Mere Christianity

Mere Christianity is a book by the author C.S. Lewis. It is an apologetics book, this means it tries to defend Christianity and Chrisitan Theology. The book was originally broadcast on the BBC during World War II. In the face of the cruelty of the war, how civilians were cosntantly bombed by the Nazis in Britain, the talks were meant to give hope. Only later were they turned into a coherent book.

It is made up of four sections or parts:

1. Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe
2. What Christians Believe
3. Christian Behaviour
4. Beyond Personality: Or First Steps in the Doctrine of the Trinity

I liked the book. It uses many analogies and examples, all of which are vivid and illustrative. I especially liked the fourth part and the first part of the book, which tries to build a notion of God from first principles. I don’t think it quite works, as some of the arguments are shaky, but it’s a great attempt nonetheless. The third part offers a Christian view on the different virtues, which I found interesting, especially since in articles I’ve written like How to live?, I already tend in the direction of virtue ethics but have never actually read much about virtue itself.

Some comments on the content:

• In the first book, Lewis argues that we should follow morality because it is useful for society is an inadequate explanation. If we say we should benefit society, we can then ask why we should benefit society, and the answer becomes “because we ought not to be selfish,” which is circular.
  • A rebuttal I might offer: Because of our mode of existence, which is social, we value benefiting society (not society as a big abstract thing, but society on a smaller, human scale). And because we value it, we act according to it. So the answer to “Why should we benefit society?” is that it’s in our nature. We need to benefit society for our own happiness and flourishing.
• Lewis argues that morality is an echo of God’s command. That is, if morality cannot be fully explained by social benefit, then it must be grounded in an eternal law, which comes from God.
  • This is a big leap. A large inference I don’t think necessarily follows.
  • Still, I don’t completely disagree, especially if you think of God like Paul Tillich does, as the force that overcomes nothingness.
  • For Lewis’s argument to work, he claims that there is some moral law with normative force, which cannot be explained, and that it’s the only such thing, so it’s mysterious.
  • But I would argue that morality is necessary in the same way sex or relationships are. We can survive without it, but we cannot flourish without it. It’s simply a fact that, due to our way of being, we value it.
• Lewis says we can discover something about God through two facts: that the universe exists, and that we have a moral law.
  • I would instead point to subjectivity, which I find far more mysterious, pointing more to an external law, than morality. That aligns more with Heidegger and Tillich.
  • I see morality as an emergent phenomenon of social beings. Subjectivity, on the other hand, is harder to explain, how does something purely objective give rise to subjective experience? They are qualitatively different.
• When Lewis talks about marriage, I largely agree with his view of it as a merging of two into one flesh, a union on all levels.
  • But I think this is an ideal: the deepest possible connection one can have.
  • That doesn’t mean everyone should or will want such a relationship. Relationships come in all forms and sizes, and move on many dimensions. One dimension is how deep the relationship is.
  • If you agree with my article on how to live, then the goal of a relationship should be to enhance life, that is to strengthen each other’s virtues.
    • I also partly agree with his take on the marriage promise: that it should be taken seriously. One shouldn’t marry just because it’s the next step. One should be clear on what marriage represents, a lifelong union. And in this case, if one is clear on what marriage is, then divorce should only happen in extreme cases, like abuse. Even if love fades, there is value in a marriage without romantic love, a kind of relationship where both still strive to improve each other.
  • Marriage is, by design, made hard to exit. This is intentional, it adds friction, making it harder to give up just because the relationship becomes temporarily stormy.
  • I also don’t think the passion people feel when first falling in love can last 20+ years. There must be an acceptance that change is not inherently bad, it’s okay for love to change. That’s not to say we should give up on love, far from it. Love should be continually affirmed through acts and words, making Love grow is a chocie. But if, over time, the hot passion of Love fades into something more subdued, we shouldn’t mourn it, just as we don’t mourn the change from the bright green spring leaves to the falling of the autumn leaves fall.
  • The opposite is also true, just as growing love is a choice so is, falling in love not just something that happens to you, it’s a process, a choice. So if someone falls out of love in a marriage and into love with someone new, and then wants based on this a divorce, I’d say: this isn’t just something happening to you. You have agency. You choose this.
• I don’t like Lewis’s first definition of faith: as something you hold to overcome emotion in favor of what you rationally believe to be true. For example, faith is when you know the surgeon won’t begin operating until you’re asleep, but you’re still scared they might. Faith suppresses that fear. I’m not a fan of that idea.
  • I much prefer his second definition of faith: as something that points toward the divine. In the first, faith feels too mundane.
• Regarding the Trinity: Lewis says early followers believed God existed. Then came Jesus, who claimed to be God, and they couldn’t dismiss him after seeing him die and rise again. Later, early Christian communities felt the presence of God within them. These three distinct experiences became the idea of the Trinity.
  • I like this concept of the Trinity, not as an analytical truth, but as a holistic picture, a spiritual intuition.
• I like Lewis’s idea of “dressing up” as Christ, pretending to be him, and through that, becoming like him. That resonates with virtue ethics, where action shapes character: we become virtuous by emulating virtuous peopl, in this case Jesus.
• The goal of virtue ethics, then, can be understood as sanctification, or shedding one’s mortal skin and becoming divine, becoming the same kind as God.
  • That doesn’t mean that anything short of perfection is worthless, far from it. Every virtuous action matters. But perfection remains the goal.
  • This fits with the ancient Greek picture of virtue, with the Stoic sage as the ideal. In Lewis’s case, the sage is Jesus.
• The state of being itself isn’t praiseworthy. Being rich, for example, isn’t inherently praiseworthy, you could have inherited it. The same goes for being intelligent or knowledgeable: those things often depend on upbringing.
  • So someone who grew up without much support, without parents, who taught themselves and sought knowledge on their own, that’s far more praiseworthy than someone born into a good family with all the same traits.
  • The same is true for virtue. Some people are naturally more temperate than others. So don’t be proud of your virtue if you were just born with good temperament. Change is what’s praiseworthy. As such, more is expected from those born virtuous than from someone born with bad temperament who becomes merely decent through hard effort.
  • This is also an explicit call not to judge others too harshly, because you never know their circumstances, how they were brought up, and how far they may have already come. Especially when compared to you, who may have been given a head start simply by being born into good circumstances.