CS Lewis - Liar Lunatic Lord (Split from Evolution or Creation)

[muffler dragon]

FWIW, Lewis wasn't a creationist. If I had to put a label on it; then I would theistic evolutionist.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Now you start to go astray. Your P1 is missing the assumption that Lewis is basing our understanding of Jesus strictly on the most direct evidence we have about him, which is the Gospels. If you are going to keep with Lewis' argument you P1 should be restated as "Jesus, as presented from the historical accounts, was either liar, lunatic, or lord"

If this is true, then what you say below about the 'picture painted' by the gospels can't also be true.... unless Lewis is embarking on an exercise in futility, in which case he need not bother making any remarks at all on the issue. It's the same as saying "Given any particular circumstance (the validity of the gospels), a person has some nature" If this is Lewis' point, it is absurd. Which, of course, it's not his point... because he's actually trying to force us in to a conclusion (That Jesus is G-d).

P2 is certainly argued by Lewis in his apologetics, but not in this particular instance. Again, Lewis is trying to show that if you rely on the historical evidence in the Gospels, moral teacher is not on the list of logical conclusions.

Fair enough. Leaving it limited though, it does not follow. There is no proof that a liar cannot be a moral teacher. There is no proof that a lunatic cannot be a moral teacher. And again, if it is of no consequence about whether or not the Gospel evidence is true or false, it's hardly worth the discussion. In other words, "IF we rely on evidence A, then B is excluded" says nothing at all. It may be true... it may not be true... it depends on what A is, and if B is mutually excluded by A. Liar, lunatic and lord are not mutually exclusive.

As for the conclusion, again, Lewis does assume Lord is answer, but not from this line of reasoning. In other words you are assuming this is an argument by Lewis to prove the Jesus was God, which was not his intent.

Again, what I'm getting from you is that Lewis' point was that he didn't have any point to make.

You do not have to assume that the Gospels are true to accept Lewis' conclusion here. Why? Because the argument is not based on the validity of the Gospels, but on the analysis of the picture those Gospels present. Even if one would want to argue that the Gospel's are not a correct picture of Jesus, that doesn't affect Lewis' argument as he's not arguing the validity of the picture, but again the interpretation of the picture. (It is helpful to keep in mind here that Lewis by profession was a very well respected Oxford Don and Cambridge Professor of Literary Criticism, so what he is doing here relates directly to his profession.)

But, again, Lewis is wrong because there are more than three alternatives. I'll keep it as simple as there being 4:

Liar
Lunatic
Lord
Mistaken.

And again, if his whole purpose is merely to say that the Gospels paint a picture of man who is a liar, lunatic or lord... well... so what? I still don't see how a liar or a lunatic can't also be a great moral teacher. Furthermore, I will not accept that in order to be a great moral teacher, Jesus must have been Lord. And I don't see how "Mistaken" is not a viable alternative.

And here you make the very fallacy Lewis is arguing against. You use one example from the Gospels to show that Jesus is a moral teacher. However, Lewis is saying that if you include all the statements attributed to Jesus, the picture changes very much. After all, besides his moral teachings, Jesus asserted that he knew Abraham, a man to live almost 2000 years before him. He taught that he was the only means to being accessible to God. He taught that he had come to bring war, not peace, between fathers and sons, and daughters and mothers. And most importantly he claimed that he was God (John 8:58). When this picture (again the validity of the picture is irrelevant to this particular argument by Lewis) is taken as a whole, moral teacher can no longer be exclusively applied to him. Rather, the only logical conclusions are liar, lunatic, or lord.

So, Lewis is saying that Jesus is incapable of teaching anything moral unless everything he taught was also moral? That's ridiculous. Likewise, whether or not Jesus knew Abraham has nothing to do with whether or not "Love your Neighbor" is great moral teaching. And, again, the logical conclusions include "mistaken" even if Lewis leaves it off his list.

More to the point, even if we accept that the things Jesus said, as a whole, paint him as a lunatic, it does not mean he fails any morality. Suppose he was a liar... Do you now think loving our neighbor is immoral? Suppose he was a lunatic, is loving your neighbor immoral? Of course not. It doesn't follow. The more likely scenario is that if Jesus was anything, he was mistaken.

And... how are Lord and Lunatic mutually exclusive? Jwins kind of said it (though he meant it in another way) anyone claiming to be G-d is a lunatic on the face of it. How do we differentiate? You've closed the door to the Gospel's "Truth" (you said its without consequence to Lewis' point) so... again I ask.... what's the point? We choose to believe in the divinity of any nutbag we wish?

Such a possibility is not present in the New Testament, so it does not fit the picture we have to analyze.

