🚀 go-pugleaf

Abner Mintz <ajm@clark.net> wrote:
>>"Sorry, but all the articles on this topic expired
>> before I had the free time to respond."

J. Michael Phillips wrote:
> Has happened to me . . .

"Responses will probably be even slower this time,
 considering that I'm about to go off on vacation
 for a week, and won't have net access ..." ;)

>>"I think I thought of a good way to explain why
>> it is that C.S. Lewis's assumptions at the
>> beginning of the 'Lord, Liar, Lunatic' trilemma
>> (that the Bible accurately describes both what
>> Jesus said and what he meant, so he is neither
>> misquoted or misinterpreted) invalidate the
>> whole argument.

> That has never been a contention of mine: that the premises of the
> trilemma are unassailable.  I'm afraid I can't agree with your
> interpretation, and I'll explain as best I can why:

"Fair enough."

>>Bear with me for a second, as
>> I use a similar technique to set up a dilemma
>> of my own ..."

> OK - (btw: interesting analogy, but you're mixing things up a little)

>>"I can prove that dolphins are plants using
>> a dilemma.  You see, dolphins are either
>> animals, plants, or minerals; I hope you
>> agree with this statement that dolphins are
>> one of the three."

> Why must it be one of those 3 only?
> See, that's the crux of the Lewis trilemma.  Is there a 4th thing that
> a dolphin could be?

"Oh, that's how you set up a dilemma-type
 argument.  You get someone to agree that
 the answer falls under a list of choices,
 then you eliminate all but one choice using
 logical (or at least reasonable) arguments,
 and assert that the last option standing
 is therefore correct."

"In other words, you get the person the
 argument is aimed at to agree that X is
 either A, B, C, or D (or more or less
 options), then eliminate options B, C,
 and D using arguments the person will
 agree with, leaving only A still standing."

"So, do you agree that dolphins are
 animals, plants, or minerals?  If so,
 then I can use valid arguments why
 they are neither plants nor minerals,
 and show that thus that they are
 animals."

"The problem comes if I then eliminate
 one option (animals) *arbitrarily*,
 and then use the remaining plant-mineral
 dilemma and a valid argument that dolphins
 aren't minerals to show that they must
 be plants."

"Dilemma-type arguments just break down
 as soon as you arbitrarily eliminate an
 option."

>>"Now, I am going to assume that dolphins aren't
>> animals.

> Why?  I would argue that.  Besides, that's not the form that LLL
> takes.

"I'm afraid it is, except there was some
 handwaving to hide it.  You see, it's
 originally a pentalemma - lord, liar,
 lunatic, misquoted, misinterpreted.
 Do you agree that the true option
 falls in there somewhere?"

"Now, we arbitrarily eliminate two options
 by assuming that he was neither misquoted
 nor misinterpreted ..."

"And that's where the pentalemma breaks
 down - when he arbitrarily eliminates
 two options to get down to lord, liar,
 and lunatic.  Dilemma-type arguments
 just don't function unless the audience
 agrees that the truth must fall in the
 options given, and the only people who
 (validly) agree to 'lord, liar, lunatic'
 as the three options are those who
 are bible inerrantists (who are all
 Christians already anyway) and those who
 have been dazzled by the fancy footwork
 and don't realize (sorry) that two valid
 options were just eliminated from the
 pentalemma."

"The only reason for those assumptions
 are to remove the two options (misunderstood,
 misinterpreted) which allow someone
 to disagree with the Christian conclusions
 without insulting Christianity.  i.e.,
 without saying that you were following
 a conman or a madman.  It's basically set
 up in such a way that we either have to
 insult Christians or become Christians
 - and I don't like that.  The LLL trilemma
 is (perhaps deliberately) set up in a
 confrontational manner by arbitrarily
 eliminating the two options that allow
 frictionless coexistance."

"I *really* don't like the LLL trilemma.
 If someone cared to argue the LLLMM
 pentalemma, I'd be a lot happier."

>>Thus, dolphins are either plants or
>> minerals; since dolphins are alive, and plants
>> are alive and minerals aren't, dolphins quite
>> clearly are plants."

