Friday, September 23, 2005
Book Review: Mere Christianity
I'm going to start this post very apologetically- this isn't a regular book review, and yes, I am an atheist as of today. Uh oh, you're thinking- a Christian book review by a professed atheist? He's just going to dismiss all of its claims one by one. Well, I assure you that although I could try and take that route, I'm not going to. And before I start I want to point out a few caveats. 1) I'm not averse to the idea of there being a God 2) I went into reading this book with as open a mind as possible. When I saw crappy analogies (and there are a lot) I tried to see the similiarities, not the differences.
And here's a little background info. CS Lewis, the author of the book, and yes, also the author of "The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe" (coming to theaters this year!) was a professed atheist, before he started questioning his beliefs and converted to Christianity, convinced that it was the one true path and that it was a rational, logical choice. This is his explanation of Christianity.
The book starts off with a simple premise- that there is a human moral code. This is not a big controversy, so he goes through a few analogical hoops to show that this code is not, in fact, simple rationality, and not, in fact, simple human instinct. But it's in these chapters that he begins to show his purposeful use and misuse of analogy and language to illustrate his point of view. Cases in point: Lewis calls this moral code the "Law of Human Nature" many times. By Law, he admits, he does not mean unbreakable rule of physics. He is referring to Law in the legal sense- something that should be followed or have consequences. But even though he admits it, he freely compares this Law (capital L) with other Laws of nature, like gravity, which is a Law in a totally different definition of the word. He purposely bludgeons the word to make it have more of an effect. Yes, you agree- there is this human moral code that exists within us. And yes, we could call it a Law if we wanted. Secondly, he mixes up definitons of right and wrong- some of the most contextual and reconnotated words in our language. He says, that when we say something is the wrong color, we mean unsuitable. But when we say someone is wrong for taking our seat, we don't simply mean it was unsuitable- we mean that it was morally incorrect. Of course that's true. He might as well have said, "when we say, that bird is going right, we don't mean that it's moving up the moral ladder. When we say that man is right, we don't simply mean that he is not to our left. Thus we all have a sense of right and wrong."
These imprecisions don't make him wrong, they just show his willingness to use populist argumetns to further his point. And in any case, I did agree with him- humans do have consciences, and they are in many ways compatible and comparable. Which, he points out, is why so many religions have similar rules and commandments. So far we're on the same ground.
The point is, he says, is that NOBODY follows their conscience all the time. In fact, he argues, we listen to it very seldomly. How can this conscience keep nagging at us day after day, within us, all the while being totally ignored? And who created it?
A question for the ages, of course. And yet we're still on common ground. Lately I've been questioning whether I really, truly, believe in non-existence of God. The scientist in me says yes, but the irrational part of me says that it would be awfully nice if there were. But here is where Mr. Lewis and I part ways. He says he feels that this voice inside him, not created by any person, that fills him with Christian guilt (my words) wherever he goes. He knows that it is inside him and inside of everyone else. This voice is part of God, because it wants people to make the right choices, and this machinery of the conscience is sort of a test of moral fortitude.
OK, I say, I agree. human conscience and psychology is something I'm not qualified to delve into, but isn't it totally possible that human conscience is created by the same things that make us sentient? Yes, I feel guilt like Lewis does, but I don't NECESSARILY attribute it to the push of an invisible hand. It may just be a construct of the human emotional and rational combination. That which makes us biologically special makes us intellectually special, and that which makes us intellectually special probably makes us spiritually special, for a lack of a better term. Lewis argues way too simplistically, that because he believed that there was injustice as an atheist, he was forced to acknowledge that there was a just power somewhere else, and that if we lived in a universe without meaning, we would never know about no meaning, just like if we had lived in a universe without light, we wouldn't know about dark. But he doesn't allow for the fact that perhaps, this universal sense of justice is created by both societal and human nature- that humans can't possibly have survived the last million years without evolving to to not screw over your neighbors. And meaning can exist without there being a God... it can easily be a construct of our minds.
