Toto

So you found this in an article on the DANGERS OF ROCK AND ROLL? Kewl.

Lewis' argument was not meant to prove that Jesus was God. It was an argument against the popular idea of his time that Jesus was just a great moral philosopher, made by Deists and religious liberals who thought that there was some history in the Bible but rejected the supernatural aspects. Lewis wanted to deny them the comfort of appropriating Jesus as a secular figure without buying into all of Christianity.

But it is a logically unsound argument in any case.

Vinnie

Two answers:

Actually it doesn't really commit this fallacy in this sense. I believe the "liar-lunatic-lord" argument is based upon the historical reliability of the gospels. The dilemma commits gross historical errors in that it grants the historical reliability of the gospels. That entire premise is 100% inaccurate. Its a silly little bit of rhetoric aimed at the unthinking choir. Those who actually think know the gospels are not actually reliable in the sense necessary for the arument. In fact, it is contradictory in that the synoptics paint a totally different picture of Jesus than the Johannine version. Even critical Christian historians recognize this and would never be caught using such simplistic and ridiculous arguments. Tom Wright is probably the extreme if we are charitable and actually grant him status as a "critical scholar/historian" instead of "peddler of conservative xianity" which is how I view him.

In the second sense the man who thinks he's god is a lunatic by default so I have trouble distinguishing here. Christians want to say that Jesus is special case judging by the things he said and actions performed. THis brings us back to point one. What Jesus said and did need to be reconstructed as the gospels give us contradictory, creative and supernatural reports.

There is zero historical evidence Jesus ever even claimed to be God. The I am sayings and dialogues in the Gospel of John are pure fantasy and creation.

Edited to add, the fourth option is correct. Liar Lunatic, Lord or Crucified Jewish man who thought he was an agent of God.

Vinnie

collyblom

Hmm, interesting, as I've seen it used as a proof of deity in both the contexts I mentioned above. Your version makes more sense, of course....

Vinnie

Yeah, the argument has evolved somewhat out of its original context. I believe it was given in a time when gospel reliability was more fixed. Ergo, it played on accepted premises of the day. Since those views are largely deconstructed the trilemma seems especially ridiculous today.

Vinnie

Clutch

A defense of the Trilemma was offered, and was comprehensively demolished, here.

GakuseiDon

I wasn't trying to defend it so much as explain it, so I can't see how it was "demolished". I think it is logically valid, but I've never found the trilemma particularly convincing, given that the premise is that the Gospels reliably reflect the words of Jesus.

On the other hand, that's no excuse for taking it out of its context. "Legend" simply isn't a valid alternative. Toto explanation is correct. If the trilemma is going to be attacked, at least base it on its context, instead of building a strawman version of it.

Clutch

In just the way I noted on the thread.

Your defense consisted, and continues to be, that many objections to the Trilemma are strawmen because they overlook the restricted scope of Lewis' remarks -- namely, the scope of the assumption that the Gospels are correct accounts of Jesus' words and deeds.

Even within this restricted scope the argument is unsound, however, owing to a trichotomy every bit as false as that observed by critics who view the argument with a wider scope.


Indeed. You've said this several times, and it entirely misses the point. The charge of false dichotomizing (or, in general, false n-chotomizing) is not the charge of invalidity, so it's hard to see what you're defending -- or explaining. A false dichotomy fallacy typically has the valid form of Disjunctive Syllogism. It's just that the major disjunctive premise is false -- hence false dichotomy -- hence the argument is unsound.


Even within that assumption, the argument is unsound. It requires that nobody who made the frankly opaque allusions to personal divinity attributed to Jesus could count as a "great moral teacher" if the divinity claims were untrue. There is exactly zero reason to define the notion of a "great moral teacher" in this arbitrary way.

Those who consider Mahatma Gandhi a great moral teacher might decide that he'd been quirky, but would have no reason to withdraw their judgements about his moral teaching, were it to emerge that he'd told a few close followers that he considered himself an incarnation of some god.


Even within its limited scope, Lewis' argument is awful.

NobleSavage

I'll settle for lunatic.

Clutch

Feel free. Just don't suppose both that it means "not a great moral teacher" and that you can infer it from [not-liar & not-god]. Which is really what Lewis' argument requires.

Not_Registered

Collyblom, I would say that I agree with Toto and Vinnie on the original context of the argument. As most people know, context is key to understanding a statement. Yes, if you take Lewis' arguement out of context then it is completely fallible. But, it was not meant to prove Jesus was God (as Toto stated). It was an argument that didn't allow those who trusted the Bible or accepted the gospel's reliability (as Vinnie stated) to say "well Jesus was just a great man."

So, if the Bible isn't reliable to you, then the argument is not for you. It assumes that one trusts the gospel's reliability. In some math proofs, one must say "If we assume this, then this." Lewis' argument is for those who assume this (this being the gospel's reliability).

Most (maybe all) of those who believe Lewis' argument to be fallible do not accept the reliability of the gospels; therefore, the argument is not valid for them and it should be perceived as fallible. If one believes the gospels to be embellished tales of a real person or altogether completely fabricated and fictional then Lewis' argument doesn't apply to them and of course they will perceive it as incredibly fallible. As noted by Toto, the argument was directed at those who trusted the reliability of the Bible (i.e Deists, religious liberals, etc).

So many people believe this argument to be fallible because it is taken out of context. Classical physics could be looked at in the same light. Classical physics assumes certain premises (as does Lewis' argument). Classical physics isn't a fallible system, but it can't be used in place of quantum physics. Classical physics doesn't apply in the circumstances where quantum physics does apply. That doesn't make Classical physics fallible. It just must be applied with its premises in mind. The same is true for Lewis' argument.