Clojure is not special in that it has some zealots.
It's easier to call others out when they aren't in the mainstream, but I'd say that there are way more mainstream cult members than these niche communities. For instance, HN itself can feel a bit cult-like. The greater tech culture feels similarly.
Gödel gave an example of this by making a system of arithmetic generate statements about itself, and proved that it can't generate all possible truth statements (completeness) without generating some false ones (inconsistency). So, logic as cold machinery can start from the same axioms to prove that something is true in one path and then prove it false from another path. Logic is a world with its own rules that we can map reality onto sometimes but not always. The book Gödel's Proof does a good job describing this.
A larger and more devastating argument I've heard recently is that in order to even create logical statements, you need to be arguing from a worldview that can give an account for the existence of logic that isn't arbitrary (e.g. not "it just is"). And the argument goes that if you can't justify the existence of the tool, you can't justify its usage. This is devastating because if you believe it, then you suddenly must recognize that something prior to and higher than logic must exist in order to inform you of its existence, and it is not subject to the bounds of any logical system founded arbitrarily, but becomes the means by which logic itself coheres into something meaningful.
The pragmatic CS sol'n is to ground logic via truth tables. There are only two bools, so displaying a few bool*bool->bool operators is really not that much data. (data = those which have been given)
He may forgive but I am not sure his soul would have wanted to be with Him, based on what I have seen from him he would rather be in oblivion than an Eternal Church.. Obviously I don’t claim to know his true heart.
> I got a strong feeling that Lewis' arguments and exposition were guided by something other than logic, though they pretended to be following it. The trilemma is an example of this.
One way to discover that we necessarily have worldviews outside of logic is to look at a statement like this, and realize it appeals to something outside of logic (feelings) to critique how someone else is only pretending to follow it.
I am not saying that I or anyone am perfectly logical or uninfluenced by feeling. Hume was exactly correct when he said the reason is the slave of the passions.
But - with his trilemma, Lewis claims "here is a logical argument for believing in the Christian god", and then presents a weak and illogical argument. It's difficult to know what to make of this except that Lewis was somehow blinded to the logical flaws.
> "here is a logical argument for believing in the Christian god"
That is definitely not the point of the trilemma. It simply argues that Christ must be placed into one of three categories, which do not include "generally nice and completely harmless moral teacher". He was clearly claiming to be God, which obviously leads to the trilemma of choices between Liar, Lunatic and Lord.
That doesn't say which one of those three to pick. Just ruling out the other possibilities by considering the claims he made about himself.
I don't know if that's true. Certainly there are biblical scholars who would disagree. It's not mentioned in the first three gospels, for example.
> obviously leads to the trilemma of choices
Again, not obvious. The three choices are logically incomplete. There are other possibilities, such as that Jesus was not a ful-on lunatic: he had a single delusional belief about his own divinity but was otherwise rational.
It's a false trilemma, as there are othe possibilities: he did not actually exist historically, or he was a wise, nice guy and others made up all the God stuff over the years, or he was a nice guy trying to help people and he thought tactically the mystical claims would allow him to help more people. One can probably imagine a bunch more or less realistic possibilities given a little while to think about it.
You must remember that the trilemma exists in a context. Lewis set it up as a reply to people who "say that they're ready to accept Jesus as a good human teacher, but not ready to accept him as God". That is, they already accepted that he existed, and that the set of teachings recorded was more or less accurate.
That rules out "did not actually exist historically" and "others made up all the God stuff over the years". (I mean, those exists as possibilities in an absolute sense, but not as possibilities that he had to answer, because the people he was answering didn't hold those as options.)
And to me, "a nice guy trying to help people and he thought tactically the mystical claims would allow him to help more people" sounds a lot like "liar". Liar with good intentions, but still liar.
Well, if you have to presuppose that the gospels are true then you are probably arguing with a tiny slice of people: those who believe the gospels are more or less accurate down to the specific quotes of Jesus but do not believe he was the son of God. I would say that "accept Jesus as a good human teacher" is a far broader category than this and nothing about it implies a particularly strict belief in the truth of the gospels.