(as an aside- see the 'Selfish Gene' to read about the monkeys that don't help groom each other- the other monkeys have learned that it is 'right' to pick lice off each other, but every once in a while an 'evil' monkey (ha, evil monkeys!) will not help, but because the other monkeys assume that most monkeys will do it for each other, they do it for that monkey anyway. if that 'evil' gene spread throughout the monkey population, they would learn to stop helping each other out and all become infected with lice.)
But I won't try and deny the possibility that if there were a God, it would live within us. That's the Hindu version of God, that the Truth is the guiding force in the universe, and it also helps guide our actions. I can't deny that because it somehow has a ring of truth, even if it doesn't get the whole picture.
Lewis then goes on to talk about Christian morality- specifically, pride, greed, sexuality, etc. These are things that I agree are problems in the world. As an invention, Christianity definitely has some things going for it, if people actually followed its moral code. But these are not original to Christianity. As a moral guide, I think we can't deny that Christianity has shaped and will continue to shape American morals, including mine. So what makes Christianity right and Hinduism wrong if they preach similar morals?
So the real leap of faith, I think, and the one that Lewis glosses over way too quickly, is that God did come in Jesus form, that he will come again, and that these are undeniable. Despite actually having a good explanation of how Jesus' death could have possibly saved humanity, I'm still not convinced. If God truly wanted to give people a chance to ally themselves with God (something he argues), isn't it much easier to believe after you've seen a perfect man performing miracles? And what is the point in him waiting for the second coming?
Lewis says that he is coming, and he is giving people a chance to decide before he does destroy the evil that has infested earth. But then isn't he inevitably cutting some people's lives short? What if aperson who dies during this Apocalypse, if given a few more years, would have undergone a CS Lewis-type conversion to Christianity? God never gave him the chance. And so if god were really testing us like that, he'd have to let the world continue indefinitely. (A pre-rebuttal: no, even if God all-knowing, he can't know what that man was going to do, because the Christian God gave him free will so that he would precisely not know what that man was going to do.)
The last compelling part of the book is the explanation of why Christians are not better people that the rest of the world, why they go to war, kill, and have priests that... can't keep their vows, we'll say. His rather simplistic argument is that, no, perhaps Christians are not better people on the outside, but rather than they have been 'upgraded' by Christianity, and boy, you wouldn't believe how bad those people would be if they hadn't been. Well, that's all well and good for individual cases, but on a societal level, things like that should cancel out- there should be just as many good christians upgraded to really great as there are atheists who are just regular good. And I don't think you can look at Christianity at any point in its History other than its beginning, when it was more of a cult, and say that Christians were the moral compass of the world.
But I can't help but feel personally affected by this discussion. I consider myself a good person sometimes. I wonder, really, though, if I were born somewhere else, in a family with hatred as a value- would I be a good person? I think that the answer is unequivocally no. Shouldn't I strive to be a better person that I am now, instead of being content that I haven't killed anybody? Christians (and by Christians I mean the people who actually practice it) believe that what they are is a gift from God, and that if they were born poor and mean-spirited, perhaps raising a family and being nice to a few neighbors is all that God asks. But if they were born rich, nice, and charismatic, they should be giving to charity, building homes, eradicating evil and evangelizing, because that's just as hard for the rich person as it is for the poor person.
On the other hand, I believe that what I am is luck. Does that mean that I have to give back even more because I'm lucky? Well, I'm not a Christian, so no. But I do think it's shaped my thinking- one of the main reason I'm a liberal is because I think that the only reason impoverished people are the way they are is simply bad luck. And to bring them closer together is to even the playing field in my view. In the Christian view, the playing field is already level in God's eyes, because both impoverished and rich people have their work cut out for them. Perhaps it helps explain the religious right. Maybe it doesn't.
