WHAT CAN C.S. LEWIS TEACH US ABOUT LAW OF NATURE & THE EXISTENCE OF GOD?

Is man only a biological machine? Is God only a cultural perspective of the past? These are questions that people in our culture are asking in their hearts. How can Christians begin to share that God exist and has a purpose for man, when the Bible is looked upon skeptically? One approach is to share the moral argument for the existence of God. Grudem (2000) explains, “The moral argument begins from man’s sense of right and wrong, and of the need for justice to be done, and argues that there must be a God who is the source of right and wrong and who will someday mete out justice to all people” (143). The beauty of this argument is that everyone possesses the evidence of this within themselves. 

Mere Christianity & The Law of Nature

In 1941, C.S. Lewis presented this argument over a BBC broadcast in England, to a people who had begun to question the meaning of life and the existence of God in the shadow of World War II (2000, Duriez). The talks were so popular that they were later published together as Mere Christianity (Lewis, 1952). In simple language, he explained that all humanity is governed by an internal Law of Human Nature,  just as we are governed by other natural laws, such as the law of gravity. The only difference is that man can choose whether or not he would obey this internal law.  While some would discredit the idea, Lewis simply refuted, “Human beings, all over the earth, have his curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it” (Lewis,1952, 8). No one can escape it.

What About Herd Instincts?

Some of the listeners of the broadcasts responded with objections. The first objection questioned if the Law of Nature was simply a herd instinct. Lewis explained that the primary herd instinct was that of “self preservation” (Lewis, 1952, 9). If a person was drowning, our first instinct would be to remain safe ourselves, but the Law of Nature overrides our need for self-preservation, and propels us to risk drowning in order to save the person. So the Law of Nature is distinct from any herd instinct we may have.

What About Social Conventions?

The second objection questioned if the law was a learned social convention.  Lewis compared learned conventions to morality in the context of their wartime experiences. The rule of driving, or what clothing is appropriate, may differ from one place to another without one being better than the other, but we do view some moralities as being better than others. He states, “If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilized morality to savage morality, or Christian morality to Nazi morality” (Lewis, 1952, 13).  Because we do think one is true over the other, we then are holding them up to an inner standard, and judge which one holds true. Because the Law of Nature is not learned, and it gives us a standard to measure morality, then it is not an instinct or a convention, but a natural law.

The Bible & the Law of Nature

The Bible supports the idea of this Law of Nature.  In his letter to the Romans, Paul recognizes that even the Gentiles who had not been given the law of Moses, have the law written on their hearts.

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness” (Romans 2:14-15).

Though the Gentiles did not possess the Law of Moses, it was not completely hidden from them (Mounce, 1995). By nature, they had this law written on their hearts and their conscience bears witness to it.

What made Lewis’s use of the moral argument so meaningful to his culture and ours, is that he pointed to our human failure to meet the Law of Nature. It is at this point that he demonstrates that we need the forgiveness of God offered in Christianity (1997, Peters, 155). He states, “It is after you have realized that there is a Moral Law, and a Power behind the law, and the you have broken that law and put yourself wrong with that Power--it is after all this, and not a moment sooner, that Christianity begins to talk” (Lewis, 1952, 31).

Conclusion

Because this argument is based upon the facts seen in the nature of man, they are valid proofs that God is the cause of our sense of right and wrong, as well as our sense of moral justice (Grudem, 2000). Not all will believe this evidence, but it will help overcome some of the intellectual stumbling blocks that stand in the way of their pursuit of truth. It is also useful to strengthen the faith of those who do believe.