Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clutch · 10-22-2004, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Curry then challenged me:

Curry: I defy you to show me from Lewis' statements that he makes this
argument you attribute to him. So I replied <snip> how is

[1*] A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher.

different from:

1. If Jesus were divine, he'd be a great moral teacher.

I realize that the statement is in the negative form and thus, harder to spot. What Lewis says is: [1**] if he wasn't god, he wouldn't be a great moral teacher.

Dude, you asked!

It's true that 1* can reasonably be framed as the conditional 1**. But neither is equivalent to 1. The conditional negated form (ie, the contrapositive) of

If A then B

is

If not-B then not-A.

It is not "If not-A then not-B".

(There are other things that negating "If A then B" might amount to, eg, "A or not-B"; but none of these equivalences gets you from 1* to 1 either.)

Vorkosigan · 10-22-2004, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clutch

Dude, you asked!

It's true that 1* can reasonably be framed as the conditional 1**. But neither is equivalent to 1. The conditional negated form (ie, the contrapositive) of

If A then B

is

If not-B then not-A.

It is not "If not-A then not-B".

(There are other things that negating "If A then B" might amount to, eg, "A or not-B"; but none of these equivalences gets you from 1* to 1 either.)

I knew you just couldn't resist saying something! Gotta disagree. The logic here is not symbolic but rhetorical. Your analysis is completely correct, but doesn't really apply to what Lewis is attempting to get the reader to do.

Clutch · 10-22-2004, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

I knew you just couldn't resist saying something! Gotta disagree. The logic here is not symbolic but rhetorical. Your analysis is completely correct, but doesn't really apply to what Lewis is attempting to get the reader to do.

I agree. But I wasn't talking about Lewis. I was just answering the question you asked: What's the diff between this thing and that thing? Answer: Totally different claims, with different truth-conditions. The thing is, they're not the tightest expressions of Lewis's rhetoric -- which, when you go on to consider it, you nail informally.

Atheos · 10-25-2004, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Wonderer

Hi. I usually don't get into the religious discussions but this is an area that interests me. For my own understanding, perhaps you could explain why the passages that you quote leave us little choice but to accept his various means of claiming that he was equal with God.

Remember, the claim is that he is equal with God. Merely claiming special powers is not enough; he could be a magician or simply somebody who is so righteous that God has granted him special powers.

Matthew 7:21 - "Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of the father which is in heaven"

The plain meaning of this (to me) is simply "you can't just worship me, you have to follow my teachings and the will of the Father to get to heaven." This is the opposite of claiming that he is equal to God. The Father is in heaven, Jesus is here on earth. Two different entities. (If you want to call "Trinity", please show Jesus using that term.)

What is really strange to me is that Christianity as practiced seems to be following the exact opposite of Jesus' advice. Where did "faith, not works" come from?

Matthew 7:22-23 - " Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

Not suprisingly, this verse means the same thing as it follows directly from 7:21. Look at the next verse: Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock. This is the opposite of "I'm God, worship me and good things happen;" it is "live your life the way that God wants you to and good things happen."

Matthew 9:1-6, Jesus forgives the sins of a man with palsy. Then he proves that he has divine power to forgive sins by healing the man of the palsy.

The "sin of palsy?" I don't see that one in my list of seven deadlies. Anyway, look at what Jesus claims: But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. So Jesus claims that he has been granted powers. Not the same as claiming that he is equal to God.

Matthew 9:18 - "While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live." (Would Jesus have accepted WORSHIP if he didn't think he was God?)
See Matthew 7:21, which you quoted. Perhaps lots of people thought that when they worshipped Jesus they were worshipping God, but he explicitly says otherwise.

Now, what did Jesus actually say about the healing? But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour. Is that "worship me and I will cure you?"

Matthew 10:37 - "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

Let's go back two verses: But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. . Is the speaker claiming to be the same as God?

All that 10:37 says to me is that you must love God's messenger more than your relatives; certainly doesn't say to me that the messenger is the same as God.

Anyway, just my thoughts. If you could explain where I am wrong to you that would help me to understand your thinking.

