Vorkosigan

So in other words, if you accept that Christ existed ("I believe he was a great moral teacher" presumes that Jesus existed), and if you accept that the gospels accurately record his teachings (the claim that Christ is a good moral teacher is based upon his teachings as recorded in the gospels) then do not deny that he is God.

Lewis' is working another one of his fallacious "If A, then B, we have B, so A must be true" arguments. He loves this argument form, because it seems deep, even though it is stupid.

It runs:

1. If Jesus were divine, he'd be a great moral teacher.
2. Jesus is a great moral teacher.
CON: Therefore he is Divine.

All of Lewis' premises here contain deep flaws -- Jesus could be divine but incompetent (he's certainly not a great moral teacher, and liars could easily be great moral teachers. Indeed, since all great moral teachers were humans, I assume that, like other humans, they told lies. So the simple fact that great moral leaders were humans destroys Lewis' thesis even if you accept his premises.

Even if you assume that the gospels (which gospels, Lewis does not say) accurately record his life and deeds, there is no reason to accept the Trilemma. Lewis remains a pompous lightweight, Josh McDowell with better diction.

Michael

Pomp

turtonm,

Lewis remains a pompous lightweight...

Hey!

Malaclypse the Younger

It is possible for a person to be sometimes rational and sometimes not--indeed it could be argued that everyone is like that. Finding a person irrational in one respect certainly makes me a bit more skeptical about the rest of her statements, but it does not automatically invalidate them. Of course since I believe that everyone (including myself, as well as the writers of the gospels and the characters therein) is sometimes irrational, I'm skeptical of everyone.

Indeed, in the trilemma, Lewis seems to be arguing a reverse ad hominem: If you believe statment X (moral teaching) is true, you must believe that statement Y (I am God) is true. But this is an obvious logical fallacy. Even the biggest fool in the world can say the sun appears to rises in the East; one does not have to disbelieve this statement or disbelieve he is a fool.

[ March 18, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

Vorkosigan

LOL

Jon Curry

What you need to recognize is that in deduction, premises are known through induction. The premises that form deductive arguments are almost never logically necessary. So what Lewis is saying is that generally speaking people that make up huge lies and deceive people into believing them are not good moral teachers. Yes, maybe Jesus said some good things. Love your neighbor as yourself is pretty good. But if it is true that Jesus lied about what was central to his teachings, then I wouldn't consider him a lofty man. That's a very reasonable position.

Hey PB. You know what. I think it was your "Social Contract Theory" post that really drove me out of here for a while. I was so disgusted that people here could hold to ethical theories that allowed for the killing of children as old as 7 and 8 that I just decided that I needed a break from you people. Do you still hold to that ethical position?

Again, my comments above regarding deduction are applicable here. Generally speaking, anybody that claims to be God that in fact is not God is either a liar or a lunatic in my view. What do you honestly think of someone that actually thinks they have good reasons to think they are God? Do you really think they aren't a lunatic?

Again, this is a HUGE lie. Thousands of people have died horrific deaths for this lie. If Jesus is a liar, in my view he is not a great moral teacher. You're right that this is somewhat of a subjective claim. But in your subjective opinion if Jesus was lying about this claim, would you still think he was a good moral teacher? Maybe you would, but let's not act like Lewis is being completely unreasonable when he says that he doesn't think this lying Jesus is a good moral teacher.

I defy you to show me from Lewis' statements that he makes this argument you attribute to him.

You only damage your own credibility with these type of statements. And given your inability to read demonstrated by you attributing to Lewis an argument he never made, I really don't think you're competent to say this. Do you think any Christians are smart? I assume you don't. People are idiots by virtue of being Christians. This only reveals your own lack of objectivity. Some Christians are smart. Others are not. If you can't recognize this, then you're just too far gone to ever be objective about these matters. Ask bd-from-kg (who in my opinion is one of the smartest agnostics on these boards) whether Lewis is a "pompous lightweight."

