Transcript MERE CHRISTIANITY

MERE CHRISTIANITY
Bible 12
Lecture Notes
Coach Jay Adams
Fall 2008
Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the
Universe
Stuff you should know:






CS Lewis spent the first three decades of his life
as an atheist.
Volunteered and fought in trenches in WWI
Resumed academic career after the war
Friends with JRR Tolkien (The Inklings, The Bird
and Baby)
Converted on a motorcycle (1931)
Spent a great deal of time after that engaged in
scholarship, lecturing, and publishing in the field of
Christian apologetics (as well as university duties.)
Lewis and Love





1950—met Joy Davidman Gresham, an American
ex-communist poet who would eventually be
divorced by her abusive, alcoholic husband.
She had converted to Christianity, influenced by
the works of Lewis, and conversed with him by
letter through her trying marriage.
After she and her husband were divorced (he
deserted her), she moved her sons to England.
Lewis saw her as a friend and intellectual
companion—not many could keep up with his wit
They married for citizenship in 1953…for love in
1956.
The Book Itself





Well…it’s not, technically, a book.
1941: Lewis, an unknown academic, was invited
to record a series of 15-minute radio addresses
sponsored by the BBC
The purpose: presenting the hope of Christianity
to a nation besieged by bombs.
Eventually, Lewis had one million listeners (Britain
1950: only 50 million people)
The process, in effect, created CS Lewis, along
with his reputation for pristine, logical
communication by metaphor
Prefatory Stuff
Lewis actually wrote the book after the
radio addresses had made him the most
famous Christian apologist in the world.
 He sent the book to leaders of four
major denominations for editing.
 The result: “Mere” Christianity—
meaning Christianity in its simplest,
most agreeable form
 Lewis described it as the “hallway,” and
churches as the “rooms.”

The meaning of argument





People argue all the time; young, old, black,
white, smart, dumb
True argument has nothing to do with
preference; we argue because we think we’re
right, and the other party is wrong.
When we argue, we are saying that we believe
a standard of behavior has been violated.
We assume the other person knows the
standard, or it would make no sense to argue.
In effect, we are arguing in favor of a universal
standard of behavior.
Think about the response of the
accused:
The defender never says “I don’t believe in
rules.”
 One of three responses:

 They see their error, and apologize for their
behavior
 They see their error, and point out that you do
things wrong, too.
 They explain why their behavior wasn’t really
wrong.

Notice—in any case, they appear to accept
the existence of a universal standard.
So what are we really arguing
about?
Both the accused and the accuser agree
on the existence of a higher moral law.
 Both believe that they are right, by that
same standard.
 Basically, then, all arguments are about
the interpretation of that standard.

What is this standard?
Thinkers of the past referred to this
universal standard as “Natural Law” or
“The Law of Nature”
 “We hold these truths to be selfevident…the laws of Nature and of
Nature’s God…”
 This is not the same as the laws of
nature (uncapitalized) that govern the
physical operation of the universe.

What separates laws of nature
from “The (Moral) Law of
Nature?”
We cannot disobey the laws of nature;
the Moral Law is the only universal truth
we are free to ignore.
 I can choose whether or not to push
someone out of a tree, but once I push
them, they’re going to fall to the ground.

The Law of Nature
It’s called the Law of Nature because we
recognize it to be universal, applying to
all people at all times.
 Without this assumption, right and
wrong cannot exist.
 If right and wrong don’t exist, then
rational moral argument is impossible—
 Therefore, since we constantly appeal to
reason in our arguments, we must all
believe in the Natural Law

Does everyone really know it?





What about sociopaths, violent criminals,
and the insane?
Well…according to the Bible, we live in a
flawed world, right?
This sounds like a copout…
And yet, no one considers the vast
numbers of colorblind people in the world,
and uses that as evidence that color isn’t
real.
Therefore, moral blindness cannot be used
to invalidate the Moral Law.
War as evidence


Lewis refers specifically to WWII—but any war
works just as well.
Two reasons people fight:
 To protect myself or others
 Because I want what you have


Yet no one puts it so simply. We always
believe that, in addition to one of the reasons
above, that the other party is wrong. We
blame them.
It is absolute stupidity to assign blame to
someone unless you believe they know they’re
wrong. You might still fight, but you wouldn’t
blame them.
Cultural difference and the Moral
Law





Often, differences in culture are used as
evidence against a Moral Law.
The remarkable thing, though, is not how
differently moralized cultures are; it’s
staggering how similar they all are.
We may all disagree about the proper # of
wives, but we all recognize some limit.
No culture has ever rewarded cowards or
traitors in battle.
No culture has ever admired selfishness
Hypocrisy and the Moral Law
Even those who say they refuse to
believe in the Moral Law are happy to
use its existence to their
advantage…which only underscores
their unconscious belief.
 Do atheists get angry if there’s a
mistake in their bank account? Or if
their spouse cheats on them?
 How do they rationalize that?

