Mere Christianity Book discussion Anyone.

[JMP300z]

Was just lent this by a friend who I am constantly philosophizing w/.

So far im only a few pages in although it seems that CS Lewis, while employing some circular reasoning, sketchy historical examples and some logical leaps, definitely writes GOOT.

IF any others would like to read along and/or discuss the book w/ me, ill try to post my thoughts here. I am actually going to start over and reread what ive done so far just to make sure I'm not missing anything.

-JP

[MidGe]

I blame Disney for the resurgeance of interest in C S Lewis. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

But, imo, that is about the level of his books, cartoon like, suitable for some.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I blame Disney for the resurgeance of interest in C S Lewis. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

But, imo, that is about the level of his books, cartoon like, suitable for some.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm a fan of CS Lewis. It would be a grave injustice to tar him with the same brush as some of the irrational religous posters and even worse the intellectually dishonest ones.

I've never read 'mere christanity' so can't help the OP.

chez

[Marko Schmarko]

[ QUOTE ]
Was just lent this by a friend who I am constantly philosophizing w/.

So far im only a few pages in although it seems that CS Lewis, while employing some circular reasoning, sketchy historical examples and some logical leaps, definitely writes GOOT.

IF any others would like to read along and/or discuss the book w/ me, ill try to post my thoughts here. I am actually going to start over and reread what ive done so far just to make sure I'm not missing anything.

-JP

[/ QUOTE ]

Lewis is great.
Read on... post questions/comments.. I'm sure we can all take up our respective bases and preach from our respective gospels. It'll be ground-breaking.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

definitely writes GOOT


[/ QUOTE ]

Lewis is the author who has had the single greatest impact on my life, even though I disagree with him on some theological points. I think he had the greatest gift for explaining difficult concepts in everyday language. Mere Christianity is a good example.

[quinn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

definitely writes GOOT


[/ QUOTE ]I think he had the greatest gift for explaining difficult concepts in everyday language. Mere Christianity is a good example.

[/ QUOTE ]

[evolvedForm]

I started reading it, and about 20 pages in grew frustrated with the lack of worthy argumentation. I'm not sure what GOOT means, but you're right about the circular logic. He also used false dichotomy. Nothing I read seemed sufficient to convince an unbiased, incredulous reader. It can only strengthen the faith of those who already believe.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

grew frustrated with the lack of worthy argumentation.


[/ QUOTE ]

The book was originally a series of radio talks by Lewis. He was speaking to an audience that he knew was not philosophically sophisticated. He was trying to reduce very difficult concepts to language and ideas that can be grasped by the average high school student. Lewis himself could argue logic with the best minds in the world - he was very familiar with the major philosophers. That wasn't his purpose with the radio shows nor with the book.

[ QUOTE ]

Nothing I read seemed sufficient to convince an unbiased, incredulous reader.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're very wrong about this. Lewis in general and this book in particular have been enormously influential.

[JMP300z]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Nothing I read seemed sufficient to convince an unbiased, incredulous reader.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're very wrong about this. Lewis in general and this book in particular have been enormously influential.

[/ QUOTE ]

No Notready, I understand that he is enormously influential but the posters point was about an unbiased, incredulous reader. These readers are few if not impossible.

-JP

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

No Notready, I understand that he is enormously influential but the posters point was about an unbiased, incredulous reader. These readers are few if not impossible.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're right and I was just considering whether I ought to edit my post. There are NO unbiased readers so it's really a moot point.

[JMP300z]

[ QUOTE ]
There are NO unbiased readers so it's really a moot point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think its a point that should be explored when reading Mere Christianity. From a limited experience (my Ex, and a few friends), these are people are intelligent and who have never really examined their beliefs despite really structuring their lives around them (Chruch/bible study/mission trips). They certainly have the good aspects of belonging to a religion that teaches morality but they certainly have no understanding of why they believe in god, and taken further, why they believe in specifically christianity and everything that follows. Mere Christianity gave them a voice for that. They found it impossible to reason or paraphrase it to me, they would get confused/frustrated (partially from me drilling them w/ slightly unfair questions, a habit im trying to turn down), and so each one of their individual responses came to "just read this book."

This book seems to take someone who has believed in god, had that feeling of a greater power and a greater purpose and put a form of reasoning to it (whether its correct reasoning or not I will try to determine for myself, so far seems VERY persuasive yet not sound).

-JP

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

This book seems to take someone who has believed in god, had that feeling of a greater power and a greater purpose and put a form of reasoning to it (whether its correct reasoning or not I will try to determine for myself, so far seems VERY persuasive yet not sound).


