Letter from Carter Askren
Hi. A professor of critical thinking was telling me that C.S. Lewis’ comment to the effect of, “either Jesus was who he said he was or he was a liar or a lunatic,” is a false dichotomy and therefore illogical. I disagree, but can’t really articulate why. Liar or lunatic do seem like reasonable possibilities, but I suppose one could try to make the argument that C.S Lewis was mistaken and that could be another possibility. If false dichotomy is the presentation of conclusions that may not necessarily be all of the possible conclusions, then perhaps that was what the professor was trying to argue? I disagree with the idea that Jesus was mistaken, but I was trying to understand how someone might argue that such a statement from Jesus was illogical. And then, of course, we can remember that we are to be “fools for Christ” and that may mean standing by a position even when it is not popular—or “logical.” Thank you for your help.
Carter,
In “Mere Christianity” C.S. Lewis says, “I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”
When interpreting what someone ways – like C.S. Lewis – it is best to interpret them in the best possible light. It is likely that Lewis understood that an alternative to “liar or lunatic” was “mistaken.” Lewis’ likely intention in this paragraph from “Mere Christianity” was to point out that this third alternative, “Jesus was a wise but mistaken human being,” is not reasonable given that Jesus claimed to be God. Lewis wasn’t committing an “either-or” fallacy because he addresses the alternatives, and rejects them. An either-or fallacy ignores the alternatives.
Copyright December 13, 2007, all rights reserved. 16550 views
1 • arendtian • June 28, 2008 • 4:43 AM
Ignoring the possibility that the claims of Jesus are grossly misrepresented in the bible or (far more problematically) something like Jesus didn’t exist ... why couldn’t someone who was deluded be a great moral teacher?
If I am not mistaken, Copi uses that particular quote as an example of a false Dichotomy.
2 • nbluedorn • June 28, 2008 • 8:54 AM
You ask “Why couldn’t someone who was deluded be a great moral teacher?” It might help us out if you could answer this question.
3 • Pop Guru • July 14, 2008 • 5:36 PM
I believe CS Lewis is guilty of a false dichotomy because there are alternatives that are not discussed. One of these is that perhaps Jesus didn’t claim to be the son of god and that the claim was attributed to him when the Gospels were written, which was after his death.
4 • Ron Lopez, RN • July 18, 2008 • 11:21 PM
“deluded” Verb: delude di’lood. 1. Be false to; be dishonest with.
A person who is dishonest or false, is, be their own state of dishonesty or falsity, incapable of moral teaching. No deluded person is capable of being concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles. Moral teaching is concerned with exactly these things. This is why someone who was deluded could not at the same time be any kind of moral teacher, let along a great one.
5 • A Heartthrob in Disguise • August 14, 2008 • 4:15 PM
a) I agree with Pop Guru here. We have NOTHING that was actually written by Jesus himself and PG’s view is a common one.
b)Also, you say that being delusional on one point, however unrelated, disqualifies you from teaching morality. I guess that disqualifies John Calvin and Martin Luther, who were deluded by the antisemitism of the time (read “The Jews and their lies” or John Calvin’s quote “The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows, seven times higher than ordinary thieves”), from teaching morality at all.
As an afterthought, if this is a Catholic Site, I guess naming two reformers doesn’t do anything for the argument.
6 • rudy diaz • August 15, 2008 • 4:15 PM
In case someone has not replied to 1 and 3 above I’d like to put in my two cents worth.
To claim that Jesus’ claims of deity were added after his death by the gospel writers renders the entire gospel record useless. His claims of deity are embedded throughout his ministry.
If you check the Old Testament, the only Being with the ability to read thoughts, forgive sins against God, alter the weather by His own will, raise the dead by His own will is God. Then the gospel of John is replete with claims of unique access to God the Father.
So if you were to go through and remove all the actions recorded that even hint at Him being divine you’d end up with a meaningless skeleton of a narrative.
So much of it would be false, why would we even believe a Jesus existed in the first place, much less be divine?
Then the challenge becomes to explain how such an obvious lie, obvious to the contemporaries of the apostles who could have disproven it any number of ways, one of which would have been to produce his dead body, how could such a lie tarnsform the whole ancient world?
Yes my argument above is not a proof that He was divine but it simply proves that to argue He was not is simply the same as refusing to believe the evidence for the truth of the record. If you choose to disbelieve the record why argue about its details?
7 • Bo Parker • November 29, 2008 • 11:28 AM
Mark 3:20-22 is interesting because it portrays different groups who did not accept that Jesus was the son of God as concluding exactly Lewis’s alternatives. His family thinks he is out of his mind and the teachers of the law think he is a deceiver who is operating in the power of Satan. So in Mark, Jesus is conducting himself in such a way that these are two alternative conclusions about Him.
