WHERE WE ARE

In Chapter 7 of their book Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Christian philosophers Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli make a case for the divinity of Jesus. Here is the main argument they present in Chapter 7:

1A. Jesus was either God, liar, lunatic, guru, or myth.

2A. Jesus could not possibly be a liar, lunatic, guru, or myth.

THEREFORE:

3A. Jesus is God.

In Part 3 of this series, through Part 10 of this series, I explain how Kreeft and Tacelli use a series of FOUR DILEMMAS in order to try to prove premise (1A). I have shown that the FIRST DILEMMA contains an INVALID inference, and I have shown that the SECOND DILEMMA contains an INVALID inference. I agreed with Kreeft and Tacelli that the inference in the THIRD DILEMMA is logically VALID. I have also shown that in the FOURTH DILEMMA there is one VALID inference (to the LIAR VIEW) and one INVALID inference (to the LUNATIC VIEW). Therefore, there are INVALID inferences in three out of the FOUR DILEMMAS, and just one INVALID inference is enough to sink Kreeft and Tacelli’s FOUR DILEMMAS argument in support of premise (1A) of their case for the divinity of Jesus. So, they have utterly and completely FAILED to show that this key premise of their argument is true, and that premise remains DUBIOUS, at best.

In Part 11 of this series, I argued that my objections not only show that there are three INVALID inferences in the argument presented by Kreeft and Tacelli in support of premise (1A), but that there are three clear COUNTEREXAMPLES to premise (1A), each of which shows that premise (1A) is FALSE. There are at least three more VIEWS that Kreeft and Tacelli failed to take into account: the SKEPTIC VIEW, the STAR WARS VIEW, and the THEOLOGICAL CONFUSION VIEW. Therefore, not only is the argument given by Kreeft and Tacelli for premise (1A) a BAD argument, but premise (1A) is clearly FALSE. So, their argument for the divinity of Jesus is based on a premise that is FALSE, and the argument is thus UNSOUND and should be rejected.

In Part 12 of this series, I revised the second premise so that it would not be obviously false, so that it would have at least some initial plausibility:

2B. Jesus was not a liar, lunatic, guru, or myth.

One key premise in support of (2B) is the following premise:

4B. Jesus was not a liar.

In this post, I will examine the first argument Kreeft and Tacelli give to support (4B).

THE FIRST ARGUMENT AGAINST JESUS BEING A LIAR

Premises (10) and (11) are the core of this first argument for (4B):

10. Liars lie for selfish reasons, like money, fame, pleasure or power.

11. Jesus was unselfish, loving, and caring.

THEREFORE:

4B. Jesus was not a liar.

Premises (12) and (13) provide support for premise (11):

12. Jesus was passionate about teaching truth and helping others to truth.

13. Jesus gave up all worldly goods, and life itself.

EVALUATION OF PREMISE (10)

Here again is premise (10):

10. Liars lie for selfish reasons, like money, fame, pleasure or power.

This premise is VAGUE in terms of QUANTIFICATION. Does it assert that liars ALWAYS “lie for selfish reasons”? or that liars USUALLY “lie for selfish reasons”? or that liars SOMETIMES “lie for selfish reasons”? Here are those three different interpretations* of premise (10):

10A. Liars ALWAYS lie for selfish reasons, like money, fame, pleasure or power.

10B. Liars USUALLY lie for selfish reasons, like money, fame, pleasure or power.

10C. Liars SOMETIMES lie for selfish reasons, like money, fame, pleasure or power.

Premise (10C) is obviously true, but (10C) is too WEAK to be used to show that (4B) is true.

Premise (10B) might be true, although it is NOT obviously true. For all I know, liars lie for selfish reasons 50% of the time, and have other motivations 50% of the time.

It would depend in part on how exactly we define the term “liar”. To the extent that most people are “liars”, it might well be the case that “liars” tell lies for non-selfish reasons 50% of the time. In that case, (10B) would be FALSE. But if the term “liar” is reserved for people who habitually tell big lies, then (10B) might be TRUE. Without a careful and precise definition of “liar” and a large amount of carefully gathered sociological data on the frequency and nature of lying, it would be difficult to determine whether (10B) was TRUE or FALSE.

