Mere Christianity - C.S Lewis

[FaithThroughFire]

Hi all,

As the title suggests I'm currently reading C.S Lewis' Mere Christianity.

I am reading over it carefully and taking notes as I go along to ensure I am properly following his logic and argumentation.

I am on chapter 3, and up to this point have agreed with what he has said. However, at the close of this chapter he has lost me a little.

I have reread it several times, but still don't think he does enough to dismiss the argument. Perhaps someone brighter and more acquainted than I with Lewis and such apologetic works could expound for me?

Demonstrated as below what I mean:

Though I agree with Lewis that morality is not a result of Humanities long-sightedness of general - not necessarily direct - benefits from a moral society.

I don't see how his argument of "why ought I be unselfish?" "Because it's good for society." "Well why should I care whats good for society except when it happens to me personally?" Then you have to say because you ought to be unselfish - which simply brings us back to where we started. You are saying what is true, but not getting any further"

I don't agree with his counter argument that the opposing argument folds back on itself this way.

I think it seems obvious that you shouldn't be selfish to benefit society regardless of immediate reward because if everyone plays by the same rules you benefit generally though not directly.

Thanks in advance for any genuine responses.

 

[Lynx]

Hi all,

As the title suggests I'm currently reading C.S Lewis' Mere Christianity.

I am reading over it carefully and taking notes as I go along to ensure I am properly following his logic and argumentation.

I am on chapter 3, and up to this point have agreed with what he has said. However, at the close of this chapter he has lost me a little.

I have reread it several times, but still don't think he does enough to dismiss the argument. Perhaps someone brighter and more acquainted than I with Lewis and such apologetic works could expound for me?

Demonstrated as below what I mean:

Though I agree with Lewis that morality is not a result of Humanities long-sightedness of general - not necessarily direct - benefits from a moral society.

I don't see how his argument of "why ought I be unselfish?" "Because it's good for society." "Well why should I care whats good for society except when it happens to me personally?" Then you have to say because you ought to be unselfish - which simply brings us back to where we started. You are saying what is true, but not getting any further"

I don't agree with his counter argument that the opposing argument folds back on itself this way.

I think it seems obvious that you shouldn't be selfish to benefit society regardless of immediate reward because if everyone plays by the same rules you benefit generally though not directly.

Thanks in advance for any genuine responses.

That's an excellent question, one I have been working on a sermon for. Why should we bother doing all the things good little Christians do? Why should we care?

I will not bore you with the whole sermon. I will only mention two things you should look up. One is a philosophical construct known as the tragedy of the commons. Google it. The other is the two commandments Jesus said are the most important commandments. If we have those, all the other commandments are kept automatically. If we don't have those, we have no real reason to keep all the other commandments, or at least none that outweigh natural human greed.

 

[Lynx]

I will also mention that this is a real question, one that has caused many Christians to give up and leave the church. Why should they bother? Even if there is something in it for them personally, why should they care enough to go through the motions?

A lot of Christians burn out because they realize they don't have a good answer.

 

[p_rehbein]

I think it seems obvious that you shouldn't be selfish to benefit society regardless of immediate reward because if everyone plays by the same rules you benefit generally though not directly.

Jesus teaches that we should be good to our neighbors. We are taught to provide for those who are in need. The early Church "had all things in common." They were anything but selfish. IMO, selfish is a sin born from greed.

(some Scriptures to consider)

• Philippians 2:4 - Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.
• 2 Timothy 3:2-4 - For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy.
• 1 Corinthians 10:24 - Let no man seek his own, but every man another's [wealth].
• Philippians 2:3-4 - [Let] nothing [be done] through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves

 

[FaithThroughFire]

Thank you for your replies, although I should have specified that on this occasion I am not looking for scriptural answers.

I accept the word of God as ultimate truth by which everything else should be measured, however in reading Lewis' book I am trying to follow his framework of argumentation.

Which up to this point, he has deliberately not referenced scripture at all. Only as he argues possible, that by rationally deducing what is clear for anyone to see about human nature and an objective truth revealed in moral law that seems to exist as an influence independent of us.

Therefore to plug his argument with scripture (although true) isn't what I was looking to do


@Lynx on the "tragic of the commons", I have briefly looked this up, thank you, it is interesting. I am wondering however, how you are relating this to Lewis' argument on society? As from what I have read, this is an economical concept concerned with over consumption of finite resources such as fishing. I'd be interested to hear more on your thinking here.

Thanks all.

 

[Lynx]

@Lynx on the "tragic of the commons", I have briefly looked this up, thank you, it is interesting. I am wondering however, how you are relating this to Lewis' argument on society? As from what I have read, this is an economical concept concerned with over consumption of finite resources such as fishing. I'd be interested to hear more on your thinking here.

In the Tragedy of the Commons, the commons is wrecked because everybody has a motive to use it selfishly and nobody has a motive to preserve it. Even if you know the commons is getting wrecked, that just drives you to use it more to get all the value you can for yourself before it is totally wrecked.

Doing all the things good little Christians are supposed to do will make a better society, but why should I care about that? That alone is not enough to make me want to do Christian things, if I don't care enough about the wellbeing of the society around me. And I'm inherently indolent and not inclined to care at all.

