Skip to main content

Jesus - "Mad, bad or God?"

Following on from preceding post, the "Mad, Bad or God" challenge so often put by Christians (first put by C.S. Lewis) is really an example of the fallacy of false dilemma (as Kyle P. points out in comment on preceding post). In the Philosophy Gym, I call it the salesperson's fallacy, because it is commonly used by salespeople.

The "Mad, Bad or God" challenge is being used to "sell" Christianity by presenting us with just three options, which then seem to force us to choose "God" as most probable answer. It works by airbrushing out other, far more likely, answers (see preceding post).

Here's the entry:

False dilemma (the salesperson’s favourite)

It is common to argue like this:

Either A or B
Not A
Therefore B

This is often a perfectly acceptable form of argument, as in this case:

Either John has a driving license or else John is not permitted to drive.
John has not got a driving license.
Therefore, John is not permitted to drive.

This argument, on the other hand, is not acceptable:

Either 1 + 1 = 5 or 2 + 2 = 5
It is not true that 1 + 1 = 5
Therefore, 2 + 2 = 5

Why not? Because, unlike in the first argument, the alternatives presented in the either/or premise could both be false. People often construct such arguments without registering that both alternatives might be false, as in this example:

Either we cut welfare or the government goes into the red
We cannot allow the government to go into the red
Therefore we must cut welfare

In this case, there are other options not mentioned, such as raise taxes. Customers are often railroaded into making bad decisions by a salesperson’s use of false dilemma:

Either you give a substantial donation to the Blue Meanie Cult or you will have an unhappy life.
You don’t want an unhappy life, do you?
So make that donation!

Either you buy the Kawazuki K1000 for great home sound entertainment, or else you make do with second rate rubbish.
Are you really prepared to accept second rate rubbish? I thought not.
So you have no choice, do you? You have to buy the Kawazuki K1000!

Comments

Anonymous said…
While CS Lewis's statement is often misused, CS Lewis's usage was far more modest. He was addressing those Christians who accepted that Jesus was a great moral teacher but not that he was God.

Lewis said that, ASSUMING that the words attributed to Jesus are true, then you can't consider him only as a great moral teacher. Someone walking around claiming that they were God must be a liar, lunatic or God. This is a rhetorical device rather than logical argument. Lewis never offers a logical argument to prove that the "God" option was correct, other than to give his opinion based on the words attributable to Jesus.

So, it isn't really a false dilemma, as Lewis has given a premise (that the Bible accurately portrays Jesus's words) to frame his rhetoric. Of course, given that his premise is wrong, the rest doesn't flow. But still, it isn't a false dilemma.
Anonymous said…
You have got all of it wrong.
Your theory only works if you havent considered all of the possible answers.
For Example, if you included all the possible answers, it WOULD work:

either 1+1=5,2+2=5,1+2=5,3+3=5,2+3=5,1+0=5...etc
1+1 dosn't work, 2+2 dosn't work, 1+2 dosn't work ...etc
Everything dosn't work except 2+3
Therefore, 2+3=5

Jesus- Mad, Bad or God DOES consider everything, and then catergorises it into the three groups.The reason it points to Jesus is the son of God, is because it IS the logicall answer.
I RULE!

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...

Sye show continues

I was sent a link to this , for those interested in the never ending saga of Sye TenBruggencate and his "proof" of the existence of God. Hit "sinner ministries' proof of the existence of god" link below or on side bar for 30+ earlier posts on this topic that I wrote during an extended interchange with him last summer (check the literally many hundreds of comments attached to these posts if you really want to get into how Sye thinks and argues). Sye's amazing intial "proof" is available here . PS. For those interested, my own "presuppositional" proof, parodying Sye's proof by his principle "the impossibility of the contrary" (which turns out to be the key to Sye's proof) is: My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock. Prove this is false, Sye. Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a pr...