Latest / Reformed Thinking / What Lies behind the Law | C. S. Lewis

Transcript

What Lies behind the Law | C. S. Lewis · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Set a brief introductory audio reform thinking.
0:02
Welcome back to the deep dive, where we take a stack of
0:05
sources, research and notes and distill the most crucial
0:08
knowledge rich Nuggets for you today.
0:11
We're we're really getting into one of the clearest initial
0:14
arguments for a directing intelligence behind the universe
0:17
ever put to paper. It is a genuine pleasure to get
0:20
into this material with you. Our cortex today is CS Lewis's
0:23
classic Mere Christianity, and we're really zeroing in on the
0:28
early philosophical architecture of his case, the chapter he
0:31
calls What Lies Behind the Law. It's designed to move you, the
0:35
listener, step by step, from observable reality to a, well, a
0:39
theological necessity. And our mission for this deep
0:42
dive is to give you a quick but still very thorough grasp of
0:45
Lewis's opening move. How does he get from this common
0:48
human experience? You know that sense of
0:50
conscience, of obligation to a necessary philosophical
0:53
conclusion about a guiding mind? This dive is really structured
0:57
to arm you with the full force of his logic.
0:59
Lewis's method here is so helpful because he intentionally
1:03
starts on common ground. He doesn't begin with church
1:05
doctrine or, you know, special revelation.
1:08
He starts with observation, the world, and human nature.
1:11
And he uses that to build a premise that, once it's
1:14
established, gives you a reasoned foundation for
1:17
understanding a sovereign creator and the existence of a
1:21
moral law written on the human heart, which is a concept so
1:24
central to our reformed understanding.
1:26
He builds the premise before he ever gets to the Creed.
1:29
OK, so let's unpack this setup. He begins by categorizing what
1:33
we call laws. He starts with the laws of
1:35
nature, right? These are the laws that govern
1:37
everything physical. So gravity, thermodynamics, how
1:40
stones behave, how trees grow. When you look at the physical
1:43
cosmos, you see these fixed observable patterns.
1:46
And this is where Lewis introduces his first really
1:48
critical move. When we talk about the physical
1:51
laws of nature, he suggests that these might just be descriptions
1:54
of how nature behaves. They may not be a separate real
1:57
thing at all. They're just our way of, you
1:59
know, making sense of the observed facts.
2:01
Let's spend a minute on that distinction, because it's key.
2:04
If I drop a tennis ball and it always falls down, the law of
2:07
gravity is really just the descriptive label we're putting
2:10
on the consistency of that behavior.
2:12
It describes the fact the law isn't some separate binding rule
2:16
that the tennis ball decides to follow.
2:18
The law is the falling. Correct.
2:21
For a physical object. Lewis is suggesting the laws
2:25
governing it might not be anything above and beyond the
2:27
actual facts themselves. A stone can't disobey the law of
2:30
gravity if it's suddenly stopped obeying it.
2:33
We wouldn't say the stone broke the law, we'd just have to
2:35
change our description of the law.
2:37
It's just what is. Yes, it's a technical term for
2:40
the pattern we see. But then we pivot, and we pivot
2:43
sharply to humanity, and this is where the whole conversation
2:46
changes. We run into the law of human
2:48
nature or the law of right and wrong, the moral law.
2:52
And this law cannot, by its very nature, be just a description of
2:55
human behavior. That is the pivotal switch.
2:58
This is the human anomaly. It is, we observe the facts of
3:01
human action everyday. You see selfishness, kindness,
3:04
honesty, betrayal, all of it. Yet when we talk about the moral
3:09
law, we're talking about a separate real standard, a law
3:12
that dictates what we ought to do no matter what we actually
3:15
do. Let's try to illustrate that
3:16
separation. If the moral law were just
3:18
descriptive, like gravity, then whatever most people do is the
3:22
law. So if most people routinely lie
3:25
to get ahead, then the law of human nature would simply be lie
3:28
when it's convenient. Precisely.
3:30
But the undeniable internal reality is that even the person
3:33
who lies knows they're breaking a separate, real standard.
3:37
They often feel that sense of obligation.
3:38
They failed to meet the law. The stone tells us what is
3:41
happening. The moral law tells us what
3:42
should be happening, and that should stays real and binding
3:46
even when everyone fails to meet it.
3:48
I think a lot of listeners when they hear this, their first
3:50
objection is probably is this just social conditioning?