Another laughable misrepresentation of Lewis' argument. I defy you to show me how it is that Lewis has made this obviously fallacious argument.

Pomp

Jon Curry,

First, on your absence:

Hey PB. You know what. I think it was your "Social Contract Theory" post that really drove me out of here for a while. I was so disgusted that people here could hold to ethical theories that allowed for the killing of children as old as 7 and 8 that I just decided that I needed a break from you people. Do you still hold to that ethical position?

Well. I'm not sure if I should be offended of flattered. Yes, I am still a (somewhat loose) contractarian. Your objection to my position in that thread seems rather odd to me, as I described no less than four different reasons why a contractarian would extend protection to such children. If you'd like to discuss it further, I'm always happy to participate in a thread on contract theory.

Generally speaking, anybody that claims to be God that in fact is not God is either a liar or a lunatic in my view. What do you honestly think of someone that actually thinks they have good reasons to think they are God? Do you really think they aren't a lunatic?

That would depend on how you wanted to define lunatic. Lewis (or any trilemma advocate, for that matter) doesn't bother getting specific with the definition. In a broad sense, of course I think that someone claiming to be god must be a lunatic. If I'm allowed to define "lunatic" so broady, though, I also think that anyone who believes in a god is a lunatic. Neither position (there is a god or I am god) can be falsified and I consider people who hold unfalsifiable beliefs to be irrational with respect to those positions. The only significant difference is that one belief is socially sanctioned and the other is not (well, it wasn't at the time, anyway). If you want to recast the argument with a more specific definition of "lunatic" I'd be happy to address it.


Again, this is a HUGE lie. Thousands of people have died horrific deaths for this lie. If Jesus is a liar, in my view he is not a great moral teacher.

DO you or do you not believe that the spread of Christian morality is a good thing? Do you think that it would have spread so quickly without the belief in its divine origin?

You're right that this is somewhat of a subjective claim. But in your subjective opinion if Jesus was lying about this claim, would you still think he was a good moral teacher?

My opinion is irrelevant, as I don't consider the character of Jesus, as portrayed in the four Gospels, to be a "great moral teacher," or even a "good moral teacher." Even if I did consider him as such, his moral teachings should be considered on their own merit, not on his supposed authority as the incarnation of Yahweh.

Maybe you would, but let's not act like Lewis is being completely unreasonable when he says that he doesn't think this lying Jesus is a good moral teacher.

I never said he was "completely unreasonable." He just doesn't make a strong enough case to allow him to conclude that Jesus was divine. It would be more extraordinary, in the eyes of the skeptic, for a man to be a god than for a "great moral teacher" to lie. The less extraordinary option is the most likely.

His "argument" isn't really aimed at the skeptic, anyway, as you have noted. Lewis, like many apologists, was preaching to the choir, and only the choir takes him seriously.

Jon Curry

If I remember right, you allow for the protection of some children in some cases. We're just so far apart I don't think we could make any progress. I though bd-from-kg's reply was right on target, and better than anything I could write. I couldn't refute you any better than he did.

Don't you think that a person that believes he is the eternal creator of the universe (and in fact is not) is just a little more of a lunatic than someone that happens to believe in the existence of God. I know lots of pretty smart people that are Christians. I've never heard of anybody that thinks he is God (or Jesus) that is not quite a bit more deranged than the smart Christians I know. Smart skeptics write entire books in refutation of Christians. They don't spend much time on people that think they are God. They don't spend much time on others that we all agree are lunatics. I think you being a little to nit-picky here. It is obvious that people that claim to be divine are just a little more looney that most Christians.

Generally speaking, I don't consider people who offer huge lies in order to build themselves up good moral teachers or moral examples. Suppose George Washington is really a murdering thuggish rapist, but he deceived everyone into thinking he was a good guy. This false image caused good in others. If I discover the truth, I don't consider Washington to be a good man, despite the fact that this has promoted good in others.