Says who? Lewis? You? It seems quite plain to me that a mistaken Jesus is quite possibly present in the New Test. Indeed, it's quite plain to me that it's possible the authors themselves are mistaken about Jesus, even if we accept that he (Jesus) isn't a myth.

If you rely on the picture of the Gospels, this is correct.

Unless, of course, Jesus was just mistaken about some of his beliefs, even if he did honestly believe them. And, assuming that he was mistaken about knowing Abraham, for example, that's a mistake of fact and says nothing about his ability to teach morality.

I guess, at the end of the day, the most simple objection is this:

Even if we accept that there are three alternatives - Liar, Lunatic or Lord, they are not mutually exclusive of being a great moral teacher. As such, the argument, for whatever purpose, fails. To the extent it succeeds, it has not point to make... and thus, Jesus might have been:

A great moral teacher and a liar
A great moral teacher and a lunatic
A great moral teacher and a lord.

(and.. a great moral teach who was mistaken about some things... and there's no patronizing nonsense in thinking Jesus was a great moral teacher, even if not any of those other things, and specifically, Lord.)

 

[muffler dragon]

For those who may not be aware of what BKB is arguing:

False Dilemna

Also Known as: Black & White Thinking. Description of False Dilemma


A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning":

1. Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).
2. Claim Y is false.
3. Therefore claim X is true.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because if both claims could be false, then it cannot be inferred that one is true because the other is false. That this is the case is made clear by the following example:

1. Either 1+1=4 or 1+1=12.
2. It is not the case that 1+1=4.
3. Therefore 1+1=12.

In cases in which the two options are, in fact, the only two options, this line of reasoning is not fallacious. For example:

1. Bill is dead or he is alive.
2. Bill is not dead.
3. Therefore Bill is alive.

 

[buckeyegrad]

BKB, I don't know what else to tell you. You keep wanting to make more out of Lewis' argument than he was stating in this instance. You attack it and him by claiming he makes assumptions and conclusions that are just not there--they really are your own projections into the argument. You have set up strawmen left and right in order to knock them down. This of course is just my perspective here, but sometimes you seem so over-zealous to discredit the New Testament at every point, you appear to lose the ability to see that such an issue is not at stake everytime someone references it.

As for your fourth alternative, you are just flat out wrong. There is nothing in the Gospels that describe or indicate Jesus was mistaken about himself or his teachings. You may personally believe this about him or the people who wrote the Gospels, but it is not what is described in the Gospels.

Let's put it this way, what if I said if you read Lord of the Rings you must come to the conclusion that Frodo Baggins was either a martyr, an idiot, or a pawn; but at no time can you argue that he was only a wise sage. If someone attacked this argument by saying, well duh, Frodo is a fictional character, so there is another option; or that Tolkien didn't mean him to be any of those choices, so there must be others; or that there was some crazy guy who thought he was Frodo Baggins who lives down the street from me, so there are other options, the conclusion is that the person making these criticisms really doesn't understand what is being asserted in the first instance. Likewise, if one were to draw conclusions from the original statement that are not there, such as why am I asserting that a martyr or a pawn cannot be wise, then again, the person really isn't responding to the original statement that is saying if one wants to limit their understanding of Frodo's character to being a wise sage, they really haven't grasped the character present in the story. I don't know if it helps, but this is exactly the type of argument Lewis is making about Jesus in this instance, no more, no less.

 

[Gatorubet]

As for your fourth alternative, you are just flat out wrong. There is nothing in the Gospels that describe or indicate Jesus was mistaken about himself or his teachings. You may personally believe this about him or the people who wrote the Gospels, but it is not what is described in the Gospels.

Well, there is a really good case to be made that Jesus is not the Messiah, or to be more accurate, not the Messiah the Jews were expecting when reading their Torah. And as much of the Apocalyptic based future did not occur as exactly as Jesus foretold, you could make a case that he was indeed mistaken in some of his beliefs. An argument has been made that his followers resorted to the Risen Christ beliefs as a means of his followers dealing with the difficulty of the abject failure of Jesus fulfilling the role of the Messiah that the Jews were expecting.

But as to Gospel, in part it can't get the facts straight on a number of things relating to Jesus' last days. And while in my profession, the law, a non-similar version of facts is often sign of truth, i.e., that a rote lie was not lock step fabricated and memorized, you have to admit that one's decision to say that Jesus was not mistaken is as much faith as fact. Several discrepancies in the story have to be explained away. And while the explanations may be valid from someone's viewpoint (or indeed valid historically - I mean, none of us were there), we are more accurately talking about faith inspired opinion of what is said in the Gospels, and not pure "fact."

