Human beings hold in common a universal sense of morality which can be used as a logical argument against atheism. The purpose of this article is to explore the moral argument for the existence of God from the perspective of C. S. Lewis.  Lewis’s version of the moral argument tends to focus more on the examples from everyday life that can show the existence of a universal moral standard.  Other versions of the argument tend to rely more on the complaint that, if there is no transcendent moral standard, then moral decay, relativism, anarchy and chaos will result.

While the moral argument alone is not necessarily the strongest argument that the apologist can make for the existence of God, Lewis’s superior treatment of the argument, when combined with the weight of other effective arguments such as the teleological argument and the cosmological argument, it is quite compelling.

A UNIVERSAL MORAL STANDARD

In his familiar way, Lewis begins his argument with some basic observations about human behavior in the throws of moral conflict. In the first paragraph of his masterwork, Mere Christianity, Lewis notes that people everywhere, young or old, educated or uneducated, complain about the moral shortcomings of others in more or less the same way. [1]  A complaint usually comes in the form of an argument which implies that there is a moral standard by which the offender ought to be judged, and that the offender is aware of the standard by which the judge, the person making the complaint, is judging the offender’s behavior.

Lewis uses one such example of this type of argument, ‘That’s my seat, I was here first!’[2] to show that complaints often do not simply indicate that the offender displeased the victim.  In addition, the complaint does not stop at what the offender did wrong.  Still further, the complaint often goes on to argue exactly how the offender transgressed the standard.  ‘That’s my seat’ states that the victim is displeased.  It also states what the offender did wrong, which in this case, is taking someone else’s seat.  ‘I was here first!’ appeals to a standard which the offender is expected to know, namely that seats are first-come, first-served, and that to take away the seat of a person who arrived first is commonly known to be a breach of manners and etiquette.

Everyone appeals to standards of behavior that they expect others to know about. Societies do run on this set of tracks.  Lewis points out that rarely does the person accused of a moral wrong deny or dismiss the implied moral standard.  Quite the contrary, the usual response is that the offender makes an excuse or offers some plausible explanation as to why the transgression should not be held to the offender’s account.

The offender either denies any fault in the matter, or else explains the various extenuating circumstances that justify the wrongly judged immoral behavior, which, once explained, is no immoral behavior at all. But, it should be noted that whenever the offender takes either of these two positions, the offender is agreeing with the implicit moral standard to which the victim appeals.

OBJECTIONS

Lewis continues to develop the argument by considering some of the more routine objections to the notion of a common moral standard.  Some people flatly deny any common transcendent universal moral standard.  Noted Lewis scholar and Wheaton College professor of evangelism, Dr. Jerry Root, states on page 50 of the lecture notes for the course for which this paper is being submitted, “Without a standard morality will drift towards relativism and anarchy or tyranny.”

The relativist is quick to deny a common moral standard. But, relativists often appeal to that very standard when making moral judgments of their own, yet they do not always see that they hold contradictory views, one the one hand that no moral standard exists, and on the other hand that others should agree with their assessment of what is a moral wrong.  If there is no standard of morality, then each relativist is free to decide arbitrarily what is and is not morally wrong.

Evolutionists may suggest that rules of etiquette, for example, are simply the result of herd instinct or mentality. Lewis argues against this conclusion, explaining that herd mentality comes from impulse, but that immoral behavior is often in direct opposition to impulse, or that it is the case that sometimes people have competing impulses, one moral and one immoral.  When they choose to follow one impulse over the other, they have denied their herd mentality. [3]

A STANDARD IMPLIES AN AUTHOR

If there is a standard of moral behavior common to mankind, then there must necessarily be an author and arbiter of that standard. Lewis states his idea succinctly when he writes in his essay, De Futilitate, “All judgments imply a standard.” [4]  But, this begs the question, ‘What is the source of the standard?’  If there is a standard, it must have a source.  Lewis argues that the source is God.  Everyone makes moral judgments.  A judgment implies a standard for judging questions and issues of morality.  A standard implies an author and arbiter of the standard.  The author and arbiter is separate and distinct from human beings and must transcend time and space.  The logical conclusion is the concept of God.

Lewis presses his line of thought beyond just the concept of God. He reasons that of all the religions of the world, the God of Christianity best fits the description of God which can be derived from the moral law, which implies an author and arbiter as having the attributes of goodness, justice, and love.[5]

Lewis further reasons that, of all the religions of the world, Christianity offers the best solution to human beings having transgressed the moral law.[6] Since a moral standard cannot be kept perfectly by human beings, establishing any subsequent set of rules by which a person may resolve the problem of having transgressed the first set of rules creates an infinite progression of rules which can never be kept.  Thus, the opportunity of forgiveness and reconciliation to God, which rests solely and completely upon the work of God rather than upon the work of man, is the best solution to having transgressed God’s moral law.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, C. S. Lewis argues well against atheism by arguing effectively for the existence of God. He begins by demonstrating the existence of a common moral standard among all people using examples from everyday life.  Lewis asserts that if there is a standard, then it follows that there is an author and arbiter of that standard.  Without a standard, there is relativism, anarchy, and chaos.  Lewis reasons that what can be determined about the author and arbiter of the moral standard by an examination of the moral standard is uniquely consistent with the God of Christianity.  Lastly, he argues that Christianity offers the most reasonable solution to the problem of immorality.

Lewis’s unique take on the moral argument for the existence of God strengthens the argument beyond other weaker versions, giving it greater standing among the more solid arguments such as the teleological and cosmological arguments for the existence of God. What Lewis has done is not new, but decidedly fresh, which is a regular feature of his thought and writing.  He keeps asking questions, pressing, considering, focusing, and meditating until he discovers a fresh approach, and usually one that penetrates much deeper into the issue at hand.  This is his great contribution to the discipline of Christian apologetics.

[1] C. S. Lewis, The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2007), 15.

[2] Ibid.

[3] C. S. Lewis, The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2007), 19.

[4] C. S. Lewis, Christian Reflections (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994), 67.

[5] C. S. Lewis, The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2007), 34-35.

[6] Ibid.