Thanks!

hw

Each of these examples show an essential difference in interpretation between us. Of course this also shows how futile it is when well-meaning christians attempt to use the Bible as "proof". The question is, "Proof of WHAT?!?". It really depends on how you interpret the text. I once believed that these passages (and others) taught Jesus's divinity. I believed the connection was as obvious as the proverbial turd in the punchbowl. I realize now that it is all a bunch of hooey. I think it's a shame that people devote so much energy and effort to reading and trying to understand it today. But if that's how they want to spend their lives, so be it.

HW, you make some good points and perhaps I was wrong. I've long since accepted how wrong I was for many years believing all this hooey in the first place. To me the bible lived and died as a unit, every word from Genesis to Revelation. There was no happier day in my life than when I chucked the whole thing out the window.

Respectfully, I'm sorry but I'm not disposed to try to defend my hermeneutic, as I no longer really have one, other than to believe that it's a sad waste of human effort and otherwise useful scholarship to continue studying these passages and trying to find truth in them. As you and I have so successfully demonstrated, there is no truth therin. Only confusion as to how to interpret.

Best regards...

Atheos

Bumble Bee Tuna · 10-25-2004, 08:50 AM

I'm still not seeing what's wrong with saving the trouble and just saying he left out "Legend".

Diogenes the Cynic · 10-25-2004, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

Doesn't make any sense to me. If one believes that the disciples really added things, why even believe that the moral teachings originated with Jesus? Only because the teachings agree with what one already believes to be "right", or what?

Are you familiar with the Common Sayings theories and methods for differenting "authentic" sayings from inauthentic ones? There are any number of criteria which can be used to isolate sayings which have a greater probability of orignating with HJ from those which have little or no probability.

John is widely regarded as the least historical of all the gospels, particularly with regard to the sayings of Jesus. The "I am" speech has no independent attestation and there is no shred of any tradition prior to John that Jesus ever claimed to be God. The earlier you go in the sayings traditions, the less "divine" Jesus becomes.

There are some quite rational and defensible critcal reasons for concluding that certain quotations attributed to Jesus (most of them, in fact) are not authentic. Declaring that a critic must accept all or none of the quotations attributed to Jesus in the gospels is just as unfounded as saying we must accept all or none of the Bible itself. There is no such dilemma. That's just another fallacy.

Quote:

Muslims accept the basic story of Jesus, including the virgin birth and the crucifiction, but still see Jesus as a prophet who was misunderstood, and not God incarnate.

Looks equally inconsistent to me.

How so?

Koyaanisqatsi · 10-25-2004, 12:42 PM

Well, although I have no problem with "liar," "legend" is, indeed, the only possible correct answer to be gleaned from any of these stories, whether offered by Lewis as a choice, or not. It would be impossible for any single author to have heard everything that Jesus said and written it down on the spot verbatim (i.e., in any journalistic sense), so already we know that we don't have (and never have had) any direct quotes from Jesus. We can only say (at best) "sayings attributed to Jesus." And that means "legend."

Factor in the style of the day and the nature of the cult and the fact that there are certain sections where Jesus is supposed to be alone in the desert talking to the devil and the like and one can only conclude "legend." I prefer the word "myth," of course, but I'm being generous.

This is, of course, why some authors (and subsequent apologists) had to claim that their words were "inspired" by god; to answer the obvious objection that they could not have possibly been either witness to or writing down actual quotes in any historically meaningful way. These stories cannot be anything other than legend, even if written one year or ten years after Jesus' alleged death, unless, as I mentioned, the author had carried around a pad of papyrus with him at the time. If I am following around some guy in the Ozark mountains, let's say, and then ten years later I write down what I remember him saying, then I am not writing down what he actually said; merely what I can recall from memory.

And that is, ipso facto, nothing more than hearsay, which is just a non-literary word for "legend."

So...question answered. Puzzle solved.

Atheos · 10-25-2004, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bumble Bee Tuna

I'm still not seeing what's wrong with saving the trouble and just saying he left out "Legend".

Agreed. As others have eloquently pointed out this is a classic "false dilemma" argument. There are many other alternatives to lunatic, liar or lord.

-Atheos

Clutch · 10-25-2004, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bumble Bee Tuna

I'm still not seeing what's wrong with saving the trouble and just saying he left out "Legend".

GD's point -- a good one, as far as it goes -- is that this answer misses the point of Lewis's argument on at least some of its phrasings (since CSL gives similar reasoning in various places).

