Month: May 2011

Another objection to faith that C.S. Lewis struggled with was the question: Aren't morals relative? More than two-thirds of Americans deny any belief in absolutes and the statistics would be very similar in other countries.  

An an atheist, Lewis denied that there were any moral absolutes. When he became a Christian, he insisted that Christian morality had to go beyond mere personal opinion. It had to fit with life as a whole, or it was meaningless. 

Lewis queried where he got this idea of things being just and unjust. A person does not call a line crooked unless they have some idea of a straight line. An absolute standard of good suggests a God who is the infinite reference point. Lewis went to great lengths to document the universality and timelessness of moral standards. In the appendix to The Abolition of Man he cites the similar moral standards of ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks, Romans and others. Though the specifics may differ, the general outline is the same throughout all cultures. 

If there is no absolute standard for good and evil (God), there there is no evil. One or the other has to go, either atheism or a major argument for atheism.

The relativistic viewpoint is hopelessly inconsistent. The attempt create an ethic without God is doomed to failure. No relativist who has been given absolute power has used that power benevolently. 

[Summarised from Chapter 11 of Art Lindsley's C.S. Lewis' Case for Christ]

Next: Lewis and Other Religions.

A good question at this stage in our overview of C.S. Lewis' objections to faith and how he overcame them is, "Is what was true for C.S. Lewis necessarily true for me?"

Post-modernism denies meta-narratives: any narrnaitve, story or account of the world that claims to be absolute or all encompassing. It sees no facts, only interretations. There is no such thing as an objective view of reality. Ethical claims are sentiment and de-construction is justice. Lewis lived before the full flowing of post-modern thought but some of its roots were already present in his day. 

When it comes to post-modernism, Lewis would have agreed that:

1. There are limits to knowledge.

2. Our perpsective does affect what we see.

3. Our perspective affects the way we view history. 

4. Our ideas of reality (and therefore of God) are too small. What we need most of all is not our pet theories about God, but God himself. Lewis said, "My idea of God is not a divine idea. It has to be shattered time after time. He shatters himself. He is the great iconoclast."

5. Culture can blind us to some aspects of who we are. 

However, Lewis would have disagreed with the claim that we can have no objective knowledge of truth or morality. The most basic postmodern contentions are self-refuting. Lewis would ask: "Is it objectively true to say that there are no objective truths? Can you deny the validity of reason without using reason?" If all perspectives of reality are culturally determined, then that statement itself is culturally determined. If all meta-narratives are suspect because they are oppressive, then is no post-moderism also a meta-narrative and equally suspect. Suspician can work both ways. If Christianity can be a crutch, so can atheism.

[Summarised from Chapter 11 of Art Lindsley's C.S. Lewis' Case for Christ]

Next: Lewis and Rationalism.

C.S. Lewis also struggled with the question of Wish Fulfilment: Isn't belief in God just a crutch for needy people?

Some people believe that humanity invented God out of need – to cope with the uncertainties of a confusing and often dangerous world. The psychological explanation for God is one of the most common arguments against Christian faith (and against any theistic religion). Belief in a god is common to all cultures in all time periods. Atheists prefer to explain this as "wish fulfilment" – that humanity invented God because we wished God existed. 

Lewis responded to the influential atheists of his time – Ludwig Feuerbach (1804 – 1872), Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) and Sigmund Freud (1856 – 1939). Lewis showed that wishing for something does not make it true or real. On the other hand, the wish itself does not prove that what we desire does not exist. If we are hungry, we wish for food. Fortunately, food exists to satisfy your wish. The same thing could be said about thirst and sleep. 

Lewis experienced sharp longings for something beyond his ordinary life and came to conclude that "If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world." Our pleasures on earth act as cosmic pointers to those realities that will ultimately satisfy us. 

Yes, religion can be a projection of some human experience onto God. We can wish God to be as we wish him to be. However, an argument against abuse is not argument against appropriate use. Just because we wish for something doesn't make it untrue.

Lewis also indicated that the tables can be turned on the atheist. Is atheism a project, a desire to kill God, to be free from accountability to a higher power, an opiate for the conscience to escape moral guilt, a wish fulfilment? When we repress something, at a deeper level we know it is really true. Lewis believed that denial of God was a result of systematic dishonesty and was fundamentally self-refuting.

[Summarised from Chapter 9 of Art Lindsley's C.S. Lewis' Case for Christ]

Continue reading “C.S. Lewis – Objection #7: Wish Fulfillment” →

C.S. Lewis also struggled with miracles: do you believe in the miracles of the Bible?

A miracle is something that comes to us from beyond the world. It is an event that can't happen, but it does. It can't be explained scientifically. 

Lewis gained attention beyond his academic circles through his unflinching affirmation of the supernatural – God, demons, miracles and all. How could a sophisticated Oxford professor believe in such fables in the 20th century? He took on the task to consider whether it was intellectually honest and realistic to automatically reject miracles.

He critiqued naturalism, which claims that miracles were impossible or at least so improbable that they can never be accepted. In his book Miracles, Lewis confronted naturalism – the belief that nature is all there is: a closed box of cause and effect. Super-naturalism sees nature as an open system, operated by natural law most of the time but open to intervention by God.

There are three negative ways to respond to miracles:

1. They are impossible. Unless we absolutely certain that there is no supernatural power (God) in the universe, we cannot dogmatically say that every claim of a miracle is false. Granted, miracles rare are but that does not mean that they are impossible. We can never assume that what we have experienced is all there is to reality. There is no argument to prove that miracles cannot happen. 

2. They are improbable. Scottish philosopher, David Hume, allowed for no instance of a miracle because another explanation is always preferable. However, we cannot say that all reports of miracles are false, even if one of them did happen. You need to weigh the historical evidence for each unusual event before you exclude or accept it. 

3. They are inappropriate. In Christianity, miracles have deceives significant, converging on Christ and demonstrating that he is the one sent by God. The miracles of Christ are not merely powerful acts for the sake of power – they show his compassion and demonstrate his identity. 

We still serve a miracle-working God. Nothing is impossible with Him!

[Summarised from Chapter 8 of Art Lindsley's C.S. Lewis' Case for Christ]

Next: Objection #7 – Wish Fulfilment