Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Calzaer · 08-13-2003, 12:31 PM

Quote:

So you agree with the trilemma then? That Buddha, if he existed, and if he was quoted accurately, was who he said he was, or he was lying, or he was a madman?

Are you saying Buddah is equal to Jesus?

Peter Kirby · 08-13-2003, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GakuseiDon
So you agree with the trilemma then? That Buddha, if he existed, and if he was quoted accurately, was who he said he was, or he was lying, or he was a madman?

Have you ever heard of the reductio ad absurdum? Christianity and Buddhism teach doctrines that probably both can't be true. If Trilemma logic leads us to accept unique claims for both Buddha and Jesus--and Muhammad: liar, lunatic, or Prophet of God?--then I am led to suspect something wrong with the logic chopping--something that can be seen on independent grounds anyway.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby · 08-13-2003, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
Sometimes something rotten turns worse when set loose from its cultivator, especially when the tree is itself infected and the disease is an epidemic throughout the forest. Such is the case with the Trilemma. See if you can figure out who said this:

"The evidence is clearly in favor of Jesus as Lord. However, some people reject the clear evidence because of moral implications involved. There needs to be a moral honesty in the above considerations of Jesus as either a liar, lunatic or Lord and God."

Josh McDowell, popular apologist.

Quote:

Now who said this:

"The historical difficult of giving for the life, saying and influence of Jesus any explanation that is not harder than the Christian explanation is very great. The discrepancy between the depth and sanity of His moral teaching unless He is indeed God has never been satisfactorily explained. Hence the non-Christian hypotheses succeed one another with the restless fertility of bewilderment."

C. S. Lewis, arguing that Jesus was God.

Quote:

Who's responsible for this?

"This testimony, if not true, must be downright blasphemy or madness. The former hypothesis cannot stand a moment before the moral purity and dignity of Jesus, revealed in His every word and work, and acknowledged by universal consent. Self-deception in a matter so momentous, and with an intellect in all respects so clear and sound, is equally out of the question. How could He be an enthusiast or a madman who never lost the even balance of His mind, who sailed serenely over all the troubles and persecutions, as the sun above the clouds, who always returned the wisest answer to tempting questions, who calmly and deliberately predicted His death on the cross, His resurrection on the third day, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the founding of His Church, the destruction of Jerusalem--predictions which have been literally fulfilled? A character so original, so complete, so uniformly consistent, so perfect, so human and yet so high above all human greatness, can be neither a fraud nor a fiction. The poet, as has been well said, would be in this case greater than the hero. It would take more than a Jesus to invent a Jesus."

Philip Schaff, Christian historian.

Quote:

Or who does this argument belong to: "any theory of hallucination breaks down on the fact (and if it is invention it is the oddest invention that ever entered the mind of man) that on three separate occasions this hallucination was not immediately recognized as Jesus (Luke xxiv. 13-31; John xx. 15, xxi. 4). Even granting that God sent a holy hallucination to teach truths already widely belived without it, and far more easily taught by other methods, and certain to be completely obscured by this, might we not at least hope to would get the fact of the hallucination right? Is He who made all faces such a bungler that He cannot even work up a recognizable likeness of the Man who was Himself?"

Or this one: "All the accounts suggest that the appearances of the Risen Body came to an end; some describe an abrupt end six weeks after the death. . . . A phantom can just fade away, but an objective entity must go somewhere--something must happen to it."

Or who said this: "Now of course we must agree with Hume that if there is absolutely uniform experiences' against miracles, if in other words they have never happened, why then they never have. Unfortunately, we know the experience against them to be uniform only if we know that all the reports of them are false. And we can know that all the reports of them to be false only if we know already that miracles never occurred. In fact, we are arguing in a circle."

I bet you can guess this one: "The authority of experts in that discipline is the authority in deference to which we are asked to give up a huge mass of beliefs shared by the early Church, the Fathers, the Middle Ages, the Reformers, and even the nineteenth century. . . . In what is already a very old commentary I read that the Fourth Gospel is regarded by one school as a 'spiritual romance', 'a poem not a history' . . . Read the dialogues: that with the Samaritan woman at the well, or that which follows the healing of the man born blind. Look at its pictures: Jesus (if I may use the word) doodling his finger in the dust; the unforgettable 'it was night' [translated from Lewis's Greek]. I have been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this. Of the text there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage--though it may no doubt contain errors--pretty close up to the facts; nearly as close as Boswell. Or else, some unknown writer in the second century, without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern, novelistic, realistic narrative. If it is untrue, it must be narrative of that kind. The reader who doesn't see this has simply not learned to read."