[/ QUOTE ]

I think Lewis was trying to explain the essentials of Christianity in a way that could be understood by people without formal logical training. I don't know that he was targeting believers or non-believers. There are places where it's clear he's going to great lengths to not offend unbelievers.

There's no doubt the book has been helpful to Christians, probably more so than non-Christians. I first discovered it after I had been a Christian for some months. It does enable Christians who haven't thought through their belief to give more depth to their understanding.

But it isn't intended as a rigorous logical proof of Christianity that forces one to accept because of persuasiveness of the argument. It does show that Christianity isn't a blind leap of faith, that it doesn't require one to abandon logic and reason, and that alternate explanations of reality have serious shortcomings.

It's a starting point, not a final goal, an introduction to Apologetics which is a subject that should occupy a lifetime.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
...Nothing I read seemed sufficient to convince an unbiased, incredulous reader. It can only strengthen the faith of those who already believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to hijack the thread but… this is how some of us view Dawkins. (Not so much the incredulous part per se - just that, to some evolution does not discount (a) God.)

quote from notready:

[ QUOTE ]
...There are places where it's clear he's going to great lengths to not offend unbelievers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess this is were the similarity with Dawkins ends.

[JMP300z]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...Nothing I read seemed sufficient to convince an unbiased, incredulous reader. It can only strengthen the faith of those who already believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to hijack the thread but… this is how some of us view Dawkins. (Not so much the incredulous part per se - just that, to some evolution does not discount (a) God.)


[/ QUOTE ]

Consider my own thread hijacked in the same manner as others. My final word, before i actually start posting about the book, is that dawkins in talking about evolution is not trying to disprove god w/ his works, but to show that god is not necessary and/or not apparent within life/evolution etc. I do not disbelieve in god because i believe in evolution. As you say, the two are not necessarily contradictory. Rather, I disbelieve in god because I find no reason to believe in god. I can explain things without god and having a god raises more questions for me (now im really opening a can of worms here).

Anyways, just wanted to make the distinction that the argument for evolution is not an argument against god, rather just showing that a god is not seen there.

-JP

[madnak]

I've always considered Lewis's philosophical writings (MC, Screwtape, etc) to be awful. Really terrible.

His reasoning is virtually all faulty, his examples are trite and cliche at best, and whenever he comes to a difficult subject he glosses it over as quickly as he can. His characterizations are unrealistic, his situations are directly deceptive, and his rhetoric is nauseating.

To be fair, I think the same thing about Ayn Rand.

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No Notready, I understand that he is enormously influential but the posters point was about an unbiased, incredulous reader. These readers are few if not impossible.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're right and I was just considering whether I ought to edit my post. There are NO unbiased readers so it's really a moot point.

[/ QUOTE ]

By "unbiased" I simply meant that the reader can look at the arguments critically. If one does this one will see the fallacies I mentioned, which were quite obvious, and which I remember noting in the margins. (I don't have the book handy, unfortunately, so I can't post them.)

Even great thinkers and logicians can trip over themselves from time to time.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I've always considered Lewis's philosophical writings (MC, Screwtape, etc) to be awful. Really terrible.

His reasoning is virtually all faulty, his examples are trite and cliche at best, and whenever he comes to a difficult subject he glosses it over as quickly as he can. His characterizations are unrealistic, his situations are directly deceptive, and his rhetoric is nauseating.

To be fair, I think the same thing about Ayn Rand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too, on both counts, Rand and Lewis. In fact I think they both exhibit similar simpletons tendencies.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've always considered Lewis's philosophical writings (MC, Screwtape, etc) to be awful. Really terrible.

His reasoning is virtually all faulty, his examples are trite and cliche at best, and whenever he comes to a difficult subject he glosses it over as quickly as he can. His characterizations are unrealistic, his situations are directly deceptive, and his rhetoric is nauseating.

To be fair, I think the same thing about Ayn Rand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too, on both counts, Rand and Lewis. In fact I think they both exhibit similar simpletons tendencies.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think Lewis is intended to be simplistic, its not offered as heavy philosophy. I think he gets the ideas across and usually presents the arguments clearly and although there are logical holes, the fact that they can easily be seen is testiment to the presentation - contrast with the many who hide behind obscureness.

Did you see that cricket match? One day is the simplistic version (get it on topic somehow) but wowser!

chez

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you see that cricket match? One day is the simplistic version (get it on topic somehow) but wowser!


[/ QUOTE ]

Wowser indeed! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Did you see that cricket match? One day is the simplistic version (get it on topic somehow) but wowser!


