PHILOSOPHICAL WRITINGS
MERE CHRISTIANITY
INTRODUCTION
In chapter one C. S. Lewis has stated unequivocally that the existence of the Law of Human Nature provides compelling evidence for the existence of God Himself. At the very end of the chapter he also claims that none of us keep the Law of Human Nature. These 2 statements are critical for the proof that God exists, according to Lewis.
Lewis wants us to understand the Law of Human Nature as being a general awareness among all people of the knowledge of right and wrong. Having made this claim, in chapter 2 Lewis feels that he has to back up this claim. In chapter 2 Lewis dealt with the objections raised by many anthropologists and psychologists who claim that the Law of Human Nature is really nothing more than either instinct or social convention. He dismisses both these claims in chapter 2. In chapter 3 Lewis continues to deal with objections which are raised by opponents of the Law of Human Nature. They will claim that the Law of Human Nature is nothing more than (1) something convenient, (2) something that pays, (3) something that makes society better, or (4) a mere fancy.
Before looking at these objections, we need to understand why people reject the Law of Human Nature. (Don't think that these opponents exist only in Lewis' day. Today these opponents are called secularists.) If the Law of Human Nature really exists, then people should obey it. If it doesn't exist, then we don't have to obey it. Opponents of the Law of Human Nature reject it simply so that they can live life the way they want to live it. As a result, they can condone abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, bestiality, etc. Everybody's got an agenda. We just need to make sure that our agenda is the agenda God Himself is following.
Learning that everybody has an agenda has really helped me when I read what others write about the Bible. For example, one of the most famous interpreters of the NT is William Barclay. Barclay does some interesting things when he interprets the miracles of Jesus. He claims that the miracle of feeding the 5,000 was nothing more than Jesus sharing His lunch which inspired others to share their lunch. Jesus walking on the water was really Jesus walking on the seashore.
I didn't know how to respond to this until I was taught that everybody has an agenda. Barclay's agenda is that he does not believe in miracles (except for the resurrection which is THE miracle). As a result, whenever the Bible speaks about a miracle, he explains it away. Maybe he's right, but there are 2 responses to this. First, that is NOT what the Bible says is what happened. Second, if Barclay wants to make these kinds of statements, he needs to go to the school of philosophy where that discussion is more appropriate. Whether or not miracles occur is a philosophical question and has no place in a book which seeks to interpet the NT.
CHAPTER THREE: THE REALITY OF THE LAW
Before reading the chapter, number your paragraphs from 1-6.
In paragraphs 1-2 Lewis restates his 2 main principles: (1) there is a Law of Human Nature and (2) people don’t keep the Law of Human nature. (The fact that we assess blame shows that we believe this Law exists and that we OUGHT to obey it.)
The key word in this discussion is ought. For example, you don't use the word "ought" in describing nature. You may not like it that a tree is not big enough to give you shade; however, you don't feel like it ought to have done that. A stone is the way it is simply because that is the way it is. You don't say: "The stone ought to be prettier or bigger," as if it had done something wrong in NOT being prettier or bigger. It didn't do anything wrong. It just isn't prettier or bigger.
On the other hand, when we say a person ought to do something, even when he doesn't do it, then we are saying something is wrong with that person. (You wouldn't say something is wrong with the stone; however, you would say that there is something wrong with that person because he is not acting the way he ought to act.)
Paragraph 3:
Is the Law of Human Nature facts or ought to's? (In other words, does the Law of Human Nature describe the way people act or the way they ought to act?)
Paragraph 4:
Why doesn't Lewis get angry at the first example but does get angry at the second example? Are both examples just a matter of convenience or inconvenience? How does his anger in the second example show you that this not simply a matter of convenience or inconvenience?
Now some opponents claim that what we call the Law of Human Nature is simply that which pays or benefits me. What do we do though which shows that the Law of Human is not simply that which pays?
Paragraph 5:
When we are faced with choices about doing something, do we always choose to do the thing which benefits us? Why not?
Paragraph 6:
People who treat the Law of Human Nature as a mere fancy are in for a rude awakening. I've seen the lives of too many people crash upon the rocks of reality because they disregarded the Law of Human Nature. I had a little sister who ended up committing suicide because she violated that law. She first accused herself of wrongdoing, then passed judgment upon herself, and then executed herself. She acted as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner--all because she violated this compelling sense of right and wrong that God has placed within each and everyone of us. Yes, forgiveness is possible; HOWEVER, suicide shows us that this law can be most unmerciful.
Book One
Chapter 3
Here Lewis highlights the difference between Law of Human Nature and Laws of Nature. According to Lewis are the Laws of Nature facts or ought to's? (In other words, do the Laws of Nature describe the way nature acts or the way nature ought to act?)
Some opponents of the Law of Human Nature claim that the Law of Human Nature is merely a matter of convenience. To disprove this Lewis cites 2 examples of a person who gets a seat on the bus before he does. What is the difference between the 2 examples?
Some will claim that the Law of Human Nature is simply that which makes society better. Lewis claims that the desire to make society better doesn't really motivate us. This is seen in American politics today in both political parties. Does either party really care about the ultimate good of the country?
Some will claim that the Law of Human Nature is nothing more than just a mere fancy. What shows us though that the Law of Human Nature is nothing just a mere fancy?