Check out this argument: "There are characters whom we know to be historical but of whom we do not feel that we have any personal knowledge--knowledge by acquaintance; such are Alexander, Attila, or William of Orange. There are others who make no claim to historical reality but whom, none the less, we konw of as we know real people: Falstaff, Uncle Toby, Mr. Pickwick. But there are only three characters who, claiming the first sort of reality, also actually have the second. And surely everyone knows who they are: Plato's Socrates, the Jesus of the Gospels, and Boswell's Johnson. Our acquiantance with them shows itself in a dozen ways. When we look into the Apocryphal gospels, we find ourselves constantly saying of this or that logion, 'No. It's a fine saying, but not His. That wasn't how He talked.'--just as we do with all pseudo-Johnsonians."

This would be... "Now I do not here want to discuss whether the miraculous is possible. I only want to point out that this is a purely philosophical question. Scholars, as scholars, speak on it with no more authority than anyone else. The canon 'If miraculous, unhistorical' is one they bring to their study of the texts, not one they have learned from it. If one is speaking of authority, the united authority of all the Biblical critics in the world counts here for nothing. On this they speak simply as men; men obviously influenced by, and perhaps insufficiently critical of, the spirit of the age they grew up in."

Name that tune: "remember, the biblical critics, whatever reconstructions they devise, can never be crudely proved wrong. St. Mark is dead. When they meet St. Peter there will be more pressing matters to discuss."[/B]

All pure unadulterated Lewis.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby · 08-13-2003, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
And, as far as I know, the Buddha never claimed to get a unique insight into enlightenment, and at least some Buddhists do not consider enlightenment to be the result of supernatural inspiration.

Oh well. We can just make it up, pretend like he said it, and the argument is just as airtight.

best,
Peter Kirby

GakuseiDon · 08-14-2003, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
Yes, I understand that. But I don't see the logical contradiction between madness and great ethical teaching. The fact that offhand we can't think of any nutso ethical would not necessarily confirm Lewis' point. That point is already invalidated because we know numerous ethical thinkers who were also humans and therefore lied, as humans will.

C'mon, Vork. Lewis said it (madness vs great ethical teaching) was his *opinion*. Since when has opinion been proof of logical contradiction? Why even say it is? You know better than that. Lewis gives his opinion that a great moral teacher wouldn't be mad. I would say that empirical evidence shows that this is more correct than incorrect. And even if Jesus could be shown to have been mad, that would still confirm the Trilemma as it has been set up. Saying "man, myth, misrepresented" as you did earlier is simply irrelevent to the Trilemma as Lewis set it up. The Trilemma just sets up the options that Lewis uses to frame that part of his discussion.

Vork, I read your posts, and I can see that you (and Peter Kirby) are intelligent and insightful. I can't believe that you both are having trouble over this.

Quote:

Don, it looks like you want to argue that within the tiny little world it creates, Lewis' argument isn't flawed. Perhaps that is true. But in order to create that world, you have to accept innumerable premises (we know what Jesus said, it was all faithfully reported, liars and lunatics cannot be great moral teachers, etc) that will not hold up under scrutiny.

Vork, EXACTLY!

In my first post, I said that though I thought the Trilemma was valid, it wasn't a very important argument. It seems to be brought up more often by atheists than theists, and then only to trot out the urban myth that Lewis created the "Trilemma" to prove that Jesus was God. He didn't! In fact, someone else coined the word after Lewis had died, so he never saw his words being ripped out of context and abused the way they have been. (It makes me wonder: here we have the words of someone writing in modern English, and we have the context in which he wrote the words - yet intelligent people can STILL get it wrong. How much more difficult in analysing the words written 2000 years ago?)

The Trilemma has a number of premises that make it irrelevent to most of the discussion that goes on this board. But Lewis never intended it to. The Trilemma can be applied to any claim: George says he is a fireman. He is either telling the truth, telling a lie, or deceiving himself. Fred says he is a baker. He is either telling the truth, telling a lie, or deceiving himself. Simple, really.

Not that what Lewis intended matters. People (atheists and theists) are going to continue to bring it and talk about the Trilemma as Lewis's argument that tries to prove that Jesus was God. Just wait a few months, and someone else will bring it up.

Peter Kirby · 08-14-2003, 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GakuseiDon
It seems to be brought up more often by atheists than theists, and then only to trot out the urban myth that Lewis created the "Trilemma" to prove that Jesus was God. He didn't! In fact, someone else coined the word after Lewis had died, so he never saw his words being ripped out of context and abused the way they have been.

I'm not sure that Lewis indeed created the sentiment. A similar argument was mounted by Philip Schaff in 1910.