[/ QUOTE ]

Wowser indeed! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
From the screwtape letters:

"I would make it a rule to eradicate from my patient any strong personal taste which is not actually a sin, even if it is something quite trivial such as a fondness for county cricket or collecting stamps or drinking cocoa. Such things, I grant you, have nothing of virtue about them; but there is a sort of innocence and humility and self-forgetfulness about them which I distrust. The man who truly and disinterestedly enjoys any one thing in the world, for its own sake, and without caring twopence what other people say about it, is by that very fact fore-armed against some of our subtlest modes of attack. You should always try to make the patient abandon the people or food or books he really likes in favour of the "best" people, the "right" food, the "important" books."

Wise words

chez

[madnak]

The message of "do what you like, don't worry about whether others think" is wise. But it's also very cliche.

Everything else is hypocrisy or propaganda.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The message of "do what you like, don't worry about whether others think" is wise. But it's also very cliche.

Everything else is hypocrisy or propaganda.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not the main message (I'm not sure thats even part of the message, though cricket is next to godliness), but that aside I can't see the merit in your other charges.

Its framed as a battle for souls and its about christian ethics. Its so very clearly a book about good and bad from a christian perspective that its hard to see how labeling it as propoganda is a criticism.

What hypocrisy?

chez

[madnak]

Because Lewis himself bends over backward to bang into the reader's head that he should only get involved with the "best," "important," and "right" things.

Moreover it's an extremely contrived scenario.

It is blatant propaganda. It assumes every proposition it's trying to prove. It has virtually no value for someone who disagrees with its main assertions (I'd be very interested to hear how it benefited you). And yet, it pretends to be philosophy. It pretends to be reasonable and objective and thoughtful.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Because Lewis himself bends over backward to bang into the reader's head that he should only get involved with the "best," "important," and "right" things.

Moreover it's an extremely contrived scenario.

It is blatant propaganda. It assumes every proposition it's trying to prove. It has virtually no value for someone who disagrees with its main assertions (I'd be very interested to hear how it benefited you). And yet, it pretends to be philosophy. It pretends to be reasonable and objective and thoughtful.

[/ QUOTE ]
screwtape instructing a beginner into how to win souls for the devil - a contrived scenario you don't say /images/graemlins/smile.gif

It doesn't pretend to be philosophy at all. Its an openly christian presentation of some of the ethical ideas of being a good person. No proofs are offered, so I dont see your point about assumptions at all.

The value is in the ideas being raised. Ethics is partly about leading a good life, being interested in ethics is being interested in ideas about good and bad. I'm quite interested in the nature of corruption and there's some good stuff in this book on corruption - how someone can change from a good person to a bad person, what does this mean and does it matter.

chez

[madnak]

That's not how I saw it.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
That's not how I saw it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think I got that /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chez

[Gobgogbog]

[ QUOTE ]
It would be a grave injustice to tar him with the same brush as some of the irrational religous posters and even worse the intellectually dishonest ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. The reasoning in 'Mere Christianity' is awful and, yes, I would say intelletually dishonest. But it is very well written and extremely persuasive to someone without much experience with well constructed fallacies.

I have to admit bias here and possibly even results-oriented thinking here, the book was a source of large amounts of harm to me personally. Someone gave it to my mother in a time of need, and she became religious largely because of it, which was the cause of some very negative results throughout my childhood.

FWIW, she's better now (as am I)

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It would be a grave injustice to tar him with the same brush as some of the irrational religous posters and even worse the intellectually dishonest ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. The reasoning in 'Mere Christianity' is awful and, yes, I would say intelletually dishonest. But it is very well written and extremely persuasive to someone without much experience with well constructed fallacies.

I have to admit bias here and possibly even results-oriented thinking here, the book was a source of large amounts of harm to me personally. Someone gave it to my mother in a time of need, and she became religious largely because of it, which was the cause of some very negative results throughout my childhood.

FWIW, she's better now (as am I)

[/ QUOTE ]
I've never read 'mere christianity' but have just had a quick read on the web and it looks pretty clearly written drivel to me.

I'm not defending Lewis' arguments but pointing out that he makes his arguments clearly. I think he expected his audience to try to understand the arguments and think about what was being said, not just believe what he said the conclusions were.

To be kind I'll suggest that not much should be expected of radio lectures during the war but if much of the rest of his work is of this standard then I retract my defense.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I retract my defense


[/ QUOTE ]

And you were doing so well up to now. What a shame.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I retract my defense


[/ QUOTE ]

And you were doing so well up to now. What a shame.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll defend screwtape and many of his ethical arguments. Hopefully 'mere christianity' is an anomaly and the rest of his work is of a higher standard.

edit: as I said it was just a very very quick read, but it does look very poor.

chez

[madnak]

Screwtape is definitely the most entertaining. Most of the inspirational stuff is more similar to MC. And is more preachy. Personally, I think Screwtape is extremely preachy, just "in reverse." But it was a lot of fun to read, however awful.