I'd also say that, even accepting the gospels, we have to really take wide views of "liar, lunatic, or Lord" to make it work. Lewis himself further described the "liar" as akin to the "Devil of Hell" - I wouldn't characterize the liar I described as such. And he said the lunatic was akin to "the man who says he is a poached egg", but people are great at compartmentalization and can hold some very silly specific beliefs while still being otherwise rational, sane people. Even "Lord" admits plenty of things we wouldn't recognize as Christianity, e.g. rejecting the trinity or plenty of other heresies.
In the 1950s, in Great Britain, the basic accuracy of the gospels was a lot more widely shared assumption/presupposition than it is today.
If you're going to accept Jesus as a good human teacher, but not accept that he actually taught what the gospels say he did, then you have a good teacher but no teachings. And maybe that's a position that a lot of people like, because it leaves them an empty figure into which they can pour whatever teachings they personally favor, but I think it's rather a cop-out. (A steelman version would be: "I think he was a good human teacher, but no reliable record of what he actually taught survives, so we cannot claim that any particular teaching or position has his stamp of approval." But I still think that's weak. If you can't trust the record of what he taught, how can you trust the record that he was a good teacher?)
Accepting the gospels, the liar you describe is still offering people eternal life, at a price - "take up your cross and follow me". (The cross was not just a burden, it was an instrument of execution.) If the eternal life isn't there, it's hard to describe that as a benign or beneficial lie. Note that many of his followers were executed. (Our record of that doesn't depend on the gospels - Tacitus also says this.) You may say that this still falls short of Lewis's description, but it's far from your description. (I'd have to go back and reread Lewis's argument to see how tightly he has boxed people in on the "liar" branch.)
>Accepting the gospels, the liar you describe is still offering people eternal life, at a price - "take up your cross and follow me". (The cross was not just a burden, it was an instrument of execution.) If the eternal life isn't there, it's hard to describe that as a benign or beneficial lie.
If you don't actually believe in the supernatural stuff it seems like the definition of a benign lie. He thinks having society follow his broader teachings would result in a much better society on net, regardless of some people being killed for following and spreading it. He thinks that you go in the dirt when you die so he says, hey, actually you go up to this great place. This really helps it catch on and spread. Nobody finds out that part's not true because when they die they just go in the dirt.
Any kind of large-scale change will have some specific people dying compared to the counterfactual of not making the change. To assess whether the change is benign, positive, or negative, we must grapple with both the positive and negative impacts.
For example, I could wave a magic wand today and fix climate change, saving millions or billions of lives. But since I did so, some granny slips on a patch of ice next winter and dies from the fall. Without my magic wand, she would have lived.
Now, I don't specifically know who this granny is before I choose to wave my wand, but as a thinking individual I understand that some such granny must exist. In fact, there are probably many grannies who will die as a result. Would you argue that waving my wand is not a positive change because specific people exist who will be harmed?
I don't think it rules out "others made up all the God stuff over the years". It's perfectly reasonable to take John with a big pinch of salt and believe that Jesus did not claim divinity, and I wouldn't be surprised if Lewis' intended audience included such people.
It's highly debatable whether Jesus believed himself to be divine. There are more than three options, for example Jesus may have simply made a mistake in his own reasoning. It is not as inconceivable as Lewis makes out that Jesus was a lunatic or a liar.
Oh, I wouldn't try to squeeze it down into a one liner. Maybe for a simple definition of the quoted text that doesn't need to account for edge cases like escaped quotes inside...
Fifteen years ago I made a documentary about homelessness (https://graceofgodmovie.com/) and one of the things that many of my subjects talked about was the "homeless industrial complex". These were organizations who ostensibly helped homeless people, while also advocating for policies that created more homelessness and more problems for homeless people, like restrictive zoning to prevent development, and laws against sleeping in public places. I never dug into the extent to which this was true, but it certainly seems plausible. The cost of actually fixing the problem would be putting yourself and everyone in your organization out of work.
It could be simple dissonance with their beliefs as city residents (NIMBY, keep cities clean etc.). Same way a priest can be against abortion and divorce while daily helping victims of abuse and runaway kids.
