Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    U.S.A., Florida
    Posts
    88

    Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

    Has anyone here read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis?

    If so, what are your thoughts about the book?
    Respectfully,
    Mark
    An unsupported statement is not an argument; it is only an opinion.
    Eschew obfuscation.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,829
    Quote Originally Posted by Guido Fawkes View Post
    Has anyone here read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis?

    If so, what are your thoughts about the book?
    I read it years ago. It don't remember much about it, so I guess it didn't make much of an impression.

    What do you think was his best argument? We could discuss it.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    U.S.A., Florida
    Posts
    88

    Ought

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I read it years ago. It don't remember much about it, so I guess it didn't make much of an impression.

    What do you think was his best argument? We could discuss it.
    The very first thing that struck a chord with me was what Lewis wrote about the Law of Nature (Moral Law) and the way that he articulated his assertion that human moral law is somehow derived from some "real Right, independent of what people think":

    It is only our bad temper that we put down to being tired or worried or hungry; we put our good temper down to ourselves. These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.


    I fully agree that we learn the Rule of Decent Behavior from parents and teachers, and friends and books, as we learn everything else. But some of the things we learn are mere conventions which might have been different—we learn to keep to the left of the road, but it might just as well have been the rule to keep to the right—and others of them, like mathematics, are real truths. The question is to which class the Law of Human Nature belongs.

    There are two reasons for saying it belongs to the same class as mathematics. The first is, as I said in the first chapter, that though there are differences between the moral ideas of one time or country and those of another, the differences are not really very great—not nearly so great as most people imagine—and you can recognize the same law running through them all: whereas mere conventions, like the rule of the road or the kind of clothes people wear, may differ to any extent. The other reason is this.

    When you think about these differences between the morality of one people and another, do you think that the morality of one people is ever better or worse than that of another? Have any of the changes been improvements? If not, then of course there could never be any moral progress. Progress means not just changing, but changing for the better. 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. In fact, of course, we all do believe that some moralities are better than others. We do believe that some of the people who tried to change the moral ideas of their own age were what we would call Reformers or Pioneers—people who understood morality better than their neighbors did. Very well then.

    The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real Right than others. Or put it this way. If your moral ideas can be truer,
    and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something—some Real Morality—for them to be true about.



    Respectfully,
    Mark
    An unsupported statement is not an argument; it is only an opinion.
    Eschew obfuscation.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,829
    Quote Originally Posted by Guido Fawkes View Post
    The very first thing that struck a chord with me was what Lewis wrote about the Law of Nature (Moral Law) and the way that he articulated his assertion that human moral law is somehow derived from some "real Right, independent of what people think":

    I fully agree that we learn the Rule of Decent Behavior from parents and teachers, and friends and books, as we learn everything else. But some of the things we learn are mere conventions which might have been different—we learn to keep to the left of the road, but it might just as well have been the rule to keep to the right—and others of them, like mathematics, are real truths. The question is to which class the Law of Human Nature belongs.

    There are two reasons for saying it belongs to the same class as mathematics. ...
    Hey there Mark,

    I totally agree that morality is objective like mathematics, and that's why it has nothing to do with any god. It is objective by definition, like a pair of scales. That's why justice (a core concept of morality) is represented by Lady Justice holding a pair of scales. I have developed my moral theory in a few posts on my blog:

    The Logic of Love: A Natural Theory of Morality

    Morality is Objective, Like a Pair of Scales: Another Fatal Flaw in Dr. Craig's Moral Argument for God

    It would be great if you wanted to discuss this topic, as it is a big interest of mine.

    Great chatting!

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    U.S.A., Florida
    Posts
    88

    Good reads...

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hey there Mark,

    I totally agree that morality is objective like mathematics, and that's why it has nothing to do with any god. It is objective by definition, like a pair of scales. That's why justice (a core concept of morality) is represented by Lady Justice holding a pair of scales. I have developed my moral theory in a few posts on my blog:

    The Logic of Love: A Natural Theory of Morality

    Morality is Objective, Like a Pair of Scales: Another Fatal Flaw in Dr. Craig's Moral Argument for God

    It would be great if you wanted to discuss this topic, as it is a big interest of mine.

    Great chatting!

    Richard
    Richard,

    I've read both of your suggested articles and found them quite engaging. I like your style of writing because it always seems to be well thought out and articulate. It's obvious that you take pride in your written word as grammatical errors a rarity in your posts. I wish everyone would take the time to triple check their work for errors too.

    I would very much like to discuss the topic of Morality with you, but perhaps we should move it to the morality sub-forum of the Metaphysics and Philosophy forum.

    I will create a new topic later tonight.
    Respectfully,
    Mark
    An unsupported statement is not an argument; it is only an opinion.
    Eschew obfuscation.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,829
    Quote Originally Posted by Guido Fawkes View Post
    Richard,

    I've read both of your suggested articles and found them quite engaging. I like your style of writing because it always seems to be well thought out and articulate. It's obvious that you take pride in your written word as grammatical errors a rarity in your posts. I wish everyone would take the time to triple check their work for errors too.

    I would very much like to discuss the topic of Morality with you, but perhaps we should move it to the morality sub-forum of the Metaphysics and Philosophy forum.

    I will create a new topic later tonight.
    Thanks for the good word Mark. I look forward to discussing this with you in the new thread you will be starting. See ya there!

    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •