Mere Christianity

Disenchanted with the practice of religion, yet a believer by nature, I was cautious and read with that proverbial grain of salt.

This skepticism nearly extinguished my desire to read, especially when he made marginally bigoted remarks towards homosexuality.

In such a case, one must forgive humanity and its inevitable flaws. (See update)

The two chapters on Faith, however, brought me back. Once you look beyond the redundant analogies and personal judgments, you start to understand his overall ideology, which aligns with everything that Jesus Christ stood for.

C. S. Lewis has managed to criticize mere believing in an agnostic way. It is difficult, if not impossible, to do the same with complete disbelief.

Take my word for it: don't let the word 'Jesus' deter you. Keep an open mind.

Update: I wrote this a long time ago. I definitely no longer agree that we should excuse even marginally bigoted remarks. This kind of thinking leads us nowhere. I don't believe a Christian has a more divinely inspired perspective on the act of believing. Opinions do change, especially when such ignorance permits the comments made by the person below. C. S. Lewis isn't worth another read; but yes, he didn't just write children's books.

I was truly excited to embark on the journey of reading this book. As an atheist, specifically a recovering Catholic, I had a conversation with a Christian friend who highly recommended this book to me. He hyped it up by saying, "If you read this, you will definitely convert." Well, that piqued my interest as I love a good logical argument. However, I had to put this book down after the first part. I can understand how someone who already believed the premises and conclusion from the start might view it as a good book.

In case you're wondering why many people have given this book one star, here is my detailed critique of the first part, which I also shared with my friend. If you haven't read this book yet, you might want to stop here, read it, and form your own conclusion. My logic could potentially be wrong, but this is what I thought as I made my way through the book.

1. The Law Of Human Nature
In this initial part, as I understand it, the author first establishes this "law of human nature" that is supposed to be universal among humans. He claims that this law is applicable across all people and cultures, regardless of their geographical location. It's quite evident where he's headed with this argument, suggesting the existence of a "law giver" and attributing the flourishing of human societies to this law. However, I don't think he realizes that he's undermining his own argument right from the start. He states that in every existing society, there are certain moral precepts such as "don't kill your neighbor," "don't steal other people's stuff," "don't rape," "stand up for what is right," and "be nice to others." He argues that it's because of this law of human nature that these societies thrive and grow. But if that's the case, doesn't it imply that it's not necessarily a supernatural being in the sky that's responsible for their growth? Societies that condone and even glorify actions like murder, rape, theft, and scorn compassion are bound to fail and either self-destruct or be defeated by more productive societies.
As primates, we are highly social animals. We rely on each other for survival as we are not physically equipped to fend for ourselves. Intelligence is our niche. Those who lack a moral sense or fail to exhibit one will not be able to融入 society. For example, if you're constantly stealing, no one will trust you or want to associate with you, and you'll have to fend for yourself. I don't know if you've ever observed animals taking care of each other and looking out for one another, but how did they come to know this "Human Nature"? Animals often sacrifice themselves for the good of the herd, colony, or another in need.
So, right from the beginning, the author seems to overlook any plausible natural explanation for human morality and immediately jumps to a supernatural cause.

