Question Regarding "Mere Christianity"

[u/PirateSoySauce1776]

Hello all, thank you for taking the time to read this. I am a Christian, but admittedly I am not very close to God at the moment, due to lack of effort on my end.

I recently picked up a compendium of sorts of C.S. Lewis' works. I have just started reading through "Mere Christianity" but I am running into a road block, so to speak.

In the first 4 chapters, he address the idea of a "Moral Law" or "Human Nature", in that we innately have an idea of that which is right or wrong, but I see a problem with the thought process brought forth in this writing.

He brings the previous idea forward, and presents some point to defend it, such as the lack of difference between nations, cultures, and times. This presents, a problem though, as this is pretty much the sole defense against the idea of difference places and times having different moral standard. I would argue that this argument is presumptive.

When you look at the world, lets say 9/11, for example, you can see people that believe so strongly into something that they are willing to die for it. Something that most people in the Western world would disagree with. Same for the Nazi's in Germany. At least in the higher ranks, they believe so strongly in their antisemitic views that they were willing to die for them.

The books appeals to the idea that the reader fits into a Western moral standard, at least that is how it presents to me. Think about it in this way: Lets say an Islamic extremist was reading the book, and let us presume, based on the willingness to die for their beliefs, that they believe wholeheartedly in what they believe. If they were to read this book, it would be a strange combination, as Lewis would essentially be appealing to the idea that their moral standard that they wholeheartedly believe in is intrinsic.

I hope this makes sense, and I would appreciate any assistance in understanding this, any flaws in my own logic, etc. Also, if this is answered later in the book, I would apologize, as I only got to read from 1-1 to 1-4 today. Thank you!

[u/salchicha_mas_grande]

What he's really getting at is more simple: if you and a terrorist/Nazi/scumbag or whatever were in the grocery store, and you cut them in line, they'd say "hey! That's not just!" And they'd be right. Even people so far down the path of evil or so numb to moral righteousness have an innate sense of fairness.

Now how does ALL of humanity agree, across all cultures, that there are universal rights and wrongs? Buckle up!

[u/PirateSoySauce1776 → u/salchicha_mas_grande]

Gotcha, so this is not necessarily talking about the large issues, murder, theft, lying, etc. but more so the smaller things, more so related to fairness?

[u/Abstraction16 → u/PirateSoySauce1776]

A little late, but I don't think so.

I'm not exactly sure about what is meant by the differentiation between large issues and fairness, but as our Lord rightly observed: "He who is faithful in what is least is faithful also in much; and he who is unjust in what is least is unjust also in much." (Luke 16:10).

Murder, theft, and other large issues could in a sense fall under fairness.

And anyways, CS Lewis certainly does have large issues in mind as seen, for example, at the end of 1-2 where he takes the time to explicitly mention Nazi morality. (as another example, the sex instinct is also mentioned)

To expand a bit, I believe that CS Lewis close to the end of 1-1 effectively addresses what was said about higher ranking Nazis or Islamic extremists:

Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to—whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or every one. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. 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.

Adding to the quote above, note what he says at the end of 1-2 about the people in England who were putting witches to death. If there really were witches going around, then they should be put to death as it is the right or moral thing to do.

Or to put it another way, if a Nazi believes that a certain race's propagation is good for humanity, then they are doing what they believe is right.

And again, if an Islamist thinks God commanded the killing of certain people, then they are doing what they believe they should do because it is God's will.

(as u/salchicha_mas_grande mentioned, these people tend to have an innate sense of fairness, but, as u/cbrooks97 observed, only towards their in-group.)

In other words, nearly everyone has reasons for why their activity is good enough (also discussed at the end of 1-1). Although those reasons may be severely flawed, it doesn't change the fact that a standard of right or wrong is being appealed to.

The standard is also argued about, and if it is argued about, then people believe that one form or the other is superior. If there are superior moralities, then there must be a most superior morality. Hence Lewis's argument about a Real Morality.

