[Miracles] Precis - Final

If Naturalism—the belief that only Nature, as an interlocking system, exists—is correct, it should be able to explain any event as a necessary part of a Total System. If anything exists wholly independent of that System, then Naturalism is false.

All knowledge beyond immediate sensation is the result of inference, which requires the validity of inference--also called reasoning. If knowledge through inference is possible, it follows that any philosophy which denies external truth known through reasoning cannot be argued for. It turns out that this is what Naturalism is bound to do.

Reason, to the Naturalist, must be a series of necessary causes and effects within the human mind, and any beliefs must be assented to as necessary parts of the Total System, not as reflections of truth which supersedes the System. In short, a Naturalist allows for the mental process of reasoning, but weakens it to be irrelevant to the knowledge of truth.

Before examining knowledge any further, one must consider two types of relationships: Cause and Effect and Ground and Consequent. The former indicates a necessary connection between events; the latter indicates a logical connection between beliefs (psychological events) attained through inference and the grounds for those beliefs. Naturalism by definition demands that any event in Nature be the Effect of some Cause. Additionally, our beliefs must be a rational Consequent of some Ground in order to be valid, yet also the Effect of some Cause in order to occur at all.

The current difficulty is that lack of logical grounds cannot prevent a belief's occurrence in a Naturalist world, since any belief can be excused as a necessary Effect of some Cause. The Naturalist responds that the mere existence of a Ground for some belief is sufficient to cause that belief, thus introducing an event (belief) which is both the necessary Effect of some Cause and the rational Consequent of some Ground. But this cannot be, since we are not caused to believe all possible Consequents when we perceive the existence of any Ground. The Naturalist counters that an event can cause a belief by being seen to be a Ground for it. That is, a belief is the necessary Effect of a Cause, and the Cause is the perception of the relationship between a Ground and its Consequent.

This argument leads to the conclusion that beliefs are distinct from other events in that (1) they are about something external and (2) can be true or false. (It is false in the case that the Consequent does not follow from the Ground.) The Naturalist holds that beliefs are subjective events in a person’s psychological history. According to his argument, however, a belief is the perception (whether true or false) of an implication external to the believer. The Naturalist cannot discredit the second point of view without discrediting all human knowledge and cannot accept the second point of view without allowing for an “act of knowing thus solely determined by what is known,” but such an allowance would admit something beyond Nature.

Next, Lewis addresses whether Nature alone can give rise to rational thought. Naturalism makes the claim that human thought has not always been rational comprehension of objective truth, and that rational thought is a result of the process of evolution. The difficulty of this proposition lies in the distinction between response to stimuli and insight which leads to knowledge. Responses cannot become insight simply by increasing the frequency of useful responses. Thus, insight cannot possibly be explained as a result of Nature’s course over billions of years.

A Naturalist may make the claim that rational thought is merely a string of inferences drawn from repeated experience. However, this allows for only an expectation of future correlation, it does not allow for a true understanding of the connection between a Cause and its Effect. The former requires only animal instinct; the latter requires rational thought. Here again we see the need for understanding of the relationship between a Ground and its Consequent in order to make a valid judgment of truth. This understanding cannot be a result of repeated experience, since it must be the judge of repeated experiences.

Ultimately, the Naturalist may concede that our thoughts are useful for life but may not be aimed at external truth. The difficulty here is that there is no clearly useful purpose for belief in Naturalism, and the belief itself cannot therefore be argued or even relied upon. This is the Cardinal Difficulty of Naturalism.

749 Words

[Bear Pit] Christian Morality

     In his book Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis sets out to explore what Man is able to discover apart from special revelation and what it is that special revelation gives to mankind. In particular, he attempts to lay the necessary foundations for a generic system of morality, and then builds on top of that foundation the specific moral teachings of Christianity. In taking this approach, he is able to convey to his reader the terrible fix in which fallen humanity finds itself, and then follow it up with the solution provided by Christianity. Ultimately, Lewis analyzes the Natural Law and concludes that it provides an insufficient moral system, and then looks to Christianity and discovers that the completion of the moral system is found in Christ’s power to forgive those who transgress the Law.

     In order to understand Lewis’s analysis of morality, we must first grasp what is necessary for a complete system of morality. He discusses this in the beginning of Book Three, Chapter 1 (“The Three Parts of Morality”). The first component of morality is concerned with harmony between individuals in a society. This is the most widely agreed-upon aspect of morality and generally what is meant when people say that they wish to be morally virtuous. The second component of morality is concerned with “tidying up or harmonizing the things inside each individual.” Despite its being a natural extension of the first aspect of morality, this second aspect is often neglected because its effects are far subtler than those of the first component. The final component of morality must inform a man about the relationship between God and Man, and presents one great difficulty which must be addressed: how can Man presume to enter into a relationship with the Power against which he has so often and so horribly sinned? The validity of Lewis’ requirements for a moral system to be complete will be discussed in the final section of this essay.

