Pious fraud

Dante: The Bishop assured us that our sins would be absolved! Lucifer: And you believed him? You actually believed these salesmen of salvation? Pious fraud is a term applied to describe practices used to advance a religious cause or belief. This type of fraud may, by religious apologists, be explained as a case of the ends justify the means, in that if people are saved from eternal damnation, then it's perfectly fine to tell a few fibs and perform some magic tricks. This line of argumentation is prone to outcome bias. To draw a non-religious comparison — pious fraud could be compared to a parent using the threat of Santa withholding presents, or delivering a lump of coal, if Santa should hear that the child in question has been naughty.

It may at times be difficult to differentiate pious fraud, which requires intent to deceive, from delusion and ignorance. Such a decision must be based on a case-by-case evaluation of the claims being made, the persons making the claims, and certainly the intent behind the claims.

Determining intent
Intent is the primary method of differentiating pious fraud from regular fraud, but is itself murky. Peter Popoff, a televangelist with an astonishing ability to extract money from true believers, had repeatedly been exposed for using decidedly natural approaches to enhance his "miracles". In one notable example, James Randi learned that Popoff was using a hidden earpiece to which his wife was broadcasting information on the stricken people who attended his revivals in the hope of being cured.

If Popoff is a pious fraud, then it appears that he earnestly believes that the basic message of the gospels is that God's decision as to whether or not worshippers enter Heaven is primarily based on how rich they made their preacher. It may, however, be possible that Popoff simply enjoyed having nice houses and cars, and found a large group of people who were gullible and desperate enough to help make this happen.

Even when there is no financial incentive, pious frauds may gain fame and adoration among believers for being special enough to have been chosen to witness or perform a miracle.

Given that miracles typically come with little evidence to support the temporary suspension of the known laws of the universe, they are a rich source of pious fraud. This is not to say that all miracles are by default fraud, since many can be attributed to delusional behavior, ignorance, or simple good luck (and, who knows, some may be real, though none have been substantiated thus far), but some stand out as being particularly questionable.

Padre Pio was reputed to have experienced the stigmata — the appearance of wounds on the body that mimic those inflicted upon Jesus during his crucifixion — yet the wounds always appeared in private, and there are suggestions that Pio was using acid to inflict the wounds upon himself.

Ken Ham, on the other hand, is certainly a pious fraud for repeatedly making refuted arguments against evolution and deep time, while knowing they have been refuted and never acknowledging the refutations, because Young Earth Creationists like him genuinely, sincerely believe that denying evolution and an old Earth, and asserting biblical literalism, are necessary prerequisites for salvation.

Modification and misattribution of scripture
Prior to the advent of Christianity, there are strong suspicions that the entire Book of Deuteronomy was made up by King Josiah (or his supporters) due to its rather convenient discovery as recounted beginning with and later from. Similarly, many books of the New Testament are named for what uninformed believers take to be the names of the authors, yet biblical and historical scholarship indicate that the gospels were written by unknown authors and ascribed to disciples and similarly important figures in Christianity. Other books of the New Testament, traditionally ascribed to important figures, have also been shown to be later additions or misattributions.

There's an obvious advantage in attributing a work to a famous name, since texts purporting to document the life of Jesus certainly carry more weight if it's claimed that they were written by one of his associates.

Alterations over the years also provide signs of changes being made to deal with scriptural contradictions and to reduce or emphasize points and beliefs important to the writer. Paul strongly emphasized the message that salvation was available to all, including Gentiles. While some gospels portray Jesus as being sent solely for the "lost sheep of Israel", such as in Matthew 15:21-28, St. Paul's writings discard Jewish tradition — such as the requirement to effectively become a Jew before becoming a Christian — in favour of offering salvation to Gentiles, describing himself as "the apostle of the gentiles" in Romans 1:13. No doubt it was easier to market Christianity when it didn't involve

It is also notable that the nature of Jesus changes throughout the Bible. Early gospels, such as Mark, portray Jesus more as an anointed man than a being of divine origin — in a similar sense to previous "sons of god" such as King David. In John 1:1-15, Jesus is described as being the embodiment of logos — present with God at the beginning of all things, through whom the world was created. Mark lacks an account of the virgin birth — which other authors included in their gospels. A messiah of human origin, although anointed by God, is more consistent with Jewish tradition, so the divine aspects may have appeared in an attempt to appeal to the demographic that prefers its messiahs to be of divine origin.

Lying for Jesus
Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" Why not say — as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say — "Let us do evil that good may result?" Their condemnation is deserved. Lying for Jesus is a form of pious fraud which happens when some Christians believe that falsifying information is acceptable if that brings people to Jesus, reassures believers — who are unlikely at best to check if such information is actually true — or somehow supports his historicity, saintliness, or supposed godliness. The practice has a long and venerable history in the Christian religion dating back to the Council of Nicaea. This is depressingly common despite lying being frowned upon in most Christian circles.