To be fair, I rarely base my opinion on the quality of writing. So long as it communicates the point effectively with a relatively small number of errors, I'm not overly concerned with style. I also don't understand poetry, and I don't listen to music. So it may be that I am oblivious to the merits of Lewis's work.

But based on my criteria of evaluation, he's awful.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So it may be that I am oblivious to the merits of Lewis's work.


[/ QUOTE ]

Lewis was a master at what might be called prose poetry. He loved a form of expression which he called "myth" but he didn't mean it in the common way. By myth he meant a kind of super metaphor, a figure of speech that says far more than any discursive predication can convey, or at least says it in a different way. He sometimes called Christianity a true myth, a myth that really happened.

It may be that you have to be a Christian to really get the depth of Lewis' figures. They are incredibly powerful, sometmes overwhelmingly so, and some of them have impacted my life in a way nothing else has except the Bible. His images surpass those of his own heroes, people like Homer and Milton, but not for the beauty of the poetry.

I guess I can see how a non-Christian would not get this and much of his work would seem dull and lifeless. He was an expert logician but did not often rely on logic alone. He was a literature professor and no doubt the language of literature was far more important to him than logic.

[madnak]

Hmm. Then it makes sense that I wouldn't appreciate him.

I enjoy Narnia, however, although in places it can be extremely disturbing and dissonant. I don't think Lewis saw the world in the way that I do. I don't think he can even be said to have lived in the same world I do.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think he can even be said to have lived in the same world I do.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's a very good observation. Lewis had a great contempt for the attitude that this world is all there is. At a very early age he experienced what he later called "Joy", a concept far greater than the ordinary meaning of the word. Much of his life was the pursuit of the source of joy - and he believed that source was only dimly reflected in this world.

[MidGe]

So he denied the real world, in favour of his hallucinations?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So he denied the real world, in favour of his hallucinations?


[/ QUOTE ]


I keep hoping you're the hallucination. Any chance?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So he denied the real world, in favour of his hallucinations?


[/ QUOTE ]


I keep hoping you're the hallucination. Any chance?

[/ QUOTE ]

I see you don'tike my use of the word hallucination. Could I rephrase it, for your benefit, as "he choose subjectivity over objectivity".

[JMP300z]

I will do this by posting summary and thoughts as I read to keep things straight.

Chapter 1: The Law of Human Nature.

Lewis makes assumptions of human behavior that I do not believe are accurate. He sites people appealing to others codes within arguments, and appealing to a standard of fairness. This of course happens, however it is not the whole story. A reason for appealing to the others standards is that it is much easier to diffuse the situation and thus save the effort of fighting. Often times though, people do try to get others to see things their way and dont back down. When this happens a real fight ensues, or both sides leave unchanged w/ nothing solved. This is how I see human relations working with regards to what Lewis is discussing. Lewis seems to only see half of it.

That said, it really bothers me that Lewis calls this a Law of human interaction, a natural law. He compares this law to gravity and biological laws of organisms but refers to it as mans law. A law of right and wrong. A Law that we may chose to disobey. A law that in fact everyone disobeys. WHY then is it a law? He says man is subject to many different laws but this is the only one he is free to disobey (thereby destroying the statement that it is a law similar to gravity).

He goes on to state that odd individuals here or there do not know it but it is natural (untaught). His use of the Nazis really really irks me. As a jew, im sensitive to the statement that the Nazis knew at the bottom of their heart what they were doing was wrong. I do not disagree that there were some who were just following orders. But i think it also much more likely that the society they lived in and what they were taught led them to believe that treating jewish people (among others) like [censored] and killing them was not only right but their obligation. This would seem to me that they were TAUGHT the wrong "law of right and wrong" and thus confirm that what is right and wrong is not natural but learned.

He claims that all societies have had the same moralities. OR at least no major differences. The word Slavery jumps to mind. Since Mesopotamia there has been slavery. Then again there still is some forms of slavery even here in the us w/ illegal immigrants so maybe Lewis does have a point, just the wrong one. The Egyptions, babylonians, hindus, chinese, greeks and romans, why many of these societies had many slaves. I dont know the exact figure but I know ive read from several sources that over half the roman population consisted of slaves. I can also say with some confidence that Ancient Greece had a large slave population. Egyptians most definitely enslaved many (jews among others) and went on raids. The point being that in these societies slaves were not treated as equals in most cases. I guess im off on a tangent here because Lewis seems to be talking at least immediately about Selfishness not being admired. However, was it not admired to own many slaves, or to have killed many enemies in battle, or to have many mistresses? In todays capitalist world, there is much admired about selfishness (as well as selflessness).

