The Christian Trilemma
In this post, I want to address the classic C.S. Lewis' argument for Jesus being lord. For context, C.S. Lewis famously articulates the following argument for Jesus being God:
1. Jesus was either a lunatic, a liar, or lord
2. Jesus wasn’t a liar or a lunatic
3. Therefore, Jesus must be lord
Something about this argument has always seemed a bit dissatisfactory to me. I feel like the argument just isn’t sufficient for supporting Jesus’ lordship. For instance, it seems like Lewis is really presenting a dilemma: either Jesus is God, or Jesus is not God (either P or ~P). If Jesus were a liar or a lunatic, he would not be God (~P). If he wasn’t lying, and he wasn’t crazy, then he must be God (P). In this structure, it’s true that Jesus is either God or not God - but inferring his lordship solely based on the possibility that he wasn’t lying or crazy seems to be leaving out some other possible explanations. Granted, it doesn’t seem like the historical Jesus was a liar or crazy, as his actions do seem morally perfect. Jesus’ legacy revolutionized the moral understanding of humanity, and his being God isn’t required for a teacher to have that effect on people. Perhaps the Jesus story is a legend intended to instruct, or perhaps Jesus was a human being who participated in divinity through his example without being God himself.
In other words, I worry that Jesus’ divinity isn’t secured by Lewis’ deduction. I feel like, at best, the argument gets us to this conclusion instead: The person of Jesus was morally good. The person of Jesus was participating in divinity, although he may not be divine in nature and origin.
I can’t yet make the jump from Jesus’ benevolent nature to his being God based on Lewis’ argument alone. Does anyone here have a revision to the Trilemma, one that better links the historical Jesus to a divine one and provides a clearer reason as to why I should believe in Jesus’ lordship instead of only Jesus’ benevolent nature?
1. Jesus was either a lunatic, a liar, or lord
2. Jesus wasn’t a liar or a lunatic
3. Therefore, Jesus must be lord
Something about this argument has always seemed a bit dissatisfactory to me. I feel like the argument just isn’t sufficient for supporting Jesus’ lordship. For instance, it seems like Lewis is really presenting a dilemma: either Jesus is God, or Jesus is not God (either P or ~P). If Jesus were a liar or a lunatic, he would not be God (~P). If he wasn’t lying, and he wasn’t crazy, then he must be God (P). In this structure, it’s true that Jesus is either God or not God - but inferring his lordship solely based on the possibility that he wasn’t lying or crazy seems to be leaving out some other possible explanations. Granted, it doesn’t seem like the historical Jesus was a liar or crazy, as his actions do seem morally perfect. Jesus’ legacy revolutionized the moral understanding of humanity, and his being God isn’t required for a teacher to have that effect on people. Perhaps the Jesus story is a legend intended to instruct, or perhaps Jesus was a human being who participated in divinity through his example without being God himself.
In other words, I worry that Jesus’ divinity isn’t secured by Lewis’ deduction. I feel like, at best, the argument gets us to this conclusion instead: The person of Jesus was morally good. The person of Jesus was participating in divinity, although he may not be divine in nature and origin.
I can’t yet make the jump from Jesus’ benevolent nature to his being God based on Lewis’ argument alone. Does anyone here have a revision to the Trilemma, one that better links the historical Jesus to a divine one and provides a clearer reason as to why I should believe in Jesus’ lordship instead of only Jesus’ benevolent nature?
Comments (12)
It depends on how much of the Gospel you accept.
The gospels were written many years, sometimes decades after the claimed events by anonymous sources. Once oral traditions, the accounts come to us as copies of translations of copies of translations. The New Testament is essentially Jesus fan fiction.
Quoting tryhard
Perhaps -
1. Jesus is a character in an old book of collected myths.
2. Jesus may have been based on someone who lived but this is uncertain
3. Therefore, we can't say anything substantive about Jesus as a historic figure.
So what we come back to is not argument as such but the presuppositions which inform the argument. I regard the gospel stories as a set of manufactured myths, perhaps based on a real person. Lewis seems to regard the gospels as fact.
According to the Gospels, also as I recall, such a statement is made by Jesus only in the Gospel of John. That's the last of the (orthodox) Gospels. The others, supposedly by Matthew, Mark and Luke, make no mention of any such claim being made by Jesus.
A reasonable person might infer that the Gospel of John was, in this sense, less than accurate. Why wouldn't this be noted in the other, earlier Gospels? Did Matthew, Mark and Luke forget he said he was God? Did they think that the fact he said he was God was unimportant? It's more likely he never said such a thing--that's the weight of the evidence, such as it is.
But Lewis was an apologist, not a reasonable person.
:up:
- the planet earth is flat, because those who believed it was flat weren’t lunatics, nor liars;
- the ancient Egyptian Pharaoh was truly a God, because he wasn’t lunatic, nor liar;
- Hitler was right in all his thoughts and actions, because he wasn’t lunatic, nor liar;
- it is true that God does and does not exist at the same time, because both atheists and believers are not lunatic, nor liars;
- everything is true, no matter if it conflicts with anything else, provided that at least somebody not lunatic nor liar sometime believed it was true;
- we don’t need to make any scientific research in this world: what we need is just being persuaded that something is true, provided that we are not lunatic, nor liars. It doesn’t matter if our ideas conflict with each other, nor with reality: what is important is just not being lunatic, nor liar;
We need just some creativity to realize the funniest consequences of Lewis’ argument.
Jesus was either Liar, Lunatic or Lord!
Feynman's dilemma
[quote=Richard Feynman]Anyone who claims to understand quantum theory is either lying (Liar) or crazy (Lunatic),[/quote]
:snicker:
False trichotomy. Jesus was also either misquoted or a fictional character. :halo:
Yeah, these are some of the other possibilities which Lewis (conveniently) fails to take measures against. It's just how the game is played I suppose.
1. The Gospels are not fully factual narratives. Jesus could be fully fictional or his actions and claims could have been edited.
2. You can be sane, not trying to be deceptive (lying), and still be wrong about something. Granted, in the case of Christ, this line seems less relevant, because we tend to associate claims of divinity with insanity. That said, it is a common fallacy to see claims or actions that the majority of one era views as insane, as denoting insanity in anyone who ever made those claims or actions. We would call most people who think they can work magical spells today insane, but history shows us lots of rational, intelligent people who believed they could work magic. This is the result of the status of science and philosophy in the eras they lived in, not insanity. Same goes for terrorists. We'd like to assume that anyone who would carry out indiscriminate mass casualty attacks is somehow insane, but research on terrorists shows that they are often rational, and in some cases even the most violent groups are also shrewd political actors.
Just a bit? :smile: It's one of these shallow and unfounded argumentation schemes one comes upon each now and then. In (1), Jesus could be much more things than just those three and (2) is totally arbitrary and unfounded: how can one know that?
But what strikes me here is that Lewis is said to have a great mathematical mind and he is known for his logical implications and extrapolations. Which leads me to believe that either the above argumentation is not his (quotes attributed to wrong persons is not something uncommon) or he presented the above scheme as a bad example of argumentation!
Compare the above with the following plausible argumentation scheme, which I just made up, using the same historical context:
1. Mary being a virgin when she conceived Jesus is true or a lie.
2. Human parthenogenesis can occur but it cannot result in the birth of a child.
(2a. Jesus was born as a healthy child and has grown up as a healthy person, according to the Bible.)
3. Therefore, Mary being a virgin when she conceived Jesus is a lie.
In (1), there cannot be some other case than true or a lie and (2) is based on scientific data. (2a) is not necessary but it completes the whole argument better.)