Lesson Two: The Law of Human Nature
One of the most interesting things that C.S. Lewis does in making the argument for Christianity is the way in which he builds his case from the beginning using simple experience and common sense without mentioning anything about God or Jesus for some time. Many nonbelievers are often skeptical about any type of claims about God and usually resistant to information about Jesus.
Lewis begins his argument in the simplest way, by pointing out that when two people quarrel, there is usually some sort of understood appeal to fairness, honesty, justice, etc., that both parties are appealing to. No one tries to win an argument by rejecting the value at stake; instead, they try to prove that their side has the stronger claim to the right.
In recognizing this tendency, Lewis names this idea the “Law of Human Nature.” It is this standard that is the foundation of both civilization and civil law. We cannot condemn the actions of an individual or the collective actions of a nation or government as “wrong” or “evil” unless there is some standard of behavior upon which all people and nations agree. Lewis wrote this during World War II, and it was in the aftermath of that war that many Nazi officers were tried, imprisoned and executed for “war crimes.” They were condemned for violating the Law of Human Nature, not just because we didn’t “like their behavior.”
Lewis strongly rejects our modern idea of “cultural relativism” as far as morality is concerned. This concept states that different cultures in different eras have differing standards of morality. On the contrary, Lewis affirms that human morality has meant the same basic thing throughout the history of civilization. If there is no Law of Human Nature, and morality is simply a function of culture, what is the use of words such as “fair” or “unfair”?
Once we have accepted Lewis’ premise of the Law of Human Nature, we must grapple with his accusation that none of us, himself included, are keeping this Law very well at all. If we do not believe this, consider what Lewis tells us: Whenever someone points out the way in which we are violating the Law of Human Nature, we may offer many excuses why our violation is justified considering the circumstances, but never do we deny the validity of the moral standard brought to bear against us.
So, that leaves us at the end of the first chapter with two conclusions:
1) Human beings have an idea about a standard of human behavior;
2) We do not, in fact, behave according to this standard.
Discussion:
Do you agree with these two basic points? Do you feel as if you have an instinctive awareness of “right” and “wrong”? Do you agree that you do not always live up to your own standards?
To respond, please click on the word “comments” below. (If you have a pop-up blocker active on your web browser, you may need to deactivate it for this site to enable comments.)
2 Comments:
I agree with Lewis on the two points--that we do have some idea of a standard for human nature, and that we do know when we've transgressed it. I think Lewis' statement--that we always blame our bad behavior on our being "un"-natural, that is, us not-as-ourselves (i.e. bad hair days, bad moods, etc.) as being the aberration from the norm--is a brilliant observation on how we try to justify the things that we do wrong, while never deny the standard itself.
Lewis' starting point for approaching the question of God is not what we would normally expect, but it is perhaps one of the best because once it is presumed that there is in fact a standard, it removes most of the obstacles toward objective/critical, rather than relative, thinking. So it puts Lewis--and the reader--at a very good vantage point from which to approach God. By doing this, Lewis adknowledges the dignity of the person he's discussing this with, and by his recognition of them as a breathing, thinking person, he starts out from a more respectable--and respectful--common ground.
It's tempting for a lot of Christians to simply jump straight into a "plan of salvation" approach. This is a bad idea for several reasons: one, it's quite uncomfortable for whoever's on the recieving end of the spiel; second, if we can't agree on some sort of standard we're just spinning our wheels, and can't make any meaningful progress. Third, it represents a somewhat serious flaw in modern witnessing (especially on college campuses): an underestimation of just how important relationships are in effective witnessing. Without seeking a common ground from which to work from, there is a very real threat that people can get the wrong impressions of Christians, and assume that they are disconnected from the world around them--and the people around them.
David:
Yes, you bring up a very important point: people in today's society are especially sensitive to the notion of relativity, and we are uncomfortable in many cases with saying, "What I believe is right, and what you believe is wrong." Lewis does avoid this by starting from a foundation that we can all agree upon regardless of previous conceptions of belief. Thanks for your comments!
Post a Comment
<< Home