Rough Cut 8/11 - SoCalGal told me to "have at it."

holy smokes… ;-)

Im sure there are a lot of ladies. ; )

I will make sure post the pages of the book so that others can check it out for themselves.

He does take shots at him but also compliments him when he adds more to the book.

that I have laughed at many a Shaq joke. My favorite moment was when he stared in shock at his left hand, as though it was alive. But it got old, and I got older, and wiser, and began to see through the thin veil of demeaning jokes. He insults your intelligence, and you laugh and love it… no thanks.

And BXF would be honored :)

SIDENOTE: Before we go on, I hope everyone will note that this is not actually a discussion about religion, but rather, a discussion about C.S. Lewis as a philosopher/theologian, thinker, and author. And my two cents (plus a few bucks, right?) are that he’s bloody brilliant.

First, one thing that’s bothering me here is that you’re equating effect with intent. Specifically, you’re reading what I would call malicious intent where there need be none.

Let’s say your take on it is right that there are options other than those three, and that it is possible that those options do not necessarily equate with being a “lunatic” or a “devil” (that’s not my position, but before I get there I want to address this issue of Lewis’ intent). You’re making the assumption that he’s trying to manipulate his reader — that he’s trying to be clever. And knowing the work of C.S. Lewis as I do (and I’m sure you do as well), I think that’s incredibly brazen. First, I simply don’t buy that Lewis would ever feel the need to do that. He’s not a con artist, politician, or ESPN writer; he’s not interested in pulling the wool over your eyes. “Clever and manipulative logic” suggests intentional misleading, which is something you do when you’re not convinced that your argument can stand on its own; instead, you distract your reader from the weakness of your position by leading them to certain subconscious conclusions that you have not, in fact, proven. C.S. Lewis would be the last to do this. If he wrote it, it is because he thinks it true; and not only true, but likely unassailable, or he would have written something different (or nothing at all).

Furthermore, Lewis is simply too smart for that. Look, I’m a pretty smart guy, and language and logic are my forte. I’ve read Thomas Aquinas and understood it, which is far from easy. C.S. Lewis is simply the most intelligent writer and philosopher of the last 100 years or more, that I have read. I’m part-way through his The Problem of Pain, and let me tell you, it’s so dense that I have to read very slowly, and re-read, and sit and think. It’s not just good; it’s absolutely brilliant. And I don’t mean that in the way that Guiness beer is brilliant; I mean it in the way that Albert Einstein was brilliant. So again, C.S. Lewis is simply too smart for gimmicky tricks like that. He doesn’t need it, and I feel pretty certain that he would catch such an error in his own thought long before you or I would.

So I’d suggest we dispense with the entire idea that C.S. Lewis “uses clever and manipulative logic in his arguments.” If there is any flaw in his reasoning, I cannot fathom that it is any deliberate attempt to distract or mislead; should there be such a flaw, it can only be that his argument falls short, that it is faulty. And if so, then let us say that. To be incorrect is no terrible thing; to deliberately and maliciously mislead is.

Second, I think your point about clever tactics to mislead the reader is moot. Let’s be clear: You and I use vivid language on a daily basis. I do it all the time. Want to know one of the secrets to good writing? Mastering adjectives, and using them to create a vivid, powerful picture, to drive home your points, to bring the reader to your side — not mildly, but strongly. This isn’t misleading; it’s a rhetorical device useful for effectively communicating your point. This is what Lewis is doing with “devil” and “lunatic” — he actually does believe that such a person would have to be either insane (to honestly think he’s God when he actually is not) or evil (to portray himself as God when he knows he’s not). Does he use powerful language to convey that point, and perhaps get you to connect with it? Damn straight he does; if he didn’t, he’d be a poor writer.

But the point here is that it doesn’t matter. Yes, a news article with a sensationalized headline may give us an impression as to the nature of the event that is different from its reality — at first. But it is the reader’s job to not form and finalize his opinion with the reading of the headline! The reader must be evaluating and reevaluating his position at every point along the way, and most of all at the end.

If I pick up the paper and read a headline that makes me think, “Oh my gosh! ‘Massacre’! Must be 30 or 40… it’s a tragedy!” and then I continue reading and discover that only two were killed, guess what? I’m readjusting my initial assessment of the event. Now, I’m no longer thinking, “It’s a tragedy!” Now I’m thinking, “Well, I’m glad they caught him before he shot up the whole school!” See, my assessment changes along with my understanding of the facts.

Back to C.S. Lewis, when I read “lunatic” or “devil,” it may evoke a reaction in me. But that doesn’t mean I just accept it and let it color how I read the rest of what Lewis says! You know what my first thought is when I read that such a person must be either a lunatic or a devil? My first thought is, “Has he proven that? Is that his opinion, or something he has demonstrated? And do I agree with it?” Now, I happen to agree with it, because I understand why he says that, and I agree with his reasoning. You have actually gone through the same process, and come to a different conclusion. Did Lewis’ use of colorful language prevent you from actually thinking about the content of his message, and whether such a person would, in fact, be a devil or a lunatic? Not at all. And that’s the point — it is the reader’s job to evaluate everything. The author should feel free to address a topic as colorfully, emphatically, or hyperbolically as he sees fit, for it is the reader’s job to use his mind and evaluate the content of the author’s message. If the message is not solid enough, the result will be that the reader rejects it. Thus, using emphatic language in an attempt to trick or fool the reader should not, in fact, hurt the reader — it should hurt the author, for in the end, it will damage his position, along with his credibility, in the eyes of the discerning reader.

