CS Lewis - Liar Lunatic Lord (Split from Evolution or Creation)

[buckeyegrad]

It's the same problem I have with CS Lewis' "Lord, Liar, lunatic" .... false dilemma.

BKB, out of interest, what is your problem with Lewis's "Lord, liar, or lunatic" statement? When Lewis made that comment, he certainly left the door open for others to conclude liar or lunatic. What he was specifically arguing when making that statement is that the terms moral teacher or guru, when used exclusively to define Jesus, could not be applied to him when you take every saying we have attributed to him into account.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

BKB, out of interest, what is your problem with Lewis's "Lord, liar, or lunatic" statement? When Lewis made that comment, he certainly left the door open for others to conclude liar or lunatic. What he was specifically arguing when making that statement is that the terms moral teacher or guru, when used exclusively to define Jesus, could not be applied to him when you take every saying we have attributed to him into account.

Well, it's not Lewis' motives that bother me so much as how it's been used since he first suggested this rhetorical idea. Even as strong as it might be rehtorically, it is as weak logically.

A) Jesus may not have ever existed, if he did, the words attributed to him may not actually be his, and Jesus may never have called himself G-d.
B) It's unfalsifiable. Might as well use the word "prophet" instead of Lord.
C) Why the assumption that Jesus' actions didn't make him a lunatic? If he was a lunatic, how does that mean he is immoral? As for why people follow lunatics, well.... it's self evident to me that people follow lunatics all the time... A quick example is David Koresh.
D) Speaking of David Koresh, we might as well apply the apology to him and believe the same point about Koresh than Lewis was making about Jesus.
1) If Koresh is distateful, Emmanuel Swedenborg provides another example. He believed he was Jesus incarnate.... he was either liar, lunatic or lord. He didn't act like a liar or a lunatic.... of course, he might have simply been mistaken, making him none of the above.
a) Jesus perhaps acted like a non-lunatic, non-lord man who was mistaken (and thus not lying)
E) The "argument" is not meant to convince non-believers or agnostics, but is geared towards those already inclined to accept Jesus' divinity - especially in its reliance on that in question (the validity of the gospels).
1) But the "argument" has been used by others for larger purposes and is sudductive in it's rhetorical power, even if it's logic quite weak.

Ummmm....

I tried.... really... I did....

 

[buckeyegrad]

Well, it's not Lewis' motives that bother me so much as how it's been used since he first suggested this rhetorical idea. Even as strong as it might be rehtorically, it is as weak logically.

Just to be clear, you are saying it is a weak logical argument in how others have used it, not in the original context in which Lewis made it because I don't really see where any your objections (I would argue that some of them are illogical in themselves) even address the point Lewis was making, which was how Jesus is presented in the Gospels leaves only those three options. There are no other "logical" options left for the reader of the Gospels unless they begin to selectively choose which parts to believe and which parts to dismiss.

 

[jwinslow]

1) If Koresh is distateful, Emmanuel Swedenborg provides another example. He believed he was Jesus incarnate.... he was either liar, lunatic or lord. He didn't act like a liar or a lunatic.... of course, he might have simply been mistaken, making him none of the above.

For the purposes of those observing and reacting to someone's behavior, living the lie is more crucial than whether he did so knowingly. His teachings did not allow for selective hearing.

a) Jesus perhaps acted like a non-lunatic, non-lord man who was mistaken (and thus not lying)

I'd argue that thinking or acting as God's son is certainly a form of lunacy, even if it was innocent and not as rabid as some might associate with the word 'lunatic'

E) The "argument" is not meant to convince non-believers or agnostics, but is geared towards those already inclined to accept Jesus' divinity - especially in its reliance on that in question (the validity of the gospels).

Disagree strongly here.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Just to be clear, you are saying it is a weak logical argument in how others have used it, not in the original context in which Lewis made it because I don't really see where any your objections (I would argue that some of them are illogical in themselves) even address the point Lewis was making, which was how Jesus is presented in the Gospels leaves only those three options. There are no other "logical" options left for the reader of the Gospels unless they begin to selectively choose which parts to believe and which parts to dismiss.