He goes on to talk about people saying they dont believe in a real right or wrong but appealing to int a minute later or a nation breaking treaties. This is SELFISHNESS in action. You are giving examples of SELFISHNESS not MORALITY.

"People are sometimes mistaken on right and wrong" Ugh understatement. "but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than multiplication tables". Got me confused.

"if we do not believe in decent behavior, why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently"
-Maybe because noone likes to have people angry at them? Maybe because we are social beings that depend on eachother for survival, being an outcast aint in our best interest. There are plenty of times ive apologized, let alone made excuses (common) for things I did not think were wrong only to diffuse the situation or move on.

People do not like to break rules and be unfair to others mainly because they would like others to be the same towards them. This does not guarentee anything, this is just wishful thinking.

Example: I do not steal from people (very often, I probably have stolen some minor things in my life).
Why: Because I am not desperate. Now, even further, because its against the man made laws/rules and I would be punished of caught. Being punished for something is not in my best interest. Now even more reasons, I do not steal from others because I do not want others to steal from me. Upholding the man made law of do not steal is good because it protects my goods, my interests. This is basic social human interaction. I do not NOT steal because of some innate sense of right and wrong although I have been "told" that stealing is wrong since I was a little kid and have not seen a great amount of theft to set it as an example for me. It was taught, it was learned, and it is a matter of being selfish is my point.

The last paragraph sums up how rediculous this chapter has been.

"First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they outght to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the law of nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in."

Are you serious lewis.

Coincide these facts as clear thinking??!?!

Law of right and wrong that we cannot get rid of?
We break it?

-JP

ON to ch 2.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Could I rephrase it, for your benefit, as "he choose subjectivity over objectivity".


[/ QUOTE ]

Lewis totally rejected this idea. In his sf novel, "That Hideous Strength", he lampoons Berkely and solipsism.

What he meant was that if God is the Creator of everything else, He is more "real" than His creation.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

He sites people appealing to others codes within arguments, and appealing to a standard of fairness.


[/ QUOTE ]

The point he was making is that it makes no sense to say there are no standards and then appeal to a standard. The fact that people say something is "wrong" is evidence that they believe in genuine right and wrong.

[ QUOTE ]

That said, it really bothers me that Lewis calls this a Law of human interaction, a natural law.


[/ QUOTE ]

He was being somewhat archaic. That's what natural law meant until modern times.

[ QUOTE ]

WHY then is it a law?


[/ QUOTE ]

His point is it isn't a law in the same sense of the law of gravity. The law of gravity is just a statement of what we observe happens. The moral law is a norm, what ought to be, rather than what is.

[ QUOTE ]

His use of the Nazis


[/ QUOTE ]

As I remember it his point about the Nazis is it makes no sense to say they were "wrong" if there's no moral law. They may need to be defeated for survival reasons, but it's unintelligible to say they are wrong unless right and wrong are real ideas.

[ QUOTE ]

He claims that all societies have had the same moralities


[/ QUOTE ]

This is something of a weakness in the book. His main point is that all societies have some fundamental moral rules, and at bottom there are more similarities than differences. I think he's right but he didn't express it fully. I remember one point he made concerning marriage. Different societies have different rules about marriage, but all societies have some regulation - none that have lasted allowed total promiscuity.

[ QUOTE ]

This is SELFISHNESS in action. You are giving examples of SELFISHNESS not MORALITY.


[/ QUOTE ]

But his point is that selfishness is immoral, and considered such by the person acting selfishly.

[ QUOTE ]

Law of right and wrong that we cannot get rid of?
We break it?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think the passage you quoted is brilliant and right on point. All of the examples he gave were to show that people really do believe in right and wrong, and everyone breaks their own moral code. The Book of Romans states this clearly and experience confirms it regularly.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
What he meant was that <u>IF</u> God is the Creator of everything else, He is more "real" than His creation.

[/ QUOTE ]


I am glad that is conceded. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

OTOH, rather than the world as it is, he pursue his reaction (or its origin) to it which he terms "joy". Seems very subjective to me, regardless of what he says in his other books. Maybe another pointer to the internal incoherence of his position.

[JMP300z]

Notready,

How can Lewis be arguing for a common morality that all societies have, yet is different throughout time and has changed/grown. How can he be arguing for a sense of right and wrong that not everyone has and that is DRASTICALLY different within two different societies? He claims at one point that it is a matter of "facts," that these differences stem from facts of the lifetimes that they were in. Thats fine with me, he seems to be proving my point that this inherent right and wrong is not a real thing. At best it is a loosely assumed fluid thing based on nothing more than how Lewis WANTS to view people.

