[Holding] and the Trilemma

Note that [Holding] could conceivably commit all these transgressions and still be winning on substance, Yep! That's how bad off he is. I could do all that and STILL beat him. but any reading of my unedited arguments shows that he is losing badly on that score as well. [$] I could beat this guy with half my brain tied behind my back. [Holding] nevertheless concludes his response by saying:

...the bottom line as usual: Our critic is manifestly out of his league...

[Holding] may have wasted more of his life on biblical trivia than I have, [!, #] *cough cough* -- "biblical trivia" meaning, "relevant knowledge" -- to a non-mechanic, the details of engine repair are arcana; to a non-pilot, so with flight aerodynamics... but as a polemicist he is 'manifestly' not equipped to deal with a humble atheist [$] Humble! And proud of it! armed just with clear reason Dang! Where do I send the spring-loaded automatic elbow so he can pat himself on the back...Special bulletin: According to Thomas Paine, this is proof that Daffy didn't author his own work! and the relevant fundamental historical facts. "Relevant fundamental historical facts" = "I slapped a Bible open." His inadequacy is probably related to his apparent lack of experience debating in open fora like Usenet, [!] where his current opponent has been debating politics and religion since 1988. Doing it for 12 years, and he still hasn't got it right. Maybe also explains why he thinks sound bites make good arguments. If [Holding] too had submitted and defended over 1500 Usenet postings, he might have learned to avoid the sort of  missteps that we herein document him making 137 times. [$] Or, I too might be an egomaniacal ignoramus with misplaced self-confidence. Um, what sort of professional peer review is there on Usenet postings? What's that? Speak up, I can't hear you! PS -- As of this date I have authored over 1300 different articles in less than half that time. Maybe if Daffy had written half as many... Instead, [Holding] seems to restrict his debating to the safe and cozy confines of his little web site, [!] Little! Yep, 1000+ (now 1500+) items sure is little. Don't forget to tell them how I have taken over all the search engines. where he can evade and misrepresent his opponents' arguments with impunity. [!] And which opponents can say is being done and never prove it, and when they try, fail. But [Holding]'s inability as a polemicist is not to be blamed for him losing this debate on substance, since he dealt himself a losing hand in the first place. [$] Rather, it is his propensity for blunders like these 137 that indicates which of us here is "manifestly out of his league." [!] PS, no, I am not an egomaniac! I am a humble atheist! Alright, who took my mirror??

When at the start of this debate I informed [Holding] that I would be rebutting his Trilemma article, he wrote me:

If you insist on embarrassing yourself with your ignorance...I shall be only too happy to oblige. And boy, I'm still happy! Pass the popcorn!

(1) Quit the debate; [$] OK! --- NOT! continue to pretend that my only responses have been what your editing claims them to be; [!] Let's pretend Daffy is Superman! Hello, my name is Kryptonite! continue to hope that your readers cannot find the full unedited text of my responses; They did. They weren't impressed. save yourself the effort of finding new ways to misrepresent my positions; [$] Nah. The old ways of actually reporting what you said, and sometimes don't understand what you said, work just fine. and deny me the satisfaction of annihilating any more of your attempted counter arguments. [$] Daffy: "Please! Please! Stop, you're hurting me! NO, WAIT! I love hitting myself on the head with a brick!"

(2) Reply substantively to each of my arguments and in particular to each of the 79 cases where you fail to correctly represent, substantively answer, or even admit the existence of my arguments; You asked for it, you got it! They don't exist! link to my responses so I can no longer say you hide your defeats from your readers; Like anyone cares what HE says. Just look at the big pile of letters I got demanding to know who Daffy was. Don't forget to ask me to release all those hostages I'm holding at gunpoint at Google headquarters. and refrain from ersatz arguments (such as those based on bluster, generalization, ad hominem, or slurs) Nah, only he's allowed to do that! 20 times already and we're just getting started. that are so easy for me to diagnose as insubstantial. Sure, the ease is in the ignorance. It's easy to be a naked native running around saying planes can't possibly fly because they're so heavy.

