Lewis's Trilemma

Hello good christians and other persons who roam these parts. Your good (american) friend and mine Chesterton and yours truly, The Gentleman Atheist, have engaged in some most excellent badinage at this forum. From one of these conversations came the realization that we held vastly different opinions on Lewis's Trilemma. I decided, with Chesterton's blessing that we should call upon a "higher power", if you will, and open the investigation to the collective mind of the forum.

Now, it is only proper for everyone to get caught up, so here is the thread of our conversation:

Chesterton said:

Becoming Christian was about a 20 year process for me, with lots of little bits of understanding coming through here and there over time. So it would be hard to fully answer your question without writing a substantial essay. The closest I could come to singling out one selling point would be the person of Christ as presented in the Gospels, and in conjunction with that, the idea which some credit to C.S. Lewis and call the "trilemma" or "lord, lunatic or liar" argument. I've still never seen the argument rebutted well.

Click to expand...

The Gentleman Atheist said:

Oh dear. Lewis. Hmm.
He was a wonderful novelist, no?
I did not come here to argue, but if you haven't seen this argument well rebutted (and buried), then you may be missing out on some of the finer bits of life. With your permission, we might open another thread to begin a challenge. What say you, good sir? I will leave this with you.

Click to expand...

Chesterton said:

I would be delighted to accept the challenge. I'd be more than delighted, I'd be...uh, let me see...well, no; just delighted, that's all. I believe the forum rules prohibit me from opening a thread here, so you'd have to handle that. I'll keep an eye out for the thread if you decide to make it, or you can send me a PM about it.

Click to expand...

Since I am confident that even a complete destruction of the Lewis argument will not shake the faith of Chesterton – or any of the other christians on this forum – I feel that this may be a rather good arena for both sides to utterly savage the Trilemma argument. (With apologies to any readers who may actually be savages.)

First, a quick primer. C.S. Lewis's Trilemma was a formal argument regarding the divinity of the Galilean messiah (whom we shall call "Jesus" in this thread). Jesus claimed that he was a god, therefore one of the following must be true:

1. Jesus thought he was a god, though he really was not (lunatic ),
2. Jesus said he was god, knowing he was not (liar ), or
3. Jesus was a god ("lord", in christian parlance ).

From this, Lewis concluded that: if Jesus were not god, then he could not be both great and moral, two things which it is "obvious" he was – therefore he is god.

There – did I get it correct?

Now, instead of beginning to debate the fallacy of the "trilemma" myself, I opt to open it to the forum. What say you, fine people? Does Lewis's argument stand up?

I await your input with great anticipation.

The Gentleman Atheist

Van said:

Talk about bait and switch, where is the rebuttal. Once you make a rebuttal, then we can discuss the merits of the argument on both sides.

Click to expand...

Van, you are quite correct, and I do apologize for any affront. I will do as you say, and post the rebuttal first. The rebuttal that I will choose is not related to the one that you have presented, so I believe that we all are safe to consider this to be a new argument.

That being said, I have read Aiki's later post, and I would like to address the issue that he raises before I offer an argument or rebuttal. I make an appeal to you for your patience, please.

Thanking you for your interest and your vigilance.

The Gentleman Atheist

aiki said:

Actually, this is not the forum for debates. If you wish to debate this issue, you ought to do so in another forum.

Click to expand...

Dearest Aiki,

I do have to humbly beg your forgiveness, and the forgiveness of our fellow travellers. I am still very much a neophyte in these parts, and I am deeply concerned that I have broken the rules of the community.

If I may submit to you as my guide, can you point the way to the proper forum for this investigation – which you properly identify as a 'debate'?

Remaining your servant,

The Gentleman Atheist

GreenMunchkin said:

Hullo As a (very... appallingly) British person, am slightly dismayed to see that your "gentlemanliness" is thinly veiled derision and mockery. I do so wish people would approach this discussion with kindness and integrity - it's the very least it deserves.

I apologise if I sound impolite... especially given my belief that you're largely mocking us. You have to appreciate that questions like this are lobbied incessantly and, for the most part, the people asking have no actual interest in the answer. Rather it's a part of some larger play, performed for some real or perceived atheistic peanut gallery.

Click to expand...

Miss Munchkin, I must say – respectfully – that in this case you are wrong.

I intend no mockery or derision in any of my posts on this site. Even with those persons or posts who make me momentarily angry (Mr. Ephraim, for example) I try to treat with respect and, even, deference. (Note that currently I feel that Mr. Ephraim and I are on good terms, though I expect his philosophy will continue to chafe me at times.)

If you wish to see how I deal with people who really perturb me, I am dealing with a closet homophobe in a thread called "Jesus Camp". I don't need to name him – you will recognize him easily enough. His posts also contain horrible misinterpretations of the British upper class. I am sure as an Englishwoman you will find them interesting and somewhat amusing.