That said, I DO have beliefs about what is right and what is wrong for me to do. I believe these "beliefs" stem from many roots. Parental teaching, household rules, school rules, government rules etc As well as a sense of self preservation that believes my comfort levels depend on others treating me well. So yes, I believe in right and wrong.

I have read a few more chapters and see that Lewis goes back on what he was talking about and seems to speak against his own writing, confirming and deflecting criticisms similar to mine by changing his definitions.

As such, I feel that my effort working through his first chapter was kind of a waste as the whole first chapter was kind of a waste. Despite this, I will read on and continue to revisit earlier chapters for discussion one at a time.

-JP

[JMP300z]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

He sites people appealing to others codes within arguments, and appealing to a standard of fairness.


[/ QUOTE ]

The point he was making is that it makes no sense to say there are no standards and then appeal to a standard. The fact that people say something is "wrong" is evidence that they believe in genuine right and wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

Im glad you can repeat what Lewis said. However, I gave several reasons why you might say something is "wrong" yet still not believe it to be wrong. The fact that people say something is wrong is by no means proof in a geniune right and wrong, merely a relative right and wrong.

-JP

[JMP300z]

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]

That said, it really bothers me that Lewis calls this a Law of human interaction, a natural law.


[/ QUOTE ]

He was being somewhat archaic. That's what natural law meant until modern times.

[ QUOTE ]

WHY then is it a law?


[/ QUOTE ]

His point is it isn't a law in the same sense of the law of gravity. The law of gravity is just a statement of what we observe happens. The moral law is a norm, what ought to be, rather than what is.


[/ QUOTE ]

He certainly is misleading then by comparing it directly and consistently to gravity. (As well as mathematics and biology).

-JP

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Thats fine with me, he seems to be proving my point that this inherent right and wrong is not a real thing.


[/ QUOTE ]

The first part of MC is just a presentation of the Moral Theistic Proof. There's nothing really new, just that Lewis presented it in a non-academic way. The entire main point is that an objective standard of morality exists and that most people act as if it's true even if they deny it. I think he showed this very well.

[ QUOTE ]

I believe these "beliefs" stem from many roots.


[/ QUOTE ]

He dealt with the answer that morality is mere convention. The fact we are taught morality doesn't make it conventional any more than the fact we are taught math makes math conventional.

[ QUOTE ]

I have read a few more chapters and see that Lewis goes back on what he was talking about and seems to speak against his own writing,


[/ QUOTE ]

How so? Be specific please.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The fact that people say something is wrong is by no means proof in a geniune right and wrong, merely a relative right and wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

The point he was making is that people believe in a genuine right and wrong even when they say they don't. Otherwise they are complete hypocrites because they appeal to objective right and wrong when they believe they have suffered an injustice.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

He certainly is misleading then by comparing it directly and consistently to gravity. (As well as mathematics and biology).


[/ QUOTE ]

He wasn't being misleading. He was simply showing that the word law is used in different ways and that the moral law is not the same kind of law as laws of science. This is the opposite of being misleading - he was attempting to clarify.

[JMP300z]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

His use of the Nazis


[/ QUOTE ]

As I remember it his point about the Nazis is it makes no sense to say they were "wrong" if there's no moral law. They may need to be defeated for survival reasons, but it's unintelligible to say they are wrong unless right and wrong are real ideas.


[/ QUOTE ]

I fail to see the point to this example then.

-JP

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I fail to see the point to this example then.


[/ QUOTE ]

The point is, if objective moral law doesn't exist why say the Nazis were wrong? Saying they were wrong assumes right and wrong. So how can you say there's no such thing as morality and at the same time say the Nazis were wrong?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
The point he was making is that it makes no sense to say there are no standards and then appeal to a standard. The fact that people say something is "wrong" is evidence that they believe in genuine right and wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. It could mean that they are using a relative or preferential moral code. It could also mean that they're using appropriate socially-constructed terms. And it may mean only that it "doesn't feel right."

I can recognize that something "just feels wrong" to me, without trying to place that inside any objective or absolute context. Likewise, I know for a fact that some things that feel wrong to me do not feel wrong to others, and some things that feel wrong to others do not feel wrong to me. An example of what feels wrong to me and not you is CS Lewis's style of communication. And example of what feels wrong to you and not to me? Probably any number of sexual desires.