(3) Continue to keep your readers from seeing the full unedited text of my responses; Oops, he just lost that bet. Did he bet the mortgage? Read: "Let them see the full text of stuff I said that doesn't add anything to my arguments, but I think does, because of my delusions of competence." continue failing to correctly represent, substantively answer, or even admit the existence of so many of my arguments; [$} OK, I admit I left out the time he burped. and continue to make arguments based on bluster, generalization, ad hominem, or slurs. Continue to make arguments over your head, and call a spade a spade. Gotcha.

JPH: [the Christ complex] is not in the APA's DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

JPH: the issue is whether indeed there are people who think they are Christ or God, and how serious this delusion is, compared to, say, someone who thinks they are merely a great football player [..] The level of delusion and dissonance required is much greater for one with a divinity complex than it is for one who has lesser-scale delusions

DD: I challenge [[Holding]] to cite any authority saying schizophrenia is more likely to have sudden onset than to develop over time.

JPH: Whose job is this to prove? Our critic bears the burden of proof in this regard, as it is he who makes the claim that Jesus fits the mold

JPH: but even if he proves that gradual onset is possible in such a context

JPH: it proves nothing without a begged question assumed and without corollary data and an explained means of falsification.

1. Jesus seems (at least initially) to have been a disciple of John the Baptist. A Jesus always convinced of his divinity would have been less likely to ever be anyone's disciple. This is one of those errors of scholarship deserving a ho ho ha [#]. As I replied: Why is this the case? No reason is given, much less is it proved that Jesus was a disciple of John (this is sometimes argued, but it is never stated in the text, and no such relationship is described in the text; the only clue is that Jesus' original message of repentance is the same as John's, though this was also a message of the OT!). However, even if it were true, which is possible, Daffy is utterly and obviously not aware of the necessity in a collectivist society of aligning one's self with a fictive kinship group; the goal of the teacher-disciple relationship was socialization, and the ability to identify one's self with a particular teacher. Becoming a disciple of John, or entering the fictive kinship group of a John the Baptist, would have been useful for a Messianic programme because ancient persons were identified in terms of their teachers, and students took on the identity of their schools (sort of like saying one is from Harvard tends to make an impression). However, it is unlikely that Jesus was John's disciple, for Jesus is not once identified in terms of being John's student; rather, it is asked, "Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?", indicating no connection with a known personality like John the Baptist or any other teacher. No doubt Daffy will find a way to make Jesus mentally ill anyway, but such is the flexibility of his methodology. Either way it's a bonehead error in scholarship.
2. Jesus seems to have been estranged from his family. Such estrangement could have been produced by his growing delusions of divinity, and would have been unlikely if he always had true knowledge of his own divinity. We address this later on with other "family-related" issues. It is another anachronistic ho ho ha [#]
3. Jesus was at times secretive about his special nature. Such secrecy would be consistent with Jesus initially not being convinced of his divinity. Ditto. Another ho ho ha [#]. Ironically in all three of these cases the error lies in basic ignorance of the social science background of the NT era, what Daffy derisively calls "trivia" or "arcana" because he is to uneducated to think of it any other way. Moreover, as I added: Of course in not one of these cases are we shown that Jesus "manifests an insidious and gradual reduction in his external relations and interests." It is never shown, just assumed, to be insidious; it is never shown, just assumed, to be gradual; it is never shown, just assumed, that these behaviors, explicable fully and reasonably on other social grounds, may be paired with symptoms uniquely and inseparably tied to mental illness. Once again, Daffy must presume to insert factors of diagnosis not found in the text and has therefore failed to meet the burden of proof and as also violated his own premise of parsimony. To the extent that Daffy must continually add things to the text to make his case, or ignore surrounding social data, or dismiss it anachronistically, the label of "parsimony" for his thesis vanishes over an ever-growing horizon of plausibility and excuses for why the data does not fit what is written, especially since the social data we present showing why Jesus acted as he did in his culture, then the rule of parsimony would declare that, rather than Jesus being mentally deluded, he was simply normal and acting in the typical fashion of the time period in question. Since the latter is far more likely than the former in general, the reasons for Jesus' alleged idiosyncracies are more parsimoniously explained away by the social data inherent to the period rather than that he was "insane" to some varying degree (i.e. "honestly mistaken").

JPH: about finding such conditions in Jesus, our critic accuses me of not quoting material in context,

JPH: but still provides no examples of such behavior in Jesus one way or the other

JPH: and does not show how the alleged misquoting in any way muddles his argument.