     Working toward a complete system of morality as defined above, Lewis must first examine the Law of Human Nature in hopes of finding all three of the above components. In arguing for the presence of an ingrained law, Lewis explains that men have “a curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it.” He goes on to show that the system of morality prescribed by the Law of Human Nature is generally the same as that which Aristotle discovered and consists of the Cardinal Virtues: Prudence, Justice, Temperance and Fortitude.

     The first question that must be asked in testing this system of morality for completeness is whether or not it is able to enhance relations between men. For the sake of brevity, let us examine only the effect of Justice on society. Supposing that two obviously just men engage in a business transaction, it is evident that they are more likely to conduct business fairly and efficiently, with greater mutual benefit than if one or both were relatively unjust. This conclusion is based on the safe assumption that peace is more desirable than enmity and gain better than loss. The same scenario can be constructed with any of the other Cardinal Virtues being applied with the same utilitarian effect.

     The next question that must be asked is whether or not the Natural Law is able to improve a man’s internal state of affairs. This is a much more difficult and important question to answer than the first, and is likewise the first point at which some people will disagree. The objection will most often be, “Is not morality concerned merely with actions?” To ask this question presumes that the only type of action is that which is visible to the eye. On the contrary, the inner actions of the human soul are often invisible to others but still fall under the Natural Law. As Lewis states, “there is a difference between doing some particular just or temperate action and being a just or temperate man.” In addressing this paradox, Lewis echoes Aristotle’s concept of “right motives” when he says:

We might think that, provided you did the right thing, it did not matter how or why you did it…. But the truth is that right actions done for the wrong reason do not help to build the internal quality or character called a ‘virtue’, and it is this quality or character that really matters.

This highlights the most profound aspect of Lewis’s vision of morality: the difference between behaving virtuously and becoming virtuous. Where the focus of a moral system is on the internal state of affairs, it is of little use to consider a man’s external actions. Given that a man who practices the Cardinal Virtues regularly will, over time, take into himself the stamp of those virtues, it is apparent that the system of morality presented by the Law of Human Nature is, in some instances, able to repair or enhance the harmony inside each individual.

     The final test of the Cardinal Virtues is whether or not they are able to set right the relationship between God and Man. In Chapter 5 of Book I (“We Have Cause to Be Uneasy”), Lewis explores the limits of what the Law of Human Nature can reveal about God and discovers “that what we find out on our own steam is something that gives us a shock.” Lewis goes about this task by assuming that God must be intensely interested in right conduct—that is, He does in fact care that men adhere to the Law of Human Nature. Furthermore, Lewis remarks that the Natural Law “tells you to do the straight thing and it does not seem to care how painful … it is to do.” In light of this, Lewis concludes that the Law of Human Nature does not reveal a God who is personal or forgiving or merciful. It can only reveal a good God who is judging, harsh, and wholly inaccessible to Man, for those are the qualities observed in the Natural Law. Ultimately, the Natural Law fails to offer a way for Man to approach God without such an action ending in utter devastation. The only conclusion to be drawn from this is that the Natural Law does not offer a complete moral system.

     Having exposed the incompleteness of the Cardinal Virtues as a standalone system of morality, Lewis introduces the solution of Christ and then examines the resulting system of Christian morality. In Book II, Chapter 3 (“The Shocking Alternative”), Lewis presents to his audience the story of Christ, particularly emphasizing His power to forgive sins. As was said before, the chief difficulty in the relationship between God and Man is our inability to enter into a relationship with the Power against which we have so often and so horribly sinned. Lewis shows that this difficulty is swiftly overcome by Jesus Christ, who is God Incarnate:

He unhesitatingly behaved as if He was the party chiefly concerned, the person chiefly offended in all offences. This makes sense only if He really was the God whose laws are broken and whose love is wounded in every sin.

The peculiarity of Christianity is this condescension on the part of God to the level of Man, for it proves to be the only way for the chasm between God and Man to be crossed. The key lies not in the power of Man but in the Grace of God. In fact, this is the first sign Lewis finds that God may be gracious and forgiving rather than only judging and harsh. Having introduced the means to a restored relationship with God, Lewis goes on to verify that the Theological Virtues of Faith, Hope and Love will fulfill the third component and thus provide a complete system of Christian morality.

     I depart here from Lewis’s path to consider whether or not his tripartite division of morality is consistent with the teachings of Scripture. For this purpose I look to Jesus’ great exposition of Christian morality found in Matthew 22:37-39:

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.

The greatest commandment is naturally the one which addresses our relationship with God, into which we pour our entire being. The second greatest commandment, to love our neighbors, seems to be conditional upon first loving ourselves. Comparing this interpretation of Scripture against Lewis’s view, it seems that the two are highly compatible.

     In conclusion, C.S. Lewis successfully constructs a biblically-valid system of Christian morality which completes the moral system suggested by the Natural Law. This is particularly appropriate in light of his statement that “people need to be reminded more often than they need to be instructed.” Lewis is careful not to tear down the existing and valid moral framework of the Cardinal Virtues while still showing that they are incomplete and hopeless without the Incarnation and Jesus’ power to forgive sins.