Subscribe
I’m back from my trip and finally found the time to create my second post about C.S. Lewis’s classic apologetics book, Mere Christianity. In the first post, I talked about enjoying the book quite a bit. I then deconstructed Lewis’s argument for the existence of God, which boils down to the normative moral argument.
I found Lewis’s proof of God’s existence unconvincing. This isn’t that much of a problem for me since I find another argument for God’s existence compelling (though that argument gives little to no insight into God’s nature). But let’s assume that Lewis had succeeded. Let’s suppose that there is a God who created moral laws and gave us the ability to know these laws (conscience). Great, that means we can trust our consciences to guide us to do what is right. But this still falls short of proving that God cares about us, has provided us with an afterlife, sent a son (who was also himself in some mysterious way) to earth to die for our moral failures, ‘inspired’ a book, has a favored people, felled the walls of Jericho, created the world in seven days, told Abraham to kill his son, made Job’s life a living hell, etc. It doesn’t even tell us if God is all powerful, only that It is powerful enough to create moral laws. In short, the normative moral argument fails to prove that the Moral Provider is the God of the Bible.
Thankfully, Lewis addresses this issue. Sadly, I recognized the argument from another book that I partially read, The Case for Christ. At the heart of that book, Lee Strobel argued that Jesus must be who he claimed to be, God, because for anyone making that claim, there are only three possibilities: ether Jesus was telling the truth, crazy, or a liar. Since there is no evidence that he was crazy or a liar, Strobel argued (or, more accurately, Strobel set up ‘experts’ to argue for him), he must have been telling the truth. Imagine my surprise when I read the following from Mere Christianity:
We are faced, then, with a frightening alternative. [Jesus] was (and is) just what He said or else a lunatic, or something worse. Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God.
As I discovered about the ‘new’ atheist movement while discussing Bertrand Russel with Scott, there is very little new in Christian apologetics either.
Lewis’s and Strobel’s argument for the divinity of Jesus has a gapping flaw in it: the false dilemma fallacy. In this case, it’s a trilemma, but the idea is the same: fail to mention reasonable alternatives as possibilities. Jesus claims to be God in the Bible. Here is a more complete list of possible reasons for making such a claim:
1. It’s true
2. Jesus was insane
3. Jesus was a liar
4. Jesus was a legend
5. The account of Jesus’ life was embellished
6. The account of Jesus’ life was mistranslated
7. Jesus’ statements were misunderstood
8. Jesus’ statements were oversimplified
9. Jesus suffered from mild mental illness
10. Jesus was honestly mistaken
11. Other possibility that I am unaware of
12. Any combination to the above
Even if we exclude the possibility of insanity and lying, that still leaves many other options besides ‘Jesus was telling the truth’. My guess is that 12 is the case simply because the truth often turns out to be more complicated than it appears when it comes to the human psyche and human behavior. Thus I am unconvinced by Lewis’s argument (and Strobel’s pale rehash).
My third and final post about Mere Christianity will be about Lewis’s intriguing and insightful discussion about morality. That is the part of the book I found most interesting.
UPDATE: More of Mere Christianity reviewed here.
Arrggggh!!! IE ate my post.
Let’s try that again.
1. It’s true. – Yup.
2. Jesus was insane – Certainly possible. That’s what he’d be called by most today.
3. Jesus was a liar – Certainly possible.
4. Jesus was a legend – I have as much reason to believe that there was a real Jesus as to believe that there was a real Constantine.
5. The account of Jesus’ life was embellished – Certainly possible, but the root of the trilemma deals with, “What if the words of Christ are as we have them reasonbly accurate?”
6. The account of Jesus’ life was mistranslated – Certainly possible but the manuscripts that we have are fairly old and I think that the Gospels are internally consistant enough that they can be assumed to be well translated.
7. Jesus’ statements were misunderstood – They frequently are and were by his own folks.
8. Jesus’ statements were oversimplified – They frequently are and were by his own folks.
9. Jesus suffered from mild mental illness – No different from 2 really.
10. Jesus was honestly mistaken – No different from 2 or 9. If he were insane he’d be mistaken and if he were mistaken we’d call him insane.