3:54
Aren't these just conventions we made-up like traffic laws or
3:59
etiquette? If I use the wrong fork at a
4:00
fancy dinner, I might feel a little awkward, but I don't feel
4:03
this deep soul wrenching guilt. So Lewis has to explain why the
4:08
moral law is different from a mere convention.
4:12
And he does, very robustly. While conventions can vary
4:16
widely between cultures, you know, different table manners,
4:18
different driving rules, the moral law shows this remarkable
4:22
universality in its principles. The specific way justice is
4:26
carried out might change, but the idea that one should be
4:29
just, or that helping others is better than hurting them, that
4:33
seems inescapable. And it's more than just the
4:35
universality, it's the quality of the internal feeling that's
4:39
the real test, yes. We might feel awkward breaking a
4:41
rule of etiquette, but we feel responsible and indebted when we
4:46
break the moral law. Responsibility and debt.
4:48
That's the key. If I invent a convention, I can
4:50
just as easily get rid of it. If a government decides that
4:53
tomorrow all traffic should drive on the left, they could
4:55
just change the law. But no one, not even the most
4:58
cynical person, can just erase that internal feeling that, say,
5:03
gratuitous cruelty is wrong, or that feeling of discomfort that
5:06
comes with knowing you betrayed someone's trust.
5:09
It feels binding, as if it's stamped onto our nature.
5:13
Unlike the stone, which is compelled by its descriptive
5:15
law, a person is told, commanded to obey a prescriptive moral
5:20
law. We have the choice to follow it
5:22
or resist it. And if we resist it, we
5:24
immediately run into that internal mechanism of guilt
5:27
which Lewis uses as evidence that the law is external to our
5:30
desires and not something we made-up.
5:33
This sense of obligation is what makes man so unique in the
5:36
observed universe. So establishing this internal
5:38
independent moral law is Lewis's absolutely necessary first step.
5:42
Because if this law of right and wrong exists, if it is something
5:45
above and beyond what we just see in human behavior, then
5:48
we're immediately forced to look for an external source.
5:51
And that brings us to the two fundamental explanations for the
5:53
universe. Based on centuries of human
5:55
thought, Louis boils the options down to two sort of rough world
5:59
views. The first one is the materialist
6:01
view. The materialist position is the
6:03
assertion that everything we see matter space-time.
6:08
It just exists. There's no underlying reason for
6:11
it, no intelligence, no clan. It's the position of ultimate
6:14
undirected chance coupled with foxed mechanical laws.
6:18
And according to this view, everything that followed,
6:20
including life and our own consciousness, is just the
6:23
result of a long, improbable chain of random physical events
6:27
governed only by those fixed material laws.
6:30
Lewis is very specific in laying out this cosmic narrative of
6:33
chance. He is he details the timeline.
6:36
A huge initial chance collision created the sun and planets.
6:39
Then on this tiny little planet, another fantastic chance, a
6:43
specific precise combination of chemicals, temperature and
6:46
atmospheric pressure resulted in life spontaneously coming from
6:49
non life. And the subsequent development
6:51
of creatures like us who can sit here and analyze philosophy is
6:54
simply the result of a very long series of chances.
6:58
Our consciousness, our hopes, our minds, they're just
7:00
accidental byproducts of chemistry and material
7:02
arrangement. No intention, no purpose, just a
7:05
mechanical process grinding away.
7:07
And then, in stark contrast, you have the religious view.
7:10
This view posits that the ultimate reality behind the
7:13
entire universe is more like a mind than anything else we can
7:16
really conceptualize. When Lewis uses the term mind
7:20
here, we should be clear. He doesn't mean a brain and a
7:22
skull. He means an entity that is
7:25
conscious, that has intention. They can make selections, you
7:28
know, preferring one thing over another and has purposes.
7:31
And if that's true, then the universe was not an accident.
7:34
It was made, at least in part, for defined purposes.
7:38
One of those purposes was to produce creatures capable of
7:40
having minds, creatures that share a certain likeness with
7:43
the creator entity itself, which aligns perfectly with the
7:46
concept of the Imago Day. Now, Lewis inserts A crucial
7:50
philosophical boundary here, and we really need to dwell on it
7:52
because it's so often misunderstood.
7:53
Today. He states that you cannot
7:55
possibly figure out which of these two views, materialism or
7:59
the religious view, is correct using science in the ordinary
8:02
sense. This point is absolutely
8:04
essential. Science is defined by its
8:06
method, external observation and reproducible experiments.