Suppose the argument is this: People shouldn't say, "I accept that Jesus was a wise man on the basis of his words* as given in the gospels, but not that he was divine", because when you look at what Jesus says about his divinity, he must have been either lying, or crazy, or correct -- and each of these three options is inconsistent with the quoted position.

Then to say, "What about legend?" is to get the argument wrong, since Lewis is clearly addressing himself to people who accept a historical Jesus who said at least most of what's attributed to him.

But it turns out to be a false trilemma anyhow, since options like "mistaken", "eccentrically grandiose", or "possessing a recherche human-involving theology" are all left out, and are all clearly distinct from the three options listed by Lewis.

* ... excluding the words supposedly uttered post-resurrection -- or else the position becomes the trivially false, "I accept everything the NT says but don't believe that Jesus was divine".

Diogenes the Cynic · 10-25-2004, 04:21 PM

Lewis still doesn't account for the possibility that Jesus said the "wise" things attributed to him but that he didn't say the "crazy" things. Ut is perfectly rational to accept some but not all of the sayings as authentic.

But as others have said, even if his false premises were accepted, his conclusions are still not warranted. The very words "liar" and "lunatic" are strawman caricatures, not genuine paradigms. What is a "lunatic?" is anyone with any mental illness a "lunatic?" Is anyone who has ever had any kind of psychotic experience a "madman," and is that all they are? can they really be reduced to a one dimensional label and dismissed out of hand? What nonsense.

I find Lewis to be exceptionally overrated as a philosopher. He seems to be revered by the converted for some reason but Mere Christianity is just a catalogue of logical fallacies, lame demagoguery, veiled insults against anyone who believes any differently from him and rank sentimentalism masquerading as argument.

As a fantacist he was fair to middling (although he still wasn't a hair on Tolkien's ass) but as a philosopher/theologian he was little more than a self-important blowhard.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-25-2004, 08:50 AM	#45
Bumble Bee Tuna Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Middletown, CT Posts: 7,333	I'm still not seeing what's wrong with saving the trouble and just saying he left out "Legend".

10-25-2004, 12:42 PM	#47
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	Well, although I have no problem with "liar," "legend" is, indeed, the only possible correct answer to be gleaned from any of these stories, whether offered by Lewis as a choice, or not. It would be impossible for any single author to have heard everything that Jesus said and written it down on the spot verbatim (i.e., in any journalistic sense), so already we know that we don't have (and never have had) any direct quotes from Jesus. We can only say (at best) "sayings attributed to Jesus." And that means "legend." Factor in the style of the day and the nature of the cult and the fact that there are certain sections where Jesus is supposed to be alone in the desert talking to the devil and the like and one can only conclude "legend." I prefer the word "myth," of course, but I'm being generous. This is, of course, why some authors (and subsequent apologists) had to claim that their words were "inspired" by god; to answer the obvious objection that they could not have possibly been either witness to or writing down actual quotes in any historically meaningful way. These stories cannot be anything other than legend, even if written one year or ten years after Jesus' alleged death, unless, as I mentioned, the author had carried around a pad of papyrus with him at the time. If I am following around some guy in the Ozark mountains, let's say, and then ten years later I write down what I remember him saying, then I am not writing down what he actually said; merely what I can recall from memory. And that is, ipso facto, nothing more than hearsay, which is just a non-literary word for "legend." So...question answered. Puzzle solved.

10-25-2004, 04:21 PM	#50
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Lewis still doesn't account for the possibility that Jesus said the "wise" things attributed to him but that he didn't say the "crazy" things. Ut is perfectly rational to accept some but not all of the sayings as authentic. But as others have said, even if his false premises were accepted, his conclusions are still not warranted. The very words "liar" and "lunatic" are strawman caricatures, not genuine paradigms. What is a "lunatic?" is anyone with any mental illness a "lunatic?" Is anyone who has ever had any kind of psychotic experience a "madman," and is that all they are? can they really be reduced to a one dimensional label and dismissed out of hand? What nonsense. I find Lewis to be exceptionally overrated as a philosopher. He seems to be revered by the converted for some reason but Mere Christianity is just a catalogue of logical fallacies, lame demagoguery, veiled insults against anyone who believes any differently from him and rank sentimentalism masquerading as argument. As a fantacist he was fair to middling (although he still wasn't a hair on Tolkien's ass) but as a philosopher/theologian he was little more than a self-important blowhard.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.