Virtuous vs. Vicious Circular Reasoning?

I recently read a comment by a Christian friend of mine in which he urged his liberal friends to reveal their 'objective standard for truth.' He was referring to the Christian claim to objective, absolute truth, and challenging liberals to produce anything similar.

I wrote him to ask if he had an objective standard for truth that he did not subjectively determine, which I think is fundamentally absurd and a tacit admission of ignorance on the subject of basic psychology and/or philosophy. All objectivity is subjectively experienced, defined, and expressed. There is no object without subject, as there is no subject without object. In the words of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (of all people), "Subject and object marry and mutually transform each other in the act of knowledge." Pretending to be able to separate out subject an object is a fool's errand. We may get as close as we can to setting general boundaries on what we best understand as the categories of "me" and "not me", but any dogmatism on the subject is complete nonsense.

My friend answered back by somewhat dodging the question which, to be fair, he probably only barely understood because he has not trained himself to think outside of the Bible and Christian doctrine. He ended up quoting New Testament verses in the Bible stating that we can "know" God, and he interpolated the bracketed word "[objectively]" in each passage before the word "know". I tried learning the meaning of his terms "know" "believe" and "faith", but he hedged by referring back to objectivity in knowing God. When asked what he meant by subjectivity, he responded that he believed subjectivity dealt with those things which couldn't be "proven beyond doubt" like dreams, intuitions, feelings, and opinions on non-essential matters of doctrine. I asked him if he intended to say that objective knowledge, then, is impersonal without human emotions and intuitions, is the way in which we are meant, as human beings, to know God. He said 'no', because even demons believe in God, but they aren't saved by it. He said that 'knowing' is more like a relationship in the sense that Adam and Eve "knew" each other...in the Biblical sense.

Now, other than the fact that he flat-out contradicted himself here (personal vs. impersonal "knowing"), it's clear that he is not thinking through these matters logically, but rather Scripturally with the tools and terms someone else had indoctrinated him with. I realized he had no concept of the differentiation between subjectivity and objectivity other than his understanding that subjectivity is human and therefore cannot be trusted a priori.  I finally gave up and asked him how he knew this. He referred to God making it known to us, and confirming it in the Bible. I, of course, asked him about his understanding of circular reasoning.

"So truth supports our rationality, God supports truth, and... how do you know this? "The Bible says"? That just pushes this back another level, so the pyramid of how we are certain of anything would be: 1) Bible, 2) God, 3) Truth, 4) Rationality...and then things like intuition/feelings/dreams/opinions. Right? So how do you know the Bible is true? God makes it known? And how do you know this? Because the Bible says so? And how do you know the Bible is true? God makes it known? And how do you know? The Bible says?

And this doesn't sound like circular reasoning to you?"

He responded by saying that this is indeed circular reasoning, which he said all religions are. But here's the real kicker...he referenced the difference between circular reasoning that is 'virtuous' and circular reasoning that is 'vicious' ('question-begging'). He linked me here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/scriptorium/2007/07/running-in-virtuous-circles-the-truth-of-the-bible/. 

If you've read this far, please complete your jedi training by reading that article. It is very informative, though fairly condemning for the fundamentalist religion positions. Basically, it says that Christians sometime make the mistake of believing the Bible without having a theology 'of'' the Bible...or in other words... some people just believe it on the surface without trying to understand why they believe it. This is 'vicious' circular reasoning and question-begging (from Latin "petitio principia”, “assuming the initial point”, where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument); whereas virtuous circular reasoning is legitimate.

Basically, non-question-begging circular reasoning is something you and your debate partner are allowed to assume is true (for a better treatment of this principle, see http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~morourke/404-phil/Summer-99/Handouts/Philosophical/Circularity-and-Begging-the-Question.htm). These 'things people assume' are something like what Aristotle referred to as First Principles, though not exactly the same thing as the author of the first article mentioned above illustrates. Principles of intuitive logic and religious ideas aren’t necessarily both First Principles.

My friend and the author of the first article mentioned above both assume, SUBJECTIVELY, that the truth of the Bible is a First Principle, although they would probably both admit that a knowledge of ‘Jesus saving us from our sins so we can go to Heaven’ is not anything at all like a First Principle. The author maintains that Christians can avoid vicious circular reasoning because most people have to start with something, but Christians aren’t just starting with something; they are starting with something that they feel disproves all the other somethings of other people’s religions, and contrary to many First Principles to boot! Not only do many people believe in a priori convictions that are fundamentally different from Christians, but many, many people have started with this idea of the Bible being true as a First Principle, and have later changed their mind. Where does that put this 'foundational truth' now that it has become not so foundational?