Lactantius
Early Christian author (ca. 240 – ca. 320) — along with his anti-Christian contemporary,  (c. 234–c. 305) — wildly exaggerated the stories of orgies and other forms of debauchery that 1st century Romans allegedly practiced. Oddly enough, many of these stories were based upon anti-religious critiques written by Romans themselves in the 1st century. (In other words, Christians used Roman anti-religious writings to attack Roman religion and promote Christianity. Right.) Christian historians have used these stories ever since to emphasize what early Christians allegedly struggled against in their society. As historian Gillian Clark writes in Christianity and Roman Society (2004):

Eusebius
(c. AD 260 or 265 – 339 or 340), Emperor Constantine's bishop, is often presented as one of the earliest active advocates of the process: How it may be lawful and fitting to use falsehood as a medicine, and for the benefit of those who want to be deceived.

In reality, it is unclear Eusebius wrote any such thing. The quote actually comes from a chapter heading which Eusebius may have not written.

That said, 19th century cultural historian Jacob Burckhardt dismissed Eusebius as "the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity". Ramsay MacMullen Dunham Professor of History and Classics cites Eusebius as an example: “Hostile writings and discarded views were not recopied or passed on, or they were actively suppressed..., matters discreditable to the faith were to be consigned to silence." Italian historian Arnaldo Dante Momigliano wrote that for Eusebius, "chronology was something between an exact science and an instrument of propaganda".

In The History of the Church, Eusebius claimed "It is also recorded that under Claudius, Philo came to Rome to have conversations with Peter, then preaching to the people there ... It is plain enough that he not only knew but welcomed with whole-hearted approval the apostolic men of his day, who it seems were of Hebrew stock and therefore, in the Jewish manner, still retained most of their ancient customs." Logically, if Philo talked to Peter and knew of the apostolic men of his day, he would have written something about Jesus that the Christians would have preserved, given it was "welcomed with whole-hearted approval." Yet in what the Christians preserved of Philo, not one word about Peter or the apostolic men of his day, much less Jesus, is made. In fact, people even claim there was no reason for Philo to know anything about Jesus!

Eusebius is considered the most likely perpetrator of the probable tampering with Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, in particular the so-called "Testimonium Flavianum".

Martin Luther
As well as his documented belief that reason is faith's greatest enemy, the founder of Protestantism also noted:

What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them.

Sectarianism
Different Christian sects are also quite often prepared to distort the position of other Christians whom they consider heretics. Wingnut Protestants' claims about Catholicism are a common recent example.

More recent Christian deceit

 * It is common for American evangelical Christians to claim the United States was founded as a Christian nation. The book "Liars for Jesus" by Chris Rodda details and refutes these claims. This one rests on even worse theological grounds than the above, as it has nearly zero chance of actually bringing souls to Christ, but hey, politics.
 * Dishonesty by creationists, particularly young Earth creationists (YEC), is well known and documented elsewhere. YEC dishonesty simply demonstrates the lack of honest evidence for the YEC position. There was a large amount of deceit surrounding Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.
 * Misleading statistics were and are used by some conservative Christians to argue that gay men have shorter life expectancies than they really have, or that abortions cause depression, breast cancer, etc.
 * as used by the Reverend John Plummer. Plummer made a ton of money and was able to bring many, many people 'to Christ' by publicly claiming to have been involved in the attack shown in the famous picture. His story tended to change depending on who he was talking to about it — sometimes he was the pilot who dropped the napalm, sometimes he was the officer at headquarters who ordered the attack, sometimes he was the communications officer who coordinated the attack… and so on. He actually had nothing whatsoever to do with the incident, which occurred after most American forces had already left Vietnam. The attack was actually ordered and prosecuted entirely by the South Vietnamese military.
 * "Cassie said 'Yes!'" Cassie Bernall was one of the thirteen people killed in the Columbine High School massacre, and her death in particular was latched onto by conservative Christians (most notably her parents), who spun a story claiming that the killers asked her if she believed in God, and then murdered her after she replied in the affirmative. The truth was that the Columbine killers did ask another student, Valeen Schnurr, if she believed in God... but unfortunately for those looking for a Christian martyr, Schnurr survived the massacre. The book She Said Yes is still being sold as non-fiction and generating money more than a decade after the claim was discovered to be false. Initially, the claim could have been perceived as an honest mistake, but repeating it after the truth behind the incident became known to the public is dishonest. The lie is so deeply entrenched in some people's minds that believers will sometimes go as far as threatening violence towards those who try to tell them what really happened.
 * Many, many claims by "ex-Satanists" at the height of the Satanic Panic of the 1980s and early 1990s. Mike Warnke, Michelle Smith, Lauren Stratford, John Todd, and Rebecca Brown were among those claiming to have left Satanism and become Christians, selling millions of books with their lurid stories about the "Satanic underground" and the Illuminati. Invariably, all of their claims turned out to have been made up, with the details of their lives as known to friends, family, coworkers, and schools conflicting with what they were preaching.
 * Bill Wiese's book '23 Minutes in Hell' is scare-tactic sensationalism at its best, and attempts to use Bill's "experience" (read: bald-faced lie) of visiting Hell to scare people into converting (and to make money).
 * Fundamentalist Christian-based crisis pregnancy centers, which provide false information about abortions and sex. They also use manipulative and dirty tactics to trick pregnant women — especially those who are actively seeking abortions — into visiting them.
 * Abstinence-only sex "education", almost without exception, gives deliberately misleading information about contraception, particularly condoms, in an effort to back students into a corner where they think that their only viable option is the fundamentalist approach to sex of "not before marriage".
 * Too many to count Fundamentalist Evangelical pastors, who will use arguments either cribbed from apologetic sites or of their own to both reinforce the beliefs of their congregations and support Biblical literalism, especially Creationism, as noted above.

