Unfussily wise. Both piercing and gracious—and a captivating read to boot. I’d recommend this to pretty darn near everyone.

I spent about two years hankering for this book after reading most of Scott Peck's other works. It didn't disappoint. The author has a fairly simple interpretation of the nature of evil in otherwise "normal, regular" people. A fascinating read.

At times this book will scare you to death. He names human and cosmic evil as no ohe I have ever read.

When I become dictator of seminaries the world over, People of the Lie will be required reading. The complete title is “People of the Lie. The Hope for Healing Human Evil.” It’s by M. Scott Peck, M.D. Copyright 1983. He believes your church is a magnet for evil.

Someone gave me this book when we were going through grief (a church split) in my first pastorate in Winnipeg, MB, Canada. It’s been one of my favorites ever since. The Bible talks about evil and even about a personality called “the devil.” Jesus talks about wolves and is murdered by some. Paul warns us about wolves coming from within our churches in Acts 20. But, in spite of it all, we remain taken by surprise. I had no classes on evil or wolves or even church jerks in seminary. I was ill-prepared.

Dr. Peck says, “Utterly dedicated to preserving their self-image of perfection, they [the evil] are unceasingly engaged in the effort to maintain the appearance of moral purity. They worry about this a great deal. They are acutely sensitive to social norms and what others think about them . . . they dress well, go to work on time, pay their taxes, and outwardly seem to live lives that are above reproach. . . . While they seem to lack any motivation to be good, they intensely desire to appear good. Their ‘goodness’ is all on a level of pretense. It is, in effect, a lie. This is why they are the ‘people of the lie.’” I wonder - what do evil people who intensely desire to appear good do on Sunday morning?

Dr. Scott was a psychiatrist and bestselling author (A Road Less Traveled). This book is his best. His story-telling of cases of evil, his following of personalities over the years, his pursuit of an answer to evil through academia, religion and exorcisms is astounding. Plus, it makes for stinking fun reading.

In the book evil is defined as “The exercise of political power—that is, the imposition of one’s will upon others by overt or covert coercion—in order to avoid . . . spiritual growth.” In another place Dr. Scott defines evil as “the use of political power to destroy others for the purpose of defending or preserving the integrity of one’s sick self.” Any names you’d like to insert here?

This isn’t a “Christian book.” It’s a retelling of Dr. Peck’s journey into evil while trying to help his “incurable” patients. In a rare reference to the Bible, Dr. Scott proposes that the most deeply possessed in the time of Christ weren’t those He cast the demons out of. It was the religious leaders who in their possession thought they were pure. They were used by the Devil to put a contract out on Jesus and kill him, and then felt justified because they didn’t put the money back into the offering plate. The evil believe they are good. They want to keep their demons.

Towards the end of the book, after giving the example of Eichmann being declared “perfectly sane” by a psychiatrist at his trial, Dr. Scott asks, “What are we do to with the evil when their masquerade of sanity is so successful, their destructiveness so ‘normal’? First, we must stop buying the masquerade and being deceived by the pretense…Evil can be defeated by goodness… The fact is, simple-sounding thought it may be, the methodology of love is so difficult in practice that we shy away from its usage… How is it possible to love people who are evil? … This process may be painful to the bearer of the light, occasionally even fatal.”

This book is terrific to the end – I wish I had read it back when it was written, almost 30 years ago. However, evil hasn’t changed any. Read People of the Lie and you’ll agree.

danielcooley.com

This is a thoughtful, probing dive into a frankly terrifying subject (the ubiquity of human evil). While I don’t agree with all of his ideas/conclusions/opinions, this book broadened and challenged my understanding of something I’ve not given much thought to, and will never think the same about again.

I was very dubious of this book, and rightly so. Combine 80s psychological writing, devout Christian morals, and nearly pornographic lip-service to the Scientific Method. An atrocious book that succeeds in little other than illustrating one man’s struggles with his own idea of evil—while pretending objectivity. Predicate thinking at its most nauseating.

Scary, in that after reading this, I saw evil in a clearer light than before. And group evil is the worse form of all. Peck is a master at getting to the core of human psychology and explaining it in lay terms.