It doesn’t really help matters to adduce that God tells us what is true, therefore the Bible is absolute Truth. Why doesn’t that help? Because it is obviously still a vicious cycle!! Acknowledging vicious circular reasoning does not transform your reasoning into virtuous circular reasoning! Some dedicated Christian is pretending to care about philosophy and is now just playing with people’s brains!

BUT, even if this were a way out of ‘vicious circular reasoning’ (more commonly referred to simply as ‘circular reasoning’), this doesn’t get my friend out of his troubles. The idea of First Principles and a theology of Scripture is subjective through and through. Even if you could establish a distinction between subject and object, objective truth can’t force itself into a subject’s brain and set itself up as absolute truth without subjective cognitive-emotive processing. By appealing to circular reasoning of any kind, my friend has capitulated to the idea that we cannot know anything purely objectively, which is to say that our appeal to Truth is always tainted by our imperfect (finite) humanity. No getting out of this situation we’ve found ourselves in. We must admit it, deal with it the best we can, and love ourselves the best we can. No amount of self-loathing in all its myriad forms excuses us from the fact that I am stuck with me, and you are stuck with you. For better or for worse. Till death do us part.

Lunatic, Liar, Lord, or....just a regular guy.

Time for me to take a bite out of the abysmally flawed and presumptuous argument titled “Lunatic, Liar, or Lord” that has been popularized by the Christian authors C.S. Lewis (originator) and Josh McDowell. These are authors I used to read consistently, and I bought everything they said, hook, line, and stinker. Lewis is amazing, and I will never be finished with him. I love his imagination, honesty, introspection, intellect, and bravery. McDowell I am finished with, but that’s not to say he doesn’t do a great job at what he does. Apologetics is nice as a comforting reinforcement of peace, which I am not keen on attacking in itself; but when one’s peace becomes another’s danger, it’s time to interrupt the siege-against-self that Christians are in the habit of erecting. If you build your faith’s walls too high, you risk starving people inside your walls. What was meant to protect, now suffocates. I write for the spiritually emaciated who can no longer subsist on shadows, and for the sake of a widening of spiritual communities to include others just outside the walls who are lonely and ready to share insight and resources.

There is no need for me to go all heady and uber-academic on you. Others have done it that way (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_perry/trilemma.html), but I’m going to break it down very simply so a fourth grader could understand. Well, sort of.

The first thing I want you to know is that the “lunatic, liar, Lord” argument is entirely specious (only sounds good on the surface). The ‘trilemma’ as McDowell calls it (not sure he’s using that word right), is from beginning to end a coercion of terms and options. Lewis was certainly creative when he named and limited these alternatives, but they were concocted specifically for the Christ-question, specifically by a Christian. Many apologists I’ve witnessed who use this so-called ‘test of divinity’ are muscling the debate and rushing the listener into accepting that this is a valid experiment. It’s like saying, “For an apple to be real it must be red, juicy, and tasty. Now, quick, look at the apple in my hand. Is it red, juicy, and tasty? Yes. Then it’s a real apple! Now, quick, look at the apple in your hand. Is it red, juicy, and tasty? No? Then it isn’t a real apple!” Genius. Except, it’s not.

We need to slow down, and think about it without feeling pressure to allow a mysterious third party to dictate and rush the terms. When someone speaks, and we are trying to ascertain the reliability of their words, what are the possible outcomes of our test? Lunatic, Liar, or Lord? Or, in other words, do we have only the three simple and discrete categories of 1) completely and intentionally false in all ways at all times, 2) eratic and completely inconsistent at all times and in all ways, or 3) the infinite God himself as revealed in Jesus Christ the son of God as revealed by evangelical, fundamentalist Christianity? I don’t think so. I have never yet used any categories of the sort, irrespective of whether or not I’m speaking about the claims of Jesus, Napoleon, Napoleon Dynamite, or Muhammad Ali, to name a bizarrely randomized few. Please don’t psychoanalyze me based on that list. ;)

Now then, what categories might actually come to mind when I am trying to determine accuracy of a statement or reliability of a speaker? Consider these 20 suggestions which may emerge as possibilities; 1) mostly right, 2) mostly wrong, 3) in denial, 4) confused, 5) incorrect in premise, 6) correct in premise, 7) misled, 8) mistaken, 9) forgetful, 10) accidentally correct, 11) biased, 12) provincial, 13) illiterate, 14) uneducated, 15) malicious, 16) overcommitted, 17)misinformed, 18) misunderstood, 19) overstated, or 20) exaggerated; all of which are results with spectrums, ambiguities, overlap, and cultural/personal connotations with nuances that may change in meaning and boundaries from person to person and time to time.

As most human beings experience and observe, truth and falsehood come mostly in mixed bags. Who would deny that? But when it comes to Jesus and his claims, it’s apparent that the ‘tests’ of his divinity are absurdly specialized. But why would we do that? If he’s divine, he needs no help from us to prove it. Or maybe he does? Maybe apologists are just looking for a fast win against the argumentative onslaught of unbelievers? Or maybe, as I believe is often the case, many are simply trying to stabilize their ideas and emotions by rushing to easy answers that don’t require a constant questioning of the truth of everything they’ve been taught. Perhaps people don’t like to be shaken to their very foundation by every doubt that surfaces internally or externally. Can you blame them? “A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.” But then again, as one smart man said before, we need to be careful not to build our lives on a foundation of sand. Make sure you’re ladder is against the right wall when you’re climbing. We can’t be questioning ourselves all the time, but we have to question ourselves sometimes, or we risk putting a lot of work into something that won’t ultimately satisfy.

So, abbreviated soul-searching is developed to give ourselves the impression that we’ve done our homework and we’re on the right path. Apologists come up with only three alternatives for the veracity of Christ’s teaching, and since it appears clear to most people that Jesus doesn’t neatly fit into “liar” or “lunatic” category, then they are left with only one option: “Lord.” But are there other options here?

As stated above, there are always thousands of other possible NORMAL alternatives left. For those who still can’t see, let me apply a few possible alternatives to the case of Jesus in particular.

1.       First and foremost, the carriers of the Jesus traditions would have to be sent through a barrage of tests. If the apologists are right about their test for reliability, then the story-tellers, transcribers, translators, and paraphrasers of the Jesus traditions would have to be submitted to the “lunatic”, “liar”or “Lord [inerrant demi-gods]” evaluation. For some reason, many apologists simply assume their test is being applied directly to the words of Jesus without thousands of years intervening.

Assuming the carriers of the Jesus-traditions didn’t have to be tested because their veracity has been established by some method for determining the inerrancy of errant beings (huh?), then we start with the possibility of results concerning the ‘direct’ words of Jesus as we have them in most Bibles.

2.       Jesus may have been partly misled. It is no secret that Jesus was born into a culture of traditions and prophesies about the coming Messiah and the Messianic Kingdom. Jesus may have assumed, like many others, that the Messiah was indeed coming, and he may have been convinced that he fulfilled, at least in part, the prophesies. Maybe he began to buy his own hype, and allowed himself to have a title foisted on him. We all have doting family, friends, co-workers or acquaintances who at times think that we’re going to revolutionize the world (or is that just me?). Would a precocious 12-year-old Jesus, wow-ing the Temple leaders, have been able to be mature and level-headed enough to separate fact from fiction and reject an archetype that others said he was evidently fitting? Maybe, as he grew older, he didn’t necessarily believe he fulfilled ALL of the prophesies, and only partly viewed himself as the Messiah. He did make clear many times that he wasn’t the kind of Messiah that everyone was expecting, and there’s reason to believe that Jesus was not convinced all the prophesies would be fulfilled by him in his lifetime. Why would he have started to talk about a Second Coming if he fully accomplished everything the Messiah was supposed to?

3.       Jesus may have been simply mistaken about being the Messiah. He could very well have been sincere and sane, and tried, as many others did, to don a mantle, or borrowed a title, to substantiate his internal conviction and support his claim as a leader. Does that make him a liar if he honestly believed that he fit the Messiah role? The Messiah title was more descriptive of a responsibility than an ontology, and only later in New Testament times, and possibly after, was the idea of the God-man really developed apart from a few nebulous passages in the Torah. If ‘Messiah’ was more of a label for “the Jewish hero”, then many people could have attempted to assume this role, and they did, with good intentions. Whether or not they succeeded as hero would be beside the point.

