I have just finished Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis. This was the first book I have agreed to read about Christianity. I have to say this book was pretty entertaining.
He spends quite a bit of time in the beginning of the book attempting to show that there is an absolute morality. He introduces a concept call The Law of Human Nature. He attempts to put this new law on the same footing as the Laws of Nature, but these cannot be compared because what we call the Laws of Nature are always followed. If we see an instance where one of the Laws of Nature is broken (i.e. a stone falls up instead of down) then it means that we had the law wrong and now we need to either modify it to include this odd event or failing that, throw the whole thing out and start over. Now Lewis does admit the the two laws are of a different sort. This whole idea of a “Law of Human Nature” really annoys me because it is trying to ride on the coat tails of science (by this I really mean Physics:), but in fact it has nothing to do with science. But I digress.
He argues that since we all share this idea of right behavior (Law of Human Nature) then it must be:
A. “be a real thing”
B. “Not made up by ourselves”
C. “something above and beyond the ordinary facts of men’s behavior, and yet quite definitely real-a real law, which we find pressing on us”
Even if we throw aside the facts about how different moral (1,2) systems have been over the course of human history I am still not sure how any of these things follow. He seems to say that if it is real then it cannot be made up. But this is clearly not the case. We have a legal system ( it is a very real thing ), but this system is made up by law makers.
And again even if both A and B are true if does not have to be “beyond ordinary facts”. It could be a product of our genes. It could be that we evolved in small groups of hunter-gathers and most of the people in these groups would be related. This would mean that any time you helped a member of that group you would be helping our own genes to survive ( Dawkins goes into this in better detail in the The God Delusion ). You would also be helping yourself survive because a if you are in a strong group you would have a better chance of surviving. This would mean that these “good” people would be more likely to survive and thereby likely to have more offspring. I do not know that this is the case, but it is simply an example of how it could have happened.
From here he basically goes on to say that an outside agent (read God) is directing man to do right. Now if the arguments for the Law of Human Nature and A, B and C were convincing then maybe I would give this book a little more thought.
Most of the rest of the book is mainly about what christians believe which doesn’t really concern me very much. Anyway, I am sure that my criticisms were not unique and have probably been made a hundred times.
{ 7 } Comments
If an outside agent is directing me to do good, then there is no free will. If that’s the case then when I do bad it must be because the outside agent neglected to direct me, true? So, I cannot be held accountable for my actions - good nor bad. Man’s Law doesn’t apply to me, you cannot punish my for my bad deeds because the outside agent neglected to direct me to do good.
Yeah, I wonder how many times that defense has held up in court. Or, in front of church elders.
You’ve read Penn Gillete’s NPR piece, right? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5015557
It’s good stuff.
Yes, Penn and Teller are my heroes.
Anyway I have never understood how an infinitely powerful and all knowing god could not be in control. If god creates a person and god knows that if god makes the person’s character a ceritan way then this person will be evil, but if god makes it another way the person will be good. How is god not responsible for all of the actions of the evil person.
Oh, and I really like how that the very next installment of this series was by a guy who does believe in god ( http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5016108 ).
Strange, is it not, that we all live by faith? Some decide to have faith in creator God-which cannot be proven. Some decide to have faith in science-which is in the process of being proven-or not. I look at a garden, my new laptop computer, or a beautiful child and I think, No designer? How ridiculous. Others see the same things and think they just happened. We all live by faith–we just put our faith in different places. I like to put mine in a God who love me-and I love Him.
“Alll the parsons say is unproved. All the doctors (scientists) say is disproved. That’s the only difference between science and religion there’s ever been, or will be.” G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936)
I agree one hundred percent with Josh’s mom.
Is one of the books she gave you “The Screwtape Letters?” I find that one to be the most illuminating of Lewis’ books. Even if you are an atheist you will agree with some of the points he makes there as the book is not so much about religion as what it really means to live a life of faith. Lots of discussion about hypocrisy and such.
And, at the risk of offending since I am a first time commenter, mom is always right.
Josh,
I am a software developer who used to work with your brother, Peter.
Like you, I was raised in a Christian home. After completing college, I was agnostic, feeling unconvinced that I had good reason to believe in the existence of God. I read Mere Christianity and scribbled out arguments against Lewis’ points. But, in the end, I like to say Lewis won the argument. I didn’t think all his points were valid. But overall I thought he made a very compelling case. (And anyone who reads him can certainly tell he had a brilliant mind.) I’m not sure you accurately understood his argument, because it entail more than you summarized. You might consider re-reading the first part of the book.
From what I recall, one point I found particularly persuasive was the existence of morality, and that regardless of the details of any particular moral system, people instinctively know of and understand the concept of morality. Like most words, “morality” is a label for a thing we already know about “from the inside.”
If one denies that there is any basis for the idea that man “ought” to be moral, then it becomes pretty hard to make heads or tails of most of life. For instance, why does torture offend you? Why do you value living matter over non-living matter, or think that certain types of living matter has “rights,” and others don’t (e.g. humans vs. bacteria)?
This, as well as the intelligent design argument, make me conclude that some para-material realm does indeed exist. (The presence of minds and consciousness is an example of this.)
I would recommend to you the short book There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind by Antony Flew.
I disagree with your mom in a sense. Many people use the word faith to mean blind faith, and view it as a virtue. I don’t see it that way. I have “faith” in theism in the sense that I trust it to be true because, after thinking about it, I have concluded that it is the most likely explanation for the way things are. You may have a similar “faith” in atheism. But I have seen that some people in both camps place their “faith” in one place or the other based upon a distaste for the implications of its opposite — for instance, feeling rebellious against the idea that morality (especially private morality), or social pressure against being outside of the church one grew up in. I don’t think I approached the question with a bias either way. I just wanted to know the truth about the way things really are.
Other examples of what I call the “para-material” realm are music and sexuality.
Post a Comment