Furthermore, I am no insurrectionist or agitator. I only initiated the trilemma debate, because a fellow forum member was interested in exploring its capacities and I thought that I could contribute to the forum's collective knowledge. I am beginning to think that the proposal was gravely misplaced, and is not welcome at all. If there is general consent among the christians here, then I am certainly willing to withdraw the offer. This is with some reluctance, as I would love to share my opinions with you.

I understand from my research that "peanut gallery" refers to some nature of heckler. Though I do avow that I am an atheist, I have to ask you and others to not stereotype and assign these qualities to my person. I have tried very hard not done so to any of you.

These "peanut gallery" individuals do come in all shapes and sizes, and I too have experienced lame attempts of scorn and ridicule from individuals who have called themselves christians. I ask that you acknowledge that one atheist is as different from another as much as one christian is different from another, and that we all put Respect before any other word or action.

It is not very likely that anybody here will make a christian out of me, but I do appreciate what I have learned from all of you so far, and I hope that you will continue to welcome me here.

With Respect,

The Gentleman Atheist

Miss Munchkin,

Yes, for love. That is quite an investment that I have in your thoughts and opinions, isn't it?

I believe that many of your other questions have also been answered in the thread that Chesterton points you to. These points have not been, so I will address them here.

GreenMunchkin said:

Right wing American Christianity is sort of a sore issue for me (and in fact, primarily why I haven't been here in a year or so) so if the posts are politically or gun-totin' motivated, I don't think I'd care for them. But, I have to question your saying you're respectful in one thread while refering to him as a closet homophobe in another thread. It seems slightly double-facey.

Click to expand...

Oh, no – not double-facey at all. I believe I have made it quite clear to him, how I feel.

GreenMunchkin said:

I haven't read his posts, so maybe his thoughts are wider-reaching, but please understad that most Christians feel homosexual acts are a sin. Believing that doesn't make someone a homophobe, and the term is tossed around all too easily. It's the PC equivalent of shouting "Fire!" where there is none.

Click to expand...

Really! I find this so bizarre.
I have read the christian bible, and it doesn't seem that the messiah fellow mentions homosexuality even once. The jewish books certainly condemn homosexuality, but I have met very few jews who have any concern at all about the matter – excepting, of course, those who are gay.
As you have likely gathered, I do not believe the bible has mystical, law-giving powers, so I regard these verses as the work of self-interested demagogues who needed (and need to) increase the size of their armed forces – something which homosexuality does not help with very much.

In any case, hatred is hatred. Let us call it what it is.

Apologies for this aside. I am still gathering information on this Lewis thread. It appears that we may indeed be able to continue. I ask that all of you please be patient while I confirm this.

Thanking you for your welcome and your wisdom,

The Gentleman Atheist

GreenMunchkin said:

Steady on. Hatred is a terrible terrible thing to accuse someone of. I'm a/was a bi-sexual woman, and I KNOW that my attraction to women was a a sign of my brokenness and unwellness. (Funny thing is, many atheistic straight people will presume to tell me I know nothing of homosexuality simply because I don't agree with their views and opinions.) The attraction in itself isn't the sin - we are all tempted to sin every single day. But acting on that temptation is sinful. All sin is unwellness, and all sin separates us from God. Acknowledging this isn't hatred. // By the same token, it doesn't mean we get to legislate against it. Without wanting to turn this into a debate on homosexuality (I'm not sure we're even allowed to debate that here?), we have no right to force our beliefs on others, especially not with the law. Same sex marriage is a separate issue, mind. Anyhow, labelling it hatred in a world as PC as ours is a lazy way of trying to strongarm people into being silent. And I mean societally - not you specifically.

Click to expand...

Miss Munchkin,

I do assure you that the attitude that you present in your posts is radically different than that displayed by the chap that I mention above. This fellow presents all of the bombastic calling cards of an intellectual coward and a hate-monger. I would like to say that it is not worth our time to discuss this; however, since hatred leads to far nastier things, I chose to challenge him.

Leaving that conversation aside, I am sorry that you feel your path in this part of your life has been troubled. It seems to me that you are a better person than you think that you are, which does confuse my sense of logic a tad. In any case, I would be open to a friendly conversation regarding this subject, but with the understanding that it is a bit off-topic in this thread we should maybe move it over to my other thread, titled, "Introducing myself…"

It has been an absolute pleasure to meet you, Miss Munchkin. I hope that we speak again soon.

The Gentleman Atheist

To all members,

I am afraid that my Atheist pride may be my downfall. You see, I am almost convinced that this Trilemma of C.S. Lewis's is, in fact, the path to christianity for me. It was my vain ignorance and my blind conviction to my Atheist faith that led me misrepresent myself, but o! I am willing to listen now, to the wisdom of this great author of fiction, Lewis. If you may treat my opening post as a the mere query of a Truth-seeking wanderer, and disregard any overtone of formal debate, then perhaps I may address with you the minor, niggling problems that I do have with Lewis's statement, and then accept the word of the one true god, the lord Jesus Christ!

(There. How does that work? I really should have been a politician.)

