Mere Christianity

In one of his best known works, Lewis takes a closer look into Christianity and some of its claims. In his preface, lewis inquires into what people mean by the word Christian. He believe that when non-believe call a person a Christian, they mean to say "they think him a good man" (though not all non-believer think a believer to be good, as a matter of fact, over the past couple of decades the word Christians has had negative connotation). As I previously stated in class, the nation of a Christian being good is simply incorrect because the very idea of a Christians means a person who understands how un-good he is. I am a believer in Christ Jesus not because I believe myself to posses any good beyond other people. Upon coming to faith, I did not approach God and de-clear myself a good man who needed saving, but rather a sinner in need of His grace.

In his first chapter, Lewis tackles the law of human nature. As he stated, there is a law by which all people expect other to live. This law, is a law that we know exist, we know they are good laws and we feel its importance when some one breaks them in an act against us. This Laws, as Lewis mentioned, are clearly expressed by people when they are wronged. With phrases such as 'How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?' or 'thats my seat, i was there first,' people express their knowledge of how others should act toward one their fellow men. As it follows, If there were no such laws (written down or in our hearts) there would be no basis in saying Hitler and the Nazis were wrong for killing all the jews. It would also follow, that, for a law to be wrong, there must be an opposite, which is right.

Some have objected to natural law by saying that all laws were man made. they follow up their statement by claiming there not being such things as right or wrong. It would not be surprising, however, to find the same man shouting at you when you do something he deems unfair. Now, If one was to follow such a persons logic (that there is no right or wrong) it would follow that it is not logical for the person to cry foul when any 'wrong' is done to him/her because he has no basis to do so under his believes. This is just the point Lewis makes, no one can live consistently thinking there is no right or wrong. At the moment wrong is done to them, they recognize the law of nature they so want to reject. No person at the time of the nazis regime, who looks in the face of dying Jews, would claim there not being such a thing as right or wrong. If this were ever the case, I would suggest the person be put in the same position as the jews and then see if he could continue to hold his position.

Regarding natural law, the reason for the law could not be found within the law itself. To find that out, one would have to look for the answer from the source of the law. Suppose I am able to make a law about my house and I make a law declaring all people forbidding to come within 300 feet of my house at any point, unless they notified me an hour before their coming. The reason for making this law is not within the law itself because the law says nothing about why I made the law, all the law says is that it exist. For all a person knows, I could have made the law because I have snakes that like to hide within my grass and attack any person that come within 300 feet and it so happens that I have to press a bottom which opens a trap door, leaving my grass free of snakes. Of cause, this would be the reason for the law but a person wouldn't know this unless they inquired of me (the source of the law) as to why I have such a law. It follows then, that any moral law made could not give a reason for it existence, to find that, one would have to ask the law maker.

Chapter four of Mere Christianity deals with an issue that I have being exploring for a while. That is, the authority science has in claiming the existence or non-existence of a creator. My conclusion (as well as Lewis's) is that science has no basis for ever making such a claim. Further, science can never make a claim against any biblical passages. The reason for this is simple, science can only make claims based on empirical evidences. science can tell us that there are things but it cannot tell us how those things got there. It is not logical to say that the universe came about through the big bang and then conclude that there is no God or that the bible is false. The claim of the big bang just says that something happened but it doesn't answer how it happened, and of cause it doesn't because it can't.