Tai ar būna tiesiog blogų žmonių ar visi yra geri, tik kartais, dėl tam tikrų aplinkybių, pasielgia blogai? "Melo žmonės" autorius sako didesnė tikimybė, kad dauguma žmonių yra blogi ir tik kai kurie geri :))) Turiu knygą 8 metus ir tik dabar išdrįsau perskaityti, nes anksčiau kategoriškai nemėgau krikščionybės, o dabar tapau pakantesnė. Autorius yra krikščionis, bet ir psichoterapeutas, tai įdomu skaityti, kaip jis laviruoja, derina tą mokslą ir tikėjimą. Iš esmės buvo žiauriai įdomu, ir žiauriai šiurpu, ypač tikros istorijos su jo pacientais, kai kurios privertė padėt knygą ir biškį eit pasivaikščiot, nes sunku patikėt, kad žmonės gali taip žiauriai elgtis. Tikrai yra sunkios tamsumos šitoj knygoj. Autorius teigia, kad blogi žmonės dažniausiai būna ne psichiškai sutrikę nusikaltėliai, o tiesiog, iš pažiūros, normalūs žmonės, todėl tas blogis yra dar suktesnis. Kad iš esmės, moksliškai blogis nėra tyrinėtas, nors turėtų būti kuo greičiau. Ties skyrium apie egzorcizmą kažkaip kėliau antakį, bet bandžiau nusimest visas išankstines nuostatas, pasižiūrėt atvirai ir kažkaip tiesiog priėmiau - nesigailiu. Dabar aktualus skyrius apie karą. Peckas mano, jog visuotinis žmonių šaukimas į kariuomenę padėtų išvengti karų, nes neliktų atsakomybės nusimetimo. Kad, neva, ne aš čia kariauju, o kariai ir aš čia ne prie ko. Maždaug, jei jau einam žudyt ir mirt, tai visi. Blemba, visai yra racijos gal tame? Žodžiu, man net gaila, kad niekas iš pažįstamų neskaitė, nes taip norėčiau padiskutuot, tikrai plati, daug minčių kelianti knyga apie blogį/gėrį/meilę ir atjautą.

I read this book years ago and I'm reading it again. If there's ever been a person who's just given you this "ick" feeling, like there is some thing "off" or fundamentally untruthful about them... OR people who seem like they are too good to be true, then I recommend this book to help you. You may still not understand an evil person and what motivates them, but you can at least rest assured that you are not the only person who has dealt with someone like that. Plus, I just love anything on psychology so his explanations are fascinating as well as tied in with biblical principles.

This is an interesting book that seems very much a product of its time: the 1980s. Turbulent, analog, and with a burgeoning world of psychological study in full swing with the realization of the effects of war on those men and women who fought in Vietnam and were trying to return to life as a civilian during that time.

There are some interesting points, and this book is written with the author peering through the lens of his own faith at the science of psychology, faith, evil and how they relate. I'm not a trained psychologist, so I can't effectively comment on those aspects of his book, but I can relate that there were times that I really resonated with what the author expressed while, at other times, I was unsure how his ideas could reconcile with my view of who God is and how he relates to humanity. I did appreciate the case studies he shared... I always find those particularly interesting.

Near the end of the book, I was surprised to encounter some ideas that seemed to have made their way to the surface during our time dealing with Covid-19. I'm certain that he had critical thinking in mind when he shared these ideas (without making them philosopher kings and prophets), but I was immediately brought to the pandemic where the pendulum on this seemed to swing quickly to the opposite extreme where scientists lost all their credibility in the eyes of some people.

Worth a read, and you may find some things of interest; however, I continue to believe that our focus as people of God should be on how to love well those who cross our paths instead of looking for reasons that people are evil. On this, the author and agree: A strong foundation that includes doing our own work with God, Jesus and Holy Spirit to know who we truly are so that our actions and thoughts may be filled with grace and kindness is and will be essential.

This was really great in what it goes through to explain bad things in the world and how evil acts come about. Who does them , who has done them in the past, i.e., My Lai in Vietnam. It added to my understanding of the world in a way no textbook ever could.

Very weird book. Found this in a thrift store and thought it would be a hoot to read M. Scott Peck's account of "healing human evil" : was actually impressed by the insights and level of detail he gave in describing several case studies of purportedly "evil" patients, which I was happy to substitute in my mind as either malignantly narcissistic or sociopathic (I have met people like Charlene, and it was comforting to get a psychotherapist's take on insidious manipulation, because we often feel like we are the crazy ones when encountering it). However, once he got into the further chapters about group evil, exorcisms, and the Christian dogma, all science and logic seemed to go out the door -- although he was still using the same convincing tone, which made the whole thing downright creepy. He would ascribe something to a scientific source, and then add an addendum two paragraphs later that contradicted it and urged the scientific community to devote research to "evil" in particular. The fact that he kept using this vague term over and over without any expansion on how or what this means in terms of qualitative study made me doubt that he had even really grasped his own understanding of what he was trying to say about it before sitting down to write the book. The whole thing was weird and ended in a lot of discussion about Satan and Jesus. Thanks, but no thanks!