The Law of Human Nature

The Law of Human Nature


Every one  has heard people quarrelling. Sometimes  it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely  unpleasant; but however it sounds,  I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kind of things they say. They say things like this: “How’d you like it if anyone did the same to you?”-“That’s my seat, I  was there  first”-“Leave him alone, he isn’t doing you  any  harm”-  “Why should  you  shove in first?”-“Give me a  bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine”-“Come on, you promised.” People say things like that  every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups.

Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying  that the other man’s behaviour does not  happen to  please him.  He is  appealing  to some kind of  standard  of behaviour  which he expects  the  other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: “To hell with your standard.” Nearly always he tries to make out that  what  he  has been  doing  does  not really  go against  the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some  special reason in this particular case why the person  who took the seat first should not  keep it, or that things were quite different  when he was given the bit of orange, or that something  has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in  mind  some kind of  Law or  Rule  of  fair play  or decent  behaviour or morality or  whatever you like to  call it, about which they  really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might,  of course, fight  like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarrelling means trying to  show  that the  other man is  in the wrong. And there would be no sense in  trying to do that  unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as  there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul  unless there was some agreement about the rules of football.

Now this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature.  Nowadays,  when we talk of  the  “laws of  nature”  we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong “the Law of Nature,” they really meant the Law of Human Nature.  The idea was that, just as all bodies are  governed by the law of gravitation and organisms by biological laws, so the creature  called man also had his law-with this great difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it.

We  may put this in another way. Each  man is at every moment subjected to  several different sets of law but there is only one of these which he is free to  disobey. As  a  body,  he is subjected to  gravitation  and  cannot disobey it; if  you leave  him unsupported in mid-air, he has no more choice about falling than a stone has. As an organism, he  is subjected  to various biological laws  which he  cannot disobey any more than an  animal can. That is, he cannot  disobey those laws which he shares with other things; but the law which is peculiar to  his human nature, the law  he does not share  with animals or vegetables or inorganic  things, is the  one he can disobey if he chooses.

This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and  did  not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who  did not  know it, just as you find a few  people who are colour-blind or have no ear for a tune. But  taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behaviour  was  obvious to every one. And I believe they were right. If they  were  not, then all the things  we  said about the war  were nonsense.  What was  the sense in saying the enemy were in the  wrong unless Right  is a  real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practised? If they had had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have  had  to fight them,  we could no more have blamed them for that than for the colour of their hair. I  know that  some  people  say the idea of a Law  of  Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different  civilisations  and different ages have had quite different moralities. But  this  is  not  true.  There have  been differences  between  their moralities,  but  these  have  never  amounted  to  anything  like  a  total difference.

If anyone  will take the  trouble to compare the  moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians,  Babylonians,  Hindus,  Chinese, Greeks  and Romans, what will really  strike him will be how very like they  are to each other  and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together  in the appendix of  another  book  called  The Abolition of  Man; but  for  our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality  would  mean. Think  of  a country  where  people were admired  for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might  just as well try to imagine a country  where  two  and  two made five. Men  have differed  as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to-whether it was only your own  family, or your  fellow  countrymen, or everyone. But  they have always agreed that you ought  not to  put yourself  first. Selfishness has never been  admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they  have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.

But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who say she  does not believe in a real Right  and  Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later.  He  may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to  him he  will be complaining “It’s  not fair” before you  can say Jack Robinson. A  nation may  say treaties  do  not matter, but then,  next minute, they  spoil  their case  by saying that  the  particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one.  But if treaties do not matter, and if there is  no such thing  as Right and Wrong- in other words, if there is  no Law of Nature-what  is  the difference between a fair treaty  and  an unfair  one? Have they not let  the  cat out  of  the bag  and  shown  that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?

It seems,  then,  we are forced to  believe in a real Right  and Wrong. People may  be sometimes mistaken about them,  just as people sometimes  get their sums wrong;  but they are not  a matter of mere taste and  opinion any more than the multiplication table. Now if we are agreed about that, I go on to my next point, which is  this. None of us are  really keeping the Law  of Nature. If there are any exceptions among you, I apologise to them. They had much better read some  other work, for nothing I am  going  to say  concerns them. And now, turning to the ordinary human beings who are left:

I  hope  you will not  misunderstand what I am going to  say.  I am not preaching, and Heaven knows I do not pretend  to be better than anyone else. I  am only  trying to call attention to a fact; the fact that this year,  or this  month, or,  more likely, this very day, we  have  failed  to  practise ourselves  the kind of  behaviour we expect from other people.  There may be all sorts of excuses for us. That time you  were so unfair  to the  children was  when  you were  very  tired. That  slightly  shady business  about  the money-the one you have almost forgotten-came when you were very hard up. And what you  promised to do for  old  So-and-so and  have  never done-well, you never would have promised  if  you had known how frightfully busy  you  were going to  be. And as for  your behaviour to your wife (or husband) or sister (or brother) if I knew how irritating they could  be, I would  not wonder at it-and who the dickens am I, anyway? I am just the same.  That is  to say, I do not succeed in keeping the Law of Nature very well, and the moment anyone tells me I am not keeping it, there starts up in my mind a string of excuses as long as your arm. The question at the moment is not whether they are good excuses. The point is that they are one more proof of how deeply, whether we like it or  not, we  believe in the Law of Nature.

If we  do not  believe in decent behaviour, why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently? The truth is, we believe in  decency  so much-we  feel the Rule or Law pressing on us so- that we cannot bear  to face the fact that we are breaking  it,  and consequently we try to shift the  responsibility. For you  notice that  it is  only  for our bad behaviour  that we find all these explanations. It is only our bad  temper that we  put down to being tired or worried or hungry; we put our good temper down to ourselves.

