Trilemma Revisited

Christopher HItchens on CS Lewis
19th April 2015 | TJ Whitehead
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBCYY6-u1Yc

I

Christopher Hitchens misses that both in his personal conversion and in the book, C. S. Lewis had already shown that God exists - leaving Christ's claim at least one possibility.

As to whether Christ existed or not, to me as to Lewis, a man denying He was historically there is on par with a man denying Socrates actually was teaching Plato and then drinking the hemlock. In other words, not knowledgeable on history.

II

3:05 These are all valid syllagisms:

• trilemma, not evil, not mad -> God
• trilemma, not evil, not God -> mad
• trilemma, not mad, not God -> evil

So, C. S. Lewis did complete the syllogism. He just did it with another set of premisses than you prefer.

jeffrey lee robinson

complete perhaps. the argument was that it isn't sound.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jeffrey lee robinson The argument is that CSL made a sounder choice of premisses than Hitchens.

jeffrey lee robinson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl again, that's not detailed - thus not an argument. the premises are not remotely encompassing. and they are by 19th century Victorian ideas, not 1st century mythology weaving realities.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jeffrey lee robinson what do you mean by "not remotely encompassing"?

If you only meant that the trilemma didn't deal with the hypothesis of "myth", CSL answered that elsewhere.

And no, the trilemma would certainly hold by 1st C. ideas as well. That's why some took the other positions "possessed" and eventually "evil".

jeffrey lee robinson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl the point I'm trying to make here is that this hard and fast "trilemma" doesn't hold.

for one, the lack of historicity, which you claims he deals with elsewhere, is still a valid criticism to this proposition.

Jesus could also be self deluded - but that doesn't make him a "monster." And given the outrageous claims of all religions, would this trilemma also imply that all Christians are lunatics' should their truth claims prove untrue? That hardly seems sound from experience either.

But Christians, interestingly, cling to Lewis's writings as if they were scripture themselves. Another projection of this deep need for infallible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jeffrey lee robinson "for one, the lack of historicity, which you claims he deals with elsewhere, is still a valid criticism to this proposition."

It is so not, since it is formulated "a man making these claims" which is not in and of itself supposing historicity that He did so.

Yes, as I, like Hitchens, have read both Miracles and Mere Christianity, he does deal with historicity of claim being pronounced. Have you heard his view on that subject? It's about like this : most people of the antiquity, we known nothing about, several we know as names attached to one or two facts, some we know more facts about, but TWO and TWO ONLY we can, from the texts claim to quasi know personally : Socrates and Jesus.

"Jesus could also be self deluded - but that doesn't make him a 'monster.'"

It would rather fall within lunatic.

"And given the outrageous claims of all religions,"

Like Atheism claiming atom structure, galaxies and stars, planets and life, langue and mind came from very inadequate prior things?

"would this trilemma also imply that all Christians are lunatics' should their truth claims prove untrue? That hardly seems sound from experience either."

No, it would not, since delusion about one's personal status is not just the same thing as chosing a wrong belief system. Even so, St. Paul himself rather than CSL would consider Christians very pitiful if wrong.

"But Christians, interestingly, cling to Lewis's writings as if they were scripture themselves. Another projection of this deep need for infallible."

As you cling to Hitchens .... CSL is a good arguer in the century I was born in (I don't know your age), like St. Thomas Aquinas was one 700 years earlier. Today, Christian have confrontations of a type leaving us some arguing to do, I'm a poster child for that, and so we have a tendency to valuate those who argue against the things we have to argue against.

After above, I sent him a link here, so now he knows our words are coming up here:

jeffrey lee robinson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

" but TWO and TWO ONLY we can, from the texts claim to quasi know personally : Socrates and Jesus"

Socrates still may or may not have been - most likely was, but we only have Plato's account. That's it. As for Jesus, we only have the gospel accounts in which, unlike Plato, none were written by eye witnesses. That's a bit less than credible for the sake of history.

"It would rather fall within lunatic."

That would mean, if Christianity were true, I'm a lunatic for not finding the evidence compelling. Or, should it be false, every Christian is a lunatic for believing it. That's simply over the top language that's trying to sell something that simply isn't true. Delusion or misapprehension doesn't automatically make one a completely out of touch with reality crazy person. It's hyperbole.

"Like Atheism claiming atom structure, galaxies and stars, planets and life, langue and mind came from very inadequate prior things?"

Firstly, "atheism" doesn't claim that. The sciences do. It's demonstrable - not a matter of faith, it's based on the available evidence. And the use of the term "inadequate" is a judgment call. Review the evidence and supply a counterpoint. Again, emotion based language. Not factual content or rational deduction or induction.

