by Nathaniel Bluedorn, Copyright December 13, 2007, all rights reserved. 459 views
Letter from Carter Askren
Hi. A professor of critical thinking was telling me that C.S. Lewis’ comment to the effect of, “either Jesus was who he said he was or he was a liar or a lunatic,” is a false dichotomy and therefore illogical. I disagree, but can’t really articulate why. Liar or lunatic do seem like reasonable possibilities, but I suppose one could try to make the argument that C.S Lewis was mistaken and that could be another possibility. If false dichotomy is the presentation of conclusions that may not necessarily be all of the possible conclusions, then perhaps that was what the professor was trying to argue? I disagree with the idea that Jesus was mistaken, but I was trying to understand how someone might argue that such a statement from Jesus was illogical. And then, of course, we can remember that we are to be “fools for Christ” and that may mean standing by a position even when it is not popular--or “logical.” Thank you for your help.
Carter,
In “Mere Christianity” C.S. Lewis says, “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.”
When interpreting what someone ways – like C.S. Lewis – it is best to interpret them in the best possible light. It is likely that Lewis understood that an alternative to “liar or lunatic” was “mistaken.” Lewis’ likely intention in this paragraph from “Mere Christianity” was to point out that this third alternative, “Jesus was a wise but mistaken human being,” is not reasonable given that Jesus claimed to be God. Lewis wasn’t committing an “either-or” fallacy because he addresses the alternatives, and rejects them. An either-or fallacy ignores the alternatives.
1 • arendtian • June 28, 2008 • 3:43 AM
Ignoring the possibility that the claims of Jesus are grossly misrepresented in the bible or (far more problematically) something like Jesus didn’t exist ... why couldn’t someone who was deluded be a great moral teacher?
If I am not mistaken, Copi uses that particular quote as an example of a false Dichotomy.
2 • Nathaniel Bluedorn • June 28, 2008 • 7:54 AM
You ask “Why couldn’t someone who was deluded be a great moral teacher?” It might help us out if you could answer this question.
3 • Pop Guru • July 14, 2008 • 4:36 PM
I believe CS Lewis is guilty of a false dichotomy because there are alternatives that are not discussed. One of these is that perhaps Jesus didn’t claim to be the son of god and that the claim was attributed to him when the Gospels were written, which was after his death.
4 • Ron Lopez, RN • July 18, 2008 • 10:21 PM
“deluded” Verb: delude di’lood. 1. Be false to; be dishonest with.
A person who is dishonest or false, is, be their own state of dishonesty or falsity, incapable of moral teaching. No deluded person is capable of being concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles. Moral teaching is concerned with exactly these things. This is why someone who was deluded could not at the same time be any kind of moral teacher, let along a great one.