2. Some Objections
In this section, the author presents objections from those who dismiss his "Law of Human Nature" and simply call it human instinct. He then attempts to clarify his position by differentiating between our instinctive "wants" and desires and the impulse that tells us we should do what is right. He says, "Feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not." However, unless I missed something, he provides no basis for this statement other than simply asserting its truth. He tries to distinguish this difference by stating that the second impulse "tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help and suppress the impulse to run away." According to him, our instincts are just the smaller components directed by the moral law. Once again, he fails to make a convincing case. Why is it more reasonable to assume that all these instincts to help others, even when it's not in our personal self-interest, are the products of an independent moral law? Why not just our natural instincts that help us determine the right thing to do based on the situation? This naturalistic explanation can also account for why certain historical figures have responded to moral dilemmas based on the social norms of their time and place. Lewis claims that instincts are separate from the moral law, but he provides no evidence to support this claim.
The next point he tries to make is that since we can observe different moral standards throughout history and compare them, there must be a greater absolute morality, a "Real Morality." He argues that we refer to this subconsciously when making moral judgments. Otherwise, how would we know whether to act civilized or like barbarians? However, his argument once again undermines itself. If there truly exists a "real morality" and its source is God (as he's clearly leading towards), then why are there differences in morality in the first place? Why can we compare the morality of, say, the Nazis to liberal morality? I suspect he would respond by saying "free will" (i.e., all people are aware of this higher morality but some choose to ignore it for self-gain). But I think this is a cop-out. What about psychopaths and sociopaths who are born without the ability to experience emotions like compassion, empathy, or any other aspect of "Real Morality"? Why are some people deprived of this morality through no fault of their own? And why does he bother to mention the changes in morality throughout history and the progress made in the general zeitgeist? Isn't this exactly what we would expect if there is no moral law? If it's a process of trial and error, debate, critical reasoning, discussions, and then decision-making and implementation by the individuals involved, doesn't this defeat his argument?
I was almost physically sick when I read the statement about burning witches. So, the "Natural Law of Behavior" supports us taking action based on our beliefs. If we believe that witches exist, we have every right to support the death penalty. But since we no longer believe in witches, it's a big mistake. However, there are still places in South Africa and India where witches are being executed. According to Lewis' philosophy, these actions could potentially be justified. I find it interesting that he says we no longer believe in witches, yet the Bible does give a direct command on what to do with these non-existent beings in Exodus. I'm sure he would try to offer some new interpretation to give this statement some crazy context to make it seem okay. But what other kinds of "ungodly" transgressions can we forgive as mere "mistakes of fact"? If we think someone is the anti-Christ, would we be justified in killing him or her? Another example, if someone believes that all Muslims are terrorists, do they have the right to execute them? If you don't think they are terrorists, then you don't have the right to execute them. Other examples include Eve, who thought that God was perhaps "pulling a fast one on her" - an obvious "mistake of fact" in hindsight. Or what about those who crucified Christ because they didn't believe in his message? A pretty bad "mistake of fact" as well. Hindsight is 20/20, I guess.
He seems to be suggesting that Christians should view history from a perspective where if they consider the enemy as a horrible being, they have the right to put the enemy to death. In my opinion, this is a very flawed moral philosophy.

3. The Reality of the Law
He seems to be rehashing the same old ideas from the previous two chapters. Why does he think it's more reasonable for morality to come from something independent of the human brain, let alone some transcendent, omnipresent absolute? I would have to side with Occam's razor on this one.
Does he not essentially claim that the evidence for the moral law comes from our ability to distinguish right from wrong? Even if we choose to disobey it, we validate its existence, according to Lewis. He then goes on to say that it's just as solid as natural laws (in the scientific sense). He gives the example of gravity. However, his use of this analogy is quite poor. I'm being very generous here. I can see why CS Lewis is known for using bad analogies. You cannot reject gravity. When you step off a ledge, it will pull you down whether you actively deny its existence or choose to ignore it. If the Moral Law is on par with gravity, then we should not be able to ignore it since it comes from this absolute moral law giver. I think his weak analogy is just an attempt to elevate his Moral Law to something scientific in order to give it credibility as the only plausible explanation for human moral impulses.
So, he believes that this moral law is real and is exerting pressure on us from somewhere, and that somewhere is definitely not us. But from where? Hopefully, he will reveal this in the next few chapters.
He also fails to explain why there are certain people, like psychopaths, who lack any sense of this "universal" Moral Law. Brain injuries can sometimes lead to behavioral changes. One example often mentioned in psychology books is Phineas Gage. If this law is external to our mental processes, why does it depend on an internally healthy brain? The only explanation seems to be that it's dependent on our chemical brains.
Lewis tries to overcome this by arguing that any explanation for why we and the societies we inhabit can only be coherent with an external being dictating these laws. However, I will stand by my previous argument that morals arise from natural human behavior that generally benefits society as a whole. What works stays, and what doesn't goes. If a society clings to too many bad morals, it will eventually collapse. Lewis tries to counter this with a straw man argument. He says that this is like saying "oh well, decent behavior is decent behavior." But it's decent because, to put it simply, it works. This kind of behavior allows societies to thrive. When society members, as a whole, exhibit antisocial behavior, there is no coherence. Behaviors that were once considered acceptable may eventually no longer be so. Why? Because they tend to destabilize society over time. Some places still engage in practices that we would find abhorrent, like slavery, but there is no social pressure in those places to completely abandon it. So, it persists. He might call this moral relativism, but saying that there is no real "basis" for an absolute Moral Law is not the same as saying that there is no such thing as objectively right and wrong behaviors. It is ultimately up to people to judge and consider these behaviors, again through trial and error. This is consistent with what we observe throughout human history.

