John Kerber's Reviews > Mere Christianity

I was actually really excited to read this book. I am an atheist, a recovering catholic to be specific, and was talking to a Christian friend who suggested I read this book. He hyped it up like “if you read this, you will definitely convert.” Sweet! I love a good logical argument. I had to put this book down after the first part. I can see how someone would see it as a good book, if you already believed the premises and conclusion to begin with.
In case why you are wondering why many people have given this book one star.. Here is my critique of the first book, part by part which I sent to my friend. If you haven't read this book first, you should stop here, read it and come to your own conclusion. I could be wrong in my logic, but this is what I thought as I read through the book.
1. The Law Of Human Nature
In this first part, if I understand right, he first sets up this “law of human nature” that supposed to be universal among humans. He states that this law is universal across all people and cultures, no matter where they might be. It's pretty obvious where he is going with this argument, that there was some “law giver” and it's why human societies have flourished. I don't think that he realizes that he is kind of defeating his argument before it even begins. He states that in every society that exists today, there is some precept of morality. Basic things like “don't kill your neighbor” “don't steal other peoples' stuff” “don't rape” “stand up for what is right” “be nice to others” etc. He says that its because of this law of human nature that these societies flourish and grow. If this is the case, then doesn't it kind of grant to itself that its probably not some supernatural being in the sky that might be the reason they grow? Societies that allow and even admire things like murder, rape, theft, that scorn compassion etc naturally fail to get together and become productive societies. They will probably either destroy themselves. If that is not the case, other more productive societies will most likely destroy them.
As primates, we are pretty social animals. We depend on each other for survival. We just aren't physically equipped to survive on our own. Intelligence is kind of our niche instead. Those of us that don't have a moral sense, or fail to exhibit one, aren't going to be able to join society. Example, if you steal all the time, no one is going to ever trust you or want to hang out with you. You'll have to fend for yourself. I don't know if you've ever observed animals taking care of each other and looking out for each other, but how did they come to know his “Human Nature?“ Animals sacrifice their own bodies for the good of the herd, or colony, or another in need all the time.
So, right from the get go, he seems to ignore any plausible natural explanation for human morality and goes right for the supernatural cause for morality.

2. Some Objections
In this section, he seems to present objections by people who dismiss his “Law of Human Nature.” He states that they just call this human instinct. He then clarifies what he means by is by differentiating between our instinctive “wants” and desires, verses the impulse that basically tells us that we need to do what is right. “Feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not.” Unless I missed it, he seems to give no basis for this statement, besides asserting that it is true. He tries distinguish this difference by saying that the the second one is that one “tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away.” According to him, our instincts are just the smaller components, directed by moral law. Again, he fails to establish a case. Why is it more plausible to assume that all of these instincts to help others, even if its not in our personal self interest, are more likely the products of an independent moral law? Why not just our natural instincts, which help us decide what the right thing to do is, based on the situation. This explanation (naturalistic) can also explain why certain historical figures have responded to moral dilemmas based on their social norms at the time and place they lived in. Lewis says that instincts are separate from moral law, but again he provides no evidence as to why human instincts can not provide an explanation.
The next point he tries to make is that because we can see throughout history there were different moral standards and we can compare them, there must be a greater absolute morality, “Real Morality”. We refer to this subconsciously when we make moral judgments. Otherwise, how would we be able to know whether to act civilized or like barbaric savages right? He just doesn't seem to understand how his argument defeats itself once again. If there really does exist a “real morality” and that source is God (I'm not going to pretend like that's not where he's headed), then why is there any difference in morality in the first place? Why are there situations where we can compare the morality of say, the Nazi's to liberal morality? I have a feeling he would answer answer this by saying “free will.” (ie All people are aware of this higher morality but some choose to ignore it for self gain). I think that this is a cheap cop-out to put it nicely. What about psychopaths and sociopaths who are born without the ability to even register feelings like compassion, empathy, or any other “Real Morality.” Why are certain people deprived of this morality through no fault of their own? Anyway, why make a point of changing morality though out history, and progress made in the general zeitgeist? Isn't it exactly what we'd expect if there is no moral law? If its a process of trial and error, debate, critical reasoning, discussions, and then decided on and exercised by the individuals in question, then doesn't it defeat his argument?
I was almost physically ill when I read the statement about burning the witches. So, the “Natural Law of Behavior” supports us taking action on those things we believe. If we believe that the witches exist, we have every right to support the death penalty. But, we don't believe in witches anymore so, big whoops there. There are still witches that are still executed in south Africa and India. According to Lewis' philosophy, these actions may as a matter of fact be justified. I find it interesting that he says we no longer believe that witches exist, yet the bible does give a direct command as to what to do with these non-existent beings in Exodus. I'm sure you will try to give me some new interpenetration in order to give some crazy context that this statement is okay. What other kind of “ungodly” transgressions can we forgive as mere “mistakes of fact?” If we think someone is the anti-Christ, we would definitely be justified in killing him or her. Another example, if someone thinks that all Muslims are terrorists, then they have a right to execute them. If you don't think that they are terrorists then you don't have a right to execute them. Other examples include Eve who thought that God was perhaps “pulling a fast one on her” an obvious “mistake of fact” in hindsight. Or what about those that crucified christ because they didn't buy into his message? A pretty bad “mistake of fact” as well. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess.
He seems to be saying that Christians should examine history from a perspective where if they viewed the enemy as a horrible being, they had a right to put the enemy to death. This, in my opinion is a very, very, flawed moral philosophy.