8:09
It watches how things behave inside the universe.
8:12
And no matter how sophisticated the equipment gets, every honest
8:16
scientific statement just boils down to an observation of fact.
8:19
It's documentation. I aimed the Webb telescope at
8:22
this Galaxy and saw that light signature, or I mixed these two
8:27
compounds under these conditions, and they reacted in
8:30
this measurable way. That is the legitimate, honest
8:33
job of science. It deals with facts, patterns
8:36
and mechanisms, and Lewis notes that the greatest, most cautious
8:40
scientists in history agree on this limitation.
8:43
They know what their tools are designed to measure.
8:46
But the very questions that separate materialism from the
8:48
religious view are entirely outside science's reach.
8:52
Even if science someday knew every single thing in the whole
8:54
universe, every atom's position, every interaction, the big
8:58
philosophical questions would still be there, unchanged.
9:01
Why is there a universe at all? Why do these laws exist?
9:03
Does the whole apparatus have any underlying meaning or
9:05
direction? These questions deal with cause
9:08
and meaning, which are realities of a different kind, a reality
9:12
that by definition has to stand behind the physical facts that
9:17
science observes. We can only observe things
9:20
within the system. We cannot, using those same
9:22
tools, look at the cause of the system.
9:25
So if there is a something behind the physical reality,
9:29
it's just not observable by the instruments of science.
9:32
Science is designed to observe objects in the house.
9:35
It is incapable of observing the architect who designed the house
9:38
because the architect isn't structurally part of the house.
9:41
And this leads to Lewis's subtle warning.
9:43
The claims that science is either proven or disproven the
9:46
existence of a guiding mind are, philosophically speaking, not
9:50
statements of science. Lewis observed that the people
9:52
who make these broad, absolute claims are often not the primary
9:56
scientist doing the difficult, detailed work.
9:58
He suggests those claims often come from the journalists and
10:02
popular novelist who have picked up a few odds and ends of half
10:05
baked science from textbooks and code.
10:08
They take the legitimate description of a mechanism like
10:11
evolution, and then they leap across a philosophical chasm to
10:15
assert that the mechanism proves there is no meaning.
10:18
And that's a conclusion the science itself just cannot
10:21
support. It's a logical category error.
10:24
Science can tell us the properties of hydrogen and
10:26
oxygen when they combine. It can't tell us the meaning or
10:29
purpose of water, or whether water should exist.
10:32
To answer that deeper question of meaning, we need a different
10:34
kind of evidence entirely. And that evidence is precisely
10:38
what Lewis has already established in Section 1.
10:40
It's the cue we already have. We've established that the
10:43
situation looks, well, entirely hopeless if we rely only on
10:47
external observation, whether we're looking at cabbages or
10:50
stars or even other human beings.
10:52
But Louis reminds us, there is one thing, and only one thing in
10:56
the entire universe that we know more about, that we can learn
10:59
just by watching. It and that one thing, of
11:01
course, is ourselves, man. We aren't external observers of
11:05
humanity. We are human.
11:06
We are in the know. We have what Louis called inside
11:09
information. So what is that inside
11:12
information? It's the moral law.
11:14
We know from the inside that we are not just collections of
11:16
chemicals reacting to stimulus. We know we are under a moral
11:20
standard we didn't invent, which we ought to obey, and which
11:23
insists on responsibility. This internal experience is the
11:27
unique crucial data point. Let's run the thought experiment
11:31
that Lewis suggests. Imagine some brilliant alien
11:34
researcher trying to study humanity the same way we study
11:37
the behavior of electricity or how a cabbage grows.
11:40
They're external. They can't communicate, they're
11:42
just observing physical actions. That external observer could map
11:45
every neurological connection, catalog every social
11:48
interaction, and probably predict 99% of our actions, and
11:52
yet they would never discover the existence of the moral law.
11:55
Why not? Because their instruments only
11:57
record what we did, the facts of behavior.
12:00
They record the fact that a man stole money.
12:03
The moral law, though, is concerned with what he ought not
12:06
to have done. That sense of ought is totally
12:09
invisible to external observation.
12:11
It doesn't have space or mass. Now apply that same principle to
12:14
the rest of the cosmos. If there were a power behind the
12:17
facts of the weather or the movement of the planet, we, by
12:21
just observing those things externally, would have 0 hope of
12:24
discovering that powers and tensions are commands.