For that matter most of the reasons we are given that should make us want to behave as Christians are not really sufficient in themselves.
- Punishment for disobeying? That's far off in the future. Besides, that never worked well for me as a kid anyway.
- Promise that God will take care of me? That falls apart the first time God doesn't do what I think He should do.
- Promise of Heaven? That's far off in the future too. Meanwhile I have this month's rent to worry about, a couple of video games I want to buy and there's a good sale at the store on some things I like a lot. I'll need a better reason than that just to pay tithes, much less give extra money to somebody else I probably don't even know.
- God says we're supposed to be a good influence in this world? What does that profit me?

Most of the reasons we should care are not enough to make us care, when the cares of this life are so loud in our ears.

 

[Eli1]

I've never read C.S. Lewis, but is the Tragedy of Commons a metaphor for finite resources?
Why would we need a metaphor for finite resources when we know resources are finite?
Also what time scales are we talking about here? Because humans have been around for many millennials and it's only in the last century that we've been very good as using natural resources for an ever-increasing global population.

 

[Lynx]

I've never read C.S. Lewis, but is the Tragedy of Commons a metaphor for finite resources?
Why would we need a metaphor for finite resources when we know resources are finite?
Also what time scales are we talking about here? Because humans have been around for many millennials and it's only in the last century that we've been very good as using natural resources for an ever-increasing global population.

Hmm... This thread isn't really supposed to be about the Tragedy of the Commons. I only used that as an illustration.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

It is quite a well-fitting illustration though.

 

[Eli1]

Hmm... This thread isn't really supposed to be about the Tragedy of the Commons. I only used that as an illustration.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

It is quite a well-fitting illustration though.

Sorry, i was mainly watching this thread because i don't have much to say about Lewis since i haven't read him.
This tragedy of commons philosophy seemed interesting to ask a question though.

 

[Lynx]

Sorry, i was mainly watching this thread because i don't have much to say about Lewis since i haven't read him.
This tragedy of commons philosophy seemed interesting to ask a question though.

Well it IS a rather good illustration of why Christians can't find a good reason to do Christian things. From a strictly secular standpoint (which we're not supposed to follow, but we ARE living in this world) it just doesn't make sense to do Christian things.

After all, Christianity is not very logical. Usually the direct OPPOSITE of Christianity is logical for each individual, even if it is obvious that ruin will eventually result.

 

[Eli1]

Well it IS a rather good illustration of why Christians can't find a good reason to do Christian things. From a strictly secular standpoint (which we're not supposed to follow, but we ARE living in this world) it just doesn't make sense to do Christian things.

After all, Christianity is not very logical. Usually the direct OPPOSITE of Christianity is logical for each individual, even if it is obvious that ruin will eventually result.

Interesting, and i don't want to derail your thread here @FaithThroughFire since you have questions related to Lewis' book on chapter 3.
But i think that Christians can do Christian things because they are filled with The Holy Spirit.
How we get to God though, that's as unique as each rain drop that falls from the sky.

You can get to God from science alone, many scientists have done this. You can get to God from reason:
* The universe exists
* The fine tuning argument exists
* Miracles exist
* Jesus Christ was here
You can get to God from a miracle, you can get to God from being inspired by something, maybe you experienced a tragedy ... and the list is quite large i think and unique on HOW we get there.
But once we get there, we do the things we do because we are filled with the Holy Spirit.

 

[FaithThroughFire]

Insightful and interesting stuff, thanks again for taking the time to respond.

I see what you are getting at in the tragedy of the commons relative to someone endeavouring to be Christian, however this is running ahead of Lewis' train of thought.

As he puts it himself "We have not yet got as far as the God of any actual religion, still less the God of that particular religion called Christianity. We have only got as far as a Somebody or Something behind the Moral Law. We are not taking anything from the Bible or the Churches, we are trying to see what we can find out about this Somebody on our own steam. And I want to make it quite clear that what we find out on our own steam is something that gives us a shock..."

To harken back to my original post, Lewis is anticipating a person saying decent behaviour (Moral Law) has come about not by an outside influence (God) but rather as by product of seeking general usefulness/safety/benefits in groups by means of acting a certain way to get the same in return.

Lewis argues that although it's an obvious and great truth that safety and happiness can only come from individuals, classes and nations being honest and fair and kind to each other, but as an explanation for decent behaviour itself, falls short of the mark.

His reason for believing so is as I quoted in the original post, again below for convenience:

["If we ask: why ought I to be unselfish? And you reply because it is good for society, we may then ask why should I care what's good for society except when It happens to pay me personally? And then you will have to say because you ought to be unselfish - which simply brings us back to where we started. You are saying what is true but not getting any further"]

He portrays a sort of circular reasoning at work in this thinking that although true doesn't take us any further in understanding.

I am unable to see how his counter argument is sufficient to dismis the possibility of morality coming about by peoples seeking safety and happiness in large groups by means of acting a certain way to get the same in return.

In my own head, I have been trying to work out why this logically couldn't be the case. So far I have thought that it couldn't be simply because, if moral law didn't precede societies, societies never would have worked.

However I'm not entirely convinced in that either, because if out of selfishness we were kind to others to get the same in return, over time could not something like morality -ironic as it sounds - come from it?

I'll leave that with you good people, that's enough for me for one day lol.