These, then,  are the two points  I wanted to  make. First, that  human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in  a certain way, and cannot  really get rid of it. Secondly,  that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law  of Nature; they break it.

These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.

**********

From Mere Christianity, Chapter 1: The Law of Human Nature

by C.S. Lewis.

 

Advertisements
Creation: Do we need a God?

Creation: Do we need a God?


My recent time was spent reading books on the idea that we would not need a God to have this awesome, beautiful and breath taking Nature and the Universe. While the list is not that long. Mr. Hawking’s “The Grand Design” and Mr. Dawkin’s “The God Delusion” were at the top of the lists.

I personally think of Mr. Hawking as a brilliant human being and that he has earned due respect with his contribution to the field of science. He is no doubt one of the great scientists of our present age.

Where I admire greatly the passion showed by the author in “The Grand Design” and the depth of rationale and knowledge that it summarizes, I found myself asking more questions about what most people bring to the table when they need to argue.

On the topic of “God”, he is quite subtle saying in his previous book, “A Brief History of Time”.

“There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down, and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. One could say: “The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.” The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed, It would just BE.”

and further

“However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it
started – it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?”

So the question is thrown back at the reader. It implies that we do not need God to understand this universe and given the appropriate pointers a simple conclusion would agree with what has been proposed.

He practically deduces that if there would only be gravity present and nothing else the universe would create itself, expand and shape up as we see around us. This is based on the premise that if there is a God, we can not know for sure, hence God is not needed

Come on, have you ever seen something really astounding birthed by gravity. Can gravity create a sprawling universe? where did it get the matter, and when did matter developed consciousness or preferences, since almost all of living things inherit one or other of these traits, even plants have preferences.

And while I disagreed on the above, I had to laugh a few times on some of the things I read in the “Grand Design”.

Read this…

“Do people have free will? If we have free will, where in the evolutionary tree did it develop? Do blue-green algae or bacteria have free will, or is their behavior automatic and within the realm of scientific law? Is it only multicelled organisms that have free will, or only mammals? “

And after some lines…

“Though we feel that we can choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets. Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions, and not some agency7 that exists outside those laws. For example, a study of patients undergoing awake brain surgery found that by electrically stimulating the appropriate regions of the brain, one could create in the patient the desire to move the hand, arm, or foot, or to move the lips and talk. It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.”

Here I could not but fathom reading science fiction. Anyways, you may as well decide if the laws of physics govern, rape murder and necrophilia? But given the implication it might as well conclude that if we are doing what we are programmed to do. no matter what and how deep the level of arbitration and complexity we might see, it would be an automated response, complex, so complex that it is impossible to be calculated, yet instilled in us. And here is where I part ways with this statement.

All life and all the complex beauty of the universe is so diverse that we still haven’t seen much of it. we hope to, in our search of enlightenment but “God” does not seem modern in terms of our quest to understand all that surrounds us. Yet his deduction from the creation hypothesis seems to leave large gaps.

First and foremost as I mentioned in my previous post, what was time zero? and If God was at time zero? there is no way scientifically to disapprove that. What science merely gives as an alternative that we would not need God, but then they do not have all the answers as well.

Quantum Physics, Gravity and M-theory (which is not even universally accepted or completed for that matter) proves a lot of things but parts of them are still to be tested, e.g Quantum Gravity is one thing where a lot of research is still needed, often barred by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and to top that, what these theories (while not wrong) can not redo is the actual event of creation it self. That it has never been duplicated or redone. Why? that is one question which science takes the liberty at telling us that creation or collapse/annihilation is millions and millions of years ahead.

Of course in the event of a black hole or a star exploding we see annihilation but that in itself is not conclusive. what we see in such events is matter transforming in an other form or shape. In simple words, we see transformation not creation since matter can not be produced by nothing. If our universe was born like this than it happened from previous existing matter.

My question still stands.

Where did matter originate? Where did magnetic fields and polarities originated? How do they always follow the same principles and laws of physics and not change or evolve. If they change why is not the change constant? If they do not change than it implies a set of rules programmed. who programmed them?

If I say God, it is thought to be ridiculed. However if someone says, “lets presume the universe was always like this”…bang, we just substituted the argument, nothing else.

I can assure you that if you sit on a beach and hope to cross the ocean with nothing and you wait for 5 billion years, the trees on the beach will not automatically turn or should I say evolve into a boat without a carpenter. Evolution without God, creation without God would be shapeless and chaotic, it would be random and prone to change. Even at grand scales why do we find uniformity?

Matter would be present but not in shape and structure that is organized and follows a pattern. As the stapler on your desk does not become a photocopier even if it is left to do that for a million years, likewise a stunning and complex system cannot be founded without at least someone starting the process. I can even think that God might have started our universe and then never interrupted natural process.

I do not go against scientific findings they are there because they are proven (not talking about hunches and assumptions and theories that can not be tested) but if you are trying to find God through science that is like finding Alexander the great in your mommy’s cook book.

The reason I quote Mr. Stephen Hawking is that he is one of the lead scientists of our day and that many Atheist views spring out of such incomplete theories. I am not against anybody but I must point out the obvious gaps presented in such data, not to be offensive but simply to counter act the fact that such theories and ideas are mostly thrown at people who choose to believe while they do not know that even qualified analysis, must make some assumptions. The same flaw that Theists are accused of making up.

A word or two on Mr. Dawkins is due (soon).