Lewis's Trilemma

Hello everybody, today I am going to talk to you about an interesting argument devised by (to the best of my knowledge) CS Lewis. It is known by some as Lewis's Trilemma.

The Trilemma

Lewis's Trilemma is basically a response to the idea that Jesus was a good moral teacher, but not the Son of God. Lewis thought that this idea was ridiculous and attempted to refute it by means of the trilemma. The argument goes as follows:

One of three things must be true about Jesus:

1. He was a liar

2. He was a lunatic (or)

3. He was the Son of God

Option #1: Liar

Lewis points out that if Jesus made all the claims that He did (i.e. the ability to forgive sins and to get people into Heaven) and did so knowing that they weren't true, then He was a liar. A person who lives a life of lies, and trys to get others to believe them, is hardly a good moral teacher.

Option #2: Lunatic

If Jesus really believed that He was the Son of God, yet in reality wasn't, then He must have been a lunatic. If Jesus wasn't really God, but sincerely believed that He was, then He would have been on the same level as somebody who, as Lewis puts it, believed he was a poached egg.

Option #3: Lord

The third option is that Jesus really was who He claimed to be.

In Conclusion

This argument, on its own, doesn't prove that Jesus was God. However, it prevents people from simply saying that Jesus was a good moral teacher and then calling it a day. It forces the hearer to either choose to reject Jesus or accept Him. I believe that this argument is good for pointing out the seriousness of the question, "What do you believe about Jesus?" Since, as Lewis points out, if Christianity is true, then it is the most important thing in the world. However, if it is false, then it doesn't matter at all. It cannot be moderately important, that is not an option. Lewis's trilemma forces us to look at the options and decide which one we really believe, thereby imposing the seriousness of faith in God on us. Which option do you believe?

God bless and Jesus loves you!!

-Jon

Pascal's Wager

"If you gain, you gain all. If you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then, without hesitation, that He exists." - Blaise Pascal

In the world of apologetics there exist at least two kinds of proofs: theoretical and practical. Theoretical proofs attempt to establish God's existence, while practical proofs attempt to show that it is better to believe in God than to not believe in Him. Blaise Pascal has developed one of the most popular practical proofs out there; it is known as Pascal's Wager. In this blog I will explain the wager to you and will attempt to show you its use in modern apolgetics.

The Wager

Pascal's wager simply says that it is better to believe in God then to not believe in Him. Here is a breakdown of Pascal's reasoning:

For the believer:
If God exists, then you gain everything.
If God does not exist, then you lose nothing.

For the non-believer:
If God does exist, then you lose everything.
If God does not exist, then you have only gained temporary, earthly things.

Basically, if you wager on God's existence and He ends up being real, then you have gained everything; if He ends up being fake, then you have lost nothing. However, if you choose not to believe in God and He ends up being real, then you have lost everything; if He isn't real, then you have only gained temporary, earthly things that you will lose at death anyway.

Analysis of the Wager

Pascal's wager is, at least to my mind, an interesting argument. Rather than trying to appeal to data, as many apologetics arguments do, the argument asks the reader/listener to consider the stakes involved with making a decision about God. As we can see, the believer has everything to gain, while the non-believer has everything to lose. There are a couple of objections to Pascal's wager, but for times sake I will omit them for the time being (I may choose to touch up on them at a later time).  The main point is this: if you are someone who is on the fence about God, why not take a chance and believe? You may think to yourself, "well, wouldn't my faith be fake then?" Not exactly, as Pascal himself points out, sometimes you have to start off by going through the motions. Imagine a child who likes to pretend, and then one day ends up living out what he used to pretend. If you sincerly desire to have faith in God, yet you cannot get past some objections you may have, take a chance. God will honor the faith you place in Him, even if it is as small as a mustard seed.

(Note: I am not saying that religous motions are all it takes to be saved. I am simply saying that we all have to start somewhere, and if the best you can muster is to go to Church, or attempt to pray, then do it. I believe that God will honor your attempts to reach out to Him. The important thing is that you make the attempt.)

How can I as an apologist make use of this argument?

In my opinion, this argument is good for skeptics who want to believe. It won't do much to an atheist who is convinced that God isn't real. However, to the skeptic who wants to believe but cannot get past some objections, it may not be a bad idea to remind them of the stakes. If we cannot be 100% sure either way, then why not take a chance? What have you got to lose? What have you got to gain?

In Conclusion

Hopefully this has been useful to you. Please understand that I am a supporter of good reasoning and good evidence. However, I also think that sometimes we have to make choices where it is hard to be 100% sure of any of our options, and in those instances it isn't a bad idea to consider the stakes.
God bless and Jesus loves you!!

-Jon

Forgiveness: What exactly is it?

"And if we forget this we shall go away imagining that we have repented and been forgiven when all that has really happened is that we have satisfied ourselves with our own excuses." - CS Lewis

We hear alot of talk about forgiveness. Jesus Himself even said that if we didn't forgive others, then God would not forgive us. So we can see that forgiveness is a big deal to God, and He wants it to be a big deal to us. This leads me to the main point of this blog: what exactly is forgiveness?