Oh, I’m aware that there are plenty of stupid people out there, for whom critical thinking and intelligent evaluation of the ideas scrolling past their eyes is the furthest thing from their minds. In their case, the author who uses “clever and manipulative tricks” to pull the wool over his readers’ eyes rather than actually presenting a sound argument will likely succeed in doing so. And you know what? So what. The author should not be prevented from using colorful and emphatic imagery in making his point simply because some readers are too dumb to actually think about and evaluate what they’re reading. No, the writer must assume that his reader is an intelligent and critical thinker, who will evaluate honestly and carefully what he reads. This should, in turn, will help to motivate the writer to write honestly, and to ensure that his points are well-supported, his position well-reasoned.

So, yeah, vivid, colorful, and emphatic language can be used by an author to elicit certain emotional or intellectual reactions. And that is as it should be! To make use of it is not misleading, disingenuous, or dishonest. At the end of the day, the opinion of any intelligent and thoughtful reader is going to be influenced by the facts of the event, not the implications of the headline; by the merits of an argument, not the vivid language with which it is presented.

Third, to the actual content of your points regarding the supposed false dilemma. Frankly, I have yet to hear an alternative option that seems plausible. Your fifth alternative is precisely what C.S. Lewis says is not possible, and the very reason he says that such a person would be a lunatic or a devil; your sixth is moot; and your seventh is either contradictory or, again, moot. As you mentioned, your fourth does not apply in this context. That leaves the original three that Lewis proposed.

Here’s the impression I seem to be getting; correct me if I’m wrong. It seems as though you see Lewis’ characterization of a person who is not God but claims to be as either “lunatic” or “devil” to be figurative, hyperbolic, and rhetorical. I do not believe it is. I believe it is quite literal. Lewis literally believes that any person who honestly believes he is God, when in fact he is not, is honest-to-god batshit insane. I would tend to agree. I’m not very well versed in psychology, but that would have to be severely delusional at the very least, right? A person who is not God cannot honestly believe himself to be God without being absolutely insane. That is what Lewis is saying. So when he says that such a man would be a lunatic, he is not using some sort of rhetorical device to create a stronger emotional reaction in the reader than the situation actually warrants; he is being quite literal, and he means exactly that. It is a simple statement of fact: Such a man would be certifiably mentally insane.

And the “devil”? This is where your fifth alternative is in direct contradiction with Lewis. He is making the case that anyone who, knowing that he is in fact not God, claims to be God is evil. He is operating on the basis that doing so is absolutely wrong. It is a sin of the greatest proportions. In the Judeo-Christian traditions, in fact, it is equivalent to what the angel Lucifer did that resulted in his banishment from heaven and his present existence as “Satan” or “the Devil” — Lucifer tried to overthrow God and take his place. He tried to be God. Let’s be clear: Jesus claimed to be God, he sought followers and believers in him, he claimed the ability to forgive sins, and he required that his followers worship him. If he is not God, then the sins he has committed are unimaginably abominable, within a Judeo-Christian context. It would mean that he has attempted to overthrow God (and in the hearts/minds of many, succeeded), made himself into God, presented himself as an idol, and led millions or even billions astray, away from God. Such a man, if he is not in fact God, is the farthest thing from a moral person.

Thus, Lewis position (and one that I emphatically agree with) is that it is not possible for a man, if he is not God, to teach the things Jesus taught and do the things Jesus did, and still be considered moral. Indeed, to do so would be the work of the devil; for the work of the devil is, by its very nature, the attempt to dethrone God, to replace God, and to draw people away from God. This is what Lewis means when he says that any man who, knowing that he is not God, claims to be God is a “devil,” for he is evil, and he is actively engaged in subverting God and doing the work of the devil.