Well, truth is, I was giving Lewis the benefit of the doubt in suggesting he was merely trying to be rhetorical. Frankly, I think it's quite plain he was knowingly decieving...

First some context:

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.

The important parts:

1 )A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher
2) He would be either a lunatic
or
3) the Devil of hell.
4) Thus, you must make a choice - either he is the Son of G-d, or a madman or worse, but he can't simply be a great human teacher.

or more simply,

P1 - Jesus was either liar, lunatic or lord
P2 - Jesus was neither liar nor lunatic
C - He is therefore lord.

Now then... what does Lewis assume?

First, he (like you) assumes that the Gospels are true and accurate, both in the suggestion that Jesus ever existed in the first place, and furthermore that Jesus said what the authors purport he said. Lewis ignores the possibility, for example, that the Gospel writers might be liars. The Gospel writers might be lunatics. The gospel writers might be liars AND lunatics.. among other things.....

But, forgiving that... Lewis makes another unsupported assumption which leaves me wondering....

"A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher"

What sort of things? Things like, "Love your neighbor?" (Mark 12:28-31) I fail to see the A) Lunacy, or B) the Evil in such a remark. Nor do I feel compelled to see whoever came up with the idea as a Lord. For the argument and it's concusion to make sense, he must be talking about Jesus' "claims" (assuming he existed and made such claims) he was G-d.

Leading to ...

Jesus might not have been a liar or a lunatic regarding anything, but instead just mistaken about being G-d.. Or, as above, his biographers were simply mistaken....

Forgiving that -
"Thus, you must make a choice - either he is the Son of G-d, or a madman or worse, but he can't simply be a great human teacher."

leaves only one alternative, which is of course, also false (or at least without support here)- that only the Son of G-d can be a great moral teacher.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

For the purposes of those observing and reacting to someone's behavior, living the lie is more crucial than whether he did so knowingly. His teachings did not allow for selective hearing.

I must admit, in context of what you quoted from me, I'm not following what you mean. When you say "His teachings" do you mean Jesus or Koresh or Swedenborg? And then, assuming on that answer, what does any of that have to do with Morality or Truth or Lordship? I dont' mean to be aloof here, but I don't understand your remark.

I'd argue that thinking or acting as God's son is certainly a form of lunacy, even if it was innocent and not as rabid as some might associate with the word 'lunatic'

And so what? It does not follow that a lunatic cannot be a great moral teacher. Nor does it follow that a Lord cannot also be a lunatic.

Disagree strongly here.

Ok, so you agree with me that Lewis was trying to convert people? (Again, in my post to Bgrad above I admit I was giving him the benefit of the doubt on the issue.)

That being so, here's what we're left with with Mr. Lewis - he knowingly advances a fallicious argument. He is trying to decieve you. He does not know he's advancing a fallicious argument. He should not be trusted on matters logic, then. In both cases, however, the conclusion is still false.

 

[PlanetFrnd]

Tangential point, but 'lunatic' is an interesting choice of words: lunatic, or literally one who follows the moon, was also used to categorize pagans, as many pagan elements are based on the sun, seasons, moon phases, etc. I understand that 'madman' was what Lewis meant, but the duality of the word 'lunatic' makes it doubly historically appropriate given the relevance of the struggle between monotheism and paganism in the first-century Western world.

Entertaining if you're a religion dork like me.

 

[muffler dragon]

Cool point, 'Bus.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Well, truth is, I was giving Lewis the benefit of the doubt in suggesting he was merely trying to be rhetorical. Frankly, I think it's quite plain he was knowingly decieving...

BKB, I see what you are saying, but your objections are addressing issues that are not present or do not pertain to his specific argument here.

The important parts:

1 )A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher
2) He would be either a lunatic
or
3) the Devil of hell.
4) Thus, you must make a choice - either he is the Son of G-d, or a madman or worse, but he can't simply be a great human teacher.

