Lesson Five: "What Lies Behind the Law"

from Book One, Chapter Four: "What Lies Behind the Law”

In the previous three chapters, Dr. Lewis has convinced us that the Moral Law exists, that it is something real that humans did not invent, and that it is something we do not perfectly adhere to. In this chapter, he turns to the idea of where this law comes from.

First, he affirms that humans have always wondered about the nature and origin of the universe—what is everything made of, and how did it all get here? He divides the answers to these questions into two broad categories:

1) Materialism: matter has always existed; the universe was created by random chance.

2) Spiritualism: the universe and everything in it was created by an intelligent mind.

One of the most remarkable things to consider about this passage is his claim that science operates mainly on conclusions from observation, and because of this, science cannot affirm or deny the existence of an intelligent mind that created the universe because the true or falsity of this statement is beyond the scope of scientific observation. This is a radical idea for the modern atheist or agnostic who claims that the lack of observable scientific evidence refutes the very idea of a Creator. Lewis undermines their argument by essentially throwing science out of the room during the discussion.

What then, can we look to for some sort of evidence about this Creator? We can look inside ourselves. Because we are all humans, we have “inside information” about what it means to be a human being. One of the things we have already found is that we are under a Moral Law that we did not create, we cannot forget, and we ought to obey.

If there is a controlling power that created the universe, it necessarily exists outside the realm of the created universe and could not show itself to us as one of the facts of the universe any more than the architect of a house could be physically present in the walls or stairs.

Where this power does show up, however, is through the influence of the Moral Law. The mind that created the universe appears to us as this Moral Law that urges us to do the right thing and makes us feel uncomfortable when we do the wrong thing.

It is important to realize that the materialist view cannot account for a Moral Law outside ourselves. The Moral Law is a series of ideas about right and wrong behavior; cold matter cannot think for itself and cannot create the Moral Law. If we affirm the existence of this law, as we concluded in the previous chapter, then a Mind must have created it. Since that mind was not human, it must therefore be a Being who exists outside the realm of the created universe. This is, and has always been, one of the ideas of God.

Discussion Question:
For hundreds of years, nonbelievers have used the theories of science to refute the existence of God. Do you agree with Dr. Lewis that science cannot tell us whether or not God exists, or do you think that science can play a role in determining or refuting his existence?

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.)

Lesson Four: The Reality of the Law

from Book One, Chapter Three: "The Reality of the Law”

First of all, thanks to all who offered their prayers and support last week after the birth of our daughter, Chloe Elizabeth. She is home and doing well. She’s also the reason there was no posting last week. Now, let’s get back to Professor Lewis

This is the third chapter that Lewis has dealt with the Law of Human Nature. This is significant, because this seemingly simple observation about the nature of human morality and moral decisions will lay the framework for the rest of his theological system. Once we have accepted his logic, all else will follow accordingly.

Let’s reiterate his two main observations…

1) We are all “haunted” by the idea of how human beings ought to behave.

2) None of us live up to this standard of behavior.

Okay, so what? Lewis anticipates this very question. If all we were trying to do was determine that people are not perfect, then our discussion could end here. But as he explains, we are not interested in assigning blame; we are searching for the truth. In the area of human morality, our imperfections carry serious, eternal consequences. We must proceed.

CONTRAST BETWEEN NATURE AND HUMAN NATURE
When we talk about “natural laws” as they pertain to elements in nature, such as rocks and trees and clouds and rain, we may, in fact, be doing nothing more than describing the way in which these items work. The “law of gravity” really says nothing more simple than when you drop a rock from your outstretched hand, it will fall toward the ground. It makes no comment on the nature of the rock or of the force that causes it to fall.

When we talk about the Law of Human Nature, however, we are NOT talking about the ways in which humans behave. We are, quite the contrary, describing the ways in which people ought to behave, but very often do not. So when we talk about human morality, this is not “descriptive” in the sense that other natural laws are. Morality is “prescriptive,” telling us how people ought to behave, regardless of the nature of their real-life actions.

CONVENIENCE
Can we then describe the Law of Human Nature as simply a matter of personal convenience? Dr. Lewis dispels this theory with a couple of sharp examples. Losing your seat on the train is an inconvenience, but you would not be angry at someone who simply got there before you did. You would, however, be quite upset at someone who moved your belongings and took your seat when you were not looking. You would not be angry at someone who tripped you by accident, but you would be angry at someone who intentionally tried to trip you, even if he failed.

Why is this true? It goes back to the first chapter, when Lewis wrote of our universal notion of what is “fair” or “right.” We also cannot attribute our own moral decisions to that which is of the most benefit to us. Again, quite the contrary: often the most moral choices we can make will run contrary to our desires. More often than not, we have to forego the things we want in order to fulfill the urge of our conscience to do the right thing. If I’ve backed into your car in the Wal-Mart parking lot and no one saw it, it would be more to my benefit to just leave. The moral choice, however, is to leave my name and phone number and offer to pay to fix the damage.

SUMMARY
1) The Law of Human Nature is not an observation about how humans behave.
2) This Law is not just a human idea, because we cannot rid our minds of it.
3) The Law is not a human construct that we use for our benefit or convenience.
4) The Law of Human Nature is a real thing, not made up by ourselves.

Thus, we must conclude from these four statements that the Law of Human Nature is an expression of a reality beyond the material, human world, and that this law is a real thing that presses upon us. Once we have accepted these conclusions, we can take the next step.

Discussion Question:
Do you agree with the conclusion based on the four summary points? If not, can you formulate an alternative explanation for the Law of Human Nature?

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.)