Your sixth alternative suggests that Jesus was a human who did not claim to be God, and who was merely a moral teacher; instead, his followers, somewhere along the way, put words into his mouth. This is moot, because it is just another form of your fourth alternative, which is that Jesus is a myth. There are four points to make here. (a) When we state that a person has accepted the idea of Jesus as a real historical figure, we mean that they accept not only that a man with his name existed, but also everything that history records about him. Thus, his actions and his words, as recorded by history, would be accepted by the person who accepts the veracity of the historical Jesus. So already, this idea is irrelevant to the current context, because just like with your fourth alternative, Lewis is addressing those who do, in fact, accept the historicity of Jesus, not just as a named person, but as the person who did and said the things recorded by history. (b) When people today refer to Jesus, they’re referring to the current conception of Jesus. That conception includes the things he is purported to have said and done. Thus, if the things he has said and done have been invented by men, then Jesus as we understand him is a myth. That brings us right back to your fourth alternative, and we have already determined that the people C.S. Lewis is responding to are those who accept the historical Jesus. © We actually have very substantial physical evidence to support the idea that Jesus’ purported claims about his divine nature are, in fact, attributable to him. We don’t need to speculate as to whether or not this is myth, because our best information tells us it probably is not. It doesn’t tell us Jesus is God; but it does tell us that if Jesus did exist, then these things are true about him, too: he somehow did wondrous things, things perceived as miracles; he was a good and was teacher of morality; and he did, in fact, claim to be God. Which segues right into the fourth point, which is that (d) Jesus’ claims of divinity are inseparable from his other teachings. Simply put, the sources that we have for the teachings of Jesus are the same sources that we have for his divinity. In the historical record, it is impossible to separate the two. Thus, if we believe what is recounted about his teachings, we must also believe what is recounted about his claims to divinity, for both come from the same sources, and thus, they are equal in credibility.

Therefore, your sixth alternative is really just a re-spun version of your fourth alternative, and is equally irrelevant to this conversation. The people that C.S. Lewis refers to, to whom he is responding, accept the historicity of Jesus; this includes not on the fact that a man of his name lived, nor only the teachings ascribed to him, but also the claims he is purported to have made as to his own divinity.

This leaves your seventh alternative. Aliens? The point is either illogical or moot. When Jesus claims to be the Son of God, God incarnate, he is not referring to some abstract concept of a being with supernatural powers. He is referring to a very specifically defined person, a God with a very clearly defined nature and very specific characteristics, and one who has a very long and specific relationship with the Jewish people. He is not simply claiming to be a being with supernatural powers; he is claiming, very specifically, to be that person and the Son of that person from the Old Testament.

Now, as I see it, aliens can only relate to this context in one of two ways. The first possibility would be that they are indeed just aliens, extraterrestrial beings who are different from YHWH, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob — beings who have superhuman powers, but are not, in fact, God. If that is the kind of alien you’re referring to, then your seventh alternative scenario is contradictory, for Jesus did not claim to be such a being. He claimed very specifically to be the Son of the God of the Old Testament. So if the aliens you’re referring to are superhuman beings, but are not the God that is referred to in the Old Testament, then they simply aren’t in this picture, because Jesus is not one of them. Or if he is, then he is still a being who knows that he is not God, but claims that he is God — in which case, revisit your fifth alternative, above.

On the other hand, if the aliens are, indeed, synonymous with the God of the Old Testament, then the point is moot. That is, if what the Jewish people of the Old Testament recorded as interaction with God was actually interaction with some super-powerful alien, then for Jesus to actually be such an alien and claim to be God is not, in fact, false. For, again, he is claiming to be the God of the Jews — and if that God were some super-powerful alien, then he is claiming to be that super-powerful alien. And if that’s what he is, then we go back to one of the three original possibilities: that Jesus is the God he claimed to be (i.e., the God of the Old Testament, who in this scenario is that super-powerful alien).

So for your seventh alternative, the idea that Jesus was an alien claiming to be God is either redundant or moot. If the God of the Old Testament and the alien are different beings, and Jesus is that alien claiming to be God, then we’re back to your fifth alternative. The bug is claiming to be God, but he is not, making him evil. And if the alien actually was what the Jews referred to as their God in the Old Testament, then Jesus claim to be God (specifically, the God of the Jews, the God of the Old Testament) is absolutely true.

My conclusion is that none of these alternatives is both valid and applicable to C.S. Lewis’ context. You have claimed that there are alternative possibilities beyond the three that Lewis mentioned, but I have yet to see one that isn’t either irrelevant to the issue Lewis is addressing, or already covered by one of his three original possibilities — casting Jesus as lunatic, devil, or God.

I’ve thought about it quite a bit, and I can’t see another alternative. The ones you’ve provided don’t seem valid. Thus, I must conclude that C.S. Lewis was not only NOT using “clever and manipulative logic” to deceive his readers (for he would never do that), but in fact, as far as I can tell his logic is completely sound and utterly flawless. Jesus as a “good teacher” who wasn’t who he claimed to be is possible. If he wasn’t God, then he was either completely insane or an evil man doing the work of the devil.

when speaking about something dealing with your personal belief in something, you use logic. You’re basically saying this is what I believe and this is my logic and that is the reason behind why I believe it. Or this is my experiment and this is my logical conclusion to this experiment. The faith is that the experiment using your knowledge and understanding of what you’re trying to do will work to bring about your logical conclusion. Or that your current thought path ends at this logical conclusion to you. There is always faith in oneself to go alongside logic and reason. Philosophy is almost nothing but a bunch of personal beliefs built on the knowledge of the person who stated it. Some philosophies are illogical for some while logical for others. The philosophies that are taught are usually universally logical to a situation but even then not everyone believes that every philosopher is correct in what they thought. What realm of conversation can we talk about our beliefs if they automatically separated from the things that they create?

maybe cause im just cool….lol