Furthermore, even if (10B) was true, it is also too WEAK a claim to be used to show that (4B) is true.

Premise (10A) would be strong enough to be used to show that (4B) is true. However, premise (10A) is obviously FALSE. People sometimes tell lies for non-selfish reasons. People have many different motivations for the choices they make and the actions they take, and people sometimes make choices on the basis of non-selfish reasons. Even people who frequently lie sometimes make choices and take actions for non-selfish reasons, so clearly even they will sometimes lie for non-selfish reasons. Premise (10A) is clearly FALSE.

So, if we interpret premise (10) to make the strong claim in (10A), then the premise will be strong enough to be used to show that (4B) is true, but the premise will be FALSE. If we interpret premise (10), to make the weaker claim (10B), then it will NOT be strong enough to be used to show that (4B) is true, and it is uncertain whether (10B) is TRUE or FALSE. Finally, if we interpret premise (10) to make the weak claim in (10C), then we know that claim is TRUE, but it is clearly too WEAK to be used to show that premise (4B) is true. Therefore, premise (10) is either too WEAK to support the conclusion (4B) or else it strong enough to support the conclusion (4B) but is clearly FALSE. Either way, Kreeft and Tacelli’s first argument for (4B) FAILS to show that (4B) is true.

EVALUATION OF PREMISE (11)

Here again is premise (11):

11. Jesus was unselfish, loving, and caring.

Kreeft and Tacelli support premise (11) with two reasons, given in premise (12) and premise (13):

12. Jesus was passionate about teaching truth and helping others to truth.

13. Jesus gave up all worldly goods, and life itself.

Premise (11) suffers from the very same problem of VAGUENESS as premise (10), and as with premise (10), we can interpret premise (11) in at least three different ways:

11A. Jesus was ALWAYS unselfish, ALWAYS loving, and ALWAYS caring.

11B. Jesus was USUALLY unselfish, USUALLY loving, and USUALLY caring.

11C. Jesus was SOMETIMES unselfish, SOMETIMES loving, and SOMETIMES caring.

The WEAKER claims made by (11B) and (11C) are more plausible than the strong claim made by (11A), but the WEAKER claims are not sufficient to prove the conclusion that Jesus was not a liar. Only the strong claim made by (11A) will be sufficient to show that (4B) is true.

Human beings in general, unless they are sociopaths, are often selfish and are at least sometimes unselfish. Some admirable human beings are usually unselfish and yet are also sometimes selfish. Based on how human beings generally behave it is very unlikely that any particular person is “ALWAYS unselfish, ALWAYS loving, and ALWAYS caring”, so premise (11A) is extremely DUBIOUS, apart from lots of strong factual evidence. Premise (11A) is presumptively FALSE; it should be considered FALSE unless and until strong evidence is provided that shows it to be TRUE.

Do Kreeft and Tacelli provide lots of powerful evidence to support the very strong claim made by (11A)? They don’t even come anywhere close. Consider premise (12):

12. Jesus was passionate about teaching truth and helping others to truth.

The same could be said of many teachers: elementary school teachers, middle school teachers, high school teachers, and college professors. The same could be said of many many journalists and writers: newspaper journalists, magazine journalists, television journalists, textbook writers, how-to-book writers, science writers, historical writers, political writers, religion writers, psychology writers, sociology writers, etc.

Would it be reasonable to conclude that ALL teachers and ALL writers who are “passionate about teaching truth and helping others to truth” are “ALWAYS unselfish, ALWAYS loving, and ALWAYS caring”? Obviously NOT. Human beings, even exemplary human beings, are still selfish sometimes, unloving sometimes, and uncaring sometimes. This is just a widely known fact about human behavior. Premise (12) is way too WEAK to prove, or even to strongly support, the very strong claim made by premise (11A).

Consider premise (13):

13. Jesus gave up all worldly goods, and life itself.

First, it is not at all clear that premise (13) is true.