8 • Dion • March 10, 2009 • 10:04 PM
Eusebius’ “proof” still stands:
The OT said that the Gentiles would worship a Jewish Messiah.
The gentiles worship Jesus.
Therefore, Jesus is the Jewish Messiah.
9 • Dion Sanchez • March 10, 2009 • 10:18 PM
Heartthrob,
Just because we do not have anything written by Jesus does not mean we do not know what He did or said.
The NT has been proven to be a historically reliable document and as such we can rely on the testimony of its authors (John Warwick Montgomery “History and Christianity.”)
Fredrick Kenyon Former Keeper of Maunscripts at the British M, one who knew more about ancient documents said the same thing as Dr. Montgomery!
You ought to do a little research before embarrassing yourself son.
10 • Heartthrob • March 17, 2009 • 10:02 AM
Dion Sanchez (9:18PM): I smell a non sequitur.
What you are saying is: If someone created a “holy book” about my life, and 2000 years later was proven to be historically accurate in every way a historian could reasonably discern, you would believe their testimony that I was the son of God?
If the case you’re making is different, please tell me how.
11 • Amy • March 26, 2009 • 11:36 AM
I feel as though I’m standing at a cross roads. On the one road I have the Bible and how it was taught to me. On the other I have a brain that God gave me. The Bible says we are created in his image so it can’t be wrong to think. It also tells us to not trust man and to not lean to our own understanding. But then we come back to don’t trust man and man interpreted the Bible and teaches us at church. Wow, I’m confused!
12 • David Dillon • September 16, 2009 • 4:39 PM
Amy, Read the Book.
The sound use of the Bible involves reasoning. You seem to question how the Bible was taught to you. Was it illogical? You are responsible for your own study and understanding of the Bible.
As I read it, the issues argued above are: 1) The potential “either or” fallacy in C.S.Lewis’, Mere Christianity; 2) The evidential basis for Lewis’ assertions; 3)The accuracy of the content of the Bible; (known as Higher Criticism.) None of these arguments cause the confusion you mention. Your crossroad is whether or not to believe the Bible. Arendtian, Pop Guru and Heartthrob have chosen to not believe it. The others and myself chose to believe it. What do you chose?
Either you accept the Bible as true or you reject it. If rejected, then conversation only serves to waste time for we have separate authorities. If you accept the Bible, then the method of interpretation becomes paramount. In this you rely upon your Bible and a sound use of reason/logic. That way, you can “check up” on what the man teaching you. Is he really using sound logic or not?
Owen
13 • Amy • September 16, 2009 • 9:31 PM
Owen, I don’t recognize C.S Lewis as an authority on the Bible. All the quotes I’ve read of his are cold blooded and I refuse to base my beliefs on someone like him. Maybe you all should read The Bible by Karen Armstrong. Have you ever noticed the disclaimer in the front of your Bible. Yet we teach that the version of the Bible we have to day is infailable!?!?!?
Amy
14 • heartthrob in disguise • September 16, 2009 • 11:46 PM
All belief or disbelief aside, I think Amy has an excellent point. There are men who have studied the bible sincerely and thoroughly in its original hebrew and greek, with minds that would put the combined intelligence of everyone in this forum to shame, and they cannot agree on an interpretation. I can’t even count the amount of denominations, which are all full of smart, sincere Christians who can’t come to a consensus on what the bible means. How can you honestly say that the way you interpret the bible is the right one. Talk about the simple message of salvation, all you have to do is ask jesus for forgiveness, and a nice Calvinist will shoot you down with some convincing passages. How can Christians say that the doctrines of the bible are sound when they don’t (collectively) know what they are?
Also, if I haven’t lost you by now, this is the million dollar question in my book. protestant doctrine states that only the bible has ultimate authority; that there is no ex cathedra. History states that there are many gospels and epistles, some of which are kooky in my non ex cathedra opinion, that never made it. The list o’ epistles and gospels that prots and caths alike regard as the New Testament was handpicked by the council of carthage. Now since the bible never says anything about matt mark 1 cor etc being canon, does anyone have the authority to say they are canonical. And if you cannot say with authority that these books are the word of God?
So in short whose authority do you rely on when you say “these are the NT books, even these random letters by paul?” I ask this with no spite but sincere curiosity.
Also (linkys available on request), possible tombs complete w jesus body have been discovered 2 places: israel, laid next to a “mary” and “joseph” and in india where some say he traveled too once he regained conciousness. The thing is, 2000 years is a looooong time so no one could prove yay or nay definitively.