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

BKB,
Don't know how much of Lewis's argument you've read. But Lewis does address the mistaken argument. The claim and one I of course agree with is that it would have been impossible for Jesus to merely be mistaken. Being a Jew in that day, Jesus very much would have studied and understood the Jewish God. This was verified many times in the New Testament. To make the claim that Jesus made about being God with His background and His religion He couldn't have been merely mistaken. Lewis argues that mistaken is off the table. People who made that claim in Jesus day were put death. And He was. Only He rose again just as He said He would. Something that those other "Jesus" you mention haven't done.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Well, there is a really good case to be made that Jesus is not the Messiah, or to be more accurate, not the Messiah the Jews were expecting when reading their Torah. And as much of the Apocalyptic based future did not occur as exactly as Jesus foretold, you could make a case that he was indeed mistaken in some of his beliefs. An argument has been made that his followers resorted to the Risen Christ beliefs as a means of his followers dealing with the difficulty of the abject failure of Jesus fulfilling the role of the Messiah that the Jews were expecting.

But as to Gospel, in part it can't get the facts straight on a number of things relating to Jesus' last days. And while in my profession, the law, a non-similar version of facts is often sign of truth, i.e., that a rote lie was not lock step fabricated and memorized, you have to admit that one's decision to say that Jesus was not mistaken is as much faith as fact. Several discrepancies in the story have to be explained away. And while the explanations may be valid from someone's viewpoint (or indeed valid historically - I mean, none of us were there), we are more accurately talking about faith inspired opinion of what is said in the Gospels, and not pure "fact."

But the question at hand is not whether Jesus was mistaken (that's another debate for another day), but whether the Gospels present Jesus as being mistaken. To this question, the answer is a resounding no.

 

[buckeyegrad]

For more context, these are the preceeding paragraphs to Lewis' statement:

Then comes the real shock. Among these Jews there suddenly turns up a man who goes about talking as if He was God. He claims to forgive sins. He says He has always existed. He says He is coming to judge the world at the end of time. Now let us get this clear. Among Pantheists, like the Indians, anyone might say that he was a part of God, or one with God: there would be nothing very odd about it. But this man, since He was a Jew, could not mean that kind of God. God, in their language, meant the Being outside the world, who had made it and was infinitely different from anything else. And when you have grasped that, you will see that what this man said was, quite simply, the most shocking thing that has ever been uttered by human lips.

One part of the claim tends to slip past us unnoticed because we have heard it so often that we no longer see what it amounts to. I mean the claim to forgive sins: any sins. Now unless the speaker is God, this is really so preposterous at to be comic. We can all understand hwo a man forgives offense against himself. You tread on my toes and I forgive you, you steal my money and I forgive you. But what should we make of a man, himslef unrobbed and untrodden on, who announced that he forgave you for treading on other men's toes and stealing other men's money? Asinine fatuity is the kindest description we should give of his conduct. Yet this is what Jesus did. He told people that their sins were forgiven, and never waited to consult all the other people whom their sins had undoubtedly injured. He unhesitatingly behaved as if He was the party chiefly concerned, the person chiefly offended in all offences. This makes sense only if He reallywas God whose laws are broken and whose love is wounded in every sin. In the mouth of any speaker who is not God, these words would imply what I can only regard as a silliness and conceit unrivalled by any other character in history.

Yet (and this is the strange, significant thing) even His enemies, when they read the Gospels, do not usually get the impression of siliness and conceit. Still less do unprejudiced readers. Chrsit says that He is 'humble and meek' and we believe Him; not noticing that, if He were merely a man, humility and meekness are the very last characteristics we could attribute to some of His sayings.

 

[buckeyegrad]

BKB, t BuckeyeScott, just showed me an error I was making in my argument, for which I am very thankful. I have been saying that the the Gospels do not present Jesus as being mistaken and therefore it is not a logical conclusion to make from the picture of Jesus given us. That said, the Gospels also don't present Jesus as being a liar or a lunatic, but it is a conclusion one could come to upon reading them. This being the case, Jesus being mistaken about who he was is also a possible conclusion one could come to. However, as t BuckeyeScott has already pointed out in the previous post, Lewis addresses elsewhere why the mistaken option is not valid. Furthermore, in the preceeding paragraphs I posted above, I think it is quite clear that Lewis considered anyone who would be mistaken about their identity to such a degree as Jesus would have if he is not God, would have to be a lunatic. In fact, this seems to be the reason why Lewis included it as one of the three logical conclusions.

