Lunatic, Liar or Lord: The Lewis Trilemma & Harold Camping

[Coito ergo sum]

One of the standard Christian arguments is that Jesus must be the Son of God, because with all the writings about what he said and did, Jesus had to be one of the following: Lunatic, Liar or Lord. This is called the "Lewis Trilemma" after the much quoted C.S. Lewis, famed Christian apologist.

Consider, if you will, one Harold Camping. He recently came up with his prediction that, undoubtedly, the Rapture would occur and Judgment Day would arrive on May 21, 2011. He was so convinced of this date that he reported that this was "what the Bible teaches us," and that he was 100% positive that his prediction would come true.

However, it didn't.

So, was Camping a Lunatic? Was he a Liar? Not necessarily. There is a third possibility for him (and it isn't "Lord"). He was just "wrong" or "incorrect."

Can Camping now look to his supposed Lord, and add a fourth option to the Lewis Trilemma? Lunatic? Not necessarily. Liar? Not necessarily. Lord? Possibly. How about - "Incorrect?" Could the Biblical accounts of Jesus just be "incorrect?"

Perhaps they were written by folks like Harold Camping. And, perhaps those first century Harold Campings were just as sure as Harold Camping was about May 21. And, perhaps they too were.....incorrect?

How many Christians are admitting this possibility, I wonder?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Camping is a simple case of hyperfocusing. He went looking for "signs", so of course he found them. Then it snowballed. If that's crazy, he wins.

[Thinking Aloud]

I don't think "incorrect" will ever satisfy the lust for another term starting with "L".

But yes, wouldn't it be nice if even a few people turned around and realised, "actually it's all a lot of nonsense, isn't it?"

[Geoff]

One of the standard Christian arguments is that Jesus must be the Son of God, because with all the writings about what he said and did, Jesus had to be one of the following: Lunatic, Liar or Lord. This is called the "Lewis Trilemma" after the much quoted C.S. Lewis, famed Christian apologist.

Consider, if you will, one Harold Camping. He recently came up with his prediction that, undoubtedly, the Rapture would occur and Judgment Day would arrive on May 21, 2011. He was so convinced of this date that he reported that this was "what the Bible teaches us," and that he was 100% positive that his prediction would come true.

However, it didn't.

So, was Camping a Lunatic? Was he a Liar? Not necessarily. There is a third possibility for him (and it isn't "Lord"). He was just "wrong" or "incorrect."

Can Camping now look to his supposed Lord, and add a fourth option to the Lewis Trilemma? Lunatic? Not necessarily. Liar? Not necessarily. Lord? Possibly. How about - "Incorrect?" Could the Biblical accounts of Jesus just be "incorrect?"

Perhaps they were written by folks like Harold Camping. And, perhaps those first century Harold Campings were just as sure as Harold Camping was about May 21. And, perhaps they too were.....incorrect?

How many Christians are admitting this possibility, I wonder?

Well yeah, but isn't lunacy just an extreme case of being wrong?

If I wrongly predict, say, a football result, I'm wrong: if I wrongly predict the Rapture, I'm a lunatic?

[Thinking Aloud]

One of the standard Christian arguments is that Jesus must be the Son of God, because with all the writings about what he said and did, Jesus had to be one of the following: Lunatic, Liar or Lord. This is called the "Lewis Trilemma" after the much quoted C.S. Lewis, famed Christian apologist.

Consider, if you will, one Harold Camping. He recently came up with his prediction that, undoubtedly, the Rapture would occur and Judgment Day would arrive on May 21, 2011. He was so convinced of this date that he reported that this was "what the Bible teaches us," and that he was 100% positive that his prediction would come true.

However, it didn't.

So, was Camping a Lunatic? Was he a Liar? Not necessarily. There is a third possibility for him (and it isn't "Lord"). He was just "wrong" or "incorrect."

Can Camping now look to his supposed Lord, and add a fourth option to the Lewis Trilemma? Lunatic? Not necessarily. Liar? Not necessarily. Lord? Possibly. How about - "Incorrect?" Could the Biblical accounts of Jesus just be "incorrect?"

Perhaps they were written by folks like Harold Camping. And, perhaps those first century Harold Campings were just as sure as Harold Camping was about May 21. And, perhaps they too were.....incorrect?

How many Christians are admitting this possibility, I wonder?

Well yeah, but isn't lunacy just an extreme case of being wrong?