Where Lewis’s arguments have
forced us to go:
We admit to the idea of a Moral Law
 We admit that we constantly fail to keep
the Moral Law (and don’t really want to
keep it)
 We constantly fail to practice the kind of
behavior we expect from other people.
 The fact that we so desperately want to
prove we’re not wrong is only more
evidence of how deeply and
unconsciously ingrained the Law of
Nature actually is.

The uncomfortable truth
We believe in this Law so much, and we
recognize it to be so important, that we
cannot stand the idea that we might be
breaking it.
 Ironically, we only give excuses for our
bad behavior.
 When we succeed, we freely take all the
credit for ourselves—ignoring the
influence of our parents, our schools,
our church.

Two points:
We all believe people should behave a
certain way, regardless of circumstance
or situation.
 We recognize that we ourselves don’t do
it very often, and always have an excuse
for why we shouldn’t be held
accountable.

Last Time (slides 1-19)







Biographical information on Lewis
Argument as evidence of a universal moral
standard
Moral blindness vs. color blindness
War and the Moral Law
Cultural differences and the Moral Law
Atheism, the Moral Law, and hypocrisy
The uncomfortable truth: the law exists, we know
it exists, we want others to abide by it (for our
benefit), and yet we consistently break it
ourselves.
Instinct and the Moral Law
Some have attempted to redefine the
Moral Law as biological instinct—we are
monogamous, or truthful, or patient,
because evolution has trained us to be.
 There are obvious flaws with this logic:

 Bravery tends to get you killed…which
reduces your chance to pass on your genes.
 Honesty, frugality, humility, monogamy—
none of these traits tend to lead to scores
and scores of offspring.
Conflicting instincts
Instinct, simply defined, is biological
desire to do something, like run away
from fire, or have sex.
 Simple biological instinct doesn’t take
into account whether or not you should
follow through on the urge.
 Instincts are often in conflict…for
example, the instinct to have sex with
your girlfriend versus your instinct to
NOT be beaten to death by her father.

Choosing among instincts
Because instincts are often in conflict,
then the stronger one would always win,
if they were all that existed.
 For example, consider the scores of
people who manage, somehow, to NOT
have sex before marriage, regardless of
how much they might want to. How is
this possible, if they’re operating solely
by instinct?

The Moral Law vs. Instinct
•
•
It is the Moral Law that tells us which
instinct to follow, when we find them in
conflict.
Consider a piano:
• If the keys are instincts, how do you know
which to play?
• The Moral Law is the “sheet music” that tells
us, as people, how to play the notes--when
our instincts should be followed, and when
they should be denied.
A further note regarding piano
keys
Do pianos have “right” or “wrong” notes?
 What makes a note right or wrong?
 Like piano keys, there are no “wrong”
instincts—only wrong times to express
them. In effect, instincts are good or
bad relative to the context.
 I understand this is a challenging
statement…spend some time thinking
about this, because it’s sort of important.

The Moral Law and social
convention

A further argument made against the
existence of a supreme Moral Law goes
like this:
 We have invented the “Moral Law” as a way to
protect our social institutions (family, church,
nation) and preserve order.
 We teach this “Law” to future generations in
order to preserve our comfortable situation.
 Have you ever noticed that the people
encouraging you to respect authority are often,
well, the ones that will be hurt the most if you
don’t? Have you ever questioned their
motivation?
Things we learn…
Just because something is learned
doesn’t necessarily mean it’s “made up.”
 There are two classes of things we
teach:

 Arbitrary things we invented: drive on the
right, don’t wear denim to a wedding, tip
15%.
 True things we discovered: multiplication,
chemistry, eating rat poison hurts, Top 40
Radio isn’t really music.
Moral Law—invented or
discovered?
Well…can social conventions (the stuff
we invented) really be “better” or “worse”
in a meaningful sense?
 Would America be any better or worse
than, say, Luxembourg, if we all agreed
that green meant stop?
 What about if America as a whole
decided that, effective now, murdering
toddlers was really not that big of a deal,
and you should just pay a fine.

