Feuerbach vs C.S. Lewis

Essay by njcjohnsonUniversity, Bachelor'sA, July 2005

download word file, 8 pages 0.0

Downloaded 20 times

The human race is controlled by the desire to do what is right. People will consistently defend their actions by arguing that those actions do not really contradict a basic standard of behavior, or they will say that they violated their standards for good reasons. But they always tend to say that these things that we do can be explained. When we start making excuses for our actions then we do not feel good about what we have done. In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis discusses the objective norms that people appeal to and by which they expect others to also abide by. Lewis claims that although everyone knows about the law, everyone breaks it. He further claims that something or somebody is behind this basic law. This obvious principle of behavior is not created by humans, but it is for humans to obey. Different people use different labels for this law, such as traditional morality, moral law, the knowledge of right and wrong, or virtue.

C.S. Lewis calls it the Natural Law.

Feuerbach was an early prominent atheistic philosopher. He denied all supernaturalism and attributed all talk about God to talk about nature. He said that man is not dependent on God, man is dependent on nature. Feuerbach said that the idea of God arose as a result of men desiring to have some sort of supernatural Being as an explanation for their own existence and the events that they observe around them. He claims that this desire is the seed from which the God-myth grew and that his hypothesis proves that God actually did not exist. The following paper will outline the contrasting arguments and viewpoints of Lewis and Feuerbach. I will use examples from C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity as well as Feuerbachs' Essence of Religion in...