. But nothing in it suggested that Lloyd Webber was professing to actually augment the written words of the New Testament.)
It is sad that some people who I identify with so closely, namely those who find that science is the essence of being, seek to vilify people of faith.
I don't know Shermer and so I can only respond to his column. To me its hate speech and as such has no place in a publication I truly respect and which has played so important a place in my life.
Shermer should apolgize or the editors should find some other person to fill this space.
Bruce Henderson
San Diego
"Physician, heal thyself."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is ironic that Nature magazine just published an indictment of the moral rectitude of British scientists, the science-centered heart of the New Atheist movement among anti-religious skeptics. http://www.nature.com/news/british-science-needs-integrity-overhaul-1.9803
Even more ironic is the fact that Nature should use the same Pinnochio (liar) graphic that Shermer pins on religious believers. Perhaps that is merely a self-portrait of the author, deceiving himself about the meaning of faith? At least, that seems to be a fair assessment of this article if the author applies it to himself. Turn-about is fair play.
Michael Shermer makes an excellent presentation, but he should apply it to himself. He seems to have deceived himself into thinking he is a skeptic, but most of his skepticism seems to be reserved for ideas not yet well accepted. A true skeptic is skeptical of all positions, especially those that are widely accepted and conventional.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou people who quote Polonius from Hamlet are true idiots. The man is the foil of the play, a total bimbo and fool. Everything the man says is Shakespeare mocking and deriding the sentiment. Remember, Hamlet's Uncle became King by being false to everyone, by murdering Hamlet's father. In this context, Polonius is giving the advice that staves off advancement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's not what you think at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's some Christians that block almost everything, because all you need to know is in ONE book. Faith is "everything". These are the nuts that upset most people because they do not deal with reality in a normal way. They are always pushing faith over the edge by doing something stupid. I wonder if "God" gets embarrassed? I would.
I always learn more from the the comments than the articles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisElsevier wants $31.50 to let me read a few pages from a book on clean water from 2009. (to get sulfur out on my fish tank) Copyright @ 2012. On the ScienceDirectLogin.
This seems very dishonest on old articles. Was this government grant money, that being abused for their profit?
Is this why the science information has fallen to a new low?
This area needs looking into.
There is a lot of reference to "self" in the comments here. As this is a science publication, it should be noted that the idea of self, a durable and independent identity, is no more supported by science than religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is not surprising, for the delusion of self is perhaps the most enduring and protected hallmark of our culture.
Agree with your assesment. The author makes up a story in this article and tries to sell it as a scientific fact, which is, to say the least, very unscientific. Then he had the audacity to attack other people's beliefs based on nothing more than a belief of his own. This mumbo jumbo of an article does not even qualify as scientific theory given it's untestable and makes little in the way of hypothesis testing. He's as far from a skeptic as light from day. Such a poor decision to allow such drivel in the magazine. I might not renew my subscription after all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMethinks you all doth protest too much...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat has convinced and converted nearly 1/2 of humanity and many great thinkers to believe in Christ. The religion has shaped all mankind, either directly or indirectly. It certainly controls multitudes. Is it for the better or worse? Where does it psychological power lie?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome consensuses of what "Jesus" "actually" said:
“Jesus had no special foreknowledge of his death,”
“My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” - added later
"97 percent did not think any trial occurred"
"Do not accept any after-death words of Jesus."
“Jesus had no intention of starting a new religion,”
Jesus “didn’t think of himself as divine.”
The Gospel writers, especially Matthew, made “the event fit the prophecy.”
From "The Gospel in brief", rewrite by Tolstoy:
"[I]t is a gross error to represent the four Gospels, as is often done, to be books sacred in every verse and every syllable. The reader must not forget that Jesus never Himself wrote a book, as did, for instance, Plato, Philo, or Marcus Aurelius; that He, moreover, did not, as Socrates did, transmit His teaching to informed and literate men, but spoke to a crowd of illiterate men. . . . The reader must not forget that it is the teaching of Christ which may be sacred, but in no way can a certain measure of verses and syllables be so. . . . (20-1)"
Here are some comments and criticism about Tolstoy's work:
More particularly here with a reference to a Gospel according to Thomas, discovered in the mid 1900's, that closely parallels what Tolstoy wrote and what the conference quoted above says.
"Tolstoy believed he'd discovered the core of Jesus' teaching, the kernel that made sense of the parables as well as Jesus' actions and death....
Clearly Tolstoy's rewriting is not done as if to say, "This is how Jesus must have said it." Tolstoy knows he cannot know exactly what Jesus said. Rather he rewrites and rearranges the material so as to bring forward an interpretation...."
Our emotions are drugs our own brains produce. Our beliefs trigger our emotions. When you change your beliefs, you change your emotions; which change your actions or inactions. That is the gospel according to Dr Albert Ellis (REBT). Death is the end of pain, as well as pleasure. Why do you demand to be eternal? As an older man facing the end, I see the ending as hard, not what happens afterwards. Novocain and morphine prove that pain is only in the mind of the living.
Links for the above
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.necessaryprose.com/tolstoysgospel.htm
http://www.the-philosopher.co.uk/witty.htm
http://www.gci.org/jesus/realwords
David Hume Comes to Mind, where he describes the birth of a new religion, beginning with the prophet's self-deception:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"But what greater temptation than to appear a missionary, a prophet, an ambassador from heaven? Who would not encounter many dangers and difficulties, in order to attain so sublime a character? Or if, by the help of vanity and a heated imagination, a man has first made a convert of himself, and entered seriously into the delusion; who ever scruples to make use of pious frauds, in support of so holy and meritorious a cause?
The smallest spark may here kindle into the greatest flame; because the materials are always prepared for it. The avidum genus auricularum, the gazing populace, receive greedily, without examination, whatever sooths superstition, and promotes wonder."
One thing not mentioned in the article is "anger." Ask any Homeland Security person or a local traffic cop what they look for to check whether someone is lying and they will say, "The people that throw up red flags are angry, unreasonable, defensive, threatening ("Where's your superior?"), and eager to leave."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is very interesting when you contrast that with some drive-by blog commenters.
What is it Groucho Marx said? "The secret to life is honesty, humility and fairness. If you can fake those, you've got it made." An excellent editorial by Mr. Shermer, which I would contended, bolstered by his example, shows that the deception imparted by organizations is even more insidious and widespread. SSkepitc and religious cabals, drunk on the assumption that they are correct, the extraordinary claim to represent critical thinking or God or righteousness, or to holding some self proclaimed corner on the methods of science and the nature of logic - these groups are our main problem today. The bookends of ignorance with whom the rest of us must fight to increase understanding.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are 121 subjects today which are forbidden to be discussed in science. This is deception.
See "What is Pseudoscience" ( http://theethicalskeptic.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/deskeption-what-is-pseudoscience/ )
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/fake.html#zr0t5lAxJEilDVdq.99