JPH: Our critic [says] that his actual stance is that "the gospels are probably the result of not necessarily fabrication, but of some combination of misinterpretation, exaggeration, rationalization, delusion, and deception"

JPH: a combo claim that sounds effective when hurled in elephantine form

JPH: but indicates an unwillingness and an inability to break down the Gospel records into each of these categories

• misinterpretation: Jesus' divinity claims; reanimation miracles The former is also a dodge [&] relating to Daffy's refusal to explain the "proper" interpretation of Jesus' divinity claims, and I'll add a ho ha ha [#] for his refusal to engage the relevant scholarship. The latter Daffy provides no details of explanation for.
• exaggeration: Jesus' water-walking And I refuted his explanation; this is therefore a parry [%]
• rationalization: Jesus' danger avoidance as knowledge that it wasn't his time A ho ha ha [#] showing Daffy's manifest ignorance of the relevant social data (see below)
• delusion: Jesus' self-conception Both a parry [%] (repeated arguments) and a ho ha ha [#] (ignorance of social data that leads Daffy to this conclusion)
• deception: the empty tomb This one will be a thrust [!] since Daffy presents zero argument or evidence for any deception -- he makes life easy on himself by using only one-word descriptions with no critical analysis
• fabrication: the Easter zombies Ditto [!] -- also a ho ha ha [#] since if Daffy were familiar with the social world of the NT he would know such a claim would have at least had to have some backup to make it past the social controls. Matthew had to at least have people who claimed to have seen the raised saints. "Fabrication" just won't do the job.

JPH: and a mere attempt to sound as though some authoritative and reasonable thesis is being presented, when in fact, it is no more than several begged questions rather than just one.

JPH: In the latest report, our critic ignores the link [referring to John and Mark's respective Christologies]

JPH: makes hash of the idea that I supposedly allowed that Jesus did not spread around his identity, even as it was spread around anyway

JPH: [Daffy] now merely declares [[Holding]'s disputing of Q/Marcan priority] to be a "dead meme" and therefore not open to discussion, because it is held by authoritative sources like Encyclopedias!

JPH: [to disagree with the scholarly consensus] requires a certain degree of ego anyway. One must assume themselves to be wiser, smarter, more informed, than literally hundreds of trained historians and other specialists who have reached the opposite conclusion. One must assume to have understood things clearly that few others have clearly understood; one must seek conspiracy under every bush, an enemy behind every piece of furniture, and maintain that others who disagree with you are simply too blind, biased, or ignorant to appreciate your rampant genius. This is a turn [*]. as I noted, the bracketed words are Daffy's own idea; the actual sentence, in an essay written against G. A. Wells, says, "Of course, to be a Christ-myther requires a certain degree of ego anyway." Daffy here stooped to the highest levels of dishonesty in his frustration. The Christ-myth is not to be compared in terms of consensus to the dispute over Q/Marcan priority, which is in fact undergoing serious reconsideration in the scholarly literature, as is shown in the linked article Daffy has little choice but to continue to ignore.

JPH: Of course, it is quite possible that all of the professional historians (even those with no religious interest!) are biased or wrong, while proponents of the [contrarian thesis] are the objective ones. And yes, a consensus does not equate with evidence. But a consensus on any historical question is usually based on evidence which is analyzed by those who are recognized as authoritative in their field, and therefore may be taken at their word.

DD: Several examples are in section 1.2.2. (Philosophy / Metaphysics / Theology) of my book

JPH: Our critic now adds some arguments from his own book (quoting himself as an authority in essence!)

DD: In order of writing, the gospel accounts of Jesus' resurrected appearances become increasingly elaborate. Original Mark claims an empty tomb but describes no appearances. Matthew says simply that the two Marys and later the Eleven "saw him" but "some were dubious." The Longer Ending of Mark says Jesus appeared "in a different form" to two disciples, and simply "appeared" to the Eleven. Luke elaborates on both of these episodes, building the latter into an account that approaches the full Doubting Thomas story finally told in John.

JPH: The progression here is only in our critic's imagination. Mark is exempt from such analysis [..] as it is far from clear that the ending of Mark was the original as it now stands, and the longer ending is too late to be given consideration--that our critic sees fit to include it shows a remarkable lack of scholarly discipline.

