Objections to the Moral Law

Mere Christianity began as a series of Radio broadcasts during WWII. Lewis reports having received feedback from numerous sources, both positive and negative. He addresses some of the objections to his idea of the Moral Law in the book. As Lewis points out, he has not yet posited the idea of the Christian God, nor any deity for that matter. Lewis chooses to address objections from that standpoint. That is, only objections to a moral law in general. Because we are assuming that those we speak with in apologetics are savvy, educated, and informed, I think it's safe to think that most will understand this argument and where it leads, and very quickly and jump to some more specific arguments. I'm going to summarize Lewis' responses in this post, and address the more specific objections in the next post very soon.

Lewis first addresses the idea that the moral law is simply the result of "group think", herd mentality, or just following the pack. The instinct to protect the "herd" is present. Also present, however, is the instinct to preserve one's own life. When our society proclaims someone a hero, it is often because they acted without regard to their own safety. The moral law is neither the protection instinct, nor the self-preservation instinct. It is that which tells the hero to ignore the instinct for self preservation, and to save his fellow man. Some may argue that heroes are valued so highly because most of us would simply act in self preservation; that not all of us have that third thing that tells us to ignore the danger. Most truly heroic people that I've heard give accounts of their actions say that any decent human being would do the same thing. Even if they would not however, we cannot dismiss the Moral Law, because something is telling us that what the hero did was a good thing. Many of us spent our childhoods daydreaming about being the hero. That value has to come from somewhere.

A second objection noted by Lewis is the notion that the idea of right and wrong, of proper behavior, is built into us through education since childhood. He agrees that we might learn these things from our parents, but that does not make it a human invention. I would argue that we may actually be teaching our children to try to get around the Moral Law. It is considered child-like to demand that all things be fair and equatable, but where did our children get that idea in the first place? Surely not from adults; our first response to a child's complaint of unfairness, at least internally (and often spoken) is "life's not fair." It just might be that life under a Moral law that came from somewhere (Lewis still has not connected to a Christian God at this point, although you and I have) beyond ourselves really is fair. I would agree that we, as a society, teach our children the particulars of how, when and where the Moral law applies. This explains why different cultures have different standards. In passing, we can note that the existence of those different standards, and our opinion about them, is in itself support of the Moral Law. If we claim one standard is evil (the Nazi standard, for example), and one is good, then we are measuring these standards, and that measurement must be bigger than the standards themselves. As is often the case, no one can address this more clearly than C.S. Lewis:

"For example, one man said to me, 'Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. Would you call that the Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?' But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe three are such things. If we did - if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbours, or drive them mad or bring bad weather - surely we would all agree that is anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did? There is no difference of moral principal here: the difference is simply about matter of fact."
(Mere Christianity p. 14-15)

Lewis very plainly addressed the objections to the Moral Law in General. In my next post, I will address some of the objections to the argument for God from Morality.

Lewis on the Moral Law

C.S. Lewis' work is considered by many to be the foundation for modern Christian apologetics. It seems appropriate, then, that I should summarize some of his arguments here. I am going to attempt to systematically work through several of his most well-respected works. I'm beginning with Mere Christianity. Before we bite off the first small piece, I should mention that these arguments are not new. Really, they were not even new when Lewis discussed them. This brings out an important fact that we need to remember whenever we are trying to convince someone of something, and especially with apologetics. Just because we think an argument is water-tight, or it's novel to us, does not mean the person we are talking with has not already heard it and considered it. They might not have, be we need to give them the benefit of at least listening if they say they have. People have been debating the argument from morality for hundreds, even thousands of years. That does not mean it is not worth looking at, and mentioning at the appropriate times, but it is something we need to be aware of.

The argument from morality has as its base the idea that there is a sense of right and wrong present in you and me. At this point in time, we are not attempting to identify what is right and what is wrong, nor are we attempting to name the source. All we are saying is that every human has an innate sense of right and wrong.

The evidence for this moral law is all around us in everyday life. When we get cut off in traffic, we think that's wrong. Even if we don't get quite as enraged, we even think it's wrong when someone else gets cut off; something that doesn't directly affect us. We like to root for the underdog, because there is something right about him working hard and earning the win in the end. It is said that even criminals, those who we might argue do not have this sense of right and wrong, have a "code". Crimes against children and the elderly are punished by the criminals within the jail.