To begin with, if the gospel is merely myth – as I have been told that it is – then why can the messiah not take on all three of these roles? Zeus for example (who I am hoping that we all acknowledge as myth) was exactly all of these three things at once: liar, lunatic, and lord. There seems to be a parallel here, though I can not quite grasp it. What elucidation may you provide this lowly itinerant who wanders in the dark?

With apologies, where appropriate. We do what we must.

The Gentleman Atheist

GreenMunchkin said:

This is essentially a re-hash of the teapot circling the earth argument. It's patently absurd. Find me one person that has genuine experiential proof of the teapot. I'll provide you with potentially millions that can genuinely attest to the existence of Christ. The same goes for Zeus.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it is exactly a re-hashing of Russell's teapot. We have to consider the purpose of the teapot, which is to merely determine who it is that must prove what. There is nothing absurd about that at all. Here we discuss whether a character of myth can adequately be equally assessed as a real-life person may be.

GreenMunchkin said:

Fictional characters can be as mad, avaricious, dishonest and downright potty as their creator wants. Jesus, though, is shackled by the restraints of Actually Existing. Unless you're of the belief that He didn't truly exist, in which case your beliefs are on the very outermost fringe of the very fringiest of fringes.

Click to expand...

My position would be that the Galilean messiah probably did exist, but his life and works have certainly been amplified and corrupted by the early church writers. I say that he probably did exist, because we have five or six extant references to the various names of the Galilean messiah in the works of the day's trusted historians. These are trusted sources, as they seem to have little conflict of interests, and other topics that they write on have been corroborated by trusted cross-reference, or archeological finds. Some might still argue that these works have been compromised during the long era in which christian religious intellectuals dominated the libraries of the world. I believe that such an argument is really irrelevant. The gospel writers wrote only about their subject, and suffer from many of the fallacies of myth – contradictory sources and redaction, canonization, and so forth. This is the basis for my suspicion.

GreenMunchkin said:

May I be blunt? You're clearly clever. I imagine you're much, much cleverer than me. And yet I've experienced the Living God. So we could engage in a battle of wits, or debate apologetics endlessly, but no amount of dry, dusty intellectual analysis will be able to answer, explain, negate or repudiate what I know to be true about God. You're intellectualising things that can't be viewed in such a way. It's like you're staring staring staring at the grain of wood in a particular tree, fixated on trying to understand it; you're taking notes and being very pragmatic about all of it. All very reasonable. And in doing so you can only see a few inches in front of your nose. You aren't able to step back and close your eyes, open your arms and ears and mouth and experience it, and hear it and taste it.

So then we come together to discuss the forest we're both in. You've focused on one tree, and try to extrapolate with analysis and reason. The Christian, though, has experienced the scents and the sounds and the feel of it. Honestly, which is more persuasive and powerful?

Click to expand...

May I also be blunt? There are those who would argue that cleverness itself is imaginary, and that though a person from West London may score 180 on one of our own I.Q. tests, that same person may move to Gambia and score pitiably on the B.I.Q. (the Bantu test). We look at everything through the lens of our own experience. When you look through your eyes at a tree, you see "God", when a buddhist monk mediates upon a tree, he sees "Chi". Likewise, I too can walk into the woods or hills, cast aside all analysis and reason, and bask in the pure beauty of my surroundings. If I were to have treated my young children as science experiments I certainly would not have a very good relationship with them. I can certainly experience life, but when I look I see nature, and not "God", not magic. This is just as persuasive and powerful than your "God" – even more so, because it in not linked to some improvable "Chi".

In fact, I save most of my logic and reasoning capabilities for dealing with the people who seek to dominate my intellectual and spiritual freedom with a manifestly dogmatic regime of shame and submission.

So – lord, lunatic, or liar – I am still undecided.
If you can help to separate the myth from the reality, then please do.

The Gentleman Atheist

Adoniram said:

If I might, kind sir, step into this discussion, I would say that I sense in this last post of yours a new and profound willingness to examine the evidence for Jesus Christ, and the Bible in general, with more openness than you have previously exhibited. Would that be correct? Has your research into this "trilemma" somehow shaken your "faith" in atheism? Has something else happened in your life to make you want to reconsider? Just wondering because I have read some of your postings in the past and you seem to have been pretty firmly entrenched in the atheistic philosophy, but now...a bit of a crack? You don't have to answer if you don't want to.

There is a book which I would like to suggest to you which I'm sure will appeal to your "intellectual" pursuits in this matter. It was written by former atheist Josh McDowell and is called "The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict."

Click to expand...

Yes, Adoniram, I teeter on the edge on Atheism's dull blade, and I may plunge out of one faith and into another. I am curious about your Mr. McDowell though. Contrary to what you say, my librarian states that he was not an atheist, but in fact McDowell claims to have been an agnostic. To me there is a difference worth considering here, and I am worried that this may not in fact be a convincing book to some who has been deluded by the dogma of Atheism for so long. What are your thoughts on the matter?

I will wait for your answer, lest we make an accident in our choice of literature.

The Gentleman Atheist