"No, it would not, since delusion about one's personal status is not just the same thing as chosing a wrong belief system. Even so, St. Paul himself rather than CSL would consider Christians very pitiful if wrong."

earlier you seemed to imply it does. and for Christians "personal status" and their "belief system" are part and parcel the same thing. And, given Christians damning rhetoric and false humility lamely attempting to disguise gross arrogance and knowing truth with a capital T - yeah, it is sad. It's shameful. It's dishonourable given their moral damnation of themselves, others, and the planet that simply isn't justified on the weak grounds they provide.

I'm not "clinging to Hitchens." Where do you get that idea? Simply because I'm defending him here? Fallacy of tu quoque. "Well you're doing it!" A, that doesn't respond to what's writ, B, it's not true. I'm speaking historically. I'm speaking of Lewis books that ended up anonymously in my mailbox when I left xTianity. I don't go around as Hitchens apostle as I've watched Christians do for Lewis over the years.

In other words I argue my points myself. I don't refer to someone else to make the points for me as I've experience over the years with Christians and their reliance on Lewis as "defender of the faith" - when they themselves cannot.

I'm not saying the man is unintelligent. He's quite sharp and well spoken. That wasn't a strike against him as a thinker. It's a strike against Christians in their infallible hero worship.

I'm not quite sure I got what you were saying in the last bit.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jeffrey lee robinson "Socrates still may or may not have been - most likely was, but we only have Plato's account. That's it. As for Jesus, we only have the gospel accounts in which, unlike Plato, none were written by eye witnesses. That's a bit less than credible for the sake of history."

We have Plato's and Xenophon's plus a spoof in Aristophanes, actually.

MOST people we have no eyewitness accounts unfiltered for, but the accounts were filtered with decades and centuries of delay.

If we stay as close as we can to recorded facts, Matthew and John are eyewitness accounts, Marc and Luke filtered but within contemporaries. That's extraordinarily good for the two centuries around BC/AD shift, for first C. BC and for first C. AD. It would be less than good for 19th or 20th C. AD, but those are far closer and involved a civilisation with much more paper and writing.

Because, you see, as early as 150 AD, Papias attributes the Gospels to the names and the one doubt is whether John was the Son of Zebedee or another disciple. Even in that case he can very well have been, as he claims or borrows pen to hearers to allow them to claim for him, he is.

"if Christianity were true, I'm a lunatic for not finding the evidence compelling. Or, should it be false, every Christian is a lunatic for believing it."

Not the least. You or I would be lunatics for claiming to be the Creator of Heaven and Earth if we had either no memories or false memories of doing so. A statement like "before Abraham was, I am" which translates as "I am still around since before Abraham lived" is lunacy if not true. Or a very weird attempt of manipulation. It cannot be reduced to merely a theological position.

So, no, it is not hyperbolé.

"Firstly, "atheism" doesn't claim that. The sciences do. It's demonstrable - not a matter of faith, it's based on the available evidence."

No, they do not. Scientists do, and some of those who do are believing Atheists, like Krauss or Dawkins, and others who do so are Syncretists between a more traditional religion and Atheism. No demonstration has been given, except such that depend on presuming in advance there is no God or if any, at least not exactly like in the Bible.

"for Christians "personal status" and their "belief system" are part and parcel the same thing."

It is not the same thing. If I claimed I had already died and gone to Heaven and not gone back (there are those who claim that with no lunacy), but still were a blessed soul without a body, that would be a delusion about personal status. As to the belief system, we are not lunatics for being Christians, though in some situations we would be losing out on very much, if we were wrong, and chasing a non-extant compensation, and you are not lunatics in the clinical sense for being Atheists.

"gross arrogance and knowing truth with a capital T"

I am sorry, but you just did that yourself when claiming sciences had demonstrated certain Atheistic credenda. Again, arrogance, like lunacy, is about personal status, and "knowing the truth with a capital T" is a very bandied around claim and therefore not about personal status.

"Simply because I'm defending him here? Fallacy of tu quoque."

Fell into the trap, did you? I was not clinging to C. S. Lewis. I was defending him because I found his argument here very sound. As a Catholic, I definitely find him grossly in error on some topics. But those were not the ones he brought to the discussion in Apologetics, usually. As a creationist too - the syncretists who add Atheistic credenda to Christianity would in some periods of his life include CSL himself.

"I'm speaking of Lewis books that ended up anonymously in my mailbox when I left xTianity. I don't go around as Hitchens apostle as I've watched Christians do for Lewis over the years."

Oh, you are an apostate, how sad for you, objectively! Out of courtesy, let's not mind that here, and unlike whatever Christian friend or x-friend did that, I did not send you anything anonymously (unless you live in Paris and surroundings and I dropped a right wing paper or a slip of paper with a URL, but that was "en masse" and didn't target anyone), and I came here because Hitchens was attacking CSL. I also came here with my real name, unlike perhaps some who have sent me suggestions for certain youtube videos. Not sure if it was the case with this one.

Is your last quip supposed to mean, if I use an argument that CSL already used, I am somehow not defending the faith myself? That's something of a double standard coming from you, but luckily for both of us, it's wrong.