Some may argue that this sense of right and wrong is a societal thing, a learned behavior. There are, after all, cultures that do not have the same ideas of what is right and what is wrong. Lewis point out: "If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teachings of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks, and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own." While the tribes of the amazon rain forest who have not had contact with the world as a whole may have different laws and standards, certain things always hold true to some extent. These things make up the Moral Law.

Step 1.5

I mentioned in my last post that, as we are told in 1 Peter, the first step to apologetics is to make the Messiah Lord of our hearts. The key here is that the most important thing we can do is not to come up with the philosophical argument to trump all others. The most important thing we can do is to make the Messiah Lord of our hearts.

This goes beyond the cursory sinners prayer and regular church attendance. These things are important, but they don't indicate that we have given Him Lordship of our hearts. As believers, we need to, with the help of the Holy Spirit, continually grow in our relationship with our Savior. We need to be constantly denying the desires of the flesh. We need to come to a place where our faith, our belief is the utmost thing in our hearts and minds. This is not easy, and it doesn't happen overnight, and, like most of our Spiritual endeavors, it doesn't happen without our Creator's helping hand. This step-within-a-step is what we are called to first and foremost as Christians. Del Tackett, of Focus on the Family, put it this way in the production The Truth Project : "Do you really believe that what you believe is really real."This level of belief holds in itself a whole new world for most Christians. How differently would you lead your life if you, as a believer, really, truly, and deeply believed what was written in Scripture? I can hear the protests now: "but I DO believe that! Why do you think I'm a Christian?" If we really believed that everything we believed was really real, then we wouldn't do, say, or think those things we do only when we think no one is looking (God is omnipresent). If we really believed we were conversing with the Almighty God personally when we prayed, we would never be off our knees.

Penn Jillette, of Penn and Teller fame, a highly intelligent man, eloquent, and generally honest (I say generally, because I don't know the man personally), and an atheist, has an intersting insight into this in the story in this video (pay particular attention around 3:00):



Do you believe what you believe enough that you genuinely love that total stranger that is unsaved? Enough that you can kindly genuinely share your faith with him, overcoming the fear that he may find the situation awkward? That is the kind of belief that indicates the Messiah as true Lord of your heart. It's an ongoing process. One that you may be well situated with one day, and not so much the next. A process that will be ongoing until we are present with the Messiah. A process that we must never give up on. We can't call this step one or step two in apologetics for this very reason. It is one that we must continue to build upon, just as we build upon the answers that we have when someone asks us about the hope that we have. In a darkness such as this world, even the smallest spark of the light of the Messiah in our hearts will attract attention.

What Apologetics is Not

I thought it a good idea to kick off my discussion of apologetics and Christian evidences by discussing what it is not. Many Christians seem to be of the belief that apologetics is the magic bullet; that once I say the right thing, even the most hard and fast unbeliever will suddenly be converted. This is simply not the case.

1. Apologetics, in any field, cannot prove God's existence. We, as humans, cannot prove the supernatural beyond a doubt. We can play a part in it, but only God can reveal Himself. (Romans 1 tells us that God reveals Himself to us sufficiently that we have no excuse for disbelief.)
The most that apologetics can do is give evidence of God's existence. There comes a time when the evidence that human beings can conceive ends, are we are left to faith, with God's revelation remaining.

2. Apologetics is not evangelism. 1 Peter 3:15, the favorite verse of many apologists, instructs us not to go beating down our neighbor's door with our list of reasons they should believe. The first step to apologetics is to make the Messiah our Lord, and to be ready to answer whatever questions arise. This is not to say that apologetics cannot or does not play a part in evangelism. Understanding the physical evidences and the philosophical arguments for God's existence can help the believer to answer questions when evangelizing. The key here, again, is answering questions.

3. Apologetics is not a way to "beat down those rotten atheists." We should engage our opponents respectfully, and with love. This does not imply that we act as if they are always right, or their beliefs are ok for them. We should, however, remember that the only thing that separates us from them is the Grace of God. It's ok to engage in discussion and debate. It helps the believer to sharpen their belief, and forces the unbeliever to face their unbelief.

In short, apologetics is a human endevour, and as such, failable. We can discuss, debate, and jump up and down until we are blue in the face. The Holy Spirit must guide the unbeliever down the last few steps to salvation.