Praised as a first rate apologist for Christianity, C.S. Lewis is author of Mere Christianity, among other religious and fictional books. Lewis is often mentioned favorably by Charles Colson. I remember hearing about him in high school, often, by Campus Life/Youth for Christ students and adult reps. I finally read the book, and it was a tremendous letdown! I thought surely, with all the good reports, this would be a challenging read, but it wasn't.

I am limiting my comments strictly to the question of god's existence. Mere Christianity is Lewis' argument, first, for theism, and second, for Christianity.

Lewis begins by presenting "Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe". Right and wrong are matters of interpersonal communication; quarrelling, behavior, and politics are given as examples (p. 17, 18 ( section 1, chap. 1, paragraphs 1, 2, 5, and 7)). He then says right and wrong is a "law".

The argument to justify this pronouncement can be summarized as:
1)the differences between different societies view of right and wrong are "not really very great" (p.24( section 1, chap. 2, paragraph 7))
2) all the same, the differences are great enough to measure (p.25 ( section 1, chap. 2, paragraph 7 continues))
3)if you measure differences, you measure them against a standard, the standard is "Real Morality", a real law.

Why are morals and ethics different from other standards or laws? If we make our laws without supernatural aid why is such aid needed for the behavior of making rules or standards for social conduct? Is moral behavior such a different kind of behavior then, say, politics? His argument rests on the assumption that moral behaviors...making or enforcing such morals...is different from other kind of behaviors, that the difference is obvious, and that the obvious difference is why a supernatural lawgiver is needed. I don't think this is borne out.

I'd argue that morality is really just buying and selling. For example, I don't steal because the cost associated with stealing is high to me. Someone else may sell themselves out to theft for a lower price and not be bothered. A reader may think I'm someone who "needs killin'" but not act on that feeling because the price society puts on killin' is too high. I'd argue that the victim of a "victimless crime" is society as a whole and the question for society is how much can we afford as a society to give extra rights that only a relatively few people will take advantage of?

No, ethics are not an out of this world invention, the are man-made and useful and will change based on use and price.

Morality is what holds society together, a set of common expectations that we expect others to follow, and which we attempt to follow. If morality, as a function of society building, were god given and spirit-mediated, how would creatures as diverse as ants, bees, schooling fish, apes, dolphins, and people develop social structures, unless they have souls to communicate with god? If all creatures have a soul, then why are there amoral social behaviors in the non-human animal kingdom: for example ants enslaving other insect colonies?

Chapters three, four, and five are supposed to validate the reality of a supernatural law of right and wrong. I did not see any validation, and will only offer these few statements: Adam Smith explained unselfish behavior that doesn't pay direct benefits quite well, as did Masloff with the "needs hierarchy"; nature is predictable; mind is a function of brain; the universe is knowable in predictable and natural, not supernatural spirit-mediated, laws.

Lewis generalizes, if a law exists, a law-giver exists. Thus, Lewis proves, at least to himself, a god exists. Lewis goes on from this beginning in "Right and Wrong..." to explain "What Christians Believe" and what "Christian Behavior" should be. It is in the first chapter of this third section (Christian Behavior), that Lewis writes on morality that "we can all co-operate in...relations between man and man" ( p.73 ( section 3, chapter 1, paragraph 10)). This quote is not out of context. If we can all cooperate in deciding what morality is (again, I say it's economics) then why do we need an eternal moral referent? Even Lewis here shows his argument that morality somehow can't be without a god to dictate or embody it is worthless since he admits we can all agree on what morality is. If the reader disagrees with my on equating morality and economics that doesn't change the fact that Lewis undercuts his own argument.

Don't do what I did, don't buy the book. Despite the hoopla, it's not worth your money. Borrow this one from your library, you'll never need it again.

Page numbers from the 1996 paperback edition from Touchstone. Section, chapter, and paragraph information provided for other editions.

Send comments, criticisms, or help with sentence structure to me.

Notes:
The realization that morality is a problem of economics hit me while reading The Case for Faith.
"Moral referent" is a phrase I first read in the work of Evengelical Christian apologists Bob and Gretchen Passantino.
See "The Economics of Fair Play" by Karl Sigmund, Ernst Fehr, and Martin A. Nowak in Scientific American for January 2002.

Last update: 2/14/02