C. S. Lewis

Below is an essay I wrote for my Engl 106 class in Purdue.

Basically, we read "Mere Christianity" and was told what we thought about it. After I handed in the essay, I was accused of cheating and engaging in plagiarizing. I asked the prof where she though I stole from... she said she had no clue. She also did not want to read my high school essays to compare.

She also said it was something a professional writer would write. =/

I think she was just angry cause I took some shots at religion... while if you read carefully, I was just attacking CS Lewis, not religion itself.

So here it is... take a look.

(It has grammar errors and such that I did not edit)

Jung Kim
Lewis Response Assignment
English 106
March 17, 2009

Summary:
The “Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe” remarks not only on the Law of Human Nature, Right and Wrong, and the Moral law, but also articulates how Materialists and the Religious interpret such ideals and how one should expect from each of them. As C.S. Lewis introduces each ideal, he is careful to build up a logical structure that humans do not invent the above ideals, but are rather driven by it. The driver in this case is a Director, a Guide, a Matter, or a God. Yet, God is not reflected in a favorable light; God in Christianity is propagated as quote, “hard as nails,” and “tells you the straight thing and it does not seem to care how painful, or dangerous, or difficult it is to do.”
However, C. S. Lewis does not want to present God in a “religious jaw.” The foundation for his argument for God and Christianity is built up from explaining how the Law of Human Nature functions. Law of Human Nature is explained as the sense of right and wrong which is an instinct that has been implanted, not something that needs to be learned. Yet, mankind is able to disobey these laws unlike the laws of nature which deals with hard science components. Lewis goes to say everybody has an opinion about everything. In the general public, the opinion may be right, may be wrong, but in the end, it’s the person who makes the call whether it is right or wrong. On the flip side, because there are no set terms on what the Laws are, people will bend it, braid it, and swivel it to make excuses as to why they did something wrong knowingly.
Likewise with the Law of Human Nature, C.S. Lewis uses the notion that the Moral Law is just another herd instinct. It is also another law where it does not have to be obeyed. He brings up the law of gravity where the stone will always fall, but everyone else other than the stone did not know of its real intent. The Moral Law is what one is ought to do not, what one had intended to do. This then translates into Lewis’ claim that science observes the after effects, not the intent. By observing from the outside, one is not able to identify such Moral Laws, however because we are men, we know.
The observations and interpretations of the Law of Human Nature, Right and Wrong, and the Moral law are divided into two factions. The Materialist and the Religious are introduced as two views that were held for a very long time and that the other hasn’t gradually taken its place. Whenever thinking men are involved both views are always brought up. Yet, science cannot prove or disprove God because of the fact that scientists are only noting the after effects. No matter how advanced science may become, even if it knew every single thing in the whole universe, the question of why would still exist. In the end, real scientists do not make either claim; rather it’s the journalists and popular novelists who instigate the debate.
The debate, according to Lewis, is settled by stating that quote, “a Something is which is directing the universe, and which appears in me as a law urging me to do right and making me feel responsible and uncomfortable when I do wrong.” The Something does not necessarily have to be alive, rather it could be just matter. He does not intentionally state the Something or Someone is from the Bible or the Churches. The two proofs of this Someone is based upon the creation of universe and the Moral Law which He has put into mankind.
Analysis and Evaluation:
C. S. Lewis makes a very structured sequence of arguments and logical expressions to prove his point, yet at times his logic skips over other possibilities. The logical structure of his writing also gives a very easy step by step understanding to the user while at the same time, Lewis is able to implant his ideas right to the point. He makes sure his ideas are not taken lightly by understanding a casual reader’s prejudice such as him pointing out the “Religious Jaws” of texts. However, he also abuses the idea that general population all thinks the same. In addition, he sets up situations where there is only one possible outcome out of a certain situation, even though it is very well possible if there was even a slight variation, the outcome would certainly be different.
The outcome of his five chapters is that God exists. He starts this conclusion off by commenting on the Law of Human Nature. How people define it, how people should define it, and how people respond to it. He first gives examples of how people define standards of human nature. “Leave him alone, he isn’t doing you any harm.” – “Come on, you promised.” The quotes that he uses in the very first paragraph give the reader an immediate understanding of the subject that C.S. Lewis dives into. Then he goes to explain what he exactly meant by the examples. As such in this case, these quotes were used to personify the expectation of standards of the educated, the uneducated, and the children as well as grown-ups. He then uses this as a foundation to build up to his argument that people expect others to have an agreement of what Right and Wrong are.
As his arguments are built up, he raises counter arguments for his own gain. Chapter two of C.S. Lewis’ work is even titled “Some Objections.” The objection to morality being instinct is encouraged yet, at the same time, Lewis states it’s actually not instinct; Moral Law is what judges which instinct is right. He creates his own tug-of-war in his writing, but in the end, all the kinks and wrinkles are smoothed out to expose the reader what his argument is and how it is fool proof.
Once his foundation is fully solidified, he goes on to build more and more on top of it. Yet, the foundations are shaky when he goes on to abuse certain prejudices. In his conclusion Lewis states the only thing mankind can do when they need to be let off, or made an exception, we would turn to God. This is not true, for example, a Materialist, one who does not believe in such religious ideals, would not turn to God because God simply does not exist. God is not the only answer for him. He also assumes all Materialist would have to believe in some sort of standard for human being, and there for they must believe in God. This is a nice step by step approach, but if a Materialist doesn’t believe in a standard, then what?
It is one thing to assume certain people believe in certain morality, it is another to declare everyone will fall under the same shelter. Despite his occasional pure assumptions based on his opinion, C.S. Lewis does use his writing skills amazingly to construct his arguments and wring out the counter arguments. He’s able to pick up what the general audience wants to hear and wants to think. In the end, to the general audience his arguments are entertainable and solid.
