We now begin our adventure into C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity.
It seems that too many times well-meaning Christians immediately “go to the Bible” to try to convince a non-believer that there is a God, or that Jesus is God. The problem with that approach, I believe, is the failure to realize the non-believer isn’t going to accept what the Bible says as a starting point. Before you can bring in any discussion about God, or the Bible, or Christianity itself, you have to first come to the conclusion that their might be a “God” or “higher being” even out there.
That is why C.S. Lewis, in his first section of Mere Christianity, doesn’t even bring up the topic Christianity, or even religion for that matter. No—in his first section, “Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe,” he sets out to do just that: invite the reader to look at the world around them and make some tentative conclusions about reality.
The Law of Human Nature
In Book 1:1 Lewis points to the common human activity of quarrelling with each other. We all do it, every day, to an extent. Whenever we say something like, “That’s not fair, I did this, so you should do that,” Lewis points out that what we really are doing is appealing to some sort of standard of expected behavior—there is an assumption that the two people involved both have an idea of what is right and what is wrong. Not surprisingly, Lewis points out that when one makes an appeal to that standard, the person in the wrong simply says, “To hell with your standard,” and proceeds to make an excuse as to why in this particular case it doesn’t apply.
We all do it. We expect others to be fair to us, but when we don’t feel like doing the right thing, we make an excuse.
Lewis then points out that this “standard” used to be called “The Law of Nature”—but it reality it is the Law of Human Nature, because only humans have it. The real “laws of nature” are like gravity, and cannot be ignored or disobeyed. In that respect, if you drop a stone and a human being from a building, both are going to fall—we tend to share that with the rest of the nature world! But when it comes to morals, when it comes to right and wrong—that’s a realm completely unique to human beings.
Lewis also points out that even though there certainly are differences in the moralities of different cultures, they never amount to total differences. As he says, “Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.” He’s right—despite there being shades of difference between the moralities of various cultures, they have never amounted to total differences. There seems to be, at bottom, some sort of accepted Standard of Morality that pervades the human race.
Lewis thus concludes that there seems to be a real Right and Wrong. And, given the fact that we all are so quick to make excuses when we ourselves don’t keep it, Lewis makes another conclusion: we don’t like keeping this “Law of Human Nature.” These two facts: (1) there is some sort of “Moral Law,” and (2) none of us keep it very well, and we make excuses for when we don’t—Lewis says, “are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.”
Some Objections
In Book 1:2, Lewis anticipates some possible objections to his claim regarding the Law of Right and Wrong. The first objection is that what he calls the “moral law” is really just one of many human instincts. I’ve found this claim often comes from many atheists who try to come up with an explanation for morality from a purely philosophical naturalistic perspective—they often use evolution as the vehicle to argue this: our “moral sense” is simply a product of evolution. Since we want to survive as a species, “doing the right thing” is essential for our survival.
There are a host of problems with that reasoning (i.e. if that is true for human beings, why is it not true for other species?), but Lewis focuses on one: the moral law cannot be just another instinct. He gives the example of if you see a man drowning: you will, in fact, have two instincts—one will be to try and help him, the other will be to keep yourself safe and not risk it. And the thing is, that instinct for self-survival will be stronger than the instinct to help. But then, Lewis says, you will find within yourself something else telling you to obey the weaker instinct and help the man anyway. That “third thing” cannot be an instinct like the other two.
The way Lewis puts it is very poignant: “The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys.” What he means by this is that obeying our instincts sometimes can be morally right, sometimes morally wrong, and that any given instinct can be right or wrong, depending on the circumstance. Let’s just take one example: sex. If you are married and have the instinct to have sex with your wife or husband, then indulging in that instinct is a good thing: it strengthens your relationship and intimacy. But if you are Bill Cosby…well then, obeying that sex instinct isn’t really a good thing, is it?
The second objection Lewis objects is that perhaps the “Moral Law” really is just the product of education: we hold to certain moral standards because we have been taught them by parents, schools, and society. Lewis basically says that although we are taught the moral law, that doesn’t mean that a society makes up its own moral standards. The very fact that we often compare one nation’s morality to another nation’s shows that we have in mind that there really is a standard that one nation is closer to than the other, regardless of what people may think. As Lewis states, “If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring…Christian morality to Nazi morality.” –He makes a great point.
Conclusion
What you will find with Lewis is that he has an incredible ability to clearly articulate the key issues and then explain them in a very straightforward, easy to understand way. And what he does here at the beginning of Mere Christianity is simple: (1) we all have a real sense of right and wrong that we appeal to, but then make excuses for when we don’t keep it ourselves, (2) this “Moral Law” can’t just be another one of our instincts, and (3) it can’t be just a product of education particular to any given society.
As you can see, we are nowhere near Christianity, let alone religion, yet. On the points Lewis makes, I don’t know how anyone can take issue.
I read Mere Christianity before and enjoyed it. I really love his piano analogy; nothing is inherently evil (in fact, “everything created by God is good”), including instincts. All evil is just a corruption of the good.
