C. S. Lewis and The Tao

Filed under: Apologetics — Barry Carey at 11:20 am on Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Although at first I had difficulty with C. S. Lewis’ incorporation of an eastern religious concept, the Tao, into a Christian discussion, as I began to understand Lewis, I realized how effective his argument really was. In The Abolition of Man, Lewis does not seem interested in offering a distinctive “Christian” argument, but rather a universal argument against the subjectivism which characterizes our culture. The Tao, or The Way, as offered by Lewis, may be understood as “natural law” or “objective morality”. It is not just Christians who have a sense of objective truth. It is all mankind which possesses this intuition. In the appendix to this book, he offers various illustrations of the Tao from various cultures and periods of history.

Certainly, one may appeal to Christian teaching to establish the objectivity of truth and morality, but this is not necessary. Paul, in Romans 2:14-16 speaks to this very issue:

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

One of Lewis’ most biting arguments against those who deny the Tao is found when he asserts that those who would attack it have undercut any foundation upon which their attack stands (p 41):

All the values which he uses in attacking the Tao, and even claims to be substituting for it, are themselves derived from the Tao… If the Tao falls, all his own conceptions of value fall with it. Not one of them can claim any authority other than that of the Tao. Only by such shreds of the Tao as he has inherited is he enabled even to attack it.

Lewis also points out, in this discussion, that their must be something which is self-evident (the Tao), or else nothing can be proven. If any objective ground for morality is rejected, then one can find no ground for any value judgments at all. Society is reduced to a Nietzschean ethic in which the Tao is dead, and there is no hope of finding any way to even speak of morality. Any hope of doing so was surrendered along with the Tao.

4 Comments »

Comment by Kevin Winters

November 25, 2006 @ 6:20 pm

Nietzsche was not a nihilist or a relativist. One of the better traditional terms in describing Nietzsche (though still inadequate) is a virtue ethics. Nietzsche was very much a classicist and philologist and he felt that the ancient Greek view of arate (excellence) was very important. Thus, while he rejected universal ethics that attempt to subsume morality under a collection of dos and don’ts, he felt that goodness came from good people, just as evil came from evil people. Our mode of being is prior to our actions.

Comment by Kevin Winters

November 25, 2006 @ 6:21 pm

On that note, a good buy that I recently made was Robert Solomon and Kathleen Higgins’ What Nietzsche Really Said. I would highly suggest it.

Comment by Laura

December 14, 2006 @ 8:55 pm

As a Christian, I always thought that C.S. Lewis was a good man. It wasn’t until High School when, trying to tell people about Jesus, they contridicted what I was telling them from the Bible with a quote from C.S. Lewis.

I now see that C.S. Lewis had many real pagan ideas, and tries to mix paganism, Christianity and ALL other religions together.

“The Chinese also speak of a great thing (the greatest thing) called the Tao. It is the reality behind all predicates, the abyss that was before the Creator Himself. It is Nature, it is the Way, the Road. It is the Way the universe goes on, the Way in which things everlastingly emerge… into space and time. It is also the Way which every man should tread in imitation of that cosmic and supercosmic progression, conforming all activities to that great exemplar. [page 30 - The Abolition of Man]

HE SAID THAT TAO WAS BEFORE GOD HIMSELF!!! This is NOT Godly. I could show hundreds more quotes from his books that are weird to say the least, they are pagan.

Comment by Barry Carey

December 15, 2006 @ 11:24 am

Laura, Thanks so much for taking the time to comment. I’m afraid you misunderstand Lewis and he is often taken out of context. For example, you stated, “He said that the tao was before God himself!!!”. This does injustic to lewis. ON page 18, Lewis states, “The Chinese also speak of a great thing called the Tao. It is the reality beyond all predicates, the abyss that was before the Creator Himself…” Lewis does not explicity argue for the Tao existing before God himself. He is explaining what the Tao is to the Chinese. I admit it may be easy to misunderstand.

If I’m explaining secular humanism and in the process make a statement, “There is no God”, I’m not arguing for that position, simply explaining secular humanism. Lewis takes the concept of the Tao and allows it to stand for objective morality and shows how this is necessary. I hope I’ve cleared up some of this confusion.

I certainly don’t think Lewis was inerrant, but he made valuable contributions to the defense of the Christian faith. I think this issue of the Tao does a disservice to his argument in The Abolition of Man.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>