Mere Speculation.

spec·u·la·tion

noun: speculation

1. the forming of a theory or conjecture without evidence.
2. investment in stocks, property, or other ventures in the hope of gain but with the risk of great loss.

2016 was the year I made a pledge to myself to become a more avid reader. The goal was 52 books in 52 weeks; Book number 52 was finished on Novermber 30th. My first book of the year, The Greatest Show on Earth, by Richard Dawkins, was a whirlwind adventure through the real world of science, nature, mutations, natural selection, evolutionary intermediates, and vestigial structures.

I also decided, after being prompted, to read a specimen from the other side of the fence.

Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis, has been hailed as the jewel in the crown of theological literature — a book that has probably turned more people to Christianity than The Bible itself (if most people knew even half of the horrendous and deplorable things that are proudly proclaimed in that ancient piece of literature, they would surely run screaming!).

First and foremost, as expected, I felt totally outclassed by C.S. Lewis’ command of the English language, and far be it from me to critique his writing style. I can certainly acknowledge his talent for writing and turning a phrase. That said, for me, C.S. Lewis utterly failed to present a convincing case for the existence of any god, let alone the Christian god. Instead he presented a case totally devoid of evidence or even logic. That may seem like a harsh assessment destined to turn off many readers from getting through this review, but it is nothing less than an accurate representation of the case laid out by Mr. Lewis.

Let us begin…

Mere Christianity, as some may know, is divided into four books. The first two are tailored toward people who aren’t necessarily Believers. The second two are tailored toward those who are already Christians but who still need to be told how to behave. Because the importance of the second two books hinge on his ability to get the reader to believe in the existence of the Christian god, I will focus primarily on the first half of the book.

Lewis begins the first section attempting to win the reader over through successive “logical” steps. The first step is to prove the existence of what he refers to throughout the book as “The Moral Law.” The reader’s entire perception of the strength of his argument for the existence of god rests in the hands of this so-called “Moral Law.” It is Lewis’ position that everyone has some innate understanding of right and wrong, of proper moral conduct. According to Lewis, if we didn’t, it would not make sense to say, for example, that the Nazis behaved wrongly. Lewis asserts that to say the Nazis, or any group or individual, behaved “wrongly” or “badly” only makes sense if you have a fundamental, innate understanding of what it would mean to behave well. This “Moral Law” is the moral standard against which you measure all deeds. Lewis goes on to say that this “Moral Law” could only have come from a Creator.

…But why? To suppose that this “Moral Law” could only exists as a result of a supernatural creator is to commit a false dichotomy fallacy.

One of my biggest complaints with Lewis’ approach is that he totally trivializes morality as well as the morality of different cultures and different periods of time. Essentially, what is right and wrong — according to Lewis — is just something that was ingrained in the recipe of the human race by its “Benevolent Creator.” By this logic, a creator could easily have designed a very different type of “Moral Law” that glorifies violence and selfishness. What is “right” is only “right” because God said so? I don’t buy it.

Lewis agrees that there are differences in morality, but then says:

“…these [differences] have never amounted to anything of a total difference. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you should not simply have any woman you liked.”

However, this is a direct contradiction with the Old Testament’s laws of warfare that command you to take women and children as “plunder” (Deuteronomy 20:14). The same goes for 2 Samuel, when the Christian God’s poster boy (David) saw a beautiful woman (Bathsheba) bathing. This righteous man of god proceeded to send Bathsheba’s husband to the frontlines with the rest of the Israelite army to be killed so David could swoop in and take Bathsheba for himself.

Nevertheless, considering how big a deal Christians make of the relationship between “one man and one woman,” it seems very strange to hear from one of their own that the difference is, in the end, negligible as to the number of wives you decide to take. Additionally, Lewis neglects to mention that many cultures have found it acceptable to kill their wives should they prove to be displeasing. Is he not informed? Or is he simply reaching too far in an attempt to make a point? All of this does not even mention the various times throughout history that slavery, beating one’s slaves and wives and pedophilia were not only legal, but in fact common practice. And let’s not even get started on the Crusades or the Inquisition — horrific events that took place BECAUSE of religion and its alleged “Moral Law.” Morality has clearly changed a tremendous amount over the ages, but Lewis seems to disagree. He is already gravely mistaken — morality has changed tremendously over the millennia.

At this point, to me and any critically thinking adult, Lewis has defeated himself. His entire premise doesn’t have a leg to stand on. The one thing on which he has based the rest of his book is demonstrably false! However, for the sake of continuing on, I will make a concession for further discussion.

I will concede that most cultures, at one point or another, have had some form of “The Golden Rule.” Lewis even calls it “The Golden Rule of the New Testament.” If I accept that most cultures have had some form of this, my question then is, where did this come from? Lewis states two possibilities: instinct, and learned behavior. Lewis quickly, and quite wrongly, dismisses instinct. He does so by discussing a scenario in which somebody is in trouble. A witness to the scene may have the instinct to run away to protect themselves and spare themselves from the same trouble. Somehow, the witness must make the choice between helping and running and, if they choose to help, according to Lewis, The Moral Law is what makes that choice for them. The Moral Law overrides our instinct to flee from the danger.

