Mere Christianity - Book One - What Lies Behind the Law

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Book One

 

RIGHT AND WRONG

AS A CLUE TO THE

MEANING OF THE UNIVERSE

 

 

 

4. What Lies Behind the Law

     Let  us sum up what we have reached so far.  In the  case of stones and
trees  and  things of that sort, what we call  the Laws of Nature may not be
anything except a way of speaking. When  you say that nature is  governed by
certain laws,  this may only  mean that nature does, in  fact, behave  in  a
certain way. The so-called laws may not  be anything real-anything above and
beyond the  actual facts  which we observe. But in  the case of Man, we  saw
that this will not do. The Law of  Human Nature, or of Right and Wrong, must
be something above and beyond the actual facts of human behaviour.  In  this
case, besides  the actual facts, you have something else-a real law which we
did not invent and which we know we ought to obey.

     I  now want  to consider what this tells us about  the universe we live
in. Ever since men were  able to think,  they have been wondering what  this
universe really is and how it came to be there. And, very roughly, two views
have been held. First, there  is what is called the materialist view. People
who  take that  view  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,  has just  happened,  by a  sort of fluke,  to  produce
creatures like ourselves who are able to think. By one chance in a  thousand
something  hit  our sun  and  made it  produce  the planets;  and by another
thousandth  chance   the  chemicals  necessary   for  life,  and  the  right
temperature, occurred on one of these planets, and so some of  the matter on
this earth  came  alive; and  then, by  a  very  long series of chances, the
living  creatures  developed into  things  like us.  The  other view  is the
religious view. (*) According to it, what is  behind the  universe  is  more
like a mind than it is like anything else we know.

     ----
     [*] See Note at the end of this chapter.
     ----

     That  is to say, it is  conscious, and has  purposes, and  prefers  one
thing to another. And on this view it made the universe, partly for purposes
we do not know, but partly, at any rate, in order to  produce creatures like
itself-I  mean,  like  itself  to  the extent of having minds. Please do not
think that  one of  these views was held a  long time ago and that the other
has gradually taken  its place. Wherever there have  been  thinking men both
views turn up. And note  this  too.  You  cannot find  out which view is the
right one by science in the ordinary sense. Science works by experiments. It
watches  how things behave.  Every  scientific  statement in  the  long run,
however complicated  it  looks, really means  something like, "I pointed the
telescope  to such and such a part of the  sky at 2:20  A.M. on January 15th
and saw so-and-so," or, "I put some of this stuff in  a pot and heated it to
such-and-such  a temperature and it did so-and-so." Do not think I am saying
anything  against science:  I am only saying what its  job is.  And the more
scientific a man is, the more (I believe) he would agree with  me that  this
is  the job of science- and  a very useful and necessary  job it is too. But
why anything comes to be there at  all, and whether there is anything behind
the things  science  observes-something of a  different  kind-this is not  a
scientific question. If there is  "Something  Behind," then  either it  will
have to remain altogether unknown to  men or else make itself  known in some
different way. The statement that there is any such thing, and the statement
that there is no such thing, are neither of them statements that science can
make. And  real  scientists do not usually  make them.  It  is  usually  the
journalists and popular novelists who have picked  up a few odds and ends of
half-baked science  from textbooks  who go in  for them.  After  all, it  is
really  a matter of common sense. Supposing science ever became  complete so
that it knew every single thing in  the whole universe. Is it not plain that
the questions, "Why is there  a  universe?" "Why  does it go on as it does?"
"Has it any meaning?" would remain just as they were?

     Now the position would be quite  hopeless  but  for this. There is  one
thing, and  only one, in the whole universe which we know more about than we
could  learn from external  observation. That  one  thing  is Man. We do not
merely  observe men, we  are men. In this case we have, so to speak,  inside
information; we are in the know. And because of that,  we know that men find
themselves  under  a moral law, which they  did  not make, and  cannot quite
forget even when  they try, and  which they know they ought  to obey. Notice
the  following  point. Anyone  studying Man  from the  outside as  we  study
electricity or  cabbages, not knowing our language and consequently not able
to get any inside knowledge from us, but merely observing what we did, would
never get the slightest evidence that  we  had this moral law. How could he?
for his observations would only show what we did, and the moral law is about
what we ought to do. In the same way, if there were anything above or behind
the observed  facts  in the case of  stones  or the weather, we, by studying
them from outside, could never hope to discover it.

     The position of  the question, then,  is like  this.  We want  to  know
whether  the  universe  simply happens to  be what  it  is for no reason  or
whether  there  is a power behind  it that makes  it what it is.  Since that
power, if it exists, would be not one  of the  observed facts but  a reality
which  makes them, no  mere observation of the facts  can find it. There  is
only one case in which we can know  whether  there is anything  more, namely
our own case. And in that one case we find there is. Or put it the other way
round. If there was  a controlling power outside the universe, it could  not
show itself to us as one of the  facts inside the universe- no more than the
architect  of a house could actually be a wall or  staircase or fireplace in
that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be
inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us  to behave in
a  certain  way.  And that is just what we do  find inside ourselves. Surely
this ought to arouse our  suspicions? In the  only case where you can expect
to  get an answer, the answer turns out to be Yes;  and in  the other cases,
where you do not  get an answer, you see why you  do  not.  Suppose  someone
asked  me, when  I see a man in a blue uniform going down the street leaving
little paper packets at each house, why I suppose that they contain letters?
I should reply, "Because whenever he leaves a similar little packet for me I
find it does  contain a letter." And if he then objected, "But you've  never
seen all  these letters  which you think the other  people  are  getting," I
should say, "Of course not, and I shouldn't expect to,  because  they're not
addressed to me. I'm  explaining the packets I'm  not allowed to open by the
ones I am allowed to open." It  is the  same  about this  question. The only
packet I am allowed  to open is Man.  When I do, especially when I open that
particular man called Myself, I find  that I do not  exist on my own, that I
am  under a law; that somebody or something wants me  to behave in a certain
way. I do not, of course, think that if I could get inside a stone or a tree
I should find exactly the same thing, just as I do not  think all the  other
people in the  street get the  same letters as I  do.  I  should expect, for
instance, to find that the stone had to obey the law of gravity-that whereas
the  sender of the letters  merely  tells  me to obey the  law  of  my human
nature, He  compels  the stone to obey the laws of its  stony nature. But  I
should expect to find  that there was,  so to speak, a sender  of letters in
both cases, a Power behind the facts, a Director, a Guide.