12:26
We'd only ever see the physical manifestations, the facts.
12:29
This is where Lewis brings in the architect analogy, which
12:32
helps us understand where this power must show up, if it exists
12:35
at all. If there is a controlling power
12:37
that stands outside the physical universe, if it is the architect
12:40
of the house, it cannot possibly appear as one of the facts
12:43
inside the universe. If the architect suddenly showed
12:45
up as a misplaced brick or a new piece of furniture, he would
12:49
just be another fact for us to observe.
12:51
Right. The architect is the designer
12:52
and the governor of the house, but he isn't physically part of
12:55
the walls or the flooring or the roof.
12:58
So if the architect wanted to communicate with the people
13:01
inside the house, he'd have to do it in a way that wasn't
13:05
structural, right? Yes, exactly.
13:06
The communication would have to be internal to the inhabitant, a
13:10
command and instruction. Lewis concludes that the only
13:14
way we could expect this controlling power to show itself
13:16
is inside ourselves, manifesting not as a physical phenomenon,
13:20
but as a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way.
13:24
And this is the moment of recognition.
13:26
That command is just what we find.
13:28
It's the moral law. This realization shouldn't just
13:31
arouse suspicion, he's saying. It should be treated as
13:33
undeniable evidence. The logic loop is now closed in
13:37
every case where we don't get an answer about the purpose or
13:39
meaning of an object. The star is the weather, the
13:41
stones. We understand why external
13:43
observation is limited and it can't see the architect, but in
13:46
the one solitary case where we can expect an answer man the
13:50
being with interior consciousness, the answer is a
13:52
clear yes, there is an external command.
13:55
This gives us the only solid foothold we have for making an
13:59
inference about the nature of the entire universe.
14:02
It's like his analogy of the postman in the packets.
14:05
We see a man in a uniform leaving these uniform looking
14:08
paper packets at every house down the street.
14:11
And why do we assume those other packets contain letters?
14:14
Because the only packet we are allowed to open our own contains
14:17
a letter. We don't assume the neighbors
14:19
are getting packets full of sand or stones even though we haven't
14:22
seen inside their packets. We generalize based on the one
14:25
piece of inside information we have.
14:28
And the packet we are allowed to open is man.
14:31
When we look inside ourselves, we find we are receiving a
14:34
communication, a binding moral law, which implies there's a
14:38
sender of letters or a director. The.
14:40
Question then becomes, OK, if the moral law is a command sent
14:43
to man, what kind of communication is sent to a stone
14:45
or a tree? Is the stone also, you know,
14:48
internally striving to follow gravity?
14:49
Lewis says no, the expectation is different because the
14:52
entities are different. He establishes a difference in
14:54
governance. The sender compels the stone to
14:58
obey the law of its Stony nature.
15:01
A stone is an automaton. It has no choice but to follow
15:04
fixed physical behavior like gravity.
15:07
The law is descriptive compulsion.
15:09
Whereas the sender tells man to obey the law of his human
15:13
nature, the moral law. This is a prescriptive command,
15:16
and this implies freedom, the capacity for choice, and
15:19
therefore the possibility of failure and responsibility.
15:22
So the mode of governance differs radically.
15:24
Compulsion for matter, command for conscious beings, but the
15:27
implication in both cases is the same.
15:29
The existence of a governor, a power behind the facts, a
15:32
director. The moral law is the unique data
15:36
point that forces us away from the purely materialist worldview
15:39
because it introduces a non physical reality, the imperative
15:42
of ought. And we have to maintain Lewis's
15:45
philosophical rigor. Here we do.
15:46
We've established the necessity of a director, but we must
15:49
stress that the conclusion he has reached at this moment is
15:51
not yet the God of the Bible or the triune God of Christian
15:54
theology. Absolutely.
15:56
Lewis's very deliberate All we have established so far is the
16:00
existence of something which is directing the universe, and that
16:04
this something manifests itself within us as an uncomfortable
16:07
moral law, a law that urges us to do right and generates
16:11
genuine guilt when we do wrong. So what can we logically deduce
16:15
about the nature of this something?
16:17
If we accept the materialist premise that the only other
16:20
option is just matter, the answer becomes clearer by, well,
16:24
by elimination. We must assume this reality is
16:26
more like a mind than anything else we know.
