http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/Mere%20Christianity%20-%20Lewis.pdf
In case you didn’t buy, borrow or check out this book good news, it is in the public domain. I posted the link above for you to read along. I wish that I would have known it before I purchased it. Sure it was cheap, but free is always better.
I will be honest, I didn’t know a stitch about this book before I read it. It was recommended because of some of my other purchases on Amazon. It turns out that this is a compilation of radio broadcasts that CS Lewis did during World War II. It was meant as a morale piece for the British citizens and soldiers who had impending gloom and fear over possible Nazi invasion. I have to admit that I have been enjoying it tremendously because it is a very logical and composed argument for the existence of God.

It’s funny that I get to use my inner scientist and Christian now. They are two things that are not distinctly compatible. But, this Book (1) is all about merging the two. A huge theme is this idea of Natural law and a debatable concept of moral law. Natural law is scientifically provable such as gravity and believe me you can do a lot of math if you want to prove it.
If you need a less technical description, drop something on earth and it will always fall to the ground. There is no choice by the object be it rock or person. Notice I didn’t say if you were in the upper atmosphere or anywhere in the universe and drop something, That is also part of Newton’s Law of gravitation but it puts too many variables into a laymen’s argument. But that makes it absolute, observable proof of natural laws existing and there is no possible, logical argument otherwise.
If we as humans can agree that there are some absolutes, then we can agree on some other things such as morality. Democrats, Republicans, Independents and non-voters alike would agree that you should not walk-up and punch a baby. Before someone says that it happens, I would have to say that those people are not right as in normal. We can fins supporting evidence because the belief is held in China, India, Zimbabwe and everywhere as well.
Humans can agree that there is some universal morality such as don’t steal and don’t hurt other people. So, while I understand the pro abortion argument that a fetus is not a living being, I do believe that it is a warped justification for not taking personal responsibility for the consequences of sex. And this is the counter argument for natural moral law is that it can be argued or debatable.
Despite it’s flaws, the fact that we can acknowledge morality existing without being scientifically provable is a sign of an external force. Why do we agree that stealing is wrong? Animals do not hold such beliefs. This is because they do not hold humanity. Sure, they might be trained not to steal or they might be afraid of the pack leader or whatever analog I am talking about but animal behavior is about instinct. I want food, there is food there, I am going to take it when I get a chance even if it is possibly detrimental to me and my existence. My dog is trained not to eat of the counter and yet if I leave something overnight there is a good chance it is gone in the morning.
Life force is unique to our known world. It is going to be a pretty tough sell to me to say that all rocks will someday be some sort of living entity. I will admit that it’s very existence cannot be measured but on the other hand, we can see the results of when it is destroyed and therefore can empirically see that it exists. I am not completely turned off to evolution theory but I have not seen a link that life consistently strives to improve moving completely from a single celled organism to a human.
If that were true, I don’t believe (and neither does Lewis) that we would have moral law. In that case, people would steal because they can get away with it. Sure, plenty of people do but then what happens when they are stolen from? They don’t like it too much hence they also believe in moral law, just a perverted version of it.
End Your Programming Routine: Pretty cool huh. Next week I will discuss Book 2. It is no wonder this book was popular, it is a well laid out argument without resulting in name calling or condemnation. The book really doesn’t try to justify human existence using the big bang but to use human nature itself to support the existence of God. It is the best argument I have ever heard and the best defense against the lack of hard proof because it is right under our noses.












Recent Comments