The implications of cultural
morality
The previous example was
extreme…but what about Nazi
Germany? Or radically Islamic
Afghanistan? Or apathetically Christian
America?
 If it seems logical to consider one
culture’s morality better (or worse) than
another’s, then we must be measuring
both cultures by a standard that exists
OUTSIDE OF EITHER ONE

2 odd things about people, and
the implications:
We are burdened by the idea of a
Universal Moral Law
 We recognize that we don’t practice the
laws we fully expect others to follow
 Think: to recognize that we are morally
imperfect seems to logically imply the
existence of moral perfection.

A further point on the moral law
Science textbooks are descriptive: They
tell us what actually happens (describe).
 Moral law is prescriptive. It tells us what
ought to happen (prescribes).

Morality and convenience
We have already critiqued the idea of
morality as a social construct
 What if, along the same lines, it’s an
individual construct? What if we call
things “wrong” just because they
inconvenience us?

A simple question:
With whom are you more angry:
someone who steals your seat while
you’re in the bathroom, or someone who
was already in the chair when you
entered the room?
 Both are equally inconvenient; if morality
is based on convenience, both should
be equally culpable in our eyes.

To reiterate:
Given the arguments so far, it appears
that some very real law impinges on
us—either from inside or outside
ourselves.
 This ties into the two primary views of
the universe:

 The Materialist View: matter is all that
exists, and everything that happens can be
explained materially.
 The Spiritual View: something other than
matter exists, which is responsible for the
creation of matter.
Which view is correct?

No one, from the Big Bang theorists to
some pastors, want you to think about
the simple truth:
 Science cannot tell you which of the two
views is correct, for two reasons:
 1) Science is dependent on observation
 2) It is impossible to scientifically “prove” a
negative.
A further complication
If something other than matter existed,
how could we know it?
 We couldn’t—unless it wanted us to.
 Even if it did, we couldn’t experience it
“scientifically,” any more than you can
experience your architect by walking
around in your house.
 Is there anything else in the universe
that we experience without scientific
“proof”?

Science and observation

The only other thing in the universe that
we experience without “scientific
observation” is ourselves—as men (and
women), we know what’s inside our
minds, even if we can’t prove it in a lab.
What do we know of
ourselves?
We know that we feel the burden of the
law
 We know that we wish others would
keep the law (esp. in their dealings with
us)
 We know that we don’t keep the law
 In conversation, we learn that all our
friends feel this way

Mailmen and mailboxes
How do you know the mailman doesn’t
deliver live octopi to the mailboxes of
other people on your street?
 You know this because of three things:

 A) you have never received a live octopus
 B) none of your friends have ever received
a live octopus
 C) from this, you reason that no mailmen,
anywhere, are in the habit of delivering live
octopi on a daily basis
Progress vs. regress
Because of human history and the
erosion of faith, many people will
inevitably view a turnabout to a religious
view as regress.
 This is chronological snobbery (define,
please)
 When is turning around actually
progress?
 When you’re headed in the wrong
direction.

Higher being
First of all, you have to understand that
Lewis hasn’t yet approached the
concept of God presented in the Bible;
he’s using the “baby steps” approach.
 So far, we have two pieces of evidence
about God:

 The universe he has made
 The moral law we know
What the evidence says:

The universe:
 God is vast, scary, beautiful, and beyond our
grasp—but an excellent craftsman and an
talented designer

The moral law:
 God cares about things like honesty, justice,
fairness, love, and righteousness.

Neither of these seem to indicate that
God is soft and fuzzy, no matter what
Oprah says about Him.
The Line of Book One:
“GOD IS THE ONLY
COMFORT; HE IS ALSO THE
SUPREME TERROR.”
Lewis’s roundabout approach

Why approach the subject this way?
 Christianity makes no sense until you have
accepted these facts; you can’t believe in
Jesus if you don’t believe in God, Creation,
or Right and Wrong.
 No one goes to the doctor unless they’re
sick.
Why Christianity?
It offers an explanation of where the
moral law came from
 It offers an explanation of why we break
it
 It offers a chance for reconciliation


Regardless of what your preacher says,
Christianity does not begin in comfort—it
begins in total dismay.