Response:
C.S. Lewis constructs excellent and what seems to be a fool proof argument for his idea that there is a power behind everything that humans do. Yet, there is a point in his argument where there seems to be fractures and splinters that he did not fill on. Although he does make a good brick by brick analysis of not only his argument, but also the counter arguments, at one point, he just fills an empty void with a truck load of cement.
The main argument he presents for the reader is that the Law of Human Nature, Right and Wrong, and the Moral Law are not identified by science, there for an external power, God is guiding mankind. Just like observing a stone falling, science can only conclude the stone fell to the ground but not what it ought to do. When others view mankind from the outside, they can only say what we did, not what we ought to do. When humans commit an act outside of their standard protocol, they will come up with an excuse. There for, Lewis concludes only God was able to enact such a ‘force’ behind the Law of Human Nature. He then brought up the materialists. Materialists “think that matter and space just happen to exist, and always have existed, nobody knows why; and that the matter, behaving in certain fixed ways, just happened, by a sort of a fluke, to produce creatures like ourselves who are able to think.” Why can’t the Law of Human Nature follow the exact path?
Why do we prosecute criminals? Why do we war and why do we hold peace? Why is the Nazi ideal so bad? Is this the result of a divine force? Even with Lewis’ logic, there is a deep flaw here. From a materialist point of view, a divine force would not be practical since science can neither prove nor disprove it. The Law of Human Nature could just be passed down from generation to generation of human mistakes their understanding of the consequences. It is as simple as that. Mankind in modern day tries to avoid war at all costs since the costs are extremely high. How do they know the cost is high? World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, and any other conflict would show human lives have been lost, people felt sorrow, politicians lost power, and economies were devastated. Yet, mankind also battles and draws blood even with such past consequences. Economies are boosted, resources are gained, politicians gain power, religion is crushed, and people are converted.
The Law of Human Nature is whatever the human thinks is necessary to preserve themselves, just like any other animal who duels to the death for a mate, humans too duel others to better themselves. A student in a university gets a ‘C’ in a math exam and thinks to himself that he should study harder. Not because there is a divine intervention, but rather because he knows that if he doesn’t get a better grade, he won’t have a good GPA, resulting in less of a chance of getting a job. However, the student decides he’ll study later, puts it off, and goes out partying. He just violated the Law of Human Nature. Yet, at the same time, he probably learned earlier that parties were fun and that it stimulated his brain releasing his happy cells. He still followed the Law of Human Nature.
Lewis then brings up the Moral Law. A law that is given by the example of the question “Why ought I to be unselfish” and our reply is “Because it is good for society,” then a question is asked “Why should I care what’s good for society except when it happens to pay me personally?” and the supposed answer is “Because you ought to be unselfish,” which supposedly goes into a loop. The real answer to “why ought I to be unselfish” could be because it is good for society, but Lewis also asks what if it doesn’t necessarily affect you personally. From past events humans learned that cooperative work will advance mankind further, will protect itself as individuals and as groups. Men have seen the results of such cooperation and they will attempt to replicate it. They have seen that harming others will grow ill feelings towards them and when the tables have turned, there is a good chance they will not help them or even hinder them further. The word “selfish” is a negative word, but it’s only because humans have learned that others will return in favor. There is no “ought to be” something. It’s just what was done because they felt at that time it would benefit them the most.
Another case is such when the Nazi rule, along with their Nazi morality was taken down. The Allies did not attack Nazi Germany because they thought Jews being prosecuted were bad things. They didn’t agree with the Nazi’s policy with the Jews, but they attacked Germany simply because Germany attacked them first for land, not for morals. The United States did not enter a war against Germany; they entered a war against Japan, which the Germans at that time were an ally to the Japanese. The question of morality was not an issue. It was purely for land grabs, purely for political power, and purely for resources. Why did they then prosecute the remaining German leaders for crimes against humanity? The better question was why weren’t the Allies’ war leaders prosecuted for burning whole German and Japanese cities to the ground with women and children? Why wasn’t the United States prosecuted for nuking two major cities, destroying thousands of innocent lives in seconds, and hundreds more for tens of years after? The German leaders were prosecuted because first of all, the Allies could. They named crimes such as the acts committed in concentration camps. The Allies would not prosecute the United States because after the war, the United States was the sole remaining super power shortly before the U.S.S.R settled. You just don’t mess with the bigger guy unless you had something to gain.
The bigger guy, God, in Lewis’ writing, has no relevance to any of the above Laws of Human Nature. As he said, science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. There is no need for God, except in one particular case. When people fall in hard times, they want something to fall back to, something they can plead an excuse with, and something they can just turn their why into answers. This does not prove there is a God. It is something that particular people want, perhaps even need, but how does wanting something just appear? Once these humans follow the Law of Human Nature, it can only be accepted that God was created by man to please these needs and wants. C.S. Lewis is able to build what seems to be a solid foundation for his argument, but in the end, there are seams. He neglects to answer his own questions of why. Why people do the things they do. He puts out one situation with numerous constraints and expects one answer. Yet, the question of why will still remain as in the case of, “why is there a universe?” “Why does it go on as it does?” and “Has it any meaning?” Even if science is fully developed, those questions along with the existence of God will remain, but trying to prove the existence of God with the Law of Human Nature is silly at best.