Forgiving and Excusing

I think that CS Lewis is spot on with this one. He begins by pointing out a mistake we often make regarding forgiveness. Namely, that we often confuse forgiving with excusing. To this some may say, "Well, is there really a difference?" The answer is yes, there is a very big difference. When we excuse something we are essentially dismissing it. "Well, you hit your wife because you were angry, so its not completely your fault..." That is excusing, something that most of us are very familiar with. Forgiveness on the other hand looks more like, "You were very mean to your wife, regardless of circumstance you still did what you did, but I forgive you. I will make every effort to erase it from my heart and mind, and I will love you as though it never happened." That is forgiveness.


God and Us

Often times when we enter our prayer closet and ask God to forgive us, what we are really asking Him to do is to accept our excuses. We look for every factor, every detail, and every circumstance that somehow makes our sins less our fault. To be fair, sometimes there are factors that may lessen the blame. Surely we are more sympathetic to someone who says a hurtful thing after being hurt than to someone who says hurtful things just to say them. Regardless, there is still that bit that is our fault, and even if it is only one percent it must still be forgiven. When we go before God we must be humble. We must mean it when we ask God to "forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us." We must tell God what we have done, and we must ask Him to forgive us. This is a much harder task than simply rattling off excuses, and I believe that if we get in the habit of consistantly asking for forgiveness that we will gradually see a decrease in our sins.

My Brother and I

Not only must we learn to ask forgiveness from God, we must learn to give it to our fellow man. CS Lewis points out that we are so quick to give our excuses to God, yet we are reluctant to accept them from others (even though they may very well be the same ones that we have offered to God a hundred times). When our brother comes to us, even seven times seventy, we must forgive them. I understand that this is not always easy, and so does God. I believe that if we desire to forgive others, and that if we make every effort to do so, that God will provide us with every help to ensure that forgiveness is given. It is not an easy task, but I believe that forgiveness is an essential part of sanctification.

The Hard Stuff

Some of you may say that there are some things that you cannot seem to forgive, even if you want to. I would tell you to take it before God. He loves you, and He will teach you how to forgive.

In Closing

Its easy to read a blog like this, but to actually apply it is a very difficult task. I pray that we will lean on God for strength, and that we will remember how God has forgiven us. I also pray that we will take very seriously the part of the Lord's prayer that says "forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us." God bless and Jesus loves you!!

-Jon

Argument from Desire

"There comes a time when one asks, even of Shakespeare, even of Beethoven, "Is that all there is?" - John Paul Sartre

Hello all, today I would like to take a look at one of my favorite arguments for the existence of God. It is an argument that CS Lewis develops in his book, 'Mere Christianity', and it is still heavily used by Christians today (whether they realize it or not).

Argument from Desire

Here is the argument (thanks be to Peter Kreeft's website for the format):

1. Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.



2. But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.


3. Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.


4. This something is what people call "God" and "life with God forever."


 
Analysis
The Argument from Desire is what I would consider to be a very effective argument for two reasons: 1.) It is a logical argument; it appeals to reason. 2.) It is a personal argument.
 
The argument's logical nature is revealed in the first premise, in which Lewis states that every desire has some form of fulfillment in the natural world. For example, we get hungry, there is food. We get thirsty, there is water. This seems to be the case with every natural desire we have. Once having shown this to be true, Lewis moves on and does a little bit of inductive reasoning (an impressive bit I might add). Lewis observes that there appears to be a desire within each of us that nothing in this world can seem to satisfy. He then, through inductive reasoning, comes to the conclusion that humans as a whole are trying to satisfy a desire, yet they cannot seem to do it. From here, Lewis concludes that there must exist something beyond this world that can satisfy his desire, or as he himself says, "If I find in myself desires which nothing in this world can satisfy, the only logical explanation is that I was made for another world."
 
Answering an Objection
 
Is Lewis right to assume that everybody has this desire?
 
I believe that he is. My reason for this comes from the fact that I myself can attest to what he is saying. No matter how much I love apologetics, or music, or philosophy, or people, it all seems empty compared to my love for God. In other words, without God in my life, those things would be meaningless. I also feel that an observation of human history can, at the very least, imply this truth to us as well. However, part of what makes this argument so beautiful is the fact that you must answer it for yourself. You cannot say, "Look over there, that man has money and seems to be perfectly happy with life. Therefore, the argument is flawed." That will not suffice for the simple fact that you yourself are not that man, and as a result, you cannot know the deepest workings of his mind and heart. You can only know yours. This argument is very personal, and as such it must be addressed on a personal level. You must look within yourself and ask whether or not what Lewis says is true.
 
In Closing
 
As always, I hope this was helpful to you. I believe that this is a great argument to know for yourself, and for the people around you who may not believe in God. I also highly encourage you to read, 'Mere Christianity, which is the book that this argument is found in. The reason I recommend this to you is because Lewis is able to convey the argument so much better than I can. You simply got a summary here, the book will give you real deal.
 
God bless and Jesus loves you!!
 
-Jon