3. The Reality of the Law
He seems to be hashing out all the same old stuff as in the two previous chapters. Why does he feel its more reasonable for morality to come from something independent of the human brain? Let along some transcendent, omnipresent absolute. I'd have to go with Occam's razor on this one.
Does he not say essentially that the evidence for moral law comes from our ability to know right from wrong? Even if we chose to disobey it we validate its existence, according to Lewis. He then goes on to say its just as solid as natural laws (in the scientific sense). He gives the example of gravity. His use of an analogy here is pretty bad. I'm being very kind here. I can see why CS Lewis is notorious for using bad analogies. You can not reject gravity. When you step off a ledge, its going to pull you down whether you actively deny its existence or choose to ignore it. If Moral Law is on par with gravity then we should not be able to ignore it, as it comes from this absolute moral law giver. I think his weak analogy is just an attempt to elevate his Moral Law to something scientific in order to give it credibility as the only plausible explanation to human moral impulses.
So, he feels that this moral law is real and its bearing down on us from somewhere and that somewhere is definitely not from us. From where? Hopefully, he will disclose that in the next few chapters.
He also again fails to explain why there are certain people who lack any sense of this “universal” Moral Law, like psychopaths. Brain injuries can sometimes result in behavioral developments. One example usually pointed too in psychology books is this guy; http://www.damninteresting.com/phinea... If this law is external to our mental workings, why does it depend on an internally healthy brain? The only explanation here would seem to be that its dependent on our chemical brains.
Lewis tries to get around this by saying that any explanation as to why we and the societies that we occupy can only be coherent with an external being dictating these laws. I am going to stand by my argument from before, that morals arise from natural human behavior that generally benefits society as a whole. The stuff that works stays, the stuff that doesn't goes. If the society hangs on to too many bad morals, it will eventually collapse. Lewis tries to counter this with a straw man argument. He says that this is like saying “oh well, decent behavior is decent behavior.” It's decent because, not to beat a dead horse, but it works. This kind of behavior allows societies to grow. When a society members, as a whole act with antisocial behavior, there is no coherence. Behaviors that were at one time considered to be okay, eventually aren't considered to be okay. Why? Because they tend to destabilize society over time. Some places still do things that we'd find pretty horrible, like slavery, but there is no societal pressure in those places to totally abandon it. So, it still exists. He might call his moral relativism, but saying that there is no real “basis” for an absolute Moral Law is not the same thing as saying that there is no such thing as object right and wrong behaviors. It is really up to people to judge and consider these behaviors. Again, through trial and error. This is consistent with what we see throughout human history.

4. What Lies Behind the Law
So, he finally gets to his main point here. And it is that there is a God. Lewis “proved it” *rolls eyes* via the arguments above. He still doesn't say its a christian god, but we both know thats where this whole thing is headed.
So he talks about the two world views. The religious and the materialist. The materialist, according to him, believes that everything is random and it is mere chance that everything came into existence. The religious worldview holds that there's some sort of being, or force out there that created everything like matter, with a purpose. He states that its impossible for science to determine the difference because science determines the how and not the why. Btw, I've heard this a lot before. Why does religion get the monopoly on the question of “why”? Why not philosophy getting a crack at it? Of course this is all presupposed on the idea that there IS a why to begin with. Speaking of morality and science, an interesting read is a book that might interest you is a book by Sam Harris called The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values.
Now, Im sidetracking. Sorry. So, he argues that the religious view is better by appealing to what we know about the nature of mankind. We can only detect Moral Law within, so it can not be observed by an external method, ie science. Also, the controlling power of this law must be beyond the universe and can also only be detected within. This all must come from an active mind on which we are based. He seems to be saying that through human experiences with the Moral Law, we can deduce a cosmic mind behind the universe. This still doesn't explain what exactly in our experiences with reality lets us believe that there is any sort of mind independent of our brains. Every account of anything that has ever happened has been a product of the brain. There is almost no real reason to even read the last chapter as this point really kills anything he might say in the last chapter anyway.

5. We Have Cause to Be Uneasy
So, he set two false premises, there is something out there that made the universe and that he put the Moral Law inside our hearts. He never really gave any evidence for this first premise anywhere in the chapters thus far. He never felt the obligation to discuss alternatives (unless you count his saying materialism is everything at random is another “explanation” of something). And the other one, he didn't even really argue very well. And even if this was the case, why rule out polytheism? It's interesting to me that he says that he's not pointing directly to a christian God, yet he seems to use the masculine term and a single being throughout the essay. He makes very weak and baseless arguments thus far and and then jumps on them assuming that they are true to transition to the next point. And if he is just proving that a God exists or “something” why does he assume that it is good? There was no proof or argument for this in the first place. I'm sure you've had to take a logic and critical thinking course while in College. You remember when the professor would present something with a long drawn out argument which sounded pretty good. Then you would look at it with the lens of trying to figure out what is wrong in almost every step along the way? I feel like this is a great example of one of those papers.
His writings are very misleading. He uses this pretense of “oh, I'm being objective because I get no personal comfort with Christianity being the real and my beliefs are based on evidence.” He just expects you to trust this and to roll with it.
Sorry to say this, but if I was grading this book as a paper, I'd probably have to give it an F. =/ I can see after reading this, why he does not garner much respect outside of the christian community. I had heard about the kinds of tactics he uses, but thanks for letting me see it first hand. I can see how he'd appeal to people who believe already, but to an outside rationalist, it just doesn't hold water. Sorry. If this is the best rationalism for Christianity and theism, I think I will stick to my “willed ignorance” thank you very much.