JPH: Matt. 28:17 does not say that some 'didn't believe'; it said that some 'doubted' -- doubted what?

JPH: the verb used here points not to belief or uncertainty, but to hesitation and indecision. They did not doubt the presence or veracity of the resurrected Jesus; they wondered [..] what was to be done next... Here we have a case of a dodge [&] in which Daffy left out telling words from the ellipses: "rather, in the face of a heretofore unexpected event (a unique resurrection before the final judgment)" -- the crucial context that shows that the "doubting" was not a case of not knowing it was Jesus.

JPH: In terms of Luke and John, by "elaboration" our critic presumably means, more details are given. That may be so

JPH: but none of the details adds any degree of elaboration to the actual event of the resurrection.

JPH: Luke and John add nothing that Matthew would not, in actually claiming a resurrection, already indicate via the conceptual template of a resurrection

JPH: Does he think Luke elaborated on Matthew directly, and John on Luke? If he thinks there is a progression, then that implies that one built on the other knowingly.

JPH: The "progression" thesis is quite imaginative, but completely devoid of substance.

JPH: if this progression theory has any validity, one must date 1 Cor. 15, whose quantity-substance is far more significant than the Gospel records, later than the Gospels!

DD: In the earliest gospel (Mark), Jesus [..] is reluctant for his special nature to be known, and (as he does in Matthew) despairs on the cross. (By contrast, in the later Luke and John, Jesus asserts he is Christ, and confidently assures a co-crucified criminal of their impending ascension.)

JPH: As noted above, and still again, our critic ignores the very definitive claims to divinity listed in Mark

JPH: And an "impending ascension" (which is not an accurate descriptor anyway) is no divine claim!

JPH: Anyone familiar with the social background data, with the contextual meanings of the words used by Jesus of himself, sees no such progression within the Gospels

• the elaborateness of the resurrection appearances As shown, false. This is a repeat argument and a parry [%].
• the impressiveness of the healing miracles (Lazarus; the congenitally blind man) Daffy did not develop this, but there is no such progression at all. This is a thrust [!] as it stands. If he wants to dispute we want to know whether walking on water is more or less "impressive" than healing a blind man, and how he knows.
• Jesus' confidence on the cross, False, as shown; this is a parry [%]. and
• Jesus' divinity claims Also false, as I showed; Jesus is consistently portrayed as claiming the divine titles of Wisdom and of the Son of Man, and Daffy had no answer to this other than, "Duh!" This is a thrust [!] of generalization.
  

  JPH: we want some proof of "delusions of persecution" [..] and "unrealistic, illogical thinking" as well as hallucinations. A bit of a turn [*] as an outright lie, as Daffy omits my note that we want such examples "as opposed to cases of actual persecution -- like a case where Jesus thought Peter was out to get him!" Daffy knows he can't produce any such actual cases, which is why he left that part out.

  DD: I'm not saying that some separate evidence for Jesus' being unrealistic and hallucinatory therefore establishes him as a schizophrenic. A dodge [&] of my request for evidence -- wise, because Daffy has NO evidence. This is how Daffy reacted to my demands for specific evidence of Jesus' lunacy otherwise uninterpretable within the paradigm of an actually divine man.

  JPH: Well, if not, then why quote the article on this point, or why not quote it and admit that that phrase is not being taken into consideration?

DD: [Holding] seems to think we are looking for gospel admissions that Jesus hallucinated or was deluded. We are instead looking for gospel reports that are consistent with Jesus hallucinating or being deluded. Hallucinations: Jesus hears or sees God, Satan, demons, and angels. Delusions: Jesus believes he is sent by God, believes he has apocalyptic foreknowledge, etc.

JPH: What is happening here is that our critic simply threw up a quote from the encyclopedia uncritically -- as he has done with numerous sources -- hoping to land one blow, any blow, with his skeptical cohorts -- and now has to backpedal furiously in order to avoid defending himself.

JPH: Indeed, this is shown in that here, for the first time, our critic shows his hand, which we have anticipated:

DD: I'm saying that if we reserve judgment about the truth of the reports about Jesus, and instead can show that they are consistent with paranoid schizophrenia, then it becomes a simple matter of asking which explanation is more parsimonious: divine incarnation or mental illness? Since mental illness is obviously more parsimonious than divine incarnation, [Holding]'s burden is to show that the reports about Jesus are INCONSISTENT with paranoid schizophrenia.