     Do not think I am going faster than I really am. I  am not yet within a
hundred  miles of  the  God of Christian theology. All  I  have  got to is a
Something 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. I think we have to assume it is more like a mind than it is like
anything  else  we know-because  after all the  only  other thing we know is
matter and you can hardly imagine a bit of matter  giving instructions. But,
of course, it need not be very like a mind, still less like a person. In the
next chapter we shall see if we can find out anything more about it. But one
word of warning. There has been  a  great deal of soft soap talked about God
for the last hundred years. That is not what I am  offering. You can cut all
that out.

     Note -In order to keep this  section short enough when it was given  on
the  air,  I mentioned only the Materialist view and the Religious view. But
to  be  complete I ought  to  mention the In between view called  Life-Force
philosophy,  or  Creative  Evolution,  or Emergent  Evolution. The  wittiest
expositions of it come in the works  of Bernard Shaw,  but the most profound
ones in those  of  Bergson. People  who hold  this  view say that  the small
variations  by which life on this planet  "evolved" from the lowest forms to
Man were not due to chance  but to the  "striving" or "purposiveness"  of  a
Life-Force. When people say this we must ask them whether by Life-Force they
mean something  with a mind  or not. If they do, then  "a mind bringing life
into existence and leading it to perfection" is really a God, and their view
is thus identical with the Religious. If they do not, then what is the sense
in saying  that something without a mind "strives"  or  has "purposes"? This
seems to me fatal to their view. one  reason why  many people find  Creative
Evolution so attractive  is that it gives one much of  the emotional comfort
of believing in God and none of the less pleasant consequences. When you are
feeling fit and the sun is shining and you do  not  want to believe that the
whole universe is a mere mechanical dance of atoms, it is nice to be able to
think of  this great  mysterious Force rolling on through  the centuries and
carrying you on its  crest. If,  on the other hand, you want to do something
rather shabby, the Life-Force, being only a blind force,  with no morals and
no mind, will never interfere with you like that troublesome  God we learned
about when we were children. The Life-Force is a  sort of tame  God. You can
switch it on when you want, but it will  not bother you.  All the thrills of
religion and none of the cost. Is the Life-Force the greatest achievement of
wishful thinking the world has yet seen?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. According to Lewis, Science cannot be used to discover the mind behind the creation of the universe, why not?
2. What is the one thing that is unique about man that is different than anything else a scientist can study?  

 

• Summary to this point: “The so-called law may not be anything real – anything above and beyond the actual facts which we observe... In [the case of Man], besides the actual facts, you have something else – a real law which we did not invent and which we ought to obey.”
• Consider what this tells us about the universe we live in:
  • Men have always wondered what the universe really is and where it came from. There have been two predominant views:
    • Materialist view: “People who take this view think that matter and space [and time] just happen to exist, and always have existed, nobody knows why; and that the matter, behaving in certain fixed ways, has just happened, by sort of fluke, to produce creatures like ourselves who are able to think.”
    • “Religious View”: “According to [the religious view], what is behind the universe is more like a mind than it is like anything else we know. That is to say,
      • it is conscious, and
      • has purpose, and
      • prefers one thing to another.
      • “And on this view it made the universe, partly for purposes we do no know, and partly, at any rate, in order to produce creatures like itself – I mean, like itself to the extent of having minds.”
    • “Wherever there have been thinking mean both views turn up.”
    • Science cannot tell which is the correct view. “But why anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observers – something of a different kind – this is not a scientific question. If there is 'Something Behind', then either it will have to remain altogether unknown to men or else make itself known in some different way. The statement that there is any such thing, and the statement that there is no such thing, are neither of them statements that science can make.”
  • At this point, things seem hopeless, except: “There is one thing, and only one, in the whole universe which we know more about than we could learn from external observation. that one thing is Man.”
    • We are men, so this gives us “inside information.”
    • Here we find the moral law – which we didn't make, can't forget, and know we ought to obey.
    • An outside observer, unable to communicate with us, would never know that this moral law exists.
  • If we were created by some “outside power,” how can we learn about “it?”
    • “If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe – no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or a staircase or fireplace in that house.”
    • It could show itself “as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way.”
    • We do find this, and the fact of it (the moral law) ought to make us suspicious.
    • Example: Mail carrier -> packets -> letters -> assumption that other packets to other houses also contain letters => expectation of finding “a sender of letters... a Power behind the facts, a Director, a Guide.”
• Conclusion so far: Not Christianity (yet), but “All I have got to is a Something 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. I think we have to assume it is more like a mind than it is like anything else we know – because after all the only other thing we know is matter and you can hardly imagine a bit of matter giving instructions.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://lib.ru/LEWISCL/mere_engl.txt 

http://www.opendiscipleship.org/Mere_Christianity_leaders_notes

http://www.gordy-stith.com/Mere%20Christianity/mere_christianity_study_guide.htm