Doesn’t it seem vastly more likely that learned behavior is responsible for people’s choices and decisions, rather than some innate, ordained, and “designed” ethical standard? Perhaps instead, a quick survey of the scene could allow them to assess the danger. Will they be put in danger if they help? Will others be put in danger if they don’t help? Over time, this learned behavior would have ingrained itself as instinct, but Lewis wrongly dismisses the idea of The Moral Law being the result of learned behavior.

I should clarify that he doesn’t completely dismiss the idea. He agrees that it’s like a multiplication table. We learn multiplication tables in school, yet we do not arbitrarily make them up. Similarly, he says, we could not have arbitrarily made up The Moral Law (comparing apples and oranges: a straw man logical fallacy). For evidence, he references his earlier (false) claim that all cultures have had essentially the same morality and if morality were arbitrary, then that would not be the case.

The most interesting thing to me about Lewis’ deeply flawed argument is that he claims this “Moral Law” could not have been arbitrarily made up by man — that it had to have been bequeathed to mankind from a Creator. Yet, would the creator not have arbitrarily made up the “Moral Law?” Could this creator have deemed murder and mayhem to be the ultimate moral law of the land? Most people would say “no.” If that’s truly the case, what role then would a creator actually have played in determining morality?

Because I concede that all cultures have had something akin to “The Golden Rule”, Lewis would shoehorn**(see below)** me into agreeing with him. I don’t agree. There are plenty of other explanations more plausible than what Lewis proposes, yet he never bothers to ask the important questions, like: Is there another explanation for the universality of The Golden Rule?

Absolutely there is. The very first one that comes to mind is self-preservation. Out of self-preservation, I would not want others to steal from me, rape me, or kill me arbitrarily. And in turn, I would have no reason or desire to wantonly steal from, rape, or kill anyone else. This is basic Kantian Ethics and the categorical imperative. There is no need for a god to pass down this “moral law.” It’s common sense. It’s common decency. Even predators in the animal kingdom have been observed demonstrating compassion. If human beings are so filthy and vile that we need a god to ingrain this sort of third-grade logic into our “intelligently designed” DNA, then we’re not even worth Her trouble. In the end, if you don’t like bad things done to you, generally, you will refrain from doing bad things to others.

Lewis does concede that the desire to help others is instinct (which he calls “herd instinct”) but in the end, chalks up the final decision to do right to “The Moral Law.” Many christians still struggling with the concept of evolution ask themselves why this type of instinct — empathy — would evolve. If we evolved, wouldn’t we primarily be concerned with doing whatever it takes to save ourselves? That’s exactly right. Our ancestors would have been living in groups for the benefit of survival and undoubtedly they would have evolved empathy and the desire to protect others for the survival of the group. Don’t steal from, rape, or kill others because you work together to survive (a concept that modern humans disregard when it comes to the rest of the life and resources on Earth). These types of activities harm the strength and unity of the group and weaken the entire group’s chance of survival. Lewis believes that the self-preservation instinct would be stronger than the instinct to help the person in trouble when in fact they would be one in the same. According to Lewis, if someone chooses to help the person in trouble over running away, that is evidence of “The Moral Law.”

Assuming he has won the audience to his side of “The Moral Law” debate, Lewis makes the Grand-Canyon-leap to this “Moral Law” having been placed there by a god. More specifically, the Christian God. There is no evidence in Lewis’ writing that, even if the reader follows him in believing in a god, points specifically to the Christian god. What about the other tens of thousands of gods? Why the Christian image of god, specifically? Lewis offers no lucid or plausible explanation.

****Along this breadcrumb trail towards Christianity on which C.S. Lewis is trying to lead the audience, we come to forks in the road — digressions provided by different schools of thought. He is able to trick the reader into following him by saying there are only two paths (or three) when in fact there are many, many more that he chooses not to offer his readers. Lewis is purposely narrowing the path and removing other chutes through which the cattle may have proceeded. That is fine — that’s how you attempt to win someone over to your point of view. You gradually whittle away the different points of view until only yours remains. The problem is, there are far more chutes than Lewis ever admits. Because he says there are two, we are to take his word for it? On several occasions, he is flat-out wrong. He is very particular in the choices he offers to his readers. He omits the choices that he knows would lead people to a different conclusion. This is a grievous miscarriage of logic — a false dichotomy fallacy.****

Yes, I will say that Lewis’ language is dazzling. His command of English allows him to weave such wordy passages as to bewitch his readers. His wordiness gives the illusion of his arguments having density and more credibility than they really do. Just because he can say in 100 words what I can say in 10 doesn’t mean that what he says has any substance.

I can’t necessarily prove that my assessment of morality is true, but I assert that C.S. Lewis has not proven it to be false. Lewis has failed to prove his own point, and in the process, failed to prove the existence of a god, since “The Moral Law” was the point on which his entire argument was precariously balanced. In the end, it was a theory, beautifully built, of air and imagination — and mere speculation.