Yes, I confess that I hadn't done all the background reading and was hoping I could just sort of slide in here.
I think I figured it out though. I'll try making a response to your other post in a bit and find out.


Ah, OK. I think I see where you're coming from.
When I read it I just don't see Lewis coming from that angle. Like the wiki article says, I think he definitely believes that Theism offers the most logical explanation for human morality. But I think he's quite adamant on the notion that general human morality exists with or without Theism to explain it.
In other words, he begins by saying "We all seem to have this moral code we believe in" (meaning everyone of any religion) and then he asks "What explanation of he universe best accounts for this strange fact?". Or at least that's how I've always understood that book.

OK, I think this is the answer to my "true believer in what?" question.
But now I have another one.

Which parts of the Bible are we talking about here?
I mean, if we look at the New Testament we have a collection of (quasi-)historical accounts (Matthew - Acts), then a series of letters (Romans - Jude), then a description of a "prophetic vision" (Revelations).
Taken as a whole, it doesn't really present itself as some sort of "moral code". You can certainly get a moral code out of it if you try to, but it takes quite a bit of extraction (which might explain why so many people disagree on what, precisely, should be extracted).

And really, none of the authors had any idea that their works would ever be collected together into one morally authoritative book. That wasn't done until hundreds of years later after they were all dead. Reading some of the epistles, I get the impression that Paul didn't even suspect that some of those letters would last a hundred, much less be taken as supreme spiritual authority after two thousand years. If he had, I doubt he would have included all the pleasantries and minutia (such as greetings to/from local friends, updates on how a sick church-goer was feeling, obscure references to local disturbances, travel plans, etc).

I know there are some people who believe the words of the Bible all represent absolute moral code speaking directly to them. But, after reading it many times through, I can't believe that the authors ever intended that. They just don't write it that way.

I'm afraid I don't understand this at all. I'm all for being extremely hesitant about calling anyone "immoral" and for loving everyone we can.

But I don't see the conflict between believing what someone is doing is wrong and loving them at the same time.
I have several friends who I think have chosen from very wrong (not just foolish, but morally wrong) paths for their lives; they're hurting themselves and those around them. But I still love them.
And who hasn't known the parent who suffers great sorrow because they believe their child has done terrible things with their lives? They weep and pray because they love their child even when they think that child has done the wrong thing.

Nice slide, no problem, go ahead.


I'm probably digging a hole because I'm still working from memory but I'm pretty sure that Lewis' argument is that God provides morality and that it is subjective (writ in stone so to speak), regardless of any lack of belief, faith or even knowledge, on the part of man.

This means that theism is not merely viewed as best by virtue of Lewis personal inclination, but necessarily best to support that argument.

Now, whether or not a person calls himself/herself a Christian, Muslim, Jew or any number of such religions, there is little point to it if the morality established by that religion is viewed as a guideline - that is objective not subjective.

How can Christ be a great moral teacher if He was not divine (quite specifically CS Lewis here), and not offering more than general guidelines?

The grand paradox, is beautifully played out between the several Christians with which I communicate in this thread and the several non-believers whom they truly do not wish to judge. (Thanks all! )

Pramjockey, Mark_Twain and I may well be considered moral within the context of the very limited culture of the US, 2007, but any Christian is then forced to choose between making the evaluation based on the culture (objective), or based on their religion (subjective AND the specific context requested by Daisym in her opening post).

This evaluation forces a conclusion that the non-believers are highly likely to be less moral. Fortunately, an answer to the awkward dilemma (a wrong answer but an answer none-the-less), can be found in the very text that was previously avoided at all cost. What a predicament! That text, (the New Testament in this case), as used by both Mrs. M and Non Sequitur, simply instructs "don't judge others".

I hope you see why I say that was the "wrong" answer to the dilemma. It is wrong because of Occam's Razor. The much simpler, cleaner and obvious answer is the counter of CS Lewis' argument - morality is OBJECTIVE and comes from mans social interaction and survival instincts.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

I think I addressed this while you were presenting it but I'll add a little. Indeed it does take quite a bit of extraction. Seems rather cumbersome doesn't it? If we used Occam's razor here, we would conclude that the holy text is not the moral arbiter therefore, morality is not subjective, therefore the usefulness of the religion comes into question.

I'm really treading on thin ice now so I'm going to back off and let you spell it out rather than me.

I have read your entire post and understand it. Pardon my drastic edit which was just a tidy-up for continued discussion.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

My sentiments exactly. People have largely abstained from murder & pedophilia for millenia before the rise of Christianity. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that murder is at larger-than-normal numbers in this day & age, relatively speaking. Hell, the 20th century was the bloodiest & deadliest century in the history of humankind.