4. What Lies Behind the Law
So, he finally gets to his main point, which is that there is a God. Lewis "proved it" (rolls eyes) through the arguments above. He still doesn't specifically state that it's the Christian God, but we both know that's where this is leading.
He then discusses the two worldviews: the religious and the materialist. According to him, the materialist believes that everything is random and that it's mere chance that everything came into existence. The religious worldview, on the other hand, holds that there is some sort of being or force out there that created everything, including matter, with a purpose. He states that it's impossible for science to determine the difference because science only deals with the "how" and not the "why." By the way, I've heard this argument many times before. Why does religion get a monopoly on the question of "why"? Why not let philosophy have a go at it? Of course, this is all based on the presupposition that there is a "why" to begin with. Speaking of morality and science, an interesting book that might interest you is "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values" by Sam Harris.
Now, I digress. So, he argues that the religious view is superior by appealing to what we know about human nature. We can only detect the Moral Law within ourselves, so it cannot be observed through an external method like science. Also, the controlling power of this law must be beyond the universe and can only be detected within. He seems to be suggesting that through our human experiences with the Moral Law, we can infer the existence of a cosmic mind behind the universe. However, this still doesn't explain what exactly in our experiences with reality leads us to believe that there is a mind independent of our brains. Every account of anything that has ever happened has been a product of the brain. There is hardly any real reason to even read the last chapter at this point because this argument really undermines anything he might say in the last chapter.

5. We Have Cause to Be Uneasy
So, he has set two false premises: that there is something out there that created the universe and that this something put the Moral Law inside our hearts. He has never really provided any evidence for this first premise in the chapters so far. He never felt the need to discuss alternatives (unless you count his dismissal of materialism as an "explanation"). And the other premise, he didn't even argue very well. And even if this were the case, why rule out polytheism? It's interesting to note that he says he's not directly pointing to the Christian God, yet he consistently uses the masculine term and refers to a single being throughout the essay. He makes very weak and baseless arguments and then jumps to the conclusion that they are true in order to transition to the next point. And if he's just proving that a God exists or "something," why does he assume that it is good? There was no proof or argument for this in the first place. I'm sure you had to take a logic and critical thinking course in college. You remember when the professor would present an argument that seemed quite good at first, but then you would analyze it and find flaws in almost every step? I feel like this book is a prime example of such an argument.
His writings are very misleading. He uses the pretense of "oh, I'm being objective because I get no personal comfort from Christianity being true and my beliefs are based on evidence." But he just expects you to trust him and go along with it.
Sorry to say this, but if I were grading this book as a paper, I would probably have to give it an F. I can see why he doesn't receive much respect outside of the Christian community after reading this. I had heard about the tactics he uses, but thank you for allowing me to see them firsthand. I can understand how he might appeal to those who already believe, but to an outside rationalist, his arguments simply don't hold up. If this is the best rationalism for Christianity and theism, I think I'll stick to my "willed ignorance," thank you very much.

I was aware of this book during my childhood, yet I never got around to reading it until now. The reason being that I'm currently working with two C.S. Lewis classes and I wanted to gain a better understanding of his theology. I'm cognizant that some individuals still utilize this book as a means to expound upon the tenets of the Christian faith. However, I believe this to be unwise for several reasons.

Most of the book is founded upon church teachings, rather than strictly Biblical ones. These teachings are predominantly emphasized within specific denominations. The virtue/vice lists and the trinity concept - these are frameworks that have been imposed upon the practice of religion, serving more as a means of discussing morality rather than anything else. While they have a long-established tradition within one end of the religious spectrum, they are conspicuously absent in others. Lewis purports to defend the main concepts, but I'm not entirely certain that what he selected would be the same as what I would have chosen, given my different background within the same religion.

The narrow perspective of Christianity persists in his proclamation that "anyone who professes to teach Christian doctrine" will instruct you to utilize all three - baptism, belief, and "Holy Communion." In actual practice, only belief appears to be central to all denominations.

Lewis is a product of his era. He asserts that refusing to engage in war is a sin, labels homosexuality as a perversion, and makes jests about why anyone would desire a woman as a decision-maker.

Lewis often arrives at his conclusions in a meandering fashion. One moment he's discussing letters in envelopes and then suddenly he's proclaiming, "See, this proves God exists." At times I was able to follow his train of thought, while at other times I felt he was being deliberately obtuse.

On several occasions, Lewis states "you might think x but let me explain to you why you are incorrect." I probably should have ceased reading right then. The great irony is that he will then proceed to illustrate why he believes pride is the worst sin. :)

Every time I pick up this book and start reading, it's as if a profound truth effortlessly makes its way into my mind and leaves a lasting impression. The wisdom and insights contained within its pages are so valuable that it feels almost necessary for me to engage with this book on an annual basis. It's not just a casual read; it's a source of inspiration and reflection that enriches my understanding of life and the world around me. Each time I return to it, I discover something new, something that I might have overlooked before. It's like a hidden treasure chest that reveals its secrets a little more with each opening.