> Know what?  I was wrong.  That's exactly the form LLL takes.  Lewis
> argues Jesus had to be either :
> Lord - where Lewis winds up
> Liar - which he rejects out of hand, sort of like you reject animal
>           here, or
> Lunatic - which he shows why he doesn't think Jesus is one, similar to
>            how you show why a dolphin can't be a plant.

"Oops - well, the above response seems to have
 been unnecessary.  Teaches me not to respond
 before finishing reading the post." ;)  "Well,
 take it as elucidation of my prior points."

> My question has always been:
> What is the 4th category?  If your dolphin analogy is to be analogous
> to LLL, then that's the question to ask.  If it's a "false trilemma,"
> and there are other possibilities, then what's the 4the possibility?
> a dolphin is either plant, vegetable, mineral, or what else?

> That's where people get my goat.  They say it's a false trilemma.  In
> order to be a "false dilemma," you have to say x is either y or z, and
> you leave out q.  Leaving out q is what makes it a false dilemma.

> For your dolphin analogy to be a false trilemma, you have to say that
> Dolphins (q) are either animal (x), vegetable (y), or mineral (z).  If
> I call that a false trilemma, there must be a 4th thing (r) that you
> left out.  I can't think of anything other than animal, vegetable, or
> mineral.

"No, no - the point is, to have a valid dilemma argument,
 you have to have the audience agreeing that the only
 options are the ones presented *and* that the eliminated
 options were properly eliminated.  That's where C.S. Lewis
 tries to have his cake and eat it to.  It's originally
 a pentalemma (with the other two options being misunderstood
 and misinterpreted), and then he arbitrarily eliminates
 two options (misunderstood, misinterpreted).  If he
 tried to have it as the LLL dilemma originally, then
 only biblical inerrantist Christians would agree that
 the truth must be among those three options (that
 he couldn't have been misunderstood or misinterpreted),
 and thus it fails as a dilemma-type argument because
 only the choir agrees with the preaching."

"If he tried to have it as pentalemma originally, then
 he has eliminated two options arbitrarily to get down
 to the trilemma, and thus (as with the dolphins are
 plants example) he may have eliminated a valid option,
 which makes a dilemma-type argument fall apart."

"Either way, it's not a valid dilemma-type argument.
 Either the audience doesn't agree with the original
 options unless they're biblical inerrantists, or
 the argument fails because options have been
 eliminated arbitrarily."

> The attacks on LLL (including yours here, mentioning misquotes and
> misinterpreted) are more like in your dolphin analogy saying:
> Dr Brown, who claimed to have seen a "dolphin" was mistaken.  It was a
> manatee - dolphins don't exist . . .

"I disagree.  Does my above section make my
 complaints against the LLL make more sense
 to you?  I'm not saying dolphins don't
 exist - I'm saying that for a dilemma to
 be valid, you have to agree that the truth
 is among the options given *and* that the
 eliminated options were validly eliminated."

"The trilemma either is aimed only at
 biblical inerrantists, or eliminates
 two options arbitrarily."

*snip, as I have to be out the door shortly on vacation*

> The premises of LLL are:
> Jesus was a real person,
> Jesus said some things, and
> They were reported accurately.

"And that the current interpretation of
 what those things meant is the correct one.
 Misinterpreted is still an option.  Who
 knows what 'Give unto Caeser what is
 Caeser's' meant to his audience?"

> If those 3 statements are true, then Jesus was either:
> Lord, Liar, or Lunatic.

> If those 3 statements are true, what 4th alternative is there?

"The problem is, only biblical inerrantists 
 will agree to all the statements (including
 my addition).  So, is the trilemma only
 addressed at biblical inerrantists, and 
 everyone else can just ignore it as ignoring
 options we think are valid ones?" :)

>>"*That's* the problem with the 'Lord, Liar,
>> Lunatic' trilemma!  By invalidating at least
>> two reasonable options (that Jesus was
>> misquoted, or what Jesus said has been
>> misinterpreted) to boil things down to
>> 'Lord, Liar, Lunatic' he's basically
>> broken the argument.

> Nope, you're mixing apples and oranges here.  You may disagree with
> Lewis, and think that Jesus was a liar.  You may disagree, and think
> that he's a lunatic.  But if you accept the 3 premises are true, there
> is no 4th option available.  The internal logic stands.