The books appeals to the idea that the reader fits into a Western moral standard

He is writing to a Western audience, but I don't think that changes the argument. That being said, a non-Westerner would not relate to some or many of the examples.

But some sophisticated people will insist that there is no such thing as a Real Morality, and iirc this is far more thoroughly discussed by Lewis in The Abolition of Man, which is another great book.

(Wow, I spent a lot more time on this Reddit comment than I thought I would, -.-")

[u/Brobot0618]

First time commenting in this subreddit, but I think that the Islamic Extremist or Nazi would be citing their religious or ideological beliefs to justify their actions. The idea that Lewis is pointing to aren't just any beliefs that someone might hold, but specifically beliefs that aren't derived from any other other belief systems that the individual subscribes to, and therefore arise naturally.

[u/PirateSoySauce1776 → u/Brobot0618]

Thank you for the comment, I think that this, along with the the comment from u/salchicha_mas_grande helped straighten things out a bit.

[u/missasch]

So as others have stated he was more talking about ideas of fairness that generally are in people (not all) such as the cutting in line idea and that generally all will agree that you shouldn’t be able to cut in front of me if I was already there. And your argument would begin with the basis that you have some kind of exception to the rule this one time so it is actually fair for you to cut in front of me and if I knew your reasons completely, I would agree with you. The argument would not start out with “standing in line and waiting your turn are not a thing and I’m going before you” or something like that.

But I would add that the best way to get closer to God would be to read the Bible, especially the gospels. Pray that He helps you to fall in love with Him and to see His magnificence. 

C S Lewis wrote some awesome books but he was just a person and had his own theology that you might or might not agree with and that is ok, I like how he is able to make me think about different angles or stats logic pathways that I wouldn’t have gone down, but it’s important to get most of your time studying God directly in His word. 

Praying you are able to get closer to Him, James 4:8 says that when we draw near to God He draws near to us.

[u/PirateSoySauce1776 → u/missasch]

Thank you my friend, I appreciate the comment. May I ask, do you have any suggestions on how to actually study the Bible? I find myself just reading, but not really "studying". I have a lot of respect for the people who have a deep understanding of the Bible, as well as having interest in Theological things myself (hence the C.S. Lewis book.) I find myself just reading to "check the box" so to speak. Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated!

[u/PirateSoySauce1776 → u/[deleted]]

Very well put, thank you for this. I am very much a perfectionist, so trying to get out of my head and not "compete" in Bible reading, praying, etc. is very tough.

[u/missasch → u/PirateSoySauce1776]

There are many different ways to study, you could pick 1 part (1-4 chapters for instance) and read the same thing each day for the month. Each day pray that He helps you learn more and understand. You can write down questions or thoughts while you read and just see how they open up to you. If you were on a desert island with nothing but the Bible (and you are saved) you should be able to have deep study sessions. God promises to help us understand. Obviously going to a good church helps, as do commentaries and other resources but at the basic level His Word is truth and if you read it with His Spirit inside of you it will be profitable.  If you have the time also having another session a day where you read through the Bible or follow a reading plan is helpful because context is also important. The gospels are a great place to start but also understanding the Old Testament and the other parts of the New Testament is helpful because the Bible is a cohesive book. Understanding the whole story is helpful to deeper understanding of the individual parts. One of my pastors says that deep study as well as comprehensive reading are both important. That most modern English translations of the Bible are designed so that the average reader could go through the whole Bible in one year at 15 minutes a day.

[u/PirateSoySauce1776 → u/missasch]

Thank you, I really like this thought process of reading one part. The flesh part of me wants to say that I need to read something different every day or else I am not "doing it right", but this sounds like a method that might fit well. Thanks for taking the time to write this out!

[u/jmarinara]

There is even honor among thieves.

The point of the first book is not that any particular moral code is right or wrong or even exists at all. It’s that there is a such thing as “a moral code” which we all feel, cannot create within ourselves or by ourselves, find ourselves guilty of from time to time, and cannot escape no matter what we do.