I would address more but I’m writing this on a cell phone and my post is long and boring enough. I will be fascinated to hear what educated ppl have to say and would like to be alerted of fallacies (ones that actually exist tho)
15 • David Dillon • September 18, 2009 • 2:57 PM
Hi Amy, Thank you for your response. There are a number of . . . elements missing in this type of interaction that would help in answering questions, or even determining what the questions are: your life story being one of them; my life story being another. I approach this interaction from a Fundamentalist Baptist pastoral perspective, because that is who and what I am. I can read a little bit between the lines on your posts, but cannot discern what the core questions of your life are without a lot more personal information. Which, by the way, is inappropriate to share over this venue, or outside of your local community for that matter. I have mentioned who I am and the vocation to which God has called me to open a window on who is writing. (Even that last statement is open to critique and argumentation about God’s existence, His call, How one can know it, etc. . . ..)
Regarding Lewis: you do not have to take C. S. Lewis as an authority on the Bible. When I said “Read the Book”, I meant the Bible, not “Mere Christianity”. I have read Mere Christianity, . . . I think twice, it was a nice read, some interesting arguments. I read it in context of who and what Lewis was. But Lewis was not inspired, nor, to the best of my knowledge, did he ever claim to be. I feel no need to defend Lewis.
You should not base your beliefs on anyone else, whether Lewis or Armstrong. Your beliefs should be based on the Bible and a sound use of logic. I personally agree with a lot of different authors, but I do not believe what I believe because they said so. My beliefs are based on the Bible, and yes, I can defend them logically using the Bible and nothing else. This certainly helps when someone comes to me and says “I used to believe the: Apostles Creed, Westminster Confession of Faith, Catachism, etc., _________ (you fill in the blank) but then someone showed me that it was wrong. Now I believe what __________ teaches. They have it right.” In my heart I say: OK. Let’s go back to the beginning. The Bible is the Word of God.
Regarding reading “The Bible” by Karen Armstrong, I will defer on that recommendation. I have a stack of books to read for the ministry, and some of them are multi-year projects. One is a multi-millenial project (I started the Complete works of Jonathan Edwards in the “90’s. His logic is dizzying in its depth and development, so I put him down with the intent and purpose to pick him up again. From a literary and historical perspective, he is a romantic and considerably tragic figure in American history.)
About the disclaimer in the front of Bibles, though I can guess what you refer to, my answer is this: I have no disclaimer in the front of my Bible. 😊
“Yet we teach that the version of the Bible we have to day is infailable!?!?!?” My response to that is this: Well, The Lone Ranger and Tonto were caught is a trap by a band of marauding Indians. The Lone Ranger says to Tonto, “Those Indians have got us surrounded and outnumbered. Looks like we bought it this time, old friend.” To which Tonto replies, “What do you mean ‘we’ Kemosabe?” 😊 Amy, who is “we”?, and define “infallible”. My best guess is that the “we” is the pastor/teacher with whom you disagree, and that infallible refers to completely trustworthy.
You cannot put aside “belief”, because that is the core issue here. Faith is believing God and acting upon His word.
Owen
Re: Heartthrob, at present I do not have the time to give you a reasoned response. IF that happens, it would be next week. BTW we are admittedly a tad bit off topic.
16 • heartthrob in disguise • September 18, 2009 • 6:06 PM
Sorry I tend to veer off topic. And thx for taking the time to think about a proper response. Being raised christian I can normally play devil’s advocate (how ironic is that) among my atheist friends and show them that christians have reasonable views, us agnostics, pagans, etc just disagree. I just can’t see a reasonable answer.
17 • NRAmember • January 28, 2011 • 1:05 PM
a) I agree with Pop Guru here. We have NOTHING that was actually written by Jesus himself and PG’s view is a common one.
heartthrob, just because a view is common does not make it true. For example, evolution is a common view, does this make evolution true?
18 • A Heartthrob in Disguise • February 04, 2011 • 1:51 PM
@NRAmember I apologize, I did not mean that as an argument for veracity, that was just an (unnecessary) aside. After all, it is a common view that Justin Beiber’s album is worth buying… Now that I have your attention though, I would love to hear what you have to say about #14 and 10. Thanks.
19 • NRAmember • March 03, 2011 • 1:18 PM
Hearthrob,
I agree with you on number 10. However, on number 14, i am no expert on the bible, but i think that the books in the NT have been proven historically accurate, and thus we can trust them.
About the tombs, The bible says that Jesus was in the tomb for three days, and then he rose from the dead, and when the disciples and Mary found the tomb open, there was no body. Therefore we might find the tomb, but there would be no body.