DD: the mere existence of this fourth alternative [deluded faith-healer] doesn't in itself prove that this alternative is true. But its unrebutted existence DOES invalidate the trilemma argument, whose validity depends on there being no non-lord options besides liar and lunatic. It may in fact be possible to prove Jesus' lordship through other more-direct arguments, but the Trilemma itself fails to do so if the fourth option is not actually SHOWN to be false.

JPH: the entire premise from our critic rests upon the begged question (turned via positive spin-doctoring into a matter of a "more parsimonious explanation!") that no such thing as a divine incarnation is possible.

By contrast, we have no reason to think that [Holding] admits that it was even remotely possible that Jesus was delusional. Given the data I've thrown in Daffy's yard, that possibility requires too many surds and excuses to be believable; thus he has his answer to this, and this is a thrust [!]. I've already said how different the Gospels and associated evidence would have to be to convince me that Jesus was divine.  His subjective and unjustified list below. Does [Holding] dare declare how different the evidence would have to be to convince him that Jesus was instead delusional? A guard [@] -- ineffective dare. As I say, "Yes, I do: Our critic needs at least to provide 1) symptoms uniquely associated with delusion and not with normal human behavior; 2) evidence explaining why various social factors (ritual uncleanness associated with delusion in the ancient world, for example) somehow managed to be circumvented where Jesus was concerned. That would be for starters. If our critic can do that (and he cannot, except by inserting things into the text and anachronizing), he may have a start."

JPH: To that end, in the service of a "more parsimonious explanation," do we see our critic spinning out every event possible into a sign of mental illness, while dispensing with contrary or insufficient indications of data by any illicit means possible. We shall see more of this as we proceed.

JPH: we do have places where the voice of God is heard, but there, others hear the voice too. Presumably skeptics would posit the usual convenient "group hallucination" theory for that one. Our critic has no answer for that

JPH: but does as we expected beg the question by assuming that Jesus' encounter with Satan and apocalyptic fervor are the result of delusion. The scent of begged question is overwhelming!

JPH: Critics sometimes appeal to the cleansing of the Temple; if this prophetic demonstration reflects mental disorder of this sort, then protestors [sic] in front of nuclear power plants and members of PETA also need help

DD: This analogy fails utterly, as such protests do not get the protester killed.

JPH: Whether they get someone killed is beside the point

JPH: though in that case, one may ask about the sanity of American Revolutionary soldiers, for example, who fought for their freedom knowing there was an excellent chance they would be killed.

JPH: At the same time, our critic assumes upon the ancients certain values and judgments about the value and purpose of life that are held only by moderns; the ancients had no qualms about dying sacrificially for a cause they believed in

DD: "Impairment: Intellectual functioning is unimpaired. Daily living, occupational activity, social functioning, and quality of marriage are likely to deteriorate during exacerbations." Jesus abandoned his profession of carpentry for a life of wandering asceticism. His ministry caused strained relations with his family that even the gospels felt obliged to report.

JPH: the "strain" was clearly only from the family's side, not from Jesus'.

JPH: As for abandoning a profession, does this mean we are mentally ill when we change careers or lifestyle?

JPH: Is asceticism a sign of mental illness?

JPH: none of this even so reflects a "deterioration" in the named areas, except by virtue of a modernistic value judgment that assumes that living in a nice house is a sure sign of mental health order.

JPH: One would also ask for detailed qualification proving that a move from carpenter to traveling teacher is somehow "deterioration," other than by making bigoted and modernistic value judgments.

JPH: Do those who leave a comfortable home and join the Peace Corps to dig wells in Africa count as mentally ill?

DD: [Qumranites and by John the Baptist were] cave-hiding fanatics and a similarly delusional preacher.

JPH: It is telling that our critic is forced to resort to bigoted ad hominem here

JPH: extending the diagnosis of mental illness to as many as is needed to make his case!

JPH: Are, for example, ascetic Buddhist monks in their mountain temples "hiding fanatics"?

JPH: Is it possible at all to live a life of religious or other asceticism and not be declared mentally deluded? Evidently not!

