Mere Christianity

In "Mere Christianity," I must say that I love C. S. Lewis.  He does everything exactly like I would, leaving no gaps in his thinking.  Before Lewis even starts to tell us about God, he asks if there is even a right a nd a wrong.  I just love this approach (it is so unlike Plantinga's approach) becasue it does not assume things.  When talking about the very presence of God, one cannot just assume that there is such a thing as righteousness and evil, but he must prove it.  If I were an atheist (?), I must say that Lewis would be the only Christian author that  I could possibly read.  He does even not let the reader even really know of his faith, so I wouldn't be disgusted my the book right off the bat.  Anyway, as far as the substance of the excerpt we read from "Mere Christianity," (the first four chapters) it is simply awesome how Lewis even dreamed up this argument in his head.

In the introduction to his chapter on The Law of Human Nature, Lewis basically says that he got the idea to write this by thinking of how we humans quarrel all the time.  "They say things like this: 'How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?'--'That's my seat, I was there first'--'Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm'--Why should you shove in first?'--'Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine'--'Come on, you promised.' People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups."  Lewis goes on to say that it interests him that there is obviously some sort of standard that the complainer is trying to reach by making up some sort of special situation.  "He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise."  After this, Lewis says that obviously there is an agreement on what right and wrong are, because one man is trying to prove the other WRONG.  Lewis calls this agreement that is instilled in us, the Law of Nature.


In chapter two, Lewis devoted the entirety of it to refuting possible objections to the Law of Nature.
I will no get into them in this review, but I will say that this is the most impressive point of the paper, for he makes his claims virtually flawless.


In chapter three, Lewis brings about the Reality of the Law.  In it, he basically says that we constantly ignore the moral law for our own good.  He says, in very concise summary, that the Moral Law is not anything like the Law of Gravity.  For the Law of Gravity is true because it happens, not because, ideally, it should work.  The Moral Law rarely happens...it is rarely used by us.


The last chapter reveals how the Moral Law reveals a mystery of the universe.  In essence, Lewis says that God had to have created this universe because it is so perfect.  Not only this, but he says that God shows himself to us inside ourselves with the Moral Law.  For, "If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe--no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we do find inside ourselves. Surely this ought to arouse our suspicions? In the only case where you can expect to get an answer, the answer turns out to be Yes; and in the other cases, where you do not get an answer, you see why you do not."


I will end with this quotation form Lewis.  The Moral Law is instilled by God.