So far, so good.

or more simply,

P1 - Jesus was either liar, lunatic or lord
P2 - Jesus was neither liar nor lunatic
C - He is therefore lord.

Now you start to go astray. Your P1 is missing the assumption that Lewis is basing our understanding of Jesus strictly on the most direct evidence we have about him, which is the Gospels. If you are going to keep with Lewis' argument you P1 should be restated as "Jesus, as presented from the historical accounts, was either liar, lunatic, or lord"

P2 is certainly argued by Lewis in his apologetics, but not in this particular instance. Again, Lewis is trying to show that if you rely on the historical evidence in the Gospels, moral teacher is not on the list of logical conclusions.

As for the conclusion, again, Lewis does assume Lord is answer, but not from this line of reasoning. In other words you are assuming this is an argument by Lewis to prove the Jesus was God, which was not his intent.

First, he (like you) assumes that the Gospels are true and accurate, both in the suggestion that Jesus ever existed in the first place, and furthermore that Jesus said what the authors purport he said. Lewis ignores the possibility, for example, that the Gospel writers might be liars. The Gospel writers might be lunatics. The gospel writers might be liars AND lunatics.. among other things.....

You do not have to assume that the Gospels are true to accept Lewis' conclusion here. Why? Because the argument is not based on the validity of the Gospels, but on the analysis of the picture those Gospels present. Even if one would want to argue that the Gospel's are not a correct picture of Jesus, that doesn't affect Lewis' argument as he's not arguing the validity of the picture, but again the interpretation of the picture. (It is helpful to keep in mind here that Lewis by profession was a very well respected Oxford Don and Cambridge Professor of Literary Criticism, so what he is doing here relates directly to his profession.)

But, forgiving that... Lewis makes another unsupported assumption which leaves me wondering....

"A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher"

What sort of things? Things like, "Love your neighbor?" (Mark 12:28-31) I fail to see the A) Lunacy, or B) the Evil in such a remark. Nor do I feel compelled to see whoever came up with the idea as a Lord. For the argument and it's concusion to make sense, he must be talking about Jesus' "claims" (assuming he existed and made such claims) he was G-d.

And here you make the very fallacy Lewis is arguing against. You use one example from the Gospels to show that Jesus is a moral teacher. However, Lewis is saying that if you include all the statements attributed to Jesus, the picture changes very much. After all, besides his moral teachings, Jesus asserted that he knew Abraham, a man to live almost 2000 years before him. He taught that he was the only means to being accessible to God. He taught that he had come to bring war, not peace, between fathers and sons, and daughters and mothers. And most importantly he claimed that he was God (John 8:58). When this picture (again the validity of the picture is irrelevant to this particular argument by Lewis) is taken as a whole, moral teacher can no longer be exclusively applied to him. Rather, the only logical conclusions are liar, lunatic, or lord.

Jesus might not have been a liar or a lunatic regarding anything, but instead just mistaken about being G-d.. Or, as above, his biographers were simply mistaken....

Such a possibility is not present in the New Testament, so it does not fit the picture we have to analyze.

Forgiving that -
"Thus, you must make a choice - either he is the Son of G-d, or a madman or worse, but he can't simply be a great human teacher."

If you rely on the picture of the Gospels, this is correct.

leaves only one alternative, which is of course, also false (or at least without support here)- that only the Son of G-d can be a great moral teacher.

Not at all. No where does Lewis' argument lead to the conclusion that one cannot be a great moral teacher without being God. Lewis' conclusion is that one cannot be a great moral teacher and make claims about being God unless they are God. Now, perhaps one could make an argument that Lewis' definition of a moral teacher is flawed, but that is not an error of logic, but a disagreement of definitions.

 

[Best Buckeye]

Not true , he went astray a long time ago.