Taqiyya
Taqiyya, or "dissimulation", is a controversial concept within the Islamic faith that allows Muslims to lie for the purposes of advancing Islam.

Most often, this lying is to conceal their faith if they are living in a culture where openly practicing would threaten their or their family's life. This practice is more common to Shia Islam than Sunni Islam largely due to the historical and recent persecution of the Shi'ites (at the hands of the Sunnis). Note that we at RationalWiki have no issue with someone practicing deception for their own protection in a hostile environment.

Qur'an
The Qur'an has a few interesting views on lying.

Allah cares only about good intent, not good oaths. This may allow lying, as converting people to Islam is a good intent, regardless of a bad oath of lies.

Allah permits pretending to be friends with nonbelievers in case of insecurity.

In Arabic, "a scheme" (makara) literally means "deceit". See also and.

Allah originally promised to let pagans stay at Mecca after Muhammad captured it. He went back on his oath. Since Goddidit, it's probably fine.

If a Muslim is under compulsion, they can deny their faith as long as they remain Muslim secretly.

A believer is introduced as an unbeliever, to help convey his message.

Allah explicitly made some oathbreaking acceptable; however, he doesn't give any details.

Hadith
Muhammad authorized lying to improve the chances of successful assassinations, for example in the case of Shaaban Ibn Khalid al-Hazly and Bin Kaab.

In the following Hadith, Muhammad said that it's permissible to lie to an enemy without specifying any conditions. Note that the concept of lying to conceal one's faith if the person's life is in danger as mentioned above also exists.

The latter two are understandable, but the first of those exceptions is literally rape. However, Ahmad is not a respected or widely-known hadith. A more reputable quote from a more reputable hadith, the goes:

This hadith suggests that lying is acceptable to bring peace in war and peace in marriage, which might be a bit less evil than the previous hadith.

The also provides valuable viewpoints:

The ends justify the means, and lying is but a means to the good end of peace.

The context for this is the murder of thirty unarmed men by Muhammad's men after he "granted" them safe passage.

Requirement
This concept has been seized upon by bigots to suggest that all Muslims are constantly focused on deceiving their neighbors to appear more likable, and then once they've lured you into a false sense of security — *bam* — the old fork in the eye. Of course, they rarely think the same of faithful Christians, even though Martin Luther specifically advocated lying to bring people to his the correct way of thinking. Similarly, the concept was a core component of conspiracy theories about Barack Obama being a "Secret Muslim."

The truth of the matter is that the standard for employing taqiyya is particularly high. For example, during the Spanish Inquisition when Muslims (along with Jews) were tortured by the Grand Inquisitor Torquemada, it would have been permissible for a Muslim to claim to convert to Christianity to avoid torture and death for himself and his family, while continuing to practice his faith in secret. Torquemada rarely fell for such deception, however, and despite the pleas of the accused, the torture would continue. Face it, you can't Torquemada anything.

Note that some Muslim apologists, including some Imams, do use factually incorrect statements (not Taqiyya) to advance or defend their faith in a manner similar to Lying for Jesus.

Controversy
The concept is controversial within Islam mainly because the Qur'an teaches that death in the service of one's faith (as in the case of refusing to renounce one's faith even when faced with death) is a highly honorable act, and practically guarantees one's entry into Paradise. Muslim theology generally makes strong distinctions between acts that are forbidden, discouraged, acceptable, praiseworthy, and obligatory, so while dying in the service of Islam may be seen as praiseworthy, invoking taqiyya to avoid death could be seen as falling under the "acceptable" category.

Outside of the Muslim community, taqiyya is frequently cited by Islamophobes as evidence that Muslims who aren't extremists are merely lying about their theology. This is an example of Morton's fork — if they display extremist beliefs, then they're obviously extremists, where if they reject extremist beliefs, they're just lying to get you to trust them. As such, any statement — or even actions — by Muslims that is not in line with the idea that all Muslims are murderous fanatics can be safely discarded.