[ QUOTE ]
As I remember it his point about the Nazis is it makes no sense to say they were "wrong" if there's no moral law. They may need to be defeated for survival reasons, but it's unintelligible to say they are wrong unless right and wrong are real ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you draw implications that aren't there. Of course there's an idea of right and wrong. That doesn't indicate that it's anything more than an idea.

[ QUOTE ]
This is something of a weakness in the book. His main point is that all societies have some fundamental moral rules, and at bottom there are more similarities than differences. I think he's right but he didn't express it fully. I remember one point he made concerning marriage. Different societies have different rules about marriage, but all societies have some regulation - none that have lasted allowed total promiscuity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Somewhat of a weakness in the first chapter, you mean?

More similarities than differences? According to what standard? Different societies (even in the same geographical areas) have often had radically different values. Compare the Tibetans of recent centuries with the Native Americans of the Pacific Northwest with the Mayans with the Vikings with the Egyptians. More similarities than differences? Not only that, Lewis throws it out as an accepted truth. He's not just arguing the idea that cultures are more similar than distant, he basically says straight out that the values of all societies are identical. This is clearly a false statement.

"None that have lasted" is interesting as it excludes most societies that developed naturally. So is your definition of "society," since it excludes (for instance) various communal groups that exist in the United States today. And you would have a very hard time suggesting that there is no "big society" today where promiscuity is accepted. Have you ever left the US? There are many places where promiscuity (particularly among men) is accepted or even encouraged. Amsterdam, Quebec, and various South American countries come to mind.

[ QUOTE ]
But his point is that selfishness is immoral, and considered such by the person acting selfishly.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the contrary. Most "bad people" have extensive justifications for their actions, and seem to really believe they are in the right. You can suggest that "deep down" they really know they aren't, but you can suggest that of anyone about anything. The fact is your typical selfish person actually considers himself generous! As a matter of fact, the vast majority of people consider themselves more generous than average.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the passage you quoted is brilliant and right on point. All of the examples he gave were to show that people really do believe in right and wrong, and everyone breaks their own moral code. The Book of Romans states this clearly and experience confirms it regularly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe in right and wrong. Did I just destroy the foundation of Lewis's work? Or do I really believe in right and wrong, I just don't know it?

[JMP300z]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I fail to see the point to this example then.


[/ QUOTE ]

The point is, if objective moral law doesn't exist why say the Nazis were wrong? Saying they were wrong assumes right and wrong. So how can you say there's no such thing as morality and at the same time say the Nazis were wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Objective has nothing to do with it. That is my point. The Nazis would have called what they were doing right and jewish people being alive wrong. What does this mean? Merely that morality is very subjective.

-JP

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Most "bad people" have extensive justifications for their actions, and seem to really believe they are in the right


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't believe in right and wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

So what's a bad person?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Merely that morality is very subjective.


[/ QUOTE ]

So you don't believe the Nazis were wrong?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
So what's a bad person?

[/ QUOTE ]

A hater, of others (gays, jews, atheists, insert whatever you want for others).

One that tries to dominate others by forcing them to change their behaviours to suits his/her view of appropriateness.

Last, but not least, one that uses terror (the threat of eternal punishment for instance) as a means to gain adherents.

[JMP300z]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Merely that morality is very subjective.


[/ QUOTE ]

So you don't believe the Nazis were wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

UHMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmm.

Maybe I should state the obvious.

From my point of view they were extremely utterly completely all the way to the negative on my sliding scale of relative right and wrong.

-JP

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

A hater, of others


[/ QUOTE ]

So you agree with Lewis that morality is objective?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

From my point of view they were extremely utterly completely all the way to the negative on my sliding scale of relative right and wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you're a Jew they felt the same about you. So might makes right?

[JMP300z]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

From my point of view they were extremely utterly completely all the way to the negative on my sliding scale of relative right and wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you're a Jew they felt the same about you. So might makes right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I fail to understand "might makes right". They threatened my existence pretty clearly therefore, to me, they are wrong. To other nazis, they probably are right.

-JP

[JMP300z]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

A hater, of others


[/ QUOTE ]

So you agree with Lewis that morality is objective?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just thought you should know:
1.
1. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
2. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
2. Moodily introspective.
3. Existing only in the mind; illusory.
4. Psychology. Existing only within the experiencer's mind.
5. Medicine. Of, relating to, or designating a symptom or condition perceived by the patient and not by the examiner.
6. Expressing or bringing into prominence the individuality of the artist or author.
7. Grammar. Relating to or being the nominative case.
8. Relating to the real nature of something; essential.

-JP

Edit: thats the def of subjective via dictionary.com in case it wasnt apparent.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

A hater, of others


[/ QUOTE ]

So you agree with Lewis that morality is objective?