 

[muffler dragon]

BKB,
Don't know how much of Lewis's argument you've read. But Lewis does address the mistaken argument. The claim and one I of course agree with is that it would have been impossible for Jesus to merely be mistaken. Being a Jew in that day, Jesus very much would have studied and understood the Jewish God. This was verified many times in the New Testament. To make the claim that Jesus made about being God with His background and His religion He couldn't have been merely mistaken. Lewis argues that mistaken is off the table. People who made that claim in Jesus day were put death. And He was. Only He rose again just as He said He would. Something that those other "Jesus" you mention haven't done.

t:

I'd like to ask you a question, and feel free to take some time to answer it.

IF Jesus truly understood the nature of G-d from a Jewish perspective; THEN do you not think that that would cause a major problem in his role of Messiah?

This may need to be moved to the Official Bible thread, but your statement made me think about this particular situation.

 

[muffler dragon]

BKB, t BuckeyeScott, just showed me an error I was making in my argument, for which I am very thankful. I have been saying that the the Gospels do not present Jesus as being mistaken and therefore it is not a logical conclusion to make from the picture of Jesus given us. That said, the Gospels also don't present Jesus as being a liar or a lunatic, but it is a conclusion one could come to upon reading them. This being the case, Jesus being mistaken about who he was is also a possible conclusion one could come to. However, as t BuckeyeScott has already pointed out in the previous post, Lewis addresses elsewhere why the mistaken option is not valid. Furthermore, in the preceeding paragraphs I posted above, I think it is quite clear that Lewis considered anyone who would be mistaken about their identity to such a degree as Jesus would have if he is not God, would have to be a lunatic. In fact, this seems to be the reason why Lewis included it as one of the three logical conclusions.

Forgive me for jumping in, but I have to ask after reading this post: how do you disagree with the way that BKB is interpreting Lewis' writings. IF the Gospels are considered legit, IF there is no way for Jesus to be mistaken; then how is this NOT a false dilemna?

Feel free to wait till BKB asks the same thing to answer. I just had to ask.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

t:

I'd like to ask you a question, and feel free to take some time to answer it.

IF Jesus truly understood the nature of G-d from a Jewish perspective; THEN do you not think that that would cause a major problem in his role of Messiah?

This may need to be moved to the Official Bible thread, but your statement made me think about this particular situation.

Absolutely not, but we need not get into it.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Forgive me for jumping in, but I have to ask after reading this post: how do you disagree with the way that BKB is interpreting Lewis' writings. IF the Gospels are considered legit, IF there is no way for Jesus to be mistaken; then how is this NOT a false dilemna?

Feel free to wait till BKB asks the same thing to answer. I just had to ask.

I'm very confused now. You've just ruled out the mistaken part. We've agreed on all the other ifs, how is it a false dilemma?

 

[muffler dragon]

I'm very confused now. You've just ruled out the mistaken part. We've agreed on all the other ifs, how is it a false dilemma?

Because, IMO, liar, lunatic, and lord aren't the only options. UNLESS I'm misunderstanding the constraints that are being put into the situation.

There are a tremendous amount of IF's that would make this into one hell of a theoretical that it really evades the nature of the question. I don't think this would be Lewis' desire. But instead, when I used to ascribe to this mantra, I took it as a matter of these are the three options ===> pick one. However, when looking at the entire spectrum of inquiry there are so many things to evaluate that it becomes a false dilemna if for no other reason than inundation of theoretical things. Does that make sense?

 

[buckeyegrad]

Forgive me for jumping in, but I have to ask after reading this post: how do you disagree with the way that BKB is interpreting Lewis' writings. IF the Gospels are considered legit, IF there is no way for Jesus to be mistaken; then how is this NOT a false dilemna?

Feel free to wait till BKB asks the same thing to answer. I just had to ask.

As I read Lewis, he is saying that if one is to read the Gospels and analyze the picture of Jesus presented in them, then there are only three logical conclusions to the analysis: liar, lunatic, or Lord. In doing this, he was not trying to show that liar and lunatic are wrong conclusions and therefore by default Jesus must be Lord (in which case one could argue a dilemna has been created). Rather, Lewis was saying that Jesus as a moral teacher, and not God, is not a logical conclusion based upon the picture of the Gospels (which of course is not to say that it is not a possible conclusion, just not a logical one) because at least by the definitions he is using the terms are mutually exclusive.

I take this to mean:

1) If Jesus is God, then he can also be a moral teacher.
2) If Jesus is a liar, then he cannot be a moral teacher because someone who lies about his identity cannot be considered moral.
3) If Jesus is a lunatic, then he cannot be a moral teacher because one should not trust the "silliness" that comes from a lunatic.

Or even more simiply, Lewis is asserting that a moral techer cannot be a liar or a lunatic, which is more of an ontological statment than anything else.

This is why I said to BKB very early on that the problem that might exist with Lewis' argument is that of definitions and not really a problem of logic.