Home » Religion » Dishonest Misquotes?

Dishonest Misquotes?

by teachersmith in Religion, February 18, 2009

Various famous people are often quoted as a means of defending or bolstering religious beliefs. Here I examine what some of them actually said and whether they are actually misunderstood or deliberately misquoted.

Albert Einstein

Source

Einstein is often quoted by those of faith and it is claimed that he was a person of faith. A recent article speaks of a new book about Einstein and states, “A book chronicling the life history of Albert Einstein is soon to be released and will reveal the deep religiosity of one of history’s greatest minds.” It goes on to say, “In the biography, the author also shows how Einstein did feel compelled by the story of Jesus, seeing him as an integral part of history.” This could lead us to believe that Einstein was a man of faith. The most quoted line from Einstein is, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” It is this line that is most often used to add weight to arguments that revolve around intelligent design and as an attempt to discredit evolutionary biology. Einstein also said many other things that are omitted by writers when they try to use Einstein to lend weight to their faith statements. For example, “I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil.” and “I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation and is but a reflection of human frailty.” To use a quote out of context as a means to support a view that runs contrary to the beliefs of the person who provided the quote seems to be a little dishonest.

Charles Darwin

Source

Darwin is the bane of religious minds. Evolution is by far the subject that gets religious people hot under the collar. From claims that it is just a theory or a belief to the rather more difficult to prove idea that it is a deliberate demonic deception run rife in religious circles. The most often used quote used to discredit Darwin himself is in relation to the evolution of the eye. Darwin is quoted as saying, “To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.” The argument goes that even Darwin, the author of evolutionary processes, could not fully accept his own claims because of the human eye. Now let us continue the quote to the end. “Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real”. When taken in context Darwin does appear to accept that evolution is indeed a valid explanation for the existence of the eye without the need to reference a designer or a supreme being. Once again it appears that a certain amount of misquoting is going on and it smacks of dishonesty. Add to this the blatant untruth regarding Darwin’s deathbed conversion and you have what can only be described as a deliberate misquote followed by a lie.

The Founding Fathers

Source

The great men who founded the United States of America have often been used to support the view that religion and specifically Christianity was the faith of the founding fathers. Christianity, it is argued, should therefore be the primary religion in America and all people should recognise it as such. One recent article argued just this and suggested that In God we Trust be changed to In God we must Trust. Some of the founding fathers were Protestant whilst some were Catholic. It would seem though that some of the founding fathers were not so much Christian as Deist and others still had no religious affiliation.

“Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!” – John Adams

“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.” – James Madison

“As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion…has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity.” – Ben Franklin

Another example of how things are interpreted how certain individuals would like them to be rather than how they actually are.

Conclusion

All I ask is that if you are going to use other people to support your ideas and beliefs please ensure that your facts are correct, your quotes in context and your argument an honest one.

Refs:
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/book.shows.einstein.belief.in.god/10284-2.htm

4
Liked it

User Comments

  1. godspoet01

    On February 18, 2009 at 3:28 pm


    all famous people but could they be famous without Gods creating
    science.Godthe most famous of all. You are always in my prayers
    Gods bless you

  2. Mark Helm

    On March 1, 2009 at 2:56 pm


    Simpleton

  3. Lostash

    On March 5, 2009 at 9:01 pm


    It’s comments like the above from Mr Helm that just prove to me that religion is a total waste of time in my opinion. What a very ‘Christian’ response to what could have been an interesting debate.

  4. Mama Heartfilled

    On May 9, 2009 at 2:01 am


    I agree, the whole truth should be shown when possible, not just aportion of it.

  5. jamie mullen

    On May 26, 2009 at 10:27 pm


    This is an example of an actually well researched article.

Post Comment

Powered by Powered by Triond