Does Mere Christianity ultimately fail?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marc_Anthony
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Marc_Anthony

Guest
In an earlier thread called “Objective Morality” I used arguments from Lewis’s “Mere Christianity” to try and prove there was an objective morality.

An atheist countered my arguments, and the consensus of the thread seemed to be that an objective morality is impossible to prove. And yet, my arguments were taken practically directly from Lewis’s “Mere Christinaity”! And, without a lot of thought, it seemed, an atheist had rebutted them successfully.

So do the arguments in “Mere Christinaity” fail? They might, for two reasons:
  1. Lewis does not present something which cannot be explained in a subjectively moral universe.
  2. He does not prove the existence of the source of this objective morality.
If Lewis did one of those two things, then the argument might work. I don’t think he does though, and thus i think Mere Christinaity ultimately fails.

Does anybody disagree? Or, better yet, can anybody make a good argument for objective morality?
 
Thanks for that, John.

I was quite shocked at the ease of the rebuttal since Lewis, and “Mere Christinaity”, are so highly regarded by Christians.

I come away fairly disappointed in Lewis’s apologetics.

But I love the Chronicles of Narnia. 👍
 
I read mere Christianity awhile ago, and was largely unconvinced.

I do not have a good argument for objective morality. Even as a Catholic, I do not fully believe in objective morality myself. I believe the Catholic faith offers a set of moral values which are of great value primarily to the one who practices them.

For the unbeliever who does not practice Catholic morality, the fact that he doesn’t practice it, does not detract from his character. I believe each person is free to some extent to discover their own morality to achieve the end which they see as having the highest value for themselves.

So therefore, I believe there could be other equally valuable sets of moral values, such as those practiced by all the other religions in each ones respective social context.

I haven’t read the other thread, but as a Catholic trying to live my faith, and to really believe it, I would love to be convinced of objective morality. It is not easy, because I so desperately do not want to judge anyone for anything. I don’t want to accept that If I choose to live morally, that I am somehow doings something better than anybody else. It seems terribly judgmental, but that’s just me.
 
slywakka250 said:
…If I choose to live morally, that I am somehow doings something better than anybody else. It seems terribly judgmental, but that’s just me.
Click to expand...
Don’t worry; you’ll always mess up just like the rest of us. 😉
 
I personally don’t attempt arguments I do not know enough about to defend. I have read a lot on this issue, and relativists/nihilists have been pretty much pummeled by realists. I wouldn’t take an issue with people not responding to your threads and would encourage you to read more on it.

And there’s so many ways to tackle this issue. You can assume relativism and take it to ad reductio absurdum, for one.
 
Windfish said:
I personally don’t attempt arguments I do not know enough about to defend. I have read a lot on this issue, and relativists/nihilists have been pretty much pummeled by realists. I wouldn’t take an issue with people not responding to your threads and would encourage you to read more on it.

And there’s so many ways to tackle this issue. You can assume relativism and take it to ad reductio absurdum, for one.
Click to expand...
Well, you’re right, but I thought that with Lewis’s reputation and the high regard given to Mere Christianity that using Lewis’s arguments would at least provide a decent back and forth. But after one simple rebuttal, it seemed, the arguments fell apart!

I suppose it’s a lesson though: philosophy is not simple. Be wary of philosophers and philosophies that make it seem so.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
Well, you’re right, but I thought that with Lewis’s reputation and the high regard given to Mere Christianity that using Lewis’s arguments would at least provide a decent back and forth. But after one simple rebuttal, it seemed, the arguments fell apart!

I suppose it’s a lesson though: philosophy is not simple. Be wary of philosophers and philosophies that make it seem so.
Click to expand...
Yeah, “it seemed.” 😛 Maybe it’s just me, but I take internet arguments with a grain of salt.

I actually vehemently disagree with your last statement. We need those kinds of thinkers.
 
slywakka250 said:
I read mere Christianity awhile ago, and was largely unconvinced. I do not have a good argument for objective morality. Even as a Catholic, I do not fully believe in objective morality myself. I believe the Catholic faith offers a set of moral values which are of great value primarily to the one who practices them.
Click to expand...
Then you are not strictly speaking in line with Catholic teaching as you render the very concept of Christian goodness or holiness meaningless; since good becomes merely what you find yourself appealing to or desiring. Thus God is only called good because God appeals to how we want to live or how we feel and not because we recognise an objective good in God that we ought to follow.
 
Are the 10 Commandments and the two great Commandements objective morality?
 
Marc_Anthony said:
I come away fairly disappointed in Lewis’s apologetics.
Click to expand...
Cs lewis doesn’t try to prove objective moral values in the sense of a logical equation. Firstly he tries to show that are every behaviour is as such that you would think that objective moral values existed, and secondly he attempts to show that we experience objective moral values in the way we relate to each other as persons. In the end Cs.lewis more or less says that objective moral values is self evident in our experiences, and it is up to us if we want to admit that they actually there. We can certainly deny them. There are people who deny that objective logic exists. Its not surprising therefore that people would find away to ignore what is evidently in our experiences.

The argument from the experience of guilt.