In the end, I find myself appreciating the values of Christianity more than I ever have in my life. I can't avert my eyes to the moral hypocrisy of so many Christians out there, nor can I to the countless deaths and wars in the name of Christ. And so I realize something that has been nagging at me- it's religious practice I have a problem with. And since this is way too long, it's time for me to leave that to another discussion.
And here's a little background info. CS Lewis, the author of the book, and yes, also the author of "The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe" (coming to theaters this year!) was a professed atheist, before he started questioning his beliefs and converted to Christianity, convinced that it was the one true path and that it was a rational, logical choice. This is his explanation of Christianity.
The book starts off with a simple premise- that there is a human moral code. This is not a big controversy, so he goes through a few analogical hoops to show that this code is not, in fact, simple rationality, and not, in fact, simple human instinct. But it's in these chapters that he begins to show his purposeful use and misuse of analogy and language to illustrate his point of view. Cases in point: Lewis calls this moral code the "Law of Human Nature" many times. By Law, he admits, he does not mean unbreakable rule of physics. He is referring to Law in the legal sense- something that should be followed or have consequences. But even though he admits it, he freely compares this Law (capital L) with other Laws of nature, like gravity, which is a Law in a totally different definition of the word. He purposely bludgeons the word to make it have more of an effect. Yes, you agree- there is this human moral code that exists within us. And yes, we could call it a Law if we wanted. Secondly, he mixes up definitons of right and wrong- some of the most contextual and reconnotated words in our language. He says, that when we say something is the wrong color, we mean unsuitable. But when we say someone is wrong for taking our seat, we don't simply mean it was unsuitable- we mean that it was morally incorrect. Of course that's true. He might as well have said, "when we say, that bird is going right, we don't mean that it's moving up the moral ladder. When we say that man is right, we don't simply mean that he is not to our left. Thus we all have a sense of right and wrong."
These imprecisions don't make him wrong, they just show his willingness to use populist argumetns to further his point. And in any case, I did agree with him- humans do have consciences, and they are in many ways compatible and comparable. Which, he points out, is why so many religions have similar rules and commandments. So far we're on the same ground.
The point is, he says, is that NOBODY follows their conscience all the time. In fact, he argues, we listen to it very seldomly. How can this conscience keep nagging at us day after day, within us, all the while being totally ignored? And who created it?
A question for the ages, of course. And yet we're still on common ground. Lately I've been questioning whether I really, truly, believe in non-existence of God. The scientist in me says yes, but the irrational part of me says that it would be awfully nice if there were. But here is where Mr. Lewis and I part ways. He says he feels that this voice inside him, not created by any person, that fills him with Christian guilt (my words) wherever he goes. He knows that it is inside him and inside of everyone else. This voice is part of God, because it wants people to make the right choices, and this machinery of the conscience is sort of a test of moral fortitude.
OK, I say, I agree. human conscience and psychology is something I'm not qualified to delve into, but isn't it totally possible that human conscience is created by the same things that make us sentient? Yes, I feel guilt like Lewis does, but I don't NECESSARILY attribute it to the push of an invisible hand. It may just be a construct of the human emotional and rational combination. That which makes us biologically special makes us intellectually special, and that which makes us intellectually special probably makes us spiritually special, for a lack of a better term. Lewis argues way too simplistically, that because he believed that there was injustice as an atheist, he was forced to acknowledge that there was a just power somewhere else, and that if we lived in a universe without meaning, we would never know about no meaning, just like if we had lived in a universe without light, we wouldn't know about dark. But he doesn't allow for the fact that perhaps, this universal sense of justice is created by both societal and human nature- that humans can't possibly have survived the last million years without evolving to to not screw over your neighbors. And meaning can exist without there being a God... it can easily be a construct of our minds.
(as an aside- see the 'Selfish Gene' to read about the monkeys that don't help groom each other- the other monkeys have learned that it is 'right' to pick lice off each other, but every once in a while an 'evil' monkey (ha, evil monkeys!) will not help, but because the other monkeys assume that most monkeys will do it for each other, they do it for that monkey anyway. if that 'evil' gene spread throughout the monkey population, they would learn to stop helping each other out and all become infected with lice.)
