= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
r_claypool comments on Book trades with open-minded theists - recommendations? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (70)
Lewis doesn't argue that the trilemma proves Jesus was God - he uses it to dismiss the wishy-washy agnostic position of "Well, Jesus was a great moral teacher, and worthy of respect, so whether he was God or not doesn't matter."
Lewis' position is "No, hang on a minute, this is someone who's spouting moral platitudes that everyone already agrees with, not anything new as far as the morals go. But he's also claiming to be God - he's saying, over and over again, that he is God. That leaves only three options, really - either he's actually God, or he's a liar, or he's deluded. Whatever he was, he wasn't an exceptionally decent human being, so get off the fence."
I just want to say thank you for pointing this out. I used to think the trilemma was a terrible argument, but your interpretation reduces my criticism.
Still it's worth noting that Lewis assumed the gospels accurate. He missed an obvious fourth alternative: That Jesus was misquoted and misunderstood.
Lord, Liar, Lunatic, Legend. I'm not a full-blown mythicist, but I think it's very likely Jesus life and sayings were embellished by others.
A fifth alternative: Lord, Liar, Lunatic, Legend, or Just Plain Wrong. It's amazing that the simplest explanations -- that someone might simply be mistaken, that they might have sanely and honestly misinterpreted the data -- gets so completely ignored and erased.
Yeah, but 'Just Plain Wrong' is how I would describe thinking Hawaii is in the Caribbean; It's not how I would describe having followers that think you are God in flesh.
The question is whether it's possible to simply be mistaken about having divine powers, without having an underlying mental disorder. And clearly the answer is 'yes;' and clearly this possibility has a higher prior probability than 'Jesus is Lord.' So neglecting the option is unconscionable, and is where the trilemma gets nearly all of its plausibility as an argument for Christianity.
Suppose a few really unlikely events happened, and caused everyone around you to think you were the messiah and/or divine. Would it be inconceivable, barring true insanity or deliberate deception, to come to think oneself the messiah and/or divine? Do you think that every psychic, every cult leader, is either (independently) insane or deliberately lying? It just ain't so; self-deception is stronger than that.
That reminds me of Yvain's 'The Last Temptation of Christ'
True, but again that works for Lewis' argument - if our only sources on him are incorrect, then you still have no basis for saying "Well, he was a specially decent human who did good things..."
Lewis is one of the few religious apologists for whom I have any time, because he at least tried to make decent arguments, and wasn't interested in convincing people by fraud.