In order to give up “all worldly goods”, one must have a significant amount of worldly goods to give up. But Jesus was the son of a carpenter. Jesus did NOT come from a wealthy or powerful family. Jesus came from a working-class family in a small backwater village in Galilee. Jesus did not have much in the way of worldly goods to give up. Furthermore, there was no easy path for Jesus to climb his way up into a life of wealth and luxury. Very few working-class Jews from backwater villages in first-century Palestine had any opportunity to become wealthy or powerful people. Jesus probably did go without much in the way of “worldly goods”, but that was already his lot in life when he was born into a working-class family in a backwater village in first-century Palestine. So, we cannot give Jesus much credit for giving up “all worldly goods”.

The second claim in (13) is also DUBIOUS. Jesus “gave up…life itself”. It is uncertain that Jesus deliberately “gave up” his own life. Furthermore, if he did give up his own life, it is not at all clear that he gave it up for unselfish reasons. The Gospels do generally portray Jesus as foreseeing his death by execution. But it would be expected for a great prophet to foresee his own death, and since his death was supposedly a key part of God’s plan, it would be expected that a great prophet would be aware of this key part of God’s plan, so the early Christian storytellers would be inclined to believe that Jesus had foreseen his own death, and they might well have shaped their stories about Jesus to correspond with this belief.

It might well be the case that Jesus anticipated his own death, especially in view of the fact that Jesus had been a disciple of John the Baptist, and John the Baptist was killed for being an outspoken critic of Herod Antipas. So, Jesus might have reasonably guessed that being an outspoken critic of the religious leaders of Jerusalem, he could face the same fate as the man he had previously admired and followed.

Nevertheless, it might well be the case that Jesus did NOT expect to be arrested and executed so early in his career as a prophet, teacher, and healer. He may have been anticipating many more years of preaching and healing before he faced being arrested and executed. If his arrest was a surprise to Jesus, then his death by execution was NOT the result of Jesus giving up his own life. In that case, it would be, at most, the result of Jesus putting his life at moderate risk for the sake of carrying on his ministry.

Suppose that Jesus was aware that there was a serious plot by the religious authorities in Jerusalem to have Jesus arrested and then executed by the Romans. Suppose Jesus remained in Jerusalem believing that this plot was very likely to be successful and that his choice to remain in Jerusalem meant that in all likelihood he would soon be arrested and executed by the Roman authorities. In that case, it would seem that Jesus did give up his life.

However, this would NOT be sufficient to show that Jesus gave up his life for unselfish reasons. We also would need to know what Jesus’ motivation was for remaining in Jerusalem and facing arrest and execution by the Romans. Premise (13) says NOTHING about Jesus’ motivation for giving up his life, so premise (13) FAILS to support the conclusion that “Jesus was ALWAYS unselfish”.

Furthermore, there is good reason to doubt that Jesus’ motivations were purely unselfish, even assuming that he did in fact choose to give up his own life. Jesus believed that he was on a mission from God, and that if he faithfully carried out that mission, God would make Jesus the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and put Jesus in charge of all human beings in an eternal Kingdom of righteousness and prosperity.

If, however, Jesus failed to carry out the mission God had assigned to him, then God would NOT bestow such power and glory and prosperity upon Jesus. So, if Jesus believed that his own death was a key part of God’s plan, and thus a key part of Jesus’ mission, then Jesus would have a HUGE selfish reason to follow this plan, and to submit himself to being arrested and executed by the Romans. Given this plausible view of Jesus’ hopes and beliefs, it is clear that in giving up his own life, Jesus might well have been acting PRIMARILY on the basis of selfish reasons.

Finally, even if it was true that Jesus gave up his own life and did this for unselfish reasons, it does NOT follow that Jesus was ALWAYS unselfish, or ALWAYS loving, or ALWAYS caring in every single choice he ever made. That would just be one instance where Jesus did something for unselfish reasons. That would have been a heroic choice, but it is a widely known fact of human behavior that even heroes and saints sometimes make choices that are selfish, unloving, or uncaring. So, even if Jesus did make the choice to give up his life for unselfish reasons, that does not come anywhere close to showing that Jesus was ALWAYS unselfish, ALWAYS loving, and ALWAYS caring.