11. Other possibility that I am unaware of – I think your bases are well covered.
12. Any combination to the above – Okay for sure now they are.
Glad you enjoyed the book. Can’t wait to hear more!
Hello Scott. Sorry to hear about the lost post. You assessment of the possibilities seems fair, save a few that I want to nitpick.
“4. Jesus was a legend – I have as much reason to believe that there was a real Jesus as to believe that there was a real Constantine.”
I’m no historian, so take my thoughts for what they’re worth (not much, usually), but I thought the only Bible-independent, historical reference to Jesus has a passing reference by Josephus. My guess is that there are many more independent verifications of Constantine, government documents, name and image on currency, books by historians of the day, etc. Since I’m not all that interested in whether Jesus actually lived, I’ve never done any research into this area.
“5. The account of Jesus’ life was embellished – Certainly possible, but the root of the trilemma deals with, “What if the words of Christ are as we have them reasonbly accurate?—
You are correct. At least Lee Strobel deals with this at length, Lewis simply took it for granted. I find this beyond ‘possible’ to ‘quite likely’. If I had the time, I’d look up some miracles that have been attributed other historical figures. What I have in mind are the Catholic saints, Mohammed, and more recently, L. Ron Hubbard and Elvis. Embellishment was even more prevalent when most of history was passed on orally.
“9. Jesus suffered from mild mental illness – No different from 2 really.”
True, not really. I included this as an objection to the implication of extreme mental illness as the only possibility. ‘Lunatic’ carries with it a whole set of assumed symptoms that are not present in lesser forms of mental illness. Jesus displayed none of these excessive symptoms. I even think that Strobel uses the phrase ‘raving lunatic’ in his book.
“10. Jesus was honestly mistaken – No different from 2 or 9. If he were insane he’d be mistaken and if he were mistaken we’d call him insane.”
I disagree. Suppose he was an extremely talented and/or lucky healer. So much so that his abilities seemed miraculous to all who saw them and to himself. This combined with his advanced (for the age) moral beliefs, and he had a rational basis to believe himself God. I know some completely sane people who believe they have absurd abilities. Psychics are classic examples of this. Thus perfect mental health and claiming to be God can be compatible.
Welcome back, Sid. Hope you’ve had a nice week away.
First, I want to say how glad I am to be not alone in responding to your asssessment of Lewis’ proposition. And second, I would point out that option twelve: “Any combination to the above†is actually unworkable. It cannot be true, a legend and also that Jesus was honestly mistaken, for example, all at once. To say one could be literally a legend whose statements were misunderstood or embellished would be nonsensical. So, to narrow the question down to basics, I would ask which workable combination(s) do you consider to be the most probable?
Sure, MAPK L. I should have worded 10 as “Any possible combination to the above.” You’re right, some combinations are not compatible.
Which do I find likely? A combination of 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10, but that’s not the point. The point is that the possibilities are much more complicated and nuanced then Lewis’s trilemma.
Howdy all,
I really don’t have much I can add to this discussion. I can think of a few other possibilies as well but I think the point has already been made. About the only thing I can think of to bring up is about the following.
“Since there is no evidence that he was crazy or a liar, Strobel argued (or, more accurately, Strobel set up ‘experts’ to argue for him), he must have been telling the truth.”
A lack of evidence does not mean something is proven wrong. I would argue that if evidence existed that showed Jesus to be of sound mind that would add to the argument. At the moment I can offer no proof that my shirt is blue. However that is not proof that my shirt is yellow. Given the claims concerning Jesus I would say the onus of proof falls to the side where one must prove that he didn’t lie, was of sound mind ect. Also one would have to prove that he was only one man, actually existed and wasn’t other myth and legends that gradully grew and where mixed together into one story. Proof about this may exist I really don’t know. I probably havn’t studied this one enough to make any further coments. (May have said to much already)
Cheers
Simon Bond
Mere Morality: True Insights…
Trying to summarize all his thoughts on this subject is futile. I will only hit the hight and low points in this post. Suffice it to say that Part III is a great read for Christians and non-Christians alike and a would recommend it to anyone.