16:29
Lewis's point here is beautifully simple and
16:30
intuitive. You can hardly imagine a bit of
16:33
matter giving instructions. Instructions, commands, purpose,
16:36
preference, these are all functions of consciousness.
16:39
A piece of carbon or a cloud of gas can't issue a moral
16:42
imperative. Matter can cause force, but it
16:45
can't express disappointment over broken honesty or pride
16:48
over a noble deed. The evidence of the moral law
16:51
points inescapably toward intelligence and preference.
16:54
But we need to acknowledge the nuance Lewis brings here, though
16:58
he offers a necessary caution. This something may not be very
17:02
like a mind, and it's certainly not like a person in the way we
17:05
typically define personality. It is infinite, eternal, but
17:09
based solely on the unique evidence of the moral law.
17:12
The analogy of a mind, or a director or a governor is the
17:15
best, most rational fit. It is the only thing we know of
17:18
that issues commands. And before Lewis moves on to
17:21
discuss how we might find out more about this director, he
17:24
offers a word of warning to the reader.
17:26
He makes it very clear that he is not dealing in the kind of
17:28
weak sentimental ideas of divinity that were popular in
17:31
his time, the soft soap, as he calls it, often discussed
17:35
regarding some benign, non judgmental entity.
17:37
This is a nod to the gravity of the moral law.
17:40
If this directing reality exists, and it issues a command
17:43
that we are constantly and, well, profoundly failing to
17:47
keep, that is not a comfortable thought.
17:49
The something we've discovered is inherently demanding,
17:52
potentially troublesome, and necessarily righteous.
17:56
It is a holy God whose law requires a response which aligns
17:59
powerfully with the Reformed concept of God's sovereignty and
18:03
our responsibility before Him. Lewis makes sure the reader
18:07
understands the serious, non negotiable nature of the reality
18:11
he has just proven. It sets the stage by removing
18:14
all the sentimental fluff. If the existence of God is
18:16
proved by this inner sense of guilt and responsibility, then
18:19
that God is necessarily a severe judge before he's anything else.
18:22
That's right. Loose is meticulous and he
18:25
realizes that there is a tempting philosophical escape
18:27
route 1/3 option that tries to sit between materialism and the
18:30
religious view. He addresses this in a detailed
18:33
critique of what he calls the life force philosophy.
18:35
This in between view goes by a few names, creative evolution,
18:39
life force or emergent evolution.
18:42
It tries to acknowledge the dynamism and progression of life
18:45
without committing to a personal judging creator.
18:48
Lewis points to Bernard Shaw for the wittiest explanations of
18:51
this, and to Bergson for the most detailed.
18:54
And the core idea is appealing, isn't it?
18:56
The small, crucial variations that led the life evolving from
19:00
the lowest forms up to human consciousness weren't due to
19:03
blind chance alone, like the materialist claim.
19:06
Instead, they were caused by the striving or the purposiveness of
19:11
an intrinsic impersonal life force.
19:13
It's a view that seeks the comfort of having a purposeful
19:16
universe. It says, yes, there is
19:18
direction, there's momentum, there's a driving creative
19:20
impetus. But it very carefully avoids
19:23
saying there is a person demanding moral behavior.
19:26
It wants the grandeur of purpose without the governance of a
19:29
mind. But Lewis immediately sees the
19:31
logical weakness and asks the single devastating question that
19:34
just collapses the entire philosophy.
19:36
He does. Does this life force have a mind
19:38
or does it not? And the answer dictates
19:40
everything. It does.
19:42
If the proponents admit that the life force does have a mind, a
19:45
consciousness that guides life's trajectory toward perfection,
19:49
then the view is redundant. It's just the religious view
19:52
with a different label. They're just calling God the
19:54
life force. But the core essence of a
19:56
conscious selecting purposeful guide is still there.
19:59
But if they stand their ground and say the life force does not
20:02
have a mind, that it's blind unconscious energy, then?
20:06
Lewis asks. What definition of language lets
20:08
us say that something without a mind strives or has purposes?
20:12
Striving and purpose are human terms.
20:15
They come exclusively from our experience of consciousness.
20:18
We only use words like strive or intend when we're talking about
20:22
things that have a mind. To apply these terms to an
20:24
unconscious blind force is to empty the words of all meaning.
20:27
The life force, if it's truly blind, just collapses logically
20:30
back into materialism. It's just matter and chance
20:33
again, maybe dressed up in slightly more poetic language.
