Tag: Morality

Mere Christianity – Book I – Chapter 1 (“The Law of Human Nature”)

Leave a comment

Book 1

Notes & Quotes

Here are my notes for the first chapter of Mere Christianity. In this chapter, Jack argues two main points:

1. There is a Law of Human Nature

“…the man who makes [these objections] is not merely saying that the other man’s behaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about”

“Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football”

(a) The Law of Human Nature is the only one which we can choose to disobey

“a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it… As a body [a man] is subjected to gravitation…if you leave him unsupported in mid-air, he has no more choice about falling than a stone has…but the law which is peculiar to human nature…is the one he can disobey if he chooses”

(b) You may still find a few people who don’t really know the Law of Human Nature

“…you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are colour-blind or have no ear for a tune”

(c) Differences in morality are not that great

“…some people say…different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities. But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference”

“…think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in a battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well imagine a country where two and two made five”

(d) Those who deny a real Right and Wrong will accidentally betray themselves

“He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining ‘It’s not fair’ before you can say Jack Robinson”

We see the presence of the Moral Law more clearly in our reactions, rather than our actions.

2. We do not keep this Law 

(a) That doesn’t change the Law itself

“…people sometimes get their sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table”

(b) Our excuses prove we do not keep the Law

“If we do not believe in decent behaviour, why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently?”

(c) We demonstrate the Law by only make excuses for the bad things, not the good.

“…you notice that it is only for our bad behaviour that we find all these explanations. It is only our bad temper that we put down to being tired or worried or hungry; we put our good temper down to ourselves”

Discussion Questions

1. What does Lewis argue we can we learn from the way people quarrel?

2. Why should we believe that the Law of Human Nature is real?

3. Do you think it’s true that we don’t live according to the Law of Human Nature?

C.S. Lewis Doodle

Sunday School: Good, Evil and God

Leave a comment

Have you accepted the modern two story world narrative as your own? What story are you living in?

Our Faith is the greatest love story ever and it’s being written as we speak. It is a story about God and his people, us. We are immersed in it and we have a chance to shape it. It’s a life that leads to union with the creator God and deep, profound happiness. It isn’t a life of hopelessness awaiting a miraculous transformation at the end of time. The immense gift of our Byzantine Faith is lived experience of God here and now transforming, sanctifying, healing the sickness of our fallen humanity. We must tell ourselves, our friends and even someday, perhaps, our children this story.

The video for this week starts by posing the question; can we be good, without God? More importantly though, can we know what good is without God?

As the video demonstrates, without God, there is no objective reference point for determining what is moral or immoral. Just as our senses convince us of the reality of the physical world, so our moral sense convinces us that moral values are objectively real. It’s not a matter of preference or opinion.

Some ask; is something good because God wills it, or because God wills it therefore it is good. The reality is good, or moral acts, are characteristics of Gods nature. The more our actions align with them, the more we are becoming like God. As Byzantine Catholics we believe this is much more than an intellectual exercise. We believe that when we “do good” we are actually being transformed toward Christ-like holiness. We can and are participating with God in the act of our own and humanity’s redemption.

Read more

The Moral Argument

Leave a comment

Before I took a break for Advent I posted a quotation from Ravi Zacharias which related to what is known as “The Moral Argument” for the existence of God. I had intended to do a longer post on this subject at some point in the future because I think it’s one of the more interesting arguments in favour of theism.

While on Facebook these last few weeks, I was talking with an atheist and, try as I might, I couldn’t get him to even understand the argument itself.

Was I saying that atheists couldn’t tell the difference between right and wrong? No.

Was I saying that atheists were incapable of doing good deeds? No.

In the end I found the following video from Reasonable Faith. Although it didn’t appear to help in that particular conversation, I think it’s one of the most accessible explanations of this argument for the existence of God:

The Problem of pain

Leave a comment

One of the books I read on my sabbatical was Jesus Among Other gods by Ravi Zacharias. The part of the book which I found most engaging was the chapter in which he addresses the problem of evil and suffering. Over the next week or so, I’ll be posting a few short extracts from the book from this section, together with a comment or two.

The “Problem of pain” is an understandably common reason given by Agnostics and Atheists for doubting or even denying the existence of God. However, as Zacharias points out, one can only really talk about the problem of pain if there is a moral law:

…[some] protest that God cannot exist because there is too much evil evident in life… [The Atheist says that] evil exists; therefore the Creator does not…

But here, Christianity provides a counterchallenge… If evil exists, then one must assume that good exists in order to know the difference. If good exists, one must assume that a moral law exists by which to measure good and evil.

– Ravi Zacharias, Jesus Among Other gods

Okay, so to talk about “good” and “evil”, a moral law must exist. So what? How does that point to theism?

But if a moral law exists, must not one posit an ultimate source of moral law, or at least an objective basis for a moral law? By an objective basis, I mean something that is transcendently true at all times, regardless of whether I believe it or not. 

– Ravi Zacharias, Jesus Among Other gods

What could possibly be the objective basis of this law? The Theist answers “God”.

Pushing our pro-life religion

2 comments

Have you ever been speaking about abortion and heard someone who’s pro-choice exasperatingly exclaim “Stop imposing your religion on me!”? Well, today’s entry in this abortion series addresses that very issue…

Why are you pro-life?

Last year, I posted on Facebook that I was at the March For Life in Washington DC. This raised the interest of some of my pro-choice friends, so I explained to them why I’m against abortion and why I’m pro-life.

In response to my explanation, I was told again and again that Christians should stop imposing their religion on others. I found the objection rather odd. Why? Well, I found it strange because I hadn’t mentioned religion once in any of my arguments. Neither had any of my friends when they contributed to the thread. All the arguments against abortion which were presented did not rely at all on a theistic worldview.

FeaturedPushingReligion

Interestingly, the people who first brought religion into our discussion were those who were pro-choice. Again and again they returned to the idea that we were arguing against abortion on religious grounds. However, we never mentioned God, nor did we cite any religious text or authority. Funnily enough, something very similar happened on Brandon Vogt’s blog around the same time…

Unfortunately, rather than responding to our (non-theistic) arguments, some retorted with cheap shots against the Christian faith. Not only that, we were repeatedly treated to my own personal pet peeve, the armchair interpretation of Bible by non-Christians, which naturally included the classic misinterpretation of “Judge not lest you be judged”.

I’ve said many times bore that, even if I were not a Christian, I’d still be pro-life. The arguments against abortion don’t require a belief in God. The pro-life arguments are scientifically, philosophically and psychologically robust. If I were an atheist I might perhaps have some difficulty explaining why human life has intrinsic value, but it’s an instinct that I don’t think I could deny, even if I wanted to.

Read more

Wise Words on Wednesday: Grandpa Sheen

Leave a comment

“No one can pick up the Scriptures without reading a devastating criticism of social moral standards, as when the Divine Savior puts a harlot above a Pharisee, a penitent robber above a religious leader, a prodigal son above his exemplary elder brother.

“Many a tree as it stands in the forest looks fair, fine, solid and valuable, but when it is cut down and sawed for use reveals rottenness, cross grain and knots. Social conformity to low standards may give the appearance of goodness, but in the judgment of God the true character is revealed” – Archbishop Fulton Sheen

1 2 3