Because it is unclear whether Jesus actually gave up his own life, and because premise (13) says NOTHING about Jesus’ motivations for giving up his own life, because we can imagine a very plausible selfish reason why Jesus might have given up his own life, and because one unselfish action does NOT show that a person is consistently and constantly unselfish, premise (13) FAILS completely to provide support for the strong claim made by (11A), that “Jesus was ALWAYS unselfish”.

Since premise (11A) makes a very strong claim that runs contrary to our common experience of human behavior, and since premise (12) and premise (13) FAIL to provide any significant support for premise (11A), we may reasonably conclude that premise (11A) is DUBIOUS, and that it is probably FALSE.

EVALUATION OF THE FIRST ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (4B)

The core argument for (4B) consists of two premises:

10. Liars lie for selfish reasons, like money, fame, pleasure or power.

11. Jesus was unselfish, loving, and caring.

Both of these premises are VAGUE with respect to QUANTIFICATION.

Both of these premises will work to establish the conclusion (4B) only if they are interpreted as making very strong claims:

10A. Liars ALWAYS lie for selfish reasons, like money, fame, pleasure or power.

11A. Jesus was ALWAYS unselfish, ALWAYS loving, and ALWAYS caring.

However, on these interpretations, premise (10A) is clearly FALSE, and premise (11A) is DUBIOUS and probably FALSE. The reasons that Kreeft and Tacelli give in support of (11A) are clearly inadequate to support this very strong claim. Therefore, the first argument FAILS to show that premise (4B) is true; it FAILS to show that “Jesus was not a liar.”

In the next post of this series, I will examine the second argument given by Kreeft and Tacelli in support of premise (4B), the claim that “Jesus was not a liar.”

*NOTE:

After I published this post, I realized that there was a second problem of VAGUENESS with premise (10) concerning QUANTIFICATION. So, there are at least nine different possible interpretations of this premise:

10D. ALL liars ALWAYS lie for selfish reasons, like money, fame, pleasure or power.

10E. MOST liars ALWAYS lie for selfish reasons, like money, fame, pleasure or power.

10F. SOME liars ALWAYS lie for selfish reasons, like money, fame, pleasure or power.

10G. ALL liars USUALLY lie for selfish reasons, like money, fame, pleasure or power.

10H. MOST liars USUALLY lie for selfish reasons, like money, fame, pleasure or power.

10I. SOME liars USUALLY lie for selfish reasons, like money, fame, pleasure or power.

10J. ALL liars SOMETIMES lie for selfish reasons, like money, fame, pleasure or power.

10K. MOST liars SOMETIMES lie for selfish reasons, like money, fame, pleasure or power.

10L. SOME liars SOMETIMES lie for selfish reasons, like money, fame, pleasure or power.

My objection to the argument involving premise (10) still stands. Clearly, the weakest claim here has no significance:

10L. SOME liars SOMETIMES lie for selfish reasons, like money, fame, pleasure or power.

But even claims of moderate strength are still too weak to make Kreeft and Tacelli’s argument work:

10H. MOST liars USUALLY lie for selfish reasons, like money, fame, pleasure or power.

First, Jesus could be one of the liars who doesn’t fall into this category of “MOST liars” who USUALLY lie for selfish reasons. Perhaps Jesus USUALLY or ALWAYS lied for unselfish reasons.

Second, even if Jesus was a liar who USUALLY lied for selfish reasons, he might not have told many lies, and his other actions and choices might have been consistently unselfish so that overall his choices and actions were usually unselfish.

So, in order for their argument to work, they need to make (10) a very strong claim, like the following, which is obviously FALSE:

10D. ALL liars ALWAYS lie for selfish reasons, like money, fame, pleasure or power.

It turns out that Kreeft and Tacelli make basically the SAME argument concerning Jesus’ disciples, but when they do, they use the word “always” to quantify this claim about lies being made for selfish reasons:

There could be no possible motive for such a lie. Lies are always told for some selfish advantage. (HCA, p.185)

Since they assert this universal generalization when discussing the disciples, they presumably believe this same universal generalization when they discuss the possibility of Jesus being a liar. The claim that “Lies are always told for some selfish advantage” logically implies premise (10D), so it is FALSE too, just like premise (10D) is FALSE.