But I won't try and deny the possibility that if there were a God, it would live within us. That's the Hindu version of God, that the Truth is the guiding force in the universe, and it also helps guide our actions. I can't deny that because it somehow has a ring of truth, even if it doesn't get the whole picture.
Lewis then goes on to talk about Christian morality- specifically, pride, greed, sexuality, etc. These are things that I agree are problems in the world. As an invention, Christianity definitely has some things going for it, if people actually followed its moral code. But these are not original to Christianity. As a moral guide, I think we can't deny that Christianity has shaped and will continue to shape American morals, including mine. So what makes Christianity right and Hinduism wrong if they preach similar morals?
So the real leap of faith, I think, and the one that Lewis glosses over way too quickly, is that God did come in Jesus form, that he will come again, and that these are undeniable. Despite actually having a good explanation of how Jesus' death could have possibly saved humanity, I'm still not convinced. If God truly wanted to give people a chance to ally themselves with God (something he argues), isn't it much easier to believe after you've seen a perfect man performing miracles? And what is the point in him waiting for the second coming?
Lewis says that he is coming, and he is giving people a chance to decide before he does destroy the evil that has infested earth. But then isn't he inevitably cutting some people's lives short? What if aperson who dies during this Apocalypse, if given a few more years, would have undergone a CS Lewis-type conversion to Christianity? God never gave him the chance. And so if god were really testing us like that, he'd have to let the world continue indefinitely. (A pre-rebuttal: no, even if God all-knowing, he can't know what that man was going to do, because the Christian God gave him free will so that he would precisely not know what that man was going to do.)
The last compelling part of the book is the explanation of why Christians are not better people that the rest of the world, why they go to war, kill, and have priests that... can't keep their vows, we'll say. His rather simplistic argument is that, no, perhaps Christians are not better people on the outside, but rather than they have been 'upgraded' by Christianity, and boy, you wouldn't believe how bad those people would be if they hadn't been. Well, that's all well and good for individual cases, but on a societal level, things like that should cancel out- there should be just as many good christians upgraded to really great as there are atheists who are just regular good. And I don't think you can look at Christianity at any point in its History other than its beginning, when it was more of a cult, and say that Christians were the moral compass of the world.
But I can't help but feel personally affected by this discussion. I consider myself a good person sometimes. I wonder, really, though, if I were born somewhere else, in a family with hatred as a value- would I be a good person? I think that the answer is unequivocally no. Shouldn't I strive to be a better person that I am now, instead of being content that I haven't killed anybody? Christians (and by Christians I mean the people who actually practice it) believe that what they are is a gift from God, and that if they were born poor and mean-spirited, perhaps raising a family and being nice to a few neighbors is all that God asks. But if they were born rich, nice, and charismatic, they should be giving to charity, building homes, eradicating evil and evangelizing, because that's just as hard for the rich person as it is for the poor person.
On the other hand, I believe that what I am is luck. Does that mean that I have to give back even more because I'm lucky? Well, I'm not a Christian, so no. But I do think it's shaped my thinking- one of the main reason I'm a liberal is because I think that the only reason impoverished people are the way they are is simply bad luck. And to bring them closer together is to even the playing field in my view. In the Christian view, the playing field is already level in God's eyes, because both impoverished and rich people have their work cut out for them. Perhaps it helps explain the religious right. Maybe it doesn't.
In the end, I find myself appreciating the values of Christianity more than I ever have in my life. I can't avert my eyes to the moral hypocrisy of so many Christians out there, nor can I to the countless deaths and wars in the name of Christ. And so I realize something that has been nagging at me- it's religious practice I have a problem with. And since this is way too long, it's time for me to leave that to another discussion.
# posted by Stuart @ 11:40 AM 