Well, you're right that he could possibly teach good things and yet lie about his deity. But keep in mind the target of this brief paragraph from Lewis. He's talking to your basic wishy washy Christian that wants to say that Jesus is great so he can fit in with the crowd, but doesn't want to go so far as to say what all those fundamentalists say. But wait a second. If he's a liar, why do you want to put him on this pedestal? Why do you want to even act like he's somebody to emulate? He's a liar. Let's not make him into this great example. Now maybe somebody would want to claim that he is a good moral teacher and he is also a liar or a lunatic. I suppose that is fine. But this is not what a lot of people say. They want to act like they respect him. They want to say good things about him. But they want to deny his claims, which makes him either a liar or a lunatic. They don't recognize that their view entails this. This needs to be pointed out.

Actually, he is very much taken seriously. Don't rely on people such as those in this thread to tell you Lewis's arguments. They obviously can't represent the man fairly.

[ March 19, 2002: Message edited by: Jon Curry ]</p>

Pomp

Jon,

If I remember right, you allow for the protection of some children in some cases.

I allow for the protection of all children in all circumstances. My brand of contractarianism doesn't disallow protecting children in any sense. I think your objection is really that the theory doesn't mandate such protection, but leaves it up to the hypothetical (or actual, in the case of political contract theory) negotiaters of the contract. As I stated on the other thread, in my view the negotiaters will extend protection to such children, but other interpretations of contract theory may vary from mine. Further, as I also explained, such children ought to be considered full participatins negotiaters (persons, IOW) in most cases.

At any rate, this is not a thread about contract theory.

I think you being a little to nit-picky here. It is obvious that people that claim to be divine are just a little more looney that most Christians.

As I said, come up with a more specific term than "looney" and we'll talk.

Actually, he is very much taken seriously. Don't rely on people such as those in this thread to tell you Lewis's arguments. They obviously can't represent the man fairly.

Taken seriously by whom? The wishy-washy Christians to whom his writings are addressed or philosophers?

You didn't address my most important point, that Lewis' argument fails to make a case convincing enough to establish his conclusion, because the notion that a man could be the incarnation of a god is more incredible than the notion that a man could lie or be a "lunatic" and still make valid moral statements. Do you agree with this position?

Malaclypse the Younger

Jon Curry

I will grant you this. However this is the most obvious of Lewis's horns.

I won't speak for PB, but I am a fellow subjectivist. Are you disgusted with people who believe the laws of physics that allow for the killing in children as old as 7 and 8?

The subjectivist notes two facts: That he himself does not allow the killing of children, and that some people do allow it. He seeks to resolve that situation without ignoring the facts. Regardless of any abstract theory of moral objectivism, it is known that it is logically possible for people to choose to kill children--it is irrelevent whether objective morals do not exist, or if they exist and some people choose to ignore them.

Look at it the other way. Suppose morals were objective, and it was objectively true that it was necessary to kill some seven-year-old children. As an objectivist, would you accept such a conclusion? As a subjectivist, I would not. Even if true, I would reject such a finding as intolerable to my conscience.

To claim that objective moral facts could not possibly shock your conscience is to simply declare that objectivism and subjectivism are identical and indistinguishable.

Further comment will have to wait until late tomorrow or early the next day.

MadMordigan

So what Lewis is saying is that generally speaking people that make up huge lies and deceive people into believing them are not good moral teachers. Yes, maybe Jesus said some good things. Love your neighbor as yourself is pretty good. But if it is true that Jesus lied about what was central to his teachings, then I wouldn't consider him a lofty man

Like Lewis, you are purposefully confounding the meanings of 'great moral teacher'.

Regardless, we can think of many examples of people who lied about what was central to their teaching. Thomas Jefferson does not cease to be admirable because he owned slaves. We don't ignore the courage of the Spirit of St. Louis because its pilot was a Nazi sympathizer. People can still be 'lofty men' even if they cheat on their taxes. The briliance of a Patton is not dimished because he happened to believe he was a reincarnated Roman.