C.S. Lewis Excerpt: For Analysis

Thanks for that passage from C.S. Lewis. I found it very rewarding. The reason is that I never thought of the Christian reward to be like marriage to a lover. It's a consummation of what is already there in one's life, so it makes perfect sense that the Christian reward is also a consummation of our lifetime communion with God.



The Law talked about circumcision, eating "clean" versus "unclean" meats, observing sabbaths, tithing 23.3% of your income, not eating meat sacrificed to idols, sacrificing lambs, goats, etc., etc.. In other words, there were many requirements that one had to do to be a holy person. However, all of these requirements couldn't teach how to be a moral person, or how to be a faithful person. So, it's not by obedience to any laws that one attains everlasting life, but it is through faith in Jesus Christ and God giving us eternal life.

Lewis defines two very real and relevant types of rewards: one separate from the nature of the action (doing good for money), one extending directly from the nature of the action (doing good for good itself).

The second is obviously the more virtuous of the two, however there is a problem: The reward that extends from the direct nature of obedience is the consummation thereof, the ultimate reward of heaven, and that is unknowable to us. We cannot truly desire the "proper reward" of obedience because we have no conception of what that reward is.

Instead of falling back to the idea that obedience is a mercenary effort, he establishes a "preliminary reward" that is proper and knowable: the actual power to desire it. In other words, Christians obey because they desire to desire the kingdom of heaven.

It isn't a very compelling argument to me. (In fact all of Lewis's argument appear as furious backpedalling to me.) But anyway....

I asked a question in another thread as an analogy, but now it is rather direct:

Is a man moral because he obeys God or because he agrees with God?

In the other thread it was meant to point out that assigning morality through law does not actually create moral people, people are only moral if they behave good without the rule of law.

This is what Lewis is getting at when he says "Gospel" will replace "Law". Just as the student begins to appreciate the flow of greek poetry rather than the laws of greek grammar, the person has a "longing" to be good, rather than being good by "obedience".

In the end, we behave according to our own understanding of divine truth, rather that simply behaving because "God says so".

I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis. I would stress the fact that we need Greek grammar, or something like it, as a necessary starting point. In order to know what can be known, in order to see what can be seen. We need the basics as a prerequisite to achievement.

I think that once people learn the basic rules, then they automatically conform to some of those rules by way of their own independent moral preference. They conform morally, and not because the law says so. They conform because they see for themselves the justice inherent in the law.

I would add that the consummation of man in choosing the good for the sake of the good, with the freedom to do otherwise, is also beautiful.

It seems to me this modivational game needs some objectivity. :p

Since it is in the nature of our very genes to survive and
adapt, as life evolved, certain mental predispositions
evolved as well--contract behavior, helping members of a
species work together in a fight or flight situation. Some
might well consider this an example of moral relativism, but it
is not. There is really no such thing as moral relativism
(except in cases where wayward, reckless humans choose
to disregard morality) since the changing morals of the
different cultures are adhered to by those cultures. In other
words, though I put no stock in Hindu rules for life, and such
rules are relative to me, the people that submit themselves
to this system of government do not look on it as relative
because, in their case, Hinduism attaches to itself, the
enforcement of contract behavior, which, as we have seen,
binds them and directs them. It has power over them like our
own beliefs do over us, and the world continues to go round,
morality intact!

It is at this point in the discussion that the dissenting theist
voices his disagreement: "But that's still moral relativism
because I can still disregard my feelings for others and live
only for myself, killing, torturing, robbing, and manipulating
everyone to my own advantage!"

This objection is no objection at all, first, because people do
this all the time. Rapes, bank robberies, execution-style
murders, etc. happen all the time. Anyone can become a
criminal if they choose to, and when they do, they mark
themselves as enemies of the greater good who must be
dealt with. So should I decide that I don't care about others,
but only myself, and decide that it is in my "self- interest" to
rob a bank because I think I can get away with it, I become
an enemy, a lawbreaking, contract behavior-violating threat
to society. I must then be stopped. This is the way of the
world even with the majority of society maintaining god-belief.

The second reason why this objection is useless is found
when we consider how few people choose to totally
disregard the safety and wellbeing of others and commit
heinous, immoral acts. In a world of over 6.1 billion people,
only thousands of serious criminals commit crimes every
day! This is a strikingly small number, given the population.
People can and do maintain a non-religiously-based status
quo morality.:cool:



) Morality is obvious and reasonable, by means of contract
behavior, for all intelligent life to follow as they see fit.

2) Morality has nothing whatsoever to do with a god; If a god
exists, "good" and "bad" stand as valid whether or not a
deity is considered to be the source of the morality.

