- There is a Moral Law that governs humanity and that we all seem to abide by at the most basic level, even if we are not conscious of it.
- This Moral Law was not made up by humans but seems to be a transcendent, unchanging rule, existing apart from and not subject to the limitations of the material world.
If you are in agreement with all that Lewis has said up to this point, then he takes you one step further with chapter four (if you aren't in agreement, I'd love for you to comment or contact me and let me know the weaknesses/problems you find in his arguments). So because we have this Rule of Right and Wrong that he discussed in chapter three, a rule that we did not invent and that we know we ought to obey, we must consider what this tells us about the universe.
Lewis says there are two general views* on what the universe is and how it came to be:
1. Materialist View
2. Religious View
Now, back to the Moral Law. Lewis says the only way we know about the Moral Law is because we are human and experience it firsthand. Mere outside observation of humans would not show what we ought to do, only what we actually do. "In the same way, if there were anything above or behind the observed facts in the case of stones or the weather, we, by studying them from outside, could never hope to discover it."
Then he poses the question:
Does the universe simply happen to be what it is for no reason?
Does the universe have a power behind it that makes it what it is?
Is it fair to say that the Materialist view of the universe is the proven scientific view,
and the Religious view stands in opposition to science?
*Lewis notes at the end of the chapter that there is a third view that is kind of in between the Materialist and Religious Views, what he calls the Life-Force philosophy or Creative Evolution. He says,
"People who hold this view say that the small variations by which life on this planet 'evolved' from the lowest forms to Man were not due to chance but to the 'striving' or 'purposiveness' of a Life-Force. When people say this we must ask them whether by Life-Force they mean something with a mind or not. If they do, then 'a mind bringing life into existence and leading it to perfection' is really a God, and their view is thus identical with the Religious. If they do not, then what is the sense in saying that something without a mind 'strives' or has 'purposes'? This seems to me fatal to their view. One reason why many people find Creative Evolution so attractive is that it gives one much of the emotional comfort of believing in God and none of the less pleasant consequences. When you are feeling fit and the sun is shining and you do not want to believe that the whole universe is a mere mechanical dance of atoms, it is nice to be able to think of this great mysterious Force rolling on through the centuries and carrying you on its crest. If, on the other hand, you want to do something rather shabby, the Life-Force, being only a blind force, with no morals and no mind, will never interfere with you like that troublesome God we learned about when we were children."