[/ QUOTE ]

No I agree, if Lewis agrees to this, that haters of others, dominating personalities and people that use terror or threats to convince people to adopt their beliefs, are all immoral and a danger to society.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I fail to understand "might makes right". They threatened my existence pretty clearly therefore, to me, they are wrong. To other nazis, they probably are right.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you really believe that Lewis doesn't have anything else to say to you. I believe the only reason we don't destroy ourselves is because God doesn't let us remain true to ideas like the relativity of morality.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe the only reason we don't destroy ourselves is because God doesn't let us remain true to ideas like the relativity of morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I believe that the only reason we don't destroy ourselves is that we are qualitatively different from your god concept, in as much as we can experience compassion.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I fail to see the point to this example then.


[/ QUOTE ]

The point is, if objective moral law doesn't exist why say the Nazis were wrong? Saying they were wrong assumes right and wrong. So how can you say there's no such thing as morality and at the same time say the Nazis were wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Objective has nothing to do with it. That is my point. The Nazis would have called what they were doing right and jewish people being alive wrong. What does this mean? Merely that morality is very subjective.

-JP

[/ QUOTE ]
The weakness in the argument is fundemental. Even if everyone agreed on some standard of morality it doesn't mean morality is objective anymore than if everyone agreed that something is funny it means that humour is objective.

It would just mean humans are similar, which they are in many respects even thought they don't always agree about morality or humour.

chez

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
So what's a bad person?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on how you define bad. I don't believe there is anything fundamentally "wrong" or "bad" about Nazis or serial killers or the bogeyman. I think they are bad in various senses of the term, according to my subjective criteria for valuation.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Even if everyone agreed on some standard of morality it doesn't mean morality is objective anymore than if everyone agreed that something is funny it means that humour is objective.


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say morality is objective because everyone agreed. Morality would be objective even if no one agreed, just as 2+2=4 even if no one agreed.

If morality isn't objective there is no ought. The Nazis did nothing wrong. Don't blame them, just kill them if you can. If they win, you have no moral complaint any more than you do if you get killed by a wild animal.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I think they are bad in various senses of the term, according to my subjective criteria for valuation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Which they disagree with so that might makes right. The only question is who has the biggest gun.

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Even if everyone agreed on some standard of morality it doesn't mean morality is objective anymore than if everyone agreed that something is funny it means that humour is objective.


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say morality is objective because everyone agreed. Morality would be objective even if no one agreed, just as 2+2=4 even if no one agreed.

If morality isn't objective there is no ought. The Nazis did nothing wrong. Don't blame them, just kill them if you can. If they win, you have no moral complaint any more than you do if you get killed by a wild animal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes there was a wrong, just not an absolute one. If the whole world had gone Nazi except for the Jews, no wrong would have been done -- horrific as that sounds. Thankfully there were more powerful nations with a better idea of humanity who could impose this idea on the Nazis.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

better idea of humanity


[/ QUOTE ]

Better by whose standard? Not the Nazis.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Even if everyone agreed on some standard of morality it doesn't mean morality is objective anymore than if everyone agreed that something is funny it means that humour is objective.


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say morality is objective because everyone agreed. Morality would be objective even if no one agreed, just as 2+2=4 even if no one agreed.

If morality isn't objective there is no ought. The Nazis did nothing wrong. Don't blame them, just kill them if you can. If they win, you have no moral complaint any more than you do if you get killed by a wild animal.

[/ QUOTE ]
Morality could be objective or subjective whether or not people agreed. Its simple irrelevent.

and the same with 'ought', subjective 'oughts' can exist with subjective morality. Objective 'ought' is meaningless without god and arguably meaningless even with a god.

chez

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Which they disagree with so that might makes right. The only question is who has the biggest gun.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't follow, but regardless Lewis claims that all people follow the same exact moral system. That's absurd and it's the point I'm currently arguing. Lewis really had no justification for saying that.

[BradyC]

[ QUOTE ]
Lewis claims that all people follow the same exact moral system.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's been awhile since I've read the book, but I'm pretty sure he didn't believe they followed the exact same moral system.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Lewis claims that all people follow the same exact moral system.


[/ QUOTE ]

Where did he say that?

[madnak]

Sorry, believed in, not followed. Obviously Hitler didn't follow the moral code. But unless my memory is very far off the mark, he did suggest that when Hitler did "bad things" he "knew" he was sinning, because we all know "deep down" what is right and wrong.

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

better idea of humanity


[/ QUOTE ]

Better by whose standard? Not the Nazis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mine. That's all I can be sure of, at least.