3) "Good" and "bad" are relative terms except to the species
or group that embraces said principles, and the principles
are always connected with contract behavior. This makes
morality neither solidly objective, nor flippantly relativistic.

4) The principle of enlightened self interest is the system
that freethinkers use to determine right from wrong. We
serve ourselves, but ultimately, go beyond ourselves in
pursuit of happiness of our species because that adds to
our own happiness.

5) The highest type of morality is neither reward, nor fear
based, but comes from the thought-out desire to do what is
right in the context of human volition.

Therefore, using reason, we conclude that a secular
morality outshines a superficially divine one in every
conceivable way.

1. yes, Lewis put down thoughts that somewhat embody the way we should feel as the "bride of Christ". Matt. 9:15

2. God made a covenant with the nation of Israel in the old testament. God was to be the God of the Israelites, and they were to be his people. They were supposed to follow him, and he would protect them. This covenant did not work, God kept his part, but the people broke their end of it. This gave us a need of a new covenant so God sent his son Jesus to die, as a new covenant. Jer. 31:31 - 33 and Mat. 26:26 - 28
We are no longer under the law (the strict laws of the old covenant), but under grace.

[QUOTE]Since it is in the nature of our very genes to survive and
adapt, as life evolved, certain mental predispositions
evolved as well--contract behavior, helping members of a
species work together in a fight or flight situation. Some
might well consider this an example of moral relativism, but it
is not.[/QUOTE]

I can see where you are coming from with this, and agree that it is not moral relativism.

[QUOTE]
There is really no such thing as moral relativism
(except in cases where wayward, reckless humans choose
to disregard morality) since the changing morals of the
different cultures are adhered to by those cultures.
[/QUOTE]

I do not agree with this. The problem with moral relativism isn't about the differences in morals inside a culture, but that different cultures may have different standards of morality. Let's say that someone grew up in a very Christian home. They grow up to be a missonary. They fly to Africa to share the gospel, and the natives kill him before he has a chance to share anything. The natives were not being wayward, wreckless humans, they were simply trying to defend themselves. They had never seen people falling from the sky. Both parties, the missionary and the natives thought they did the moral thing. According to moral relativism they both did the moral thing, but at the same time they saw the other person's actions as immoral.

[quote]In other
words, though I put no stock in Hindu rules for life, and such
rules are relative to me, the people that submit themselves
to this system of government do not look on it as relative
because, in their case, Hinduism attaches to itself, the
enforcement of contract behavior, which, as we have seen,
binds them and directs them. It has power over them like our
own beliefs do over us, and the world continues to go round,
morality intact![/quote]

I don't understand what you are getting at with this. Are you saying that Hindus have their rules, and we have ours, and the world goes around anyway? If not please correct me. If that is the case, then it's not about the things both of our cultures agree upon, but rather what they disagree upon. I find it immoral to be polythiestic, but the Hindus may not. Can we both be right at the same time? Can something (polytheism) be moral and immoral at the same time?

[QUOTE]It is at this point in the discussion that the dissenting theist
voices his disagreement: "But that's still moral relativism
because I can still disregard my feelings for others and live
only for myself, killing, torturing, robbing, and manipulating
everyone to my own advantage!"

This objection is no objection at all, first, because people do
this all the time. Rapes, bank robberies, execution-style
murders, etc. happen all the time. Anyone can become a
criminal if they choose to, and when they do, they mark
themselves as enemies of the greater good who must be
dealt with. So should I decide that I don't care about others,
but only myself, and decide that it is in my "self- interest" to
rob a bank because I think I can get away with it, I become
an enemy, a lawbreaking, contract behavior-violating threat
to society. I must then be stopped. This is the way of the
world even with the majority of society maintaining god-belief.[/QUOTE]

I suppose this would make me the dissenting theist. I do agree that the objection posed isn't a very good one. I'm not seeing moral relativism in the same way that Nietzsche did. If everyone lived however they wanted to, our world would be in total chaos. The problem I see with moral relativism is between different cultures. We obviously have laws within our culture that people break, and I'm sure people break laws in other cultures too. The contradiction lies in where one person from our culture, does something in the other culture that is fine for us, but immoral for them.


[quote]The second reason why this objection is useless is found
when we consider how few people choose to totally
disregard the safety and wellbeing of others and commit
heinous, immoral acts. In a world of over 6.1 billion people,
only thousands of serious criminals commit crimes every
day! This is a strikingly small number, given the population.
People can and do maintain a non-religiously-based status
quo morality.[/quote]

Again, I agree that the objection was not a very good one.