 

[buckeyegrad]

[quote='BusNative;119666;0]Tangential point, but 'lunatic' is an interesting choice of words: lunatic, or literally one who follows the moon, was also used to categorize pagans, as many pagan elements are based on the sun, seasons, moon phases, etc. I understand that 'madman' was Lewis meant, but the duality of the word 'lunatic' makes it doubly historically appropriate given the relevance of the struggle between monotheism and paganism in the first-century Western world.

Entertaining if you're a religion dork like me.[/quote]

Knowing Lewis' background as an exceptional scholar in literature, classics, and philosphy (he in one of only a handfull of men in the long history of Oxford to graduate with honors in three subject areas) and his vast knowledge of European languages and history, I would not be surprised if the choice of "lunatic' was intentional on his part.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I'm going to split off the CS Lewis stuff for more discussion to another thread......

 

[AKAK]

We should have a rock paper scissors thread too, I think.

 

[buckeyegrad]

[quote='BusNative;119666;0]Tangential point, but 'lunatic' is an interesting choice of words: lunatic, or literally one who follows the moon, was also used to categorize pagans, as many pagan elements are based on the sun, seasons, moon phases, etc. I understand that 'madman' was what Lewis meant, but the duality of the word 'lunatic' makes it doubly historically appropriate given the relevance of the struggle between monotheism and paganism in the first-century Western world.

Entertaining if you're a religion dork like me.[/quote]

Hey, wait a minute. I'm going to need a source now. I looked up lunatic in the OED and no where does it speak of the word being associated with pagans. Rather the definition given is as follows:

A. adj.

1. Originally, affected with the kind of insanity that was supposed to have recurring periods dependent on the changes of the moon. In mod. use, synonymous with INSANE; current in popular and legal language, but not now employed technically by physicians.

c1290 S. Eng. Leg. I. 369/99 He hadde ane dou

ter

at was lunatyke. 1393 LANGL. P. Pl. C. x. 107

e whiche aren lunatik lollers and leperes a-boute, And mad as

e mone sitt. 1398 TREVISA Barth. De P.R. XVI. xcv. (1495) 587 The precyous stone Topazius..helpith ayenst the passyon Lunatyk. 1430-40 LYDG. Bochas VII. ii. (1554) 165b, He was..euery moneth once Lunaticke. 1564 in Strype Eccl. Mem. III. App. lviii. 197 All this trouble..was when you were lunatike and not your owne man. 1592 KYD Sp. Trag. III. viii. 5 (Stage Direction), She runnes lunaticke. 1600 Hosp. Incur. Fooles 77 If the moone be euill placed, either it maketh men extatical, lunatick, or subiect to the kings euill. 1604 S. GRAHAME Pass. Sparke E4b, The greatest Foole is wise if he be rich, And wisedome flowes from his Lunatique brayne. 1640 YORKE Union Hon. 110 This Alice fell lunaticke, and was divorced from the said Gilbert. 1759 ROBERTSON Hist. Scot. VII. Wks. 1813 I. 548 The presumptive heir to the throne was lunatic. 1885 Sat. Rev. 18 July 80/1 One of the most distinctive marks of the lunatic mind is that it reasons sanely from insane premises. 1889 Spectator 21 Dec., The House of Castile, which, after fighting and reigning for nearly eight hundred years, terminated in a lunatic girl.

 

[PlanetFrnd]

Hey, wait a minute. I'm going to need a source now. I looked up lunatic in the OED and no where does it speak of the word being associated with pagans. Rather the definition given is as follows:

Just google 'paganism' and 'moon'

and the etymology, not the modern definition, is what I was referring to:

lunatic - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Main Entry: lu-na-tic
Pronunciation:
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English lunatik, from Anglo-French or Late Latin; Anglo-French lunatic, from Late Latin lunaticus, from Latin luna; from the belief that lunacy fluctuated with the phases of the moon
Date: 14th century

and 'lunacy,' by which lunatic is defined still includes the etymology in its definition:

lunacy - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Main Entry: 1 a: insanity b: intermittent insanity once believed to be related to phases of the moon2: wild foolishness : extravagant folly3: a foolish act

edit: sorry, needlessly redefined the word for you...