……
“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principle men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named for him, are not extinct at this day.â€
Whereas at least this one passing account by Josephus, offers us historical evidence of Jesus as he is described in the New Testament, no historically documented information exists to in any way render the gospel accounts as untrue, nor that Jesus was insane, a liar or a legend, nor that his claims about himself were mistranslated, embellished or over-simplified, nor that he suffered from mental illness to any degree, nor in fact that he (or anyone else) was mistaken about his claim to divine authority. It is all ultimately conjecture.
Granted, as Simon Bond points out, neither does it verify the gospels as truth, but for a start, if Josephus erred in the above notable passage, then allowing him credence as a reputable historian must certainly come into question.
My point here is that Jesus’ purpose was not to prove anything to the world. The Bible makes it clear that God requires us to come to him by faith; ie., sufficient evidence; made available through the wonder and splendour of the physical universe, awareness of a moral conscience, the promises in scripture itself…. Indeed, the parable of “The Rich Man And Lazarus†concludes: “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.†Luke 16:31
Actually, historical scholars believe that much of that quote was added by Christian copiers over the centuries in order to legitimize the belief in the divinity of Jesus. The original read
Also see this reference.
What is more interesting is that in his book about the Jewish revolt written shortly after that time, Josephus doesn’t even mention Jesus. Yet he appears in Josephus much later writings. This has led some scholars to conclude that the reference was invented wholesale by Christians. It would seem that Josephus’ reputation as a historian is not in question. What is in question is the ability of Christian historians to preserve history without biasing their translations, interpretations, etc.
Thus the historical record neither confirms nor refutes the Gospels. But by applying Sagan’s balance, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, the more miraculous accounts in the Gospels require additional additional historical support. Sagan’s balance is precisely why I have no problem believing a spiritual leader named Jesus lived and died during that time. It is also why I suspect the miracles and extraordinary claims of Jesus suffer from some of the errors listed in the original post.
I believe that whatever Josephus actually did say about Jesus was true, and I do not really question his credibility as a historian. But I think scholars, whether secular or religious, can be equally subject to bias in matters of translation and interpretation.
To my mind, a sincere Christian scholar who is worthy of the name, thinking to elaborate on a historical reference to Jesus, would look with disdain upon stealthful embellishment, and much more so on the brazen insertion of an invented text. Such a figure might instead, offer a separate commentary detailing much more about Jesus’ ministry than appears in any of the three translations presented on the link.
As Jesus’ purpose was not to prove anything about himself (his claim and his offer stand on their own merit, for us to freely accept or reject) any scholarly attempt to carry it beyond sufficient evidence (apologetics), it seems to me, would indicate ignorance of what Christian faith is all about.
One thing to remember is that through much of the Middle Ages, the Church had a near-monopoly on literacy and text copying. Thus there was a sustained bias in favor of Christian (mis)interpretations in all historical text. Thus passing the passing reference to Jesus could be made more Christian than a Jewish historian would write. Another way the bias shows up is through censorship. Any historical documents that contradicted the official Church history could be destroyed. Consider the destruction of all most all of the Gnostic scriptures. Also during that time, ‘scholars’ were not peer-reviewed and could get away with a lot more without being noticed.
While my knowledge of historical scholarship is too general to comment in detail here, these two thoughts come to mind. Bearing in mind how high authority in the medi-eval church was heavily taken up with doctrinal integrity, this would explain a propensity for bias in the handling of religious texts in particular. But I would question whether, across the board, scholars of the day were in reality a notorious band of cloistered conspirators. Indeed, with or without the benefit of peer-review, I credit the majority of religious and secular scholars of any age with a measure of personal integrity, due most anyone. This is not to deny your point, but I suspect only a relative handful to be guilty of malicious tampering.