"I don't accept the premises, as I'm not
 a biblical inerrantist.  OK, so what you're
 saying is that the LLL is a case of preaching
 to the choir, and only to the choir, and
 us non-Christians don't need to worry about
 it because it won't be used as an argument
 to us?" :)

> NOW . . . if you don't accept the premises of the argument, then
> that's another story.

>>Dilemma-type
>> arguments work by eliminating all but
>> one option through reason, and then
>> asserting that the remaining one is the
>> correct one;

> Correct.

>>by eliminating some arbitrarily,

> I still see no 4th alternative internal to the argument.  Was Jesus
> misquoted?  That's entirely another question, but it is as irrelevant
> to the LLL question as LLL becomes if he was misquoted.  Lewis' logic
> is valid, but if Jesus was misquoted, it's irrelevant what those
> misquotes mean - see what I mean?

"The problem is, many Christians use this
 argument on us.  I'm just trying to point out
 that it's only a valid argument for biblical
 inerrantists.  To everyone else, there are
 more options."

"If the LLL trilemma was used only on people
 that already believed, there would be no
 problem.  It would just be a 'you agree
 with this, so you agree with this' argument
 - futile and useless.  Alas, it is often
 used at us atheists, which makes it highly
 irritating to us, because it ignores valid
 options by just trying to assume them away."

>> he no longer has a dilemma-type argument.
>> It just looks like one, but isn't because
>> reasonable alternatives remain."

> Not internally to the argument.

"But he got there (to the internally) in
 the same way that I got to dolphins being
 plants.  If he were to argue it honestly,
 it would come out as 'dolphins are either
 plants or minerals, and they're not
 minerals, so they must be plants' - 
 internally valid, perhaps, but only
 a vegedolphinist would agree with it."

> Dear me - I'm not sure I'm saying this well at all - it may take a
> couple of days, but I'll *save* your article (WOW!  A FIRST!) and mull
> it over.  Hopefully, I can either:
> Say better what I'm thinking, or
> figure out that I'm wrong again, and 'fess up.

"I hope the above helped to explain my objections
 to the LLL trilemma more clearly.  Really, I
 don't mind the LLL trilemma, and similar
 apologetics, being used interally to the
 Christian faith - but when they start using
 them on me, I start getting a tad steamed up,
 because the people that use them on me (no,
 I am not referring to you - you haven't tried 
 that at all) don't seem to understand why I
 don't accept that LLL are the only options
 ... And about the fourth time a given person
 says 'but the options are LLL, so which one
 is it?' I start feeling an urge to do a primal
 scream!"  :(

>>"Having the 'Lord, Liar, Lunatic' argument
>> be 'valid within the context of its
>> assumptions' is like having the 'dolphins
>> are plants' argument be 'valid as long
>> as you assume that dolphins aren't animals'.

> I'm not saying it well, but you're not representing the LLL accurately
> here . . . I'll figure a better way to say it, and re-post in a couple
> of days.

"I think I am, but look foreward to reading your
 continuance when I get back."

> > Well, maybe - but who cares?  Only someone
> > who has already assumed that dolphins
> > aren't animals is likely to accept the
> > dolphins are plants argument (unless they
> > get dazzled by the fancy footwork); only
> > someone who  has already assumed that the
> > Bible is inerrant and unmisinterpretable
> > will accept the 'Lord, Liar, Lunatic'
> > trilemma (again, unless they get dazzled
> > by the fancy footwork with which the
> > argument is presented ...)."

> >"Of course, C.S. Lewis's non-fantasy
> > works have always annoyed me - perhaps
> > he didn't realize how invalid the
> > argument was, or perhaps it was only
> > *meant* for an already-agreeing
> > audience, and I'm being unkind in
> > my 'fancy footwork' jab at him..." ;)

> For the tenor of arguments posted here to ABR, your "unkindness" is
> pretty civil . . .

"Towards you, sure.  Towards Lewis, perhaps
 not ..." ;)

> Anyway, I'll post again a reply when I've figured out how to say what
> I want to say . . .

"Great!  Catch you later, then!"

"Aaaah, the time, the time ...."  *runs to grab bags*