Lunatic, Liar, Lord
From SkepticWiki
The Lunatic, Liar, Lord, also known as the Trilemma, is an argument for the historical Christ which attempts to show, through the process of eliminating the alternatives, that Jesus Christ was the Lord.
Contents |
[edit] Discussion
Generally, the Lord, Liar, Lunatic argument is phrased as follows:
- Did Jesus exist? If not, then there's not much to talk about. If he did, he called himself Lord. This means that either:
- - He was Lord,
- - He was a liar, or
- - He was a lunatic.
- It's unlikely he was a liar, given his morals as described in the Bible, and his behavior doesn't sound like that of a lunatic. So surely we must conclude that he was Lord?"
The Lord, Liar, Lunatic argument is a variant of the false dichotomy (or false dilemma) fallacy, in which the apologist sets a series of possible alternatives, restricting all other alternatives but the alternative preferred. It goes without saying that this is a not a valid form of induction (however where the argument is logically weak, its rhetoric is arguably much stronger).
In particular, this argument makes a number of assumptions:
- That the historical Christ really did exist (this is somewhat debatable), or that the life of Jesus has not been lost to myth and legend
- That the words attributed to Jesus Christ were really his
- That the stories in the Gospels are historically accurate
- That Jesus himself claimed he was the Lord
[edit] Lord
Even if alternatives in this argument were accepted as-is, the argument still suffers from the fact that the "Jesus is Lord" claim is unfalsifiable. That is to say that when an apologist seeks to eliminate alternatives one by one, the "Jesus is Lord" claim is not possible to eliminate even in principle (barring Occam's Razor, of course.), except by another equally unfalsifiable alternative.
If unfalsifiable claims are going to be entertained, then consider the following:
- Jesus was not the Lord, but merely a prophet of God. This is similar to a belief held by the religion of Islam, which holds that Jesus was an enlightened prophet.
- Jesus was not the Lord of the Christian religion, but rather a demigod of another religion.
- Jesus was a sorcerer, but never claimed to be the Lord
- Jesus was a false prophet, and simply mistaken as the Lord. This option may have more plausibility than the others, due to the fact the bible describes in Acts 13 the presence of a figure by the name of "Barjesus", who is described as a Jewish false prophet and sorcerer.
- etc.
With the argument restated appropriately, all of these competing alternatives are equally as likely as the "Lord" alternative, and equally unfalsifiable.
However, very few apologists would concede to any of the aforementioned alternatives being likely - however, if reasons can be provided for rejecting the alternatives provided above (however that may be done), then reasons can be provided for rejecting the "Jesus is Lord" alternative as well. This fact indicates a logical weakness of the argument.
[edit] Lunatic
As the Lord, Liar, Lunatic Argument goes, it attempts to restrict the possibility that Jesus was simply a lunatic by arguing that his actions did not appear to be that of a lunatic.
However, given the argument in its present form, it does not appear that the "lunatic" possibility has been thoroughly dismissed. There are several prominent figures who have claimed their own divinity and messiahship:
- Sun Myung Moon [1]
- L. Ron Hubbard [2]
- Jim Jones [3]
- David Koresh [4]
- Emmanuel Swedenborg [5], an 18th century scientist and theologian who believed he was Jesus incarnate
- Countless present-day messiahs in Africa, and countless self-proclaimed messiahs who existed before Christ
Several quasi-messianic characters deserve honorable mention:
- Adolf Hitler, leader of the Nazi Party whose members were fanatically devoted
- Lyndon LaRouche [6]
- Joseph Smith, father of the Mormon religion
- The fictional "Big Brother" of the book 1984.
Many would be tempted to dismiss Hubbard, Jim Jones, and David Koresh as messiahs, because their actions are simply destructive.
However, figures such as Sun Myung Moon and Emmanuel Swedenborg are decidedly more benevolent self-proclaimed messiahs - in light of this, it would be a wonder why the Lord, Liar, Lunatic argument should not establish the messiahship of Moon and Swedenborg just as much as it would establish the messiahship of Jesus Christ. Certainly, if an apologist believes the Lord, Liar, Lunatic argument is valid for Christ, but not for Moon and Swedenborg, then this would be indicative of bias on the part of the apologist; upon accepting that it works just as easily for Moon and Swedenborg, then the powerful rhetoric of the argument begins to diminish.
[edit] Liar
That Jesus may have been a Liar does seem out of place given the descriptions of his actions and words as listed in the New Testament. However, one must assume they are accurate with respect to his actual activities, and are neither after-the-fact attributions nor simply contemporary embellishment by his fanatical followers. As any number of modern TV preachers have shown, lying while putting on a good public face (motive is left as an exercise for the reader) is not beyond the realm of consideration, especially when said followers, at least at the upper echelons, are frequently "in on it." Yet myriad good works, if not outright miracles, are touted as evidence for God and Jesus shining down on them...
[edit] History
The argument originated with C. S. Lewis in his book Mere Christianity:
- When Jesus Christ made His appearance He shocked the Jewish World because He claimed He was God. He claimed He had the ability to forgive sin. He said He had always existed. He said He was coming to judge the world at the end of time. Now let us get this clear; among pantheists, like the Indians, anyone might say that He was a part of God, or one with God. There could be nothing very odd about it, but this man, since He was a Jew, couldn't mean that kind of a God. God, in their language, meant the being outside the world, who had made it, and was infinitely different from anything else. And when you grasp that, you will see that what Jesus said was quite simply the most shocking thing that has been uttered by human lips.
- I am trying here to prevent anyone from saying that really foolish thing that people often say about Him, 'I am 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 is merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said wouldn't be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic, on the 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 mad man, or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool. You can spit on Him, and kill Him as a demon, or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God, but don't let us come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He hasn't left that open to us, and He didn't intend to.
Note that as Lewis formulated the argument it only applies to people who are already prepared to accept that large chunks of the Gospels consist of accurate biographical information about Jesus. Since Lewis first formulated it, the "Lunatic, Liar, Lord" trichotomy has been repeated by countless less intelligent Christian apologists who seem to think that it applies to anyone at all.
Of course, to anyone who thinks that the Gospels may be less than accurate, the "Lunatic, Liar, Lord" trichotomy makes as much sense as asking whether King Arthur was a lunatic, a liar, or the rightful king of Britain as he claimed.
[edit] Trivia
The popular movie The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (2005) contains what may be an intentional allusion to the Lunatic, Liar, Lord argument:
- Professor: Well then, if your sister isn't lying and isn't mad then logically we must assume that she is telling the truth.