And about morals being taught, if I remember correctly Lewis compared it to mathematics; math is taught in school but it is still a natural law. Anyone can deduce any and all laws of mathematics on their own since math is natural, but by teaching it we speed up the learning process and induce widespread understanding.
It seems ridiculous to me for any atheist to suggest or believe in an objective morality. Evolution means CHANGE. If we were, to say, evolve to a “higher morality”…and then a higher….then higher…how is any of that OBJECTIVE? If its susceptible to change, then it is subjective, by definition. But even more so, the idea of morality from evolution is bologna anyway; who is to say life is good? Why should our instincts be followed to preserve life if there is no purpose anyway?
I think (as did Lewis) that this inner sense of morality is one of the best places to start when explaining the existence of God to unbelievers. They know that there is a right and a wrong; they just have to be shown that this can’t be true without God.
Some people have become so depraved that they DON’T believe (at least, on the surface) in morality; they argue for “do what thou wilt” and have no shame. Not sure where to start for people who seemingly have no conscience. Perhaps that’s just a pray-the-spirit-guides-them scenario?
Yes Carter…when I was in art class in high school, I made a little painting of piano keys with that quote. As for the math analogy, you’re exactly right. Yes, we’re taught math, but that’s because 2+2=4 is still 2+2=4 whether or not we’re taught it. We’re taught what is already there, and some people have a better handle on it than others.
As for evolution and morality, you’re right–the fundamental problem with that argument is that it is trying to take a scientific theory about the natural world and turn it into saying something about else–like I said in my other posts: evolution is a scientific theory about the natural biological world; it is not a philosophy, and it cannot serve as a basis for morals. It is ludicrous.
Yes, it’s a great book–it’s about time I write out my own “mini-commentary” on it. Hopefully people will enjoy it and get something out of it.
Yes Carter…when I was in art class in high school, I made a little painting of piano keys with that quote. As for the math analogy, you’re exactly right. Yes, we’re taught math, but that’s because 2+2=4 is still 2+2=4 whether or not we’re taught it. We’re taught what is already there, and some people have a better handle on it than others.
As for evolution and morality, you’re right–the fundamental problem with that argument is that it is trying to take a scientific theory about the natural world and turn it into saying something about else–like I said in my other posts: evolution is a scientific theory about the natural biological world; it is not a philosophy, and it cannot serve as a basis for morals. It is ludicrous.
Yes, it’s a great book–it’s about time I write out my own “mini-commentary” on it. Hopefully people will enjoy it and get something out of it.
Can u plx explain what are his reasons for beleiving that the Moral Law is not simply an instinct
The analogy he gives is that our instincts are like keys on a piano…depending on the circumstances, sometimes it is right to “play” that certain key, sometimes not. The Moral Law isn’t just another “key” on the piano. It is more like the sheet music that tells you the “tune” you are to play with your instincts. If you see a man drowning, you have two instincts (A) Self-preservation–so don’t try and help him; and (B) the instinct to help him, even though you put your life in danger. The Moral Law isn’t like either one of those two instincts (i.e. stay safe; help)–the Moral Law says, “You should try and help that guy, even though you put your life in danger.
I have a few problems with this. Helping a drowning man is not “moral law” at all – it is a byproduct of empathy. We have mirror neurons that allow us to feel what others are feeling. We are social creatures wired to see ourselves as a part of the network of human relationships we are in. Saving a guy’s life taps into all these things – it’s not really a “moral” thing nor a “law” thing. There is a rush of adrenaline in running to save someone. It is pro-social behavior for which we are rewarded. I think it’s a stretch to make it an issue of mere morality or moral principles – it’s based on so much more than that.
Aside from that, morality as an apologetic for God is something I”ve objected to in the past.
https://allthingsareyours.wordpress.com/2015/07/21/morality-is-a-horrible-apologetic/
Lewis’ point is that yes, when you see a drowning man you have an “instinct” to help him. But at the same time, you have an “instinct” for self-preservation. But there’s another thing that says, “Despite the potential danger to you, it is the right thing to try and help that person.” That other “thing” that tells you to muster the courage to help and repress the instinct to not put yourself in danger cannot be an “instinct” in and of itself.
His point is that our sense of morality isn’t JUST another instinct–the rightness or wrongness of indulging in an instinct depends on the circumstances. As Lewis says, our instincts are like the keys on a piano, and sometimes they will be the “right note” and other times not–what Lewis calls “the Moral Law” is like the sheet music. Another example he gives is the instinctual mother-love for her child. If it is indulged too much, to where the mother never lets the child grow up, or spoils the child because, that kind of mother-love ends up being a bad thing.
But all Lewis is arguing for is that our sense of right and wrong is not just another phenomenon of nature.
Your post reminds me of the book series authored by Robert Coles, a noted child psychiatrist, especially his book, “The Moral Life Of Children”. All his books should be a standard set for anyone dealing with spirituality, morality, etc. They sit on my lower book shelf for easy access.