Lesson Six: "We Have Cause to be Uneasy"

from Book One, Chapter Five

Thanks to all who responded with your wishes to keep the lessons going—check in every weekend for new lessons!

Dr. Lewis addresses the all-too-familiar objection most of us have encountered once we reach this point in the discussion: people do not want to hear about “religion” and don’t want to associate that nagging feeling of guilt they get from time to time with the idea of “God.” He offers three main points of argument that really only stand to make our potential audience even more uneasy with the conversation, but as he says at the end of the chapter, we must seek truth instead of wishful thinking.

#1) Objection: “Religion is old-fashioned and not progressive.”
Lewis points out the obvious fact that if we are going in the wrong direction, continuing along the wrong path in the name of going forward is stupid, not progressive. It’s as easy to see in 2005 as it was in 1943 that the state of human civilization—or lack thereof—indicates quite clearly that we are surely headed in the wrong direction. If religion can point us in the right direction, common sense dictates that we follow that path.

#2) Objection: “I don’t want to talk about religion.”
Fine. We’re not. We’re still just talking about the “somebody” who seems to be behind the Moral Law discussed in previous chapters. What can we know about this entity?
a) The universe stands as evidence of his creative power and artistry, but also appears to be a quite merciless and frightening place for humans to exist.
b) The Moral Law tells us that he is very interested in right behaviors.

The existence of this Moral Law, of which we should be convinced, leads us to a dilemma: if the Moral Law and the One who created it does indeed exist, then we have broken that Law and made ourselves enemies of its creator. If the creator of the Law does not exist, then we are left alone in the universe with no cause for hope because no outside force for good exists. Either way in our present state we are either damned or doomed.

#3) Solution: “Christianity answers the questions and solves the dilemma.”
Until we accept and understand the implications of the first two premises, Christianity is irrelevant to our human condition. Once we accept the reality of the Moral Law and that we are in conflict with its creator, then Christianity begins to make sense. It explains how we got into this condition of enmity with God and also explains how God, through Christ, made a way for human to be made right with God; “friends with God” as Paul explains in Romans.

Lewis understands the despair that often accompanies this initial realization. It is not an easy task to accept that we have, through our own actions and choices, made ourselves enemies of God, or to accept the changes that Christianity demands in order to find forgiveness. But the facts are clear, and until we face the truth and accept that dismay, we will never experience the joy and comfort that Christianity eventually provides.

Discussion Question:
What objections or obstacles did you face before you were willing to accept the reality of Christianity? What finally convinced you of the truth? If you do not yet believe, what questions or objections do you have?

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.)

Interest Survey

At this point, due to the low number of posts, I have to consider whether I have the time to devote to this study. If enough people are still interested, I would love to continue, but if no one is taking part, then I need to focus my attention on other endeavors. Please post a comment below if you want me to continue with the chapter lessons. If no comments appear, this will be the last post...for now.

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.)

Lesson Three: "Some Objections"

from Book One, Chapter Two: "Some Objections"

Lewis continues his discussion of the concept of a Moral Law that he introduced in the previous chapter by dealing with the two most common objections to this concept. These are:

1) The claim that morality is a function of human instinct (internal sense)
2) The claim that morality is learned behavior derived from a society/cultures conventions of behavior (external sense)

Remember that Lewis's thesis is that morality is based on a real and definite moral law that exists outside the realm of human thought and cultural construct. It is, in other words, transcendent or supernatural. Let’s examine each of these discussions individually.

INSTINCT
Lewis differentiates the moral law from the human instinct by means of a most effective example. He imagines a man who hears other man in distress cry for help. Out of the man’s human instinct come two urges: first, the urge to go and help the man in distress; second, the urge to flee the danger himself as a means of self-preservation.

Lewis makes the convincing point that in many cases, the stronger urge is that of self-preservation. If we adhered solely to instinct, then it follows that we should obey the stronger of the two urges. But what is clear is that in all of us, there is a third notion: the voice of conscience that tells us to suppress the survival instinct and obey the urge to help the man in danger. This third urge is not a manifestation of the instinct within ourselves, but rather the function of the supernatural moral law that tells us what we ought to do, often in spite of what our instincts are urging us to do.

Furthermore, Lewis writes that if morality were an internal sense, we should be able to identify at least one of our natural instincts as “good” and follow that instinct in any and all moral situations. This is not, however, the case in reality, and it is easy for us to recognize that any human instinct, no matter how noble, cannot and should not be followed blindly in every situation. Lewis’s analogy is particularly apt: our instincts are like the keys on a piano—none of them can be called “right” or “wrong” in and of themselves; the moral law is like the sheet of music that tells us which notes are to be played to make the right sounds.

Therefore, agreeing with these premises, we must confess that the moral law does not originate in our own instincts and must come from outside ourselves. Now the question becomes, “From what source outside of myself do these ideas of morality come?”

CONVENTION
People who argue that morality is simply a matter of a society’s conventions point out that our notions of right and wrong are learned from a variety of sources—home, church, school, peers, etc. Lewis does not deny this, but he makes the important distinction between the way in which we obtain this knowledge and the nature of the knowledge itself.

The analogy is this: we learn our multiplication tables in grade school. Were we to never attend school, we would have no idea what “nine times seven” equals, but our ignorance of this equation would not change the essential truth that 9 x 7 = 63. In the same way, our ignorance or knowledge of the moral law has no effect on its existence or its truth. When we learn about the moral law, we are learning about the nature of truth in the same way that we learn about the nature of multiplication. In philosophical terms, this is known as a priori knowledge—knowledge that we obtain based on logic and reason, independent of experience.

Lewis gives us two reasons why we can view the moral law in this way. The first reason he gave in the previous chapter: We find that basic morality has never varied significantly throughout the history of human civilization. Every culture in every age has adhered to the same basic moral standards (a few that spring to mind…honor God/the gods; don’t murder; don’t steal; don’t lie; don’t have sex with another person’s spouse; don’t betray loyalties…can you think of any culture that did not adhere to one of these standards in any way?)

The second reason is a bit more complex. He says that whenever we judge the moral standards of two different cultures—in his case, the comparison is between his native England and Nazi Germany—we always say that the morality of one culture is “better” than the morality of the other. But in order for this to be a logically meaningful statement, do we not have to have a third notion of morality that stands as the measure by which we judge the other two? If this is not so, then all we are doing is expressing a preference, but we cannot condemn the lesser morality as “wrong” or “evil” unless there is a real moral law that exists independent of society and culture.

This third standard is the moral law, and because it exists independent of any single nation, culture or society, it may be rightly categorized as transcendent or supernatural. Therefore, Lewis has effectively shown that a moral law exists, and that it exists independent of any individual human instinct or particular society’s conventions. What follows next is trying to identify the true source of this moral law.

Discussion Question:
Are you convinced that the moral law is real and exists outside the realm of human instinct and social convention? Why or why not?

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 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.)

New Links Available

We have three new site links courtesy of David S., who also has the distinction of being my first comment poster (hooray! Thank you, David!). I'll let him describe the sites and invite you all to check them out:

www.tektonics.org—Tekton Apologetics Ministries
Very good website dealing with Bible “contradictions,” the Jesus myth, and a wealth of information on authors and speakers within & without Christianity.

www.christian-thinktank.com—The Christian Thinktank
Excellent website ran by Glenn Miller (no, not the jazz musician). Deals mostly with the painful questions often asked of Christians.

www.apologeticsindex.org—Apologetics Index
A very good reference site for finding just about any religious group, teaching, or individual. It has about 7,000+ entries in its database and it's still growing.

Thanks again to David for his input.