We experience guilt, and we experience this guilt when we either acknowledge, admit, or think, that we have done objective “wrong” to some person. Even when we are mistaken, we can see that we were mistaken about something which has the appearance of what we know to be wrong; and that is the unjustified harming of another human life. We are never arbitrarily mistaken, unless there is some kind of brain damage involved. Notice we only experience guilt in relation to the knowledge of wrong, and guilt is only meaningful in respect of right and wrong. Thus we must have some experience or innate knowledge about that which is truly wrong; otherwise our guilt would have nothing objective to relate to. We do not experience guilt except in context to choices concerning good and evil. When we do not believe that we have done wrong we do not feel downcast or guilty even if others thing we are guilty. Since our guilt relates to our behaviour toward other personal beings and our knowledge or admittance of doing wrong, then this strongly suggests, even if it doesn’t prove, that we have been given a conscience with the purpose of influencing or guiding our actions toward the good of other personal beings by making us aware of possible errors in our behaviour. If we live in a meaningless and purposeless universe, then we cannot expect physical reality to invent the meaning sufficient for our experience of guilt and its relationship to personal actions.

Out of nothing comes nothing. Thus, in short, the existence of Guilt presupposes the existence of the greater good and the existence of that which can “experience” good and evil. With out the existence of a personal being that can experience “moral error”, guilt cannot exist, and thus the existence of such an experience implies that people exist to fulfil a moral purpose.
 
If so, you might want to discuss the objective morality of any one Commandment.

What is the objective morality of honoring your mother and father?

Is it safe to say the when a person doesn’t believe in objective morality, they instead believe in subjective morality?
 
Human beings cannot prove anything beyond a certain level of doubt. Not even geometry, or math, or logic. Certainly not science. Descartes showed that conclusively, with his evil demon hypothesis.

But Lewis’s case for objective morality is not a proof, but an argument. An argument is simply a reason to believe. Lewis didn’t seek to make his case unassailable; it was simply an inference to the best explanation.

Consider a parallel, Locke’s argument for the existence of material objects: I have certain perceptions of objects, which correspond to the perceptions of other people (assuming other people exist, of course). These perceptions are best explained by the actual existence of material objects, i.e. objects that continue to exist when not perceived. Therefore, material objects exist.

Lewis says this, in part: Different cultures have, in large part, similar moral views. This could be explained in many ways, but the most plausible explanation is that there are objective moral truths. Therefore, there are objective moral truths.

Is this a reason to believe? All things being equal, I think so. Still, it can be criticized. (And, to be fair, Lewis didn’t intend his work for an academic audience. He would have said much more in his own defense, if he had.)

The burden of the critic is to suggest that either a) objective moral truths are conceptually incoherent, or b) there is a better, naturalistic explanation for the cultural similarities.
 
Barbkw said:
I

Is it safe to say the when a person doesn’t believe in objective morality, they instead believe in subjective morality?
Click to expand...
What is subjective morality? Do you mean what is subjectively good for the fulfilment of pleasure is good for me irrespective of what is subjectively good for others? That’s not morality. That’s just a matter of taste. Some people like Marmite, others prefer cheese and pickle sandwiches.
 
I know Lewis was presenting an argument, not a proof. But I think the argument failed. He never addresses:
  1. Something which cannot be explained in a subjectively moral universe.
  2. He does not prove the existence of the source of this objective morality.
…And for this reason I’m less than impressed.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
I know Lewis was presenting an argument, not a proof. But I think the argument failed. He never addresses:
  1. Something which cannot be explained in a subjectively moral universe.
  2. He does not prove the existence of the source of this objective morality.
Click to expand...
But neither does Locke. If you can’t prove the existence of ANY objects, why should you be able to prove the existence of moral objects?

And yet you can have reason to believe moral objects (desirable ends) exist, just as you have reason to believe that material objects exist.
 
Really though, objective morality can be proven quite easily.

All you need to do is present somethng that cannot be explained in a subjectively moral sense.

Is there anything?
 
Marc_Anthony said:
Really though, objective morality can be proven quite easily.

All you need to do is present somethng that cannot be explained in a subjectively moral sense.

Is there anything?
Click to expand...
That’s not easy at all! Can you prove objective beauty, or objective reality, or objective materiality, in such a way? Not at all.

One can always use a bizarre hypothesis to explain ANY phenomenon. So there are not any experiences that necessitate the existence of a subjective moral sense, just as there are no experiences that *necessitate *the existence of God. But which hypothesis do you think is more likely? 1) The world is the way it is because of random events, or 2) The world is the way it is because of the actions of God.

Just so, the question about morality is this: Are our experiences better explained by objective morality, or no morality? (For I am quite sure that “subjective morality” is nonsense).
 
Marc_Anthony said:
In an earlier thread called “Objective Morality” I used arguments from Lewis’s “Mere Christianity” to try and prove there was an objective morality.

An atheist countered my arguments, and the consensus of the thread seemed to be that an objective morality is impossible to prove. And yet, my arguments were taken practically directly from Lewis’s “Mere Christinaity”! And, without a lot of thought, it seemed, an atheist had rebutted them successfully.

So do the arguments in “Mere Christinaity” fail? They might, for two reasons:
  1. Lewis does not present something which cannot be explained in a subjectively moral universe.
  2. He does not prove the existence of the source of this objective morality.
If Lewis did one of those two things, then the argument might work. I don’t think he does though, and thus i think Mere Christinaity ultimately fails.

Does anybody disagree? Or, better yet, can anybody make a good argument for objective morality?
Click to expand...
Have you read the Abolition of Man? Mere Christianity is a starting point for which study to commence from (this is what it was for me) and for this, I feel that succeeds phenomenally.

-Prophecy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top