[QUOTE]
Morality is obvious and reasonable, by means of contract
behavior, for all intelligent life to follow as they see fit.
[/QUOTE]

So why do people choose not to do what is moral? Is it just for us to follow as we see fit (serious criminals)?

[QUOTE]2) Morality has nothing whatsoever to do with a god; If a god
exists, "good" and "bad" stand as valid whether or not a
deity is considered to be the source of the morality.[/QUOTE]

Are you saying that society decides what is "good" and what is "bad"? If so, that is moral relativism. If not, please tell me what you were saying.

[QUOTE]
3) "Good" and "bad" are relative terms except to the species
or group that embraces said principles, and the principles
are always connected with contract behavior. This makes
morality neither solidly objective, nor flippantly relativistic.
[/QUOTE]

This still indicates moral relativism. If everyone is doing what is right in their own eyes, its obviously not solidly objective. And there are other cultures, and the criminals that will not follow the contract behavior. People are going to do wrong whether our morals are flippantly relativistic, solidly objective, or somewhere in the middle.

[QUOTE]
4) The principle of enlightened self interest is the system
that freethinkers use to determine right from wrong. We
serve ourselves, but ultimately, go beyond ourselves in
pursuit of happiness of our species because that adds to
our own happiness.
[/QUOTE]

What exactly is the principle of enlightened self interest? If it is what I think it is, then why are there people who murder other people, or steal from other people. They are not helping our species.

[QUOTE]5) The highest type of morality is neither reward, nor fear
based, but comes from the thought-out desire to do what is
right in the context of human volition.[/QUOTE]

Are you suggesting that the morality of actions is based on the motivation behind them? Honestly, I agree, but the actual action has to be moral first, and can be made more so, or less, based on the motivation behind it.

[QUOTE]
Therefore, using reason, we conclude that a secular
morality outshines a superficially divine one in every
conceivable way.
[/QUOTE]

Someone with superficially divine morals wouldn't have very strong convictions to do the right thing. Neither would someone with superficially secular morals. A secular person with strong moral convictions, outshines a "religious" person without morals. I agree.

There are two rewards given a Christian as they progress in maturity in Christ. One is in our current lives (the 'first reward' he speaks of) and the other is the afterlife (the ultimate reward). I can tell you of the reward I have received so far.

I grew up the step child of an alcoholic narcissist whose favorite pet names for me were b****h & wh*r*e from the time I was 11 years old. By the time I was 13 I had accepted them as the truth of my life and acted accordingly. After one destructive decision after another I found myself pregnant at 19 years old and completely alone. Even my parents had thrown me out of the house and were not people I could go to. My boyfriend was a drunk who stayed out until 3am every night and then we'd fight and he'd leave me again in a drunken fit of rage.

Alone the day after I found out I was pregnant, I made an appointment at an abortion clinic. It scared me how quickly they were ready to do the procedure so I paced furiously smoking on cigarette after another coming up with every lie or plan or scheme I could to get out of the mess I was in. My life was over. I made $7 an hour and there was no way I could take care of a baby. I was too much of a mess myself.

For some unknown reason, I fell on my knees and prayed. I said, "God I know this is all my fault. I know I am in this situation because of the way I live and I promise if you will fix my situation, I will serve you. I'll live the way you want me to in your Bible and I will never act like this again." Immediately, I stopped crying. There was such an amazing peace that filled my whole body. I was actually full of joy. I felt this warmth pour over my whole body, from head to the floor. I didn't understand it except that I knew God had answered my prayer. I had not heard of being saved at this time and had no idea that God was a personal God who actually interacted with His people.

For some reason I never picked up a cigarette again. I wasn't swearing anymore. I didn't even think I shouldn't, it just happened. To make a long story short. I am married to that boyfriend of mine, and God has transformed him into the most wonderful man in the world. That baby is my beautiful daughter who at 12 years old has a ministry of her own leading people to a transforming relationship with Christ. I have found the real truth of my life, not the horrible things my father said, but the fact that I am created in the image of God and He loves me and has a plan for my life. That plan has been the driving force of my life for 12 years now. I obey God because I have seen how much better my life has become. God doesn't give rules to hinder your life. He gives guidance so you can have it to the fullest. The need I had for multiply partners, even homosexual at times, is completely gone and I have the most beautiful and fulfilling relationship with my husband. I never imagined my life could be so rewarding. God took my wasted life and made it shine. That is the reward I have now. And if God is so wonderful that He would do that for me, I can't wait to spend eternity with Him because there is no one like Him!