CS Lewis's Trilemma - Applied to Joseph Smith / The Book of Mormon / "Inspired Fiction"

[Scott Lloyd]

On 9/6/2018 at 12:32 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Lewis's trilemma begs the question:  We do not in fact know as a matter of historical fact what Jesus taught.  We have only documents about him by others.  Historians agree that he existed, but do not know much beyond that.  For that reason, Jesus is a matter of faith.

As to the Book of Mormon, we do not know who did the EModE translation -- which Joseph read to his scribes -- nor whether it is a real, historical document created by ancient New World peoples, or merely a well-intentioned pseudepigraphon (of which there are many).  What is unique about the Book of Mormon is that it contains a multitude of testable historical claims.  If it can be shown to be empirically true (by at least the preponderance of evidence), then it backs up the otherwise dubious claims by and about Jesus.

Here is an example of a proper use of the phrase "begs the question." Congratulations, Robert. I rarely see it used properly on this board.

Hint: Notice that Robert did not follow up his use of the phrase "begs the question" with a question.

Edited September 10, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Here is an example of a proper use of the phrase "begs the question." Congratulations, Robert. I rarely see it used properly on this board.

Hint: Notice that Robert did not follow up his use of the phrase "begs the question" with a question.

Oh no, it doesn't.  What he is trying to say (and as you note he doesn't follow it up with one) is "raises the question."

Question begging is not, as some seem to think, a request to question something.  It is the name of a logical fallacy, "begging the question". 

It is "a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. It is a type of circular reasoning and an informal fallacy: an argument that requires that the desired conclusion be true. This often occurs in an indirect way such that the fallacy's presence is hidden, or at least not easily apparent.

"The phrase begging the question originated in the 16th century as a mistranslation of the Latin petitio principii, which actually translates to "assuming the initial point". In modern vernacular usage, "begging the question" is frequently used to mean "raising the question" or "dodging the question". In contexts that demand strict adherence to a technical definition of the term, many consider these usages incorrect."

And I'd like to demand strict adherence to the technical definition. Perhaps I am being pedantic, but where a perfectly adequate term, "raising the question," exists, I'd like "begging the question" to keep the traditional meaning, even if it originates from a mistranslation. Otherwise, we'd find ourselves trying to insist that people use "assuming the initial point" or perhaps "assuming what is to be proven" instead.  And good luck getting people to do that.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Oh no, it doesn't.  What he is trying to say (and as you note he doesn't follow it up with one) is "raises the question."

Question begging is not, as some seem to think, a request to question something.  It is the name of a logical fallacy, "begging the question". 

It is "a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. It is a type of circular reasoning and an informal fallacy: an argument that requires that the desired conclusion be true. This often occurs in an indirect way such that the fallacy's presence is hidden, or at least not easily apparent.

"The phrase begging the question originated in the 16th century as a mistranslation of the Latin petitio principii, which actually translates to "assuming the initial point". In modern vernacular usage, "begging the question" is frequently used to mean "raising the question" or "dodging the question". In contexts that demand strict adherence to a technical definition of the term, many consider these usages incorrect."

And I'd like to demand strict adherence to the technical definition. Perhaps I am being pedantic, but where a perfectly adequate term, "raising the question," exists, I'd like "begging the question" to keep the traditional meaning, even if it originates from a mistranslation. Otherwise, we'd find ourselves trying to insist that people use "assuming the initial point" or perhaps "assuming what is to be proven" instead.  And good luck getting people to do that.

I agree with you about the meaning and usage of "begs the question." I disagree that Robert used it improperly.

In fact, I brought it up by way of highlighting a proper use of the phrase after I have so many times in the past noted when people here have used it improperly.

If you will go back and re-read Robert's post, perhaps you will see that he did in fact use the phrase properly. He can clarify as he sees fit, but as an academic, he could be expected to be acquainted with the proper and classic use of "begs the question."

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree with you about the meaning and usage of "begs the question." I disagree that Robert used it improperly.

In fact, I brought it up by way of highlighting a proper use of the phrase after I have so many times in the past noted when people here have used it improperly.

If you will go back and re-read Robert's post, perhaps you will see that he did in fact use the phrase properly. He can clarify as he sees fit, but as an academic, he could be expected to be acquainted with the proper and classic use of "begs the question."

Sorry, I re-read it a few times to see if I were wrong, and I'm very sure he used it improperly.  

[Scott Lloyd]

On 9/10/2018 at 3:36 PM, Stargazer said:

Sorry, I re-read it a few times to see if I were wrong, and I'm very sure he used it improperly.  

I guess the only sure way to know is to have him come on here and clarify his intent.

But a key indicator of improper use would be if he followed his use of it with a question. As you have acknowledged, he did not do this.

Here is what Robert said:

Quote

Lewis's trilemma begs the question:  We do not in fact know as a matter of historical fact what Jesus taught.  We have only documents about him by others.  Historians agree that he existed, but do not know much beyond that.  For that reason, Jesus is a matter of faith.

He is saying here that "Jesus is a matter of faith," and, therefore, the trilemma is begging the question because it assumes as a given the existence of and Biblical accounts about Jesus, the very proposition that is up for argument. That, by definition, is begging the question.

I don't agree with Robert that the trilemma is begging the question (I agree with Smac's OP), but I do read Robert as using the proper phrase for what he intended to convey.

 

Edited September 13, 2018 by Scott Lloyd