As a Christian and a devoted fan of C.S. Lewis for nearly three-quarters of my life, I am truly amazed that I had not read this particular piece before. However, I am extremely glad that I have now. Lewis has an extraordinary way of presenting the faith in the simplest of terms, stripping it down to the very essence of what all Christians believe or should believe. It is truly remarkable how, despite this simplicity, he still manages to challenge me with aspects that I need to work on. There are indeed times when it is highly beneficial for us to return to the beginning, to lay out all the beliefs we hold dear and closely examine them. This way, we can identify what we may have forgotten or what requires a fresh perspective. If you are encountering Christian theology for the first time, you will not find a more logically presented starting point. And if you have been familiar with it for a long time, you will not discover a better way to reexamine it. Without a doubt, this earns a five-star rating from me!

Keep back nothing. Nothing that you have not given away will be really yours. Nothing in you that has not died will ever be raised from the dead. Look for yourself, and you will find in the long run only hatred, loneliness, despair, rage, ruin, and decay. But look for Christ, and you will find Him, and with Him everything else thrown in.

4.5 stars

This article is truly fascinating and thought-provoking. It has managed to capture my attention from the very beginning and hold it until the very end. The ideas presented are not only unique but also highly relevant in today's world. I found myself constantly reflecting on the concepts and theories discussed, which made me view certain aspects of life in a completely different light. The writing style is engaging and easy to understand, making it accessible to a wide range of readers. Overall, I absolutely loved this article and would highly recommend it to anyone looking for an intellectually stimulating read. It has left a lasting impression on me and I will definitely be coming back to it in the future.

This is an outstanding argument put forward by a former atheist who embraced Christianity due to the Christian faith. Lewis doesn't advocate for any specific denomination, nor does he reject or slander non-Christians. Instead, he "simply" expounds his argument in favor of Christianity. This can be read and valued by both believers and non-believers. His words carry a certain weight and can引发思考among people of different beliefs. Whether one is a devout Christian or someone who is still exploring different spiritual paths, Lewis's argument offers food for thought. It challenges us to consider the deeper meaning and significance of faith, and to look at Christianity from a new perspective.

This was truly an amazing experience.

Wow. I really don't know why I waited such a long time to read this book. It was simply outstanding.

It had such profound insights that were packed into its 256 pages. But let's face it, it's C.S. Lewis, so can we really expect anything less than an amazing read?

Mere Christianity explains and clarifies basic Christian doctrines and principles in the most ingenious way. It argues and defends the validity of Christianity, providing a stronger foundation for your beliefs.

It's wonderful to believe in something passionately, but it's crucial to know why you believe it. You need a solid base that enables you to defend your faith in the face of adversity, and Mere Christianity helps you build that foundation.

This is the kind of book that makes you view things from a new perspective, a book that enhances your understanding and knowledge, leaving you amazed at how much you didn't know and how much you've just absorbed.

It's also filled with things that you should already know, yet when you read it, it feels like you're discovering them for the first time. (I often have that feeling.)

The illustrations and examples that Lewis gives are simply remarkable and ingenious. He was able to come up with such excellent, effective, and persuasive examples because he truly understood what he was trying to convey.

Even when I struggled to understand a topic, his vivid descriptions made it click in my mind and helped me grasp the difficult subjects. I still don't know how he thought of illustrations that so perfectly captured the essence of his topic, but everything he said was so clear and expressed lucidly to the reader exactly what he intended to say.

Writing excellent nonfiction is extremely challenging, yet Lewis accomplishes it beautifully and almost makes it seem effortless. His thinking was critical. He didn't rush through things.

He led the reader steadily and patiently through his own thought process to the conclusion, using simple language so that anyone could understand. However, he did this without dumbing it down as if the reader was unintelligent.

He respected his readers and didn't write from a moral high ground. He was well-versed in his topics but showed a great deal of humility in his writing. He was able to answer these questions so effectively and empathetically because he himself had grappled with these questions for years.

I firmly believe that every Christian should read this book. There is so much to learn from it, regardless of your level of spiritual maturity.

Not only will you gain a new appreciation for Lewis' pure genius in both writing and Christianity, but you will also walk away from this book with a better understanding of the things that every believer should know and with an increased knowledge of how to improve your relationship with God and live a life that is in harmony with both God and man, a life that is pleasing to Him.