Since McDowell does specifically talk about Jesus claiming to be able to forgive sins, this would probably be a better initial premise:
2b. Jesus claimed that he could forgive sins.
The conclusion, in order to provide relevant support to the Trilemma, must also be about what Jesus claimed:
4b. Jesus claimed to be God.
The question is, how do we bridge the logical gap between (2b) and (4b)?
In the previous post, I suggested a somewhat complex and less-than-obvious way to bridge the logical gap. Before continuing the discussion of this proposal, let me back up a bit, and consider a simpler and more obvious reconstruction of McDowell's thinking:
2b. Jesus claimed that he could forgive sins.
3b. Jesus claimed that only God could forgive sins.
Therefore,
4b. Jesus claimed to be God.
This simple reconstruction of the argument shares important features with the previously considered argument that focused on what Jesus believed:
2a. Jesus believed that he could forgive sins.
3a. Jesus believed that only God could forgive sins.
Therefore,
4a. Jesus believed that he was God.
Both arguments are invalid as deductive arguments; the conclusions can be false even if the premises are true. But it is also the case that both arguments provide a good reason for believing their conclusions (if the premises are true).
Premise (2b) is supported by Gospel accounts of some incidents where Jesus declared that some person's sins were forgiven. One could challenge this claim by pointing to problems with the historical reliability and accuracy of the Gospels, but a more grevious problem with this argument is that there is no evidence from the Gospels for premise (3b). Jesus makes no such claim in the Gospels. So, this simple way of bridging the logical gap between (2b) and (4b) will not work.
Perhaps a hybrid of the above two arguments would work:
2b. Jesus claimed that he could forgive sins.3a. Jesus believed that only God could forgive sins.
Therefore,
4b. Jesus claimed to be God.
I have previously objected that McDowell failed to provide relevant evidence to support premise (3a), and that it is unclear whether this premise is true.
Furthermore, this hybrid argument is subject to a counterexample that is similar to the one I used against my more complex reconstruction of McDowell's thinking:
Jesus made it plain to other people around him that he did not believe that only God could forgive sins.
In this case, Jesus might well believe himself to be God, but he would fail to make a public claim to be God, because the beliefs that he professed would not carry the implication that he was God.
This counterexample would, of course, require Jesus to be dishonest. It requires that Jesus clearly implies that he rejects a belief which he in fact accepts. So, it is open to a defender of Christianity to object that Jesus was an honest person, a person of great moral integrity, and thus that Jesus would not deceive others about his theological beliefs.
However, the assumption that Jesus was an honest person and a person of great integrity cannot be built into the logic of the Trilemma argument, because one of the three logical possibilities is that Jesus is a liar (i.e. he claimed to be God even though he did not believe himself to be God). So, Christian apologists need to argue for a premise to the effect that Jesus was an honest person and a person of great integrity, and that is basically how the "Liar" alternative is challenged and potentially eliminated.
We are talking now about how the basic factual premise (i.e. Jesus claimed to be God) of the Trilemma is established. The three alternatives (Lord, Liar, or Lunatic) are derived from the basic factual premise, and then considered, and Christian apologists aim to eliminate two of the alternatives. So, it would beg the question to assume Jesus to be honest and a person of great integrity in order to establish the basic factual premise.
In establishing what Jesus claimed or did not claim concerning his alleged divinity, one must not lean on the assumption (even a well-justified asssumption) that Jesus was an honest person and a person of great moral integrity. That assumption needs to be argued for later in the argument, after the basic factual assumption has been established.
Strictly speaking, a counterexample to the logic of an argument only shows that the argument is not a valid deductive argument. But the previous non-hybrid arguments were not taken to be deductive arguments anyway. They were viewed as providing a good reason to believe their conclusions, if the premises were true. So, the bottom-line question here is, does the hybrid argument provide a good reason to believe the conclusion, assuming the premises to be true?
Posts
