Review of Mere Christianity -- chaps. 1-4

Where are we in Lewis' argument thus far?

(Please Note:  This is a summary of the first four chapters.  I am planning on expanding them in the future.)

Lewis is describing "Mere" Christianity -- He is writing to defend (apologetics) the Christian faith against skeptics, describing basic Christianity for ordinary, everyday people.

Chap. 1:  The Law of Human Nature

a.  All people, everyone, know they "ought" to behave a certain way -- Law of Human Nature (moral law).

b.  None of us behave that way; we all break the innate knowledge of right and wrong -- universal problem of sin (cf. Rom. 1:18-3:20).

Chap. 2:  Two Objections

a.  Herd Instincts only -- moral law is based simply in a desire to conform to social environment with whom they identify.

1.  When we have two conflicting instincts, there is a third thing that tells us what we "ought" to do.  The moral law judges between two instincts.

2.  When there are two conflicting instincts, we usually feel the desire to follow the stronger of the two.  But it may be our "duty" to act from the weaker instinct because it is right.

3.  Instincts/impulses are neither good nor bad and therefore cannot be a moral guide.  We must have a moral compass that tells us which behavior is good or bad.  This is what distinguishes us from brute beasts.

b.  Mere Social Convention only -- moral law is simply based on what the authorities of a culture impose upon itself -- mere cultural norms/behavior.

But moral laws are real. 

1.  They are universal and do not differ widely between cultures.

2.  There is such a thing a moral progress between cultures -- room for improvement -- some cultures are better than others.

Chap. 3:  The Reality of the Law

There is a difference between "natural laws" and the "laws of human nature." 

a.  The laws of nature tells us what happens in the physical world.  They are descriptive.

b.  The laws of human nature do not simply describe what happens, but what "ought" to happen.  They are prescriptive. 

"Ought" is not something that is simply "useful" to you -- sometimes they may be inconvenient to you.

Chap. 4:  What Lies Behind the Law

If there is something like a "real" moral law "above and beyond" us, then what does this tell us about the nature of the universe that we live in?

1.  Materialist View:  Matter is all there is in the universe and all there ever was or ever will be.

2.  Religious View:  There is something behind matter that is personal and purposive in order to produce creatures like us.  This means that the "something" must have a mind and be rational, which is not matter.

Science, although greatly valued, cannot decide which view is the right one because science only deals with observation and if there is something beyond the physical (observable) then science cannot observe it.  In other words, we are not dealing in the realm of "physics" but "metaphysics," literally "beyond physical nature."

So is there any hope that we can answer which view is right?  Where do we turn?

There is only one thing we all know with more certainty than any other thing in the world:  Ourselves.

And when we see inside ourselves we see a moral law that we cannot get away from.  It presses upon us constantly telling us how we "ought" to behave.  I am under a law and something or somebody wants me to behave in a certain way. 

There is a "Something which is directing the universe, and which appears in me as a law urging me to do right and making me feel responsible and uncomfortable when I do wrong."

In the next chap. we will see if we can find anything out about this "something."

But there is actually a third view:  Life-Force philosophy.  If it is a mind, then it is God.  But if it isn't a mind, what is it?

What drives this view?  A desire for a "tame God" which gives you all the warm fuzzies of believing in a spiritual realm that is above and beyond, without demanding anything from us. 

"All the thrills of religion and none of the cost."