The Lord, Liar, Lunatic Argument
“The Lord, Liar, Lunatic Argument,” was first created by C.S. Lewis in his book, “Mere Christianity,” but has since been repeated and popularized by Christian hack, Josh McDowell in his book “More Than a Carpenter.” McDowell’s book is a favorite among college aged Evangelical Christians. While possibly one of the worst arguments for Christianity, it has nevertheless become a staple for evangelical Christians whether it is attributed to McDowell or Lewis. Personally, I think Lewis should have stuck with hiding in wardrobes because this argument is really that bad. Even most “Theologians” have called Lewis out on it. In any case, the argument goes a little something like this:
Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. Therefore we are left with only one of three options: 1. He was either exactly who he said he was (i.e. the Lord… i.e. God). 2. He was an evil immoral liar who just lies to trick people. 3. Or he was a stark raving lunatic who was completely out of his mind.
Most people (even many non-Christians) consider Jesus to be a moral man and perhaps even a great moral teacher. But great moral men and teachers don’t lie. Lying is the exact opposite of moral, right? So clearly Jesus was not a liar. No one would claim that a great moral man was just crazy, right? So clearly Jesus couldn’t have been a lunatic either. Therefore we are left with just one possible option, Jesus must be exactly who he claimed to be, i.e. the Lord, i.e. God.
That is the great argument. Some Christians have even referred to it as “the most important argument in Christian apologetics.” The most glaring problem that first came to my mind when a Christian friend first used it on me in college is that this argument attempts to limit our choices down to three. Why only three choices? C.S. Lewis certainly had a better imagination than that; he created Narnia. Now, Josh McDowell I can understand. That guy has no imagination at all. He couldn’t even come up with an original argument. Instead he just stole from C.S. Lewis. But Lewis surely could have thought of more than three options. Let’s think about this for a moment and see if we can’t help him out a bit. Are there any other possibilities we might be able to think of? Any other possibilities at all?
I know, maybe he didn’t actually claim to be the Son of God. That is one other possibility, right? The Bible has been copied many times prior to the Gutenberg Printing Press, so perhaps someone added the whole Son of God thing later on. Maybe he didn’t mean Son of God in the same way that modern Christians mean the phrase “Son of God.” He could have been misinterpreted. Perhaps that isn’t what Jesus meant to say throughout the Bible. It isn’t as if he actually said the words, “I am the Son of God, worship me!” Maybe he meant something totally different than “the only begotten Son of God.” That is certainly another possibility, right? Perhaps Jesus was simply mistranslated.
It may also be possible that maybe he wasn’t a complete lunatic, but still just a little touched in the head. Certainly we all sometimes have delusions of grandeur, right? One might consider that to be part of the “Lunatic” position, but I think this is a bit more nuanced. Besides, Joan of Ark was crazy and the Church made her a Saint. Maybe Jesus was Autistic? He could have had Aspergers. In fact, there are many mental disorders and illnesses that Jesus could have had which may have made him think that he was the offspring of a deity without tarnishing any of his moral lessons or judgments.
It is also entirely possible that Jesus was just being metaphoric with all the Son of God stuff. Christians tend to love the metaphorical defense whenever someone brings up the passages in the Bible, which they don’t particularly care for. Speaking of Christian stock defenses, the Gospel writers could have quoted Jesus out of context or edited what Jesus actually said.
Of course, the possibility that I think most likely is that Jesus probably didn’t exist at all. This possibility always gets Christians angry and they usually start talking about how there is more evidence for Jesus than there is for Barack Obama or some such nonsense. I am not going to debate that in this blog, but I am going to say that it is at least a possibility that C.S. Lewis failed to think about. This blog isn’t about which option is true, it is about the fact that there are more than three options.
It seems to me like there are a whole host of other options and possibilities that were just left out of C.S. Lewis’s seemingly limited imagination. But since we are told right from the start that there are ONLY three possibilities, most people wouldn’t question any deeper than that, especially if one were to already accept the first possibility.
Moving on, is it possible to be a moral man and still lie if one feels that by doing so lives would be saved? I think so at least and I am pretty sure Anne Frank thought so too. So even if some non-Christians did think he was a moral man, they could still think that he lied about being the Son of God. One has nothing to do with the other. Also along the same lines, I also think it is possible to be a moral man and a little touched in the head. In fact, you will find that a lot of delusional people and even a fair amount of completely crazy people are moral people too. Sometimes those are the most moral people. I don’t see how one discounts the other.
Clearly this argument has absolutely nothing going for it. First it attempts to limit people’s choices due to a lack of imagination or very skilled rhetoric and then it can’t even adequately deal with the choices it has left people. The only conclusion that we have left is that C.S. Lewis and any Christian who uses this argument must be a liar and a lunatic… but definitely not a god.
Filed under: Lord-Liar-Lunatic, Religion