"This testimony, if not true, must be downright blasphemy or madness. The former hypothesis cannot stand a moment before the moral purity and dignity of Jesus, revealed in His every word and work, and acknowledged by universal consent. Self-deception in a matter so momentous, and with an intellect in all respects so clear and sound, is equally out of the question. How could He be an enthusiast or a madman who never lost the even balance of His mind, who sailed serenely over all the troubles and persecutions, as the sun above the clouds, who always returned the wisest answer to tempting questions, who calmly and deliberately predicted His death on the cross, His resurrection on the third day, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the founding of His Church, the destruction of Jerusalem--predictions which have been literally fulfilled? A character so original, so complete, so uniformly consistent, so perfect, so human and yet so high above all human greatness, can be neither a fraud nor a fiction. The poet, as has been well said, would be in this case greater than the hero. It would take more than a Jesus to invent a Jesus." (History of the Christian Church, p. 109)

Here we see again the idea that Jesus was too morally perfect to have made a false claim about his identity.

Quote:

The Trilemma has a number of premises that make it irrelevent to most of the discussion that goes on this board. But Lewis never intended it to. The Trilemma can be applied to any claim: George says he is a fireman. He is either telling the truth, telling a lie, or deceiving himself. Fred says he is a baker. He is either telling the truth, telling a lie, or deceiving himself. Simple, really.

Here's the logical form of the trilemma.

Assume that A claims X. The following disjunction holds:

1. X is true.
2. X is false, and A believes X.
3. X is false, and A does not believe X.

I think that the idea behind an argument, however, is that it can lead to a worthwhile conclusion.

Assuming the Bible to be true, there is no trilemma. The Bible teaches that Jesus is Lord, leaving only one possibility. Not assuming the Bible to be true, how can we get anywhere with all this?

Quote:

Not that what Lewis intended matters. People (atheists and theists) are going to continue to bring it and talk about the Trilemma as Lewis's argument that tries to prove that Jesus was God. Just wait a few months, and someone else will bring it up.

How do you know that Lewis didn't intend the argument to persuade people of the divinity of Jesus? See the additional Lewis quote I provided.

"The historical difficulty of giving for the life, saying and influence of Jesus any explanation that is not harder than the Christian explanation is very great. The discrepancy between the depth and sanity of His moral teaching unless He is indeed God has never been satisfactorily explained. Hence the non-Christian hypotheses succeed one another with the restless fertility of bewilderment." (Miracles: A Prelminary Study, p. 113)

In other words, Lewis maintains that it is a historical difficulty to give a satisfactory explanation about Jesus other than that He is indeed God, because of His moral teaching.

best,
Peter Kirby

GakuseiDon · 08-14-2003, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
Assuming the Bible to be true, there is no trilemma. The Bible teaches that Jesus is Lord, leaving only one possibility. Not assuming the Bible to be true, how can we get anywhere with all this?

Good point. But the Trilemma deals with what Jesus said (according to the NT) rather than on the rest of the Bible. Lewis wasn't an inerrantist anyway.

Quote:

How do you know that Lewis didn't intend the argument to persuade people of the divinity of Jesus? See the additional Lewis quote I provided.

I'm sure that the Trilemma was part of the argument. It just wasn't the whole of the argument as people seem to believe today. I'm only 'defending' the Trilemma part, by showing that it's been misunderstood and taken out of context. It's valid, but largely irrelevant, unless you've already assumed that there was a historical Jesus who said pretty much what the Gospel says He said.

Peter Kirby · 08-14-2003, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GakuseiDon
I'm only 'defending' the Trilemma part, by showing that it's been misunderstood and taken out of context. It's valid, but largely irrelevant, unless you've already assumed that there was a historical Jesus who said pretty much what the Gospel says He said.

Then the Trilemma doesn't rock. It does disco.

best,
Peter Kirby

GakuseiDon · 08-15-2003, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
Then the Trilemma doesn't rock. It does disco.

best,
Peter Kirby

Clutch · 08-15-2003, 05:31 AM

Quote:

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don, it looks like you want to argue that within the tiny little world it creates, Lewis' argument isn't flawed. Perhaps that is true. But in order to create that world, you have to accept innumerable premises (we know what Jesus said, it was all faithfully reported, liars and lunatics cannot be great moral teachers, etc) that will not hold up under scrutiny.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vork, EXACTLY!

I've explained that the trilemma does not function as an argument even granting all the hedges you suggest, Don.

It still requires two main assumptions: that claiming divine ancestry amounts to lunacy; and that lunacy precludes being a great moral teacher.

You, Don, have attempted to gloss this by suggesting that

Quote:

Lewis said it (madness vs great ethical teaching) was his *opinion*. Since when has opinion been proof of logical contradiction?

Now, which is it? Is the trilemma supposed to be an argument? In which case, every rebuttal here finds the mark. Or is it not intended to be an argument, but just a musing -- an expression of opinion? In which case, attempts to refute it are misguided... but it bears no rational force, and is shamefully abused by every apologist who presents it as bearing rational force. Choose one of these stories and stick to it, and I suspect you'll get no complaints.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.