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

So what, in your opinion, keeps various members of the animal kingdom in check? They don't seem to have any sort of organized religion, yet they also seem to abstain from killing one another (at least in an inter-species manner) in much smaller numbers than do humans. What could possibly cause this? Is it inate in most animals just to get along? Is a concept of God really necessary to achieve this?

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

I'm not acquainted with C.S. Lewis in any intimate way but if this is how he answers the question you posed, namely, saying that "We all seem to have this moral code we believe in" and then asking "What explanation of he universe best accounts for this strange fact?", then JHC is right that it's merely a best fit for the argument that "theism offers the most logical explanation". It's a circular kind of thought process (if the word "kinetic" didn't already have a distinct meaning, I'd use it to denote this way of thinking )

I think so.

For example, there are many believers who DON'T believe that religion is the prerequisite for having sound moral values. But in view of earlier discussions on this forum, it has occurred to me that some people genuinely believe that as a non christian I must be verging on raping children or sticking my neighbour full of spears (in fact - it is my lack of christian morality that makes me condemn the invasion of Iraq it seems, rather than any moral outrage over innocent deaths - since I am quite clearly - as a non christian - incapable of moral outrage - apologies to those christians who don't have such a simplified view of reality - I in no way meant to imply that you see things in this way).

What I want to know is whether those people sincerely believe that without their christian faith, they would commit vile crimes.

I don't want to preempt their answers. I want to hear what they have to say on the subject.

I tend to believe that most of us - if given surroundings that nurture a sense of connectedness with other human beings - do grow up with a sound moral system for the most part - and I think most people, if they thought about it, believe this too. certain aspects of our morality will be influenced by culture and/or religion ... but overall, most will agree - in principle - on what is right and what is wrong.

BUT even so, there are some who claim moral superiority on the basis of faith (and these are not exclusively Christians - or even believers in a monotheic faith), and claim that those who do not share their faith are either guilty - or potentially guilty - of the most heinous crimes. What I want to know is whether these people truly believe of themselves, that it is only teir faith that prevents them from being that which they accuse others of being ...

my response to this would take us a little off topic ... I know many people for whom belief in God is the most important aspect of their religion, but if they and you are all going to say that belief in God IS your religion - then I would have to say that you are as much a Muslim, or an orthodox Jew, and a few other groups in between, as you are a christian.

Because essentially to say that means that your religion is common to people who are spread across a range of recognised religions.

I haven't time to jump in here on this one - but it does lead to another interesting side issue ...

I guess like you I can see where Mrs M is coming from - but I also have a bit of an issue with the assumptions that come with that.

I cannot believe, for example, that any God worth his salt would condemn me for not believing in him, when there are other aspects of my life that are far more worthy of mention.

Not Fair!

you do realise I was already on the verge of pumpkinhood when I started this thread ... and my weekend finishes at least 12 hours before yours!

Stalin and Hitler and Mao OH MY!

careful using religious labels as blankets.

certainly some cultural buddhists do believe we are inferior. and cultural buddhism is interesting. I have been thinking about discussing that elsewhere - the nature of a buddhist society etc ... remind me sometime.

As to Hindus - yes I've certainly met some who regard us as inferior. To some we are equivalent to dalits (untouchables). I guess we can look forward to a higher level reincarnation at some point though?

Islam ... its interesting ... there is the story of the jewish prostitute who gave water to a bird that was dying of thirst - and was accepted into paradise when she died ...

and certainly my experience has been that being seen as having a good heart seems to equate with not being an infidel - even when you state that you are a non believer (although usually people would prefer you were christian at least, your actions go a long way towards redeeming you in the eyes of many muslims).

Rakkasan was trying to bait me to get me so that he could twist this thread into another excuse for him to call me anti american. he does it all the time. That should be obvious to anyone familiar with his posting style.

His post included an attack on those who oppose bush which had absolutely nothing to do with this thread. I want to know what those who claim people like me are immoral, where they would be without their faith.

that has nothing to do with Bush at all.

I think Mrs. M is very close to saying what this is often all about. At least in my mind. Namely by viewing morality as (almost) innate.

If something is considered to be intrinsic to human nature, it will automatically be considered god-given by anyone wearing any kind of theistic goggles. This means that morality is indeed viewed as a divine dictation but, consequently, that personal faith has very little to do with personal morality. In other words, a person is moral by virtue of divine creation, not by virtue of religious faith.

Since sensus divinitatis exists (I'd almost say as an intrinsic part of religiousity), lacking faith and yet being viewed as being as moral as the next person does not pose a paradoxial dilemma for the religious.