If I wrongly predict, say, a football result, I'm wrong: if I wrongly predict the Rapture, I'm a lunatic?

But a football result prediction is based on actual things actually happening. A rapture prediction is based on fiction.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't think "incorrect" will ever satisfy the lust for another term starting with "L".

But yes, wouldn't it be nice if even a few people turned around and realised, "actually it's all a lot of nonsense, isn't it?"

I would settle for a world where these loonies could simply state, "we would be wrong."

[Atheist-Lite]

Camping is a fraudster plain and simple. His assets need to be frozen and he himself needs to do a few years in one of those superprisons over there.

[Coito ergo sum]

Camping is a fraudster plain and simple. His assets need to be frozen and he himself needs to do a few years in one of those superprisons over there.

I don't know what he would be imprisoned for. He didn't defraud anyone of anything, did he?

[Atheist-Lite]

Camping is a fraudster plain and simple. His assets need to be frozen and he himself needs to do a few years in one of those superprisons over there.

I don't know what he would be imprisoned for. He didn't defraud anyone of anything, did he?

I would call it emotional blackmail. It can't get much worse than threatening the end of the world.

[Coito ergo sum]

Camping is a fraudster plain and simple. His assets need to be frozen and he himself needs to do a few years in one of those superprisons over there.

I don't know what he would be imprisoned for. He didn't defraud anyone of anything, did he?

I would call it emotional blackmail. It can't get much worse than threatening the end of the world.

Well, it's everyone's right to predict the end of the world, I think. Otherwise, we'll have cops arresting half the homeless men in New York City....

[Atheist-Lite]

Camping is a fraudster plain and simple. His assets need to be frozen and he himself needs to do a few years in one of those superprisons over there.

I don't know what he would be imprisoned for. He didn't defraud anyone of anything, did he?

I would call it emotional blackmail. It can't get much worse than threatening the end of the world.

Well, it's everyone's right to predict the end of the world, I think. Otherwise, we'll have cops arresting half the homeless men in New York City....

If you want to save the world turn Wall Street into a prison, those homeless people are onto something.

[Geoff]

Well yeah, but isn't lunacy just an extreme case of being wrong?

If I wrongly predict, say, a football result, I'm wrong: if I wrongly predict the Rapture, I'm a lunatic?

But a football result prediction is based on actual things actually happening. A rapture prediction is based on fiction.

Yeah, but they don't think it's fiction, they treat it as gospel...

I mean, we all think people are wrong to believe (to a greater or lesser extent) what the babble says, but at what point does the strength of their belief become lunacy?

[Bella Fortuna]

Camping is a fraudster plain and simple. His assets need to be frozen and he himself needs to do a few years in one of those superprisons over there.

I think he believes his delusions far more than say, Benny Hinn or the Bakkers or all of those ostentatiously-living mega-preachers on TV. And if they can't be locked up for defrauding people, no one will be. But it all boils down to religion being exempt from criticism and somehow untouchable.

[Coito ergo sum]

Camping is a fraudster plain and simple. His assets need to be frozen and he himself needs to do a few years in one of those superprisons over there.

I think he believes his delusions far more than say, Benny Hinn or the Bakkers or all of those ostentatiously-living mega-preachers on TV. And if they can't be locked up for defrauding people, no one will be. But it all boils down to religion being exempt from criticism and somehow untouchable.

It also boils down to it not actually being fraud.

If I form the "Unicorn Appreciation Society" and claim that I believe unicorns to be real, and we should appreciate them, and I solicit donations to further that purpose, and I actually use the funds for that purpose (per applicable regulations), then whether they are in fact real or not is irrelevant.

[Bella Fortuna]

Camping is a fraudster plain and simple. His assets need to be frozen and he himself needs to do a few years in one of those superprisons over there.

I think he believes his delusions far more than say, Benny Hinn or the Bakkers or all of those ostentatiously-living mega-preachers on TV. And if they can't be locked up for defrauding people, no one will be. But it all boils down to religion being exempt from criticism and somehow untouchable.

It also boils down to it not actually being fraud.

If I form the "Unicorn Appreciation Society" and claim that I believe unicorns to be real, and we should appreciate them, and I solicit donations to further that purpose, and I actually use the funds for that purpose (per applicable regulations), then whether they are in fact real or not is irrelevant.

This is very true. No one's forcing those who give these idiots (whether they believe their own words or not) money, airtime, and credence.