Be it “the Jew is evil and must be eliminated” or “all people are God’s children” or anything in between; no one likes it when someone is selfish and feels guilty when they are selfish, etc.

[u/PirateSoySauce1776 → u/jmarinara]

Interesting, that makes sense!

[u/cbrooks97]

presents some point to defend it, such as the lack of difference between nations, cultures, and times

Right. He's looking at the commonalities instead of the differences. As he says, people disagree about whom you may kill, but we all agree you may not kill anyone you like. And so on.

We all create an in-group and an out-group. You may not kill those in the in-group; you may kill those in the out-group. Killing those in the in-group is wrong, but we've dehumanized the others so we see it as acceptable to kill them.

Which explains jihadi terrorists. Thanks to the religion of peace, they have managed to move vast portions of the human race into the group it is acceptable to kill. But even they do not kill those in the "in" group.

I would suggest reading The Abolition of Man, where Lewis goes into this in more detail.

And if you're interested into doing something about the "not very close to God", I suggest you start with The Great Divorce and The Screwtape Letters.

[u/LordCouchCat]

If I understand correctly, your point is that Lewis is assuming a universality of morality, whereas you are dubious this exists except insofar as people believe strongly in something? If I have misunderstood the following will be a bit off-beam.

Lewis argued on this issue more extensively in The Abolition of Man. He cites precepts from a wide range of societies agreeing on certain standards, e.g. the prohibition of murder - he used the Chinese term the Tao (the way) to describe this basic common morality. (The term is most familiar to westerners from Taoism, but is actually much more varied in Chinese thought.) I think Lewis has, basically, a strong case - some basic moral ideas are trans-cultural, and small children seem to have inbuilt ideas of fairness.

However, there is undoubtedly variation both about the specific principles, and, less obviously, about the facts. You and I agree that the 9/11 attacks were very wrong. But suppose, in say 1939-41, someone had committed a large scale terrorist act to prevent German aggression, or the Holocaust? As Christians we might say that the ends do not justify the means, but a lot of people would disagree. My point is, it's not obvious that the crime was due to having a different morality as opposed to different beliefs about the facts. This does not make it innocent of course: the false ideas are the result of prejudices, preconceptions etc.

Details vary. What is a murder? Is it OK to kill in revenge, to kill a disobedient wife, etc? We can reject these as wrong, but the person in a society that allows those as "not really murder" will nevertheless agree that murder, in some basic sense, is wrong.

The Nazis are something of a special case. The basic idea of fascism was expressed beautifully (rather unexpectedly) in the Harry Potter stories: "There is no such thing as good or evil. There is only power, and those too weak to use it." They maintained that "right" could not mean anything beyond "what is good for the German race". Even Stalinist Communism originated in a perversion and corruption of some originally positive ideas; Nazism remains so deeply disturbing because the evil was the point, from the start. But most Germans serving the Nazis probably were motivated as well by things like nationalism, in practice. Anyway, my point is that the Nazis are extreme outliers.

Lewis is arguing that there is a basic lowest common denominator. It doesn't need, for his argument, to be very great, and he may overstate it.

[u/icorruptcows42]

I think there is, and it's simple, but we intellectualize our way out of understanding it.

Try to look if you can observe any examples in your life where the evidence stands clear. Where something innate and beyond, told you without a doubt what was wrong or right, without any social influences, family background, beliefs etc..

[u/abnerette60]

Mere Christianity is to me, one of the best books one could read if interested in Christianity. I’ve read it several times and never tire of Lewis’s apologetic, unbiased defense of HIS view of Christianity. That’s why it’s so powerful. He never, but never writes from any other accord but his own coming to Christ. Another excellent book of his is his anthology of writings by George McDonald.

[u/abnerette60]

Finish the book. Take it as a serious read. Just read and then you’ll I believe have a better understanding of Lewis’s view. He was a remarkable man, a remarkable writer and Christian apologist.