Or, Jesus may have sincerely believed he was a unique kind of being sharing God’s own spirit and power. That doesn’t make him necessarily a liar or a lunatic, especially in a culture where God’s manifestations in and through people were common expectations if not realities. Even if Jesus view of himself as one-with-God was a contradiction to his ordinary human experience, many people learn to live with contradictions in practice and thought that don’t necessarily sabotage a life of good works. Believing in some nonsense is the order of the day for all people. If all he was doing was running around screaming that he was God (which he didn’t), then we might say he suffering from a delusion; but if he was still competent in most other areas and capable as a revolutionary and civil rights activist, then he was very functional in his delusion. Not exactly lunatic material in my mind.

4.       Jesus may have been confused about his own identity. He may have been back-and-forth regarding his spiritual participation in divinity and his mortal physicality. Aren’t we all? And that would explain many of the discrepancies and obscurities in his teaching, especially in anything regarding the nature of the soul, the afterlife of the soul, or metaphysics in general. Biblical theology, much less the metaphysics of Jesus, is anything but systematic. If apologists try too hard to constitute a systematized theology, they risk denying the supra-rationale basis the Bible they are working so hard to protect.

5.       Jesus may have purposely adumbrated, or obscured the truth in such a way that allowed people who needed him to be the Messiah to think he was the Messiah. People very often need an authority figure to give them an excuse to do what they know they should be doing. Every pastor knows this truth intimately. We know Jesus spoke in parables to the crowds, but often revealed hidden meanings to his disciples in private. He mentioned in the book of St. John that he spoke in earthly terms so that people could understand the other-worldly meanings they weren’t ready for. He told his own disciples that there were things he wanted to tell them but they weren’t ready to hear. What if he allowed people to believe some false things about him, and even perpetuated some of those beliefs by ambiguous statements, so that they would have ‘permission’ to throw off the religious oppression of their leaders? For severely manipulated and brainwashed people, there may often be a ‘reverse brainwashing’ in order.  One author said, “If one does not know how to lie, one does not know what the truth is…’not lying’ and ‘telling the truth’ are not the same thing.” How many people in the Holocaust were rescued because someone lied to save a life? On some level, we all ‘lie’ everyday when we change our language and behavior around different people who speak in different ways. We tell our children that the sun rises, love is in the heart, and that grandpa is up in heaven looking down. Are we lying, or borrowing their conceptual framework and elementary linguistic tools to communicate ideas that are beyond their experience and powers of cognition?

6.       Could Jesus have overcommitted to his ideology and felt compelled to start contributed more into a sociopolitical myth than he originally had planned? Could he have found himself amid exaggeration, sensationalism and eventually deception that he felt was for a good cause, but which he deeply regretted and planned to modify? If he was a liar, and conscious of it, was it something he felt was for the common good? Was he now committed to doing whatever was necessary to break the yoke of religious/political oppression, even to the point of regularly deceiving ‘the sheep’, and encouraging a revolution that was powered by a beneficent deception? If it helped more people eat, feel peace, think more kindly on others, and develop a better sense of well-being and love, was it so bad? Maybe he took it ‘too far’ by some people’s standards. Was he a liar, or a secret agent of light cloaked in shadows and deep deceptions to invade the nightmarish darkness and free its prisoners?

This is just the beginning. As I said before, the test of reliability and intention for any person despite their claims could yield results with spectrums, ambiguities, overlap, and cultural/personal connotations with nuances that may change in meaning and boundaries from person to person and time to time. The idea that the results of reliability/intention analysis could produce results that are as simplistic and distinct as “lunatic, liar, or lord” is tremendously oversimplified and over-zealous to achieve an easy confirmation of one’s beliefs.

There’s no easy magic in this life; no waving a magic wand, declaring something ‘safe’, and proceeding without caution because now our way is infallible. There is no sphere of human existence, no experiential scenario, in which this has ever played out as beneficial in the long run, and it has been running long enough. Inerrancy is a metaphysical dream quite unlikely, ipso facto, to be realized in an imperfect world.

So, try it for yourself. Try applying the touchstone of “Liar, Lunatic, or Lord” to any person you know. See if it is helpful as a tool for anything but a specialized case in which all factors are controlled to bring a very specific and consistently irresistible result: Jesus is God. The results probably won’t surprise you.