JPH: Our critic in response offers yet more bigoted and begged questions, pointing to the ascetic habits of Jesus:

[Holding] again uses his favorite [#childish] slur "bigot". The shoe fits and Daffy wears it. We would call it an "accurate description".

DD: the gospels report that Jesus was sometimes socially ostracized for his unconventional associations and was at times was considered mad by his family (Mk 3:21) and other Jews (Jn 10:20).

JPH: Our critic once again displays his incredible lack of knowledge of the social background of the situation. Jesus' "unconventional associations" were with tax collectors and prostitutes and lepers, the marginalized and oppressed of society.

JPH: What was actually happening here is that Jesus was standing against ritual purity taboos heavily ingrained in ancient society.

JPH: Good or bad, whatever Jesus does, it seems, is evidence of mental illness!

JPH: As for the declarations of madness, we would point out as we did long ago, and below, that the assessments are hardly those of qualified professionals, and are countered by assessments by persons just as qualified: John 10:21

JPH: The best our critic can do here, and several times hereafter, is claim that the Trilemma fails if "the reports of Jesus are consistent with mental illness"; actually it fails only if the reports are shown to be only consistent with mental illness, and there is no contrary evidence.

DD: The mere existence of this fourth alternative [of a delusional Jesus] doesn't in itself prove that this alternative is true. But it's unrebutted existence DOES invalidate the trilemma argument, whose validity depends on there being no non-lord options besides liar and lunatic. It may in fact be possible to prove Jesus' lordship through other more-direct arguments, but the Trilemma itself fails to do so if the fourth option is not actually SHOWN to be false. All this means is that the real debate is between "lord" and such a fourth option. The invalidity of the Trilemma doesn't lend any weight to either side of that real debate -- it's simply a fact of logic that is inconvenient for those seeking an easier alternative to the real debate. Daffy repeats himself for effect, and the argument gets no better in quality. A parry [%]. Bite this: The mere existence of this fifth alternative [of a space-alien Jesus] doesn't in itself prove that this alternative is true. But it's unrebutted existence DOES invalidate the trilemma argument, whose validity depends on there being no non-lord options besides liar and lunatic. It may in fact be possible to prove Jesus' lordship through other more-direct arguments, but the Trilemma itself fails to do so if the fifth option is not actually SHOWN to be false. All this means is that the real debate is between "lord" and such a fifth option. The invalidity of the Trilemma doesn't lend any weight to either side of that real debate -- it's simply a fact of logic that is inconvenient for those seeking an easier alternative to the real debate. Oops. Now to give some credit to Acharya S....

JPH: the expression could mean that Jesus' family members "are such not merely by human bonds, but especially because they obey the Father." (Keep this in mind, as our critic elsewhere claims that Jesus has nothing good to say to his family

DD: [[Holding]] says nothing to contradict 1) Elst's implication that Jesus was angry with his family and 2) Elst's statement that Jesus has no friendly words for his family or mother Daffy is trying to dodge [&] his clear endorsement of Elst on this point. Otherwise why would he care if he thought I said nothing to contradict Elst on these points? If he didn't endorse Elst, he shouldn't care that I didn't refute it. Just another dodge to get out of an embarrassing error.

JPH: but as Elst's poor interpretation of this passage is his grounds for such an argument, our response does render the matter pointless, for in that case the anger and lack of friendliness otherwise must be gratuitously assumed to be behind the scenes

JPH: as well as rest on the assumption that it was Jesus, not his family, that was the instigator of the hostility

JPH: Jesus is predicting that the family will be the miscreants, not himself or the believers. (Our critic is forced to spin this out for his purposes by claiming that it shows "bitterness" on Jesus' part! There's that ability to mind-read over the centuries again!...)

DD: his own family [..] would have been his earliest and most devoted disciples if Jesus were really divine. But they weren't, because he wasn't.

JPH: Why could it not be said regretfully, or matter-of-factly?

JPH: Not surprisingly, our critic almost entirely washes his hands of Elst and does nothing to defend him from our critique, other than the two minor points above. One wonders why Elst was even bothered with at all.

JPH: our critic has provided no way to differentiate between blindness, etc. caused by hysteria and that which is not

JPH: and merely assumes (presumably, under the all-purpose guise of the "most parsimonious explanation") that the conditions described must be associated as such.