20:36
It seems like Lewis sees this life force philosophy not as a
20:40
serious philosophical third way, but more as a a psychological
20:44
coping mechanism. He asks why it's so attractive
20:47
to people. He argues it's attractiveness is
20:50
that it lets you enjoy the emotional comfort of believing
20:53
in a great cosmic power without any of the less pleasant
20:57
consequences that come with acknowledging a personal holy
21:01
God. Let's really get into that
21:02
emotional appeal. When you're feeling good, when
21:05
life is moving forward, the life force lets you feel
21:08
sophisticated and spiritual. You can imagine this great
21:11
mysterious energy rolling through the centuries, and you
21:14
feel carried along by it, part of some vast, inspiring cosmic
21:18
process. You get the metaphysical thrill.
21:20
But then when you decide you want to act rather shabby, when
21:24
you break a promise or cut a corner or do some morally
21:26
questionable thing, the life force is conveniently just a
21:30
blind force. It has no morals and no mind,
21:33
and therefore it will never interfere.
21:35
It can't judge you because it lacks the capacity for
21:37
judgement. This is the genius of Lewis's
21:39
critique. He calls the life force a sort
21:41
of tame God. It's a deity you can praise when
21:44
you feel like it, and then completely ignore when it
21:46
becomes inconvenient. You get the benefit of purpose
21:48
when you want inspiration, and the benefit of moral neutrality
21:51
when you want acts selfishly. His final judgement is severe,
21:54
but it's accurate. Creative evolution offers all
21:57
the thrills of religion and none of the cost.
22:01
Lewis provocatively suggests that the life force philosophy
22:04
might be the single greatest achievement of wishful thinking
22:07
the world has ever seen. It serves as a stark foil to the
22:10
conclusion of Section 4, doesn't it?
22:12
The moral law proves a director who is demanding and troublesome
22:15
because we failed to keep his commands.
22:18
The life Force is a philosophical attempt to create
22:20
a morally neutral director that asks nothing of us, which
22:24
eliminates the problem posed by our persistent judge mental
22:27
conscience. It's seeking the benefits of
22:30
creation while actively resisting the authority of the
22:33
creator. Lewis's earlier argument proved
22:36
necessary. Well said.
22:37
So this deep dive followed Lewis's methodical path
22:40
perfectly. We established that the moral
22:42
law, that troublesome internal sense of odd, is the only key we
22:45
are allowed to open. And when we open ourselves, we
22:48
find clear evidence pointing to a director of the universe that
22:51
is by necessity more like a mind capable of command than simple
22:55
random matter. And this rigorous establishment
22:58
of a moral law fits so naturally into the theological framework
23:02
of the Reformed tradition. The doctrine of the Imago Dei
23:05
confirms that this law is written onto our hearts, making
23:08
us responsible, accountable creatures standing before a
23:11
righteous creator. Lewis's philosophical proof
23:14
gives powerful structure to the theological assertions of man's
23:17
accountability. And as it's described in the
23:19
Westminster Confession, man's chief purpose and rule of life
23:22
are entirely bound up. In acknowledging and obeying the
23:25
will of this director, this holy God, Lewis moves us from a
23:30
philosophical puzzle to a very personal reality.
23:34
The moral standard is real and the authority behind it is real.
23:37
Let us end by returning to that core distinction that Lewis
23:40
provided between compulsion and command.
23:42
Ponder the weighty implications of this fundamental difference.
23:45
The sender of the letters compels the stone to obey its
23:48
nature, but he tells man to obey his nature.
23:51
That distinction is the foundation of our existence as
23:55
moral free creatures. What does it truly mean for
23:58
human freedom and responsibility that we are subjects of a moral
24:02
command capable of failure and rebellion, rather than
24:05
unthinking automatons just following mechanical laws?
24:08
And if the existence of that necessary troublesome God, the
24:12
one who commands obedience, is demonstrably true through our
24:15
own conscience, what is the ultimate cost of rejecting him
24:18
in favor of the emotional comfort provided by the tame God
24:21
of blind evolutionary purpose? It asks us to consider whether
24:25
we're suppressing the clearest piece of evidence we possess
24:28
about the nature of the reality we inhabit, simply because that
24:31
evidence makes us uncomfortable. Food for thought indeed.
24:34
Thank you for joining us for this deep dive into CS Lewis's
24:37
analysis of the law behind the law.
24:39
Until next time.