God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics

Note: this essay first appeared in The Spectator in February 1941.

Lewis responds directly to a recent article in which English philosopher C.E.M Joad suggests that the unprecedented violence of World War II necessitates a revival of Dualist philosophy. Lewis defines Dualism as belief in a world fueled by equal, antagonistic powers of good and evil. He rejects Joad’s argument that evil is uniquely powerful in their present. 

Lewis identifies Zoroastrianism as an example of Dualist thinking, with the Zoroastrian spirits Ormuzd and Ahriman representing good and evil respectively. Lewis argues that if Ormuzd and Ahriman are truly equal and have no external source, then there cannot be a true moral difference between them. In order for “evil” to be truly distinct from “good,” “evil” needs to be a derivative of “good” that cannot exist on its own. Lewis argues that this distinction requires a monotheistic philosophy in which all earthly good stems from a larger good, which is the source of all reality.

Lewis argues that monotheistic philosophy requires us to acknowledge that our enemies are not distinct and different from us. Condemning evil thus requires a belief that the evil-doer is capable of good.

Note: this essay was published in the Anglican newspaper The Guardian in October 1942 (not to be confused with the secular newspaper now known as The Guardian, which at this time appeared under the name The Manchester Guardian).

Lewis argues that modern materialist philosophy—which finds a physical cause for all human experience—prohibits people from accepting miracles. Accepting miracles requires both an understanding of the normal conditions of nature, and a belief that something exists beyond nature. Jesus’s disciples knew men could not walk on water, and therefore accepted it as a miracle when he did. When British soldiers claimed to see angels defending their retreat during the 1914 Battle of Mons, many dismissed this as a collective hallucination. Lewis argues that a collective hallucination is less likely than angels actually appearing.

Lewis argues that miracles are small-scale reminders of the work Jesus did on Earth and the universal work of God in the future. He compares healing miracles of saints to Jesus’s healing miracles and the promise of eternal life in heaven. Lewis claims that the miracles moderns attribute to science and technology are all attributable to God. He argues that the virgin birth is the most important miracle because it is so personal. Since they fracture our perception of what is normal, miracles act as a reminder of the miraculous nature of all existence.

Note: this essay first appeared in The Guardian in 1943.

Lewis refutes the idea that modern science contradicts Christian doctrine. He points to Stanley Eddington’s The Expanding Universe as evidence that modern science has finally aligned with Christianity in acknowledging that the universe was created and has not always existed. Lewis suggests that nonbelievers see the massive size of the universe as an argument against God and the uniqueness of humanity. Lewis argues that modern interest in the nature of the universe is evidence of God in humans. He argues that the Bible does not prioritize humans over other forms of creation, and that we have no evidence that God prefers humans to other forms of life in the universe, if they exist.

Lewis compares Christian doctrine to absolute systems like the Greek alphabet: A professor of Greek, reading a text and understanding its historical and literary background, has a very different relationship to Greek than a student just learning the language. Despite their different understandings, the language has not changed. Lewis argues that scientific discoveries can deepen but not supersede Christian doctrine.

Note: this essay was first published in 1944 as a pamphlet by the Electrical and Musical Industries Christian Fellowship, whose members take part in the discussion.

In a discussion with industrial executives and factory workers, Lewis argues that factory work is damaging to the human spirit, but admits modern societies cannot exist without it. When asked how Christians can support war, Lewis argues that killing in the name of a greater good is acceptable. A worker asks for specific advice for factory workers seeking God. Lewis argues that God sees no difference between workers and other men, and urges the man to seek God in unpleasant circumstances. When asked about inequality, Lewis argues that God takes away earthly comforts to draw people close to him and ensure their eternal life. Later, he revises this argument, saying that accepting pain is about opening up to the will of God. When asked which religion makes people happiest, Lewis reiterates that Christianity is not about feeling comfortable.

Lewis rejects a worker’s suggestion that life on Earth is accidental, arguing that creation cannot explain itself. He also rejects the idea that science is anti-Christian, arguing that God celebrates advances in humanity, as long as science isn’t the only thing that matters.

Note: this essay first appeared in World Dominion, a magazine for Christian missionaries, in September 1944.

Lewis responds to a fictional friend Corineus, who argues that modern Christians are Christians only in name, having rejected the religion’s core tenets. Corineus suggests that Christians would be more successful if they rid the religion of its mythology and stuck to ethics. 

Lewis argues that mythology is central to Christianity and human patterns of thought. He explains that humans cannot understand abstract ideas like pleasure, goodness, or grace except in experiencing them. The exception to this is myths, which allow immediate access to universal experiences. Lewis argues that Christianity is the moment that myth became fact. For Christians, the historical myths of gods dying and being born again were made reality during Jesus’s life. He argues that Christians should not be ashamed of the miracles and “mythology” of their religion, but instead see God in all myths and miracles.

Note: this essay first appeared in the Church of England Newsletter in October 1944.

Lewis argues that, although some theologians think the war between science and religion is over, the average person does not. Lewis claims that the average person understands Heaven as a material place “above” the Earth, and that modern science must contradict that belief. Lewis proposes that, no matter what scientific explanations arise for the universe, the reality of God will always be stranger and inexplicable. However, he argues that our lack of understanding does not have to equal lack of belief. He gives the example of a child who associates poison with living, frightening, red pills. Although the child does not fully understand the mechanism of poison, they understand the concept. Poison is not less real because the child misunderstands it.

Note: this essay first appeared in the Coventry Evening Telegraph in January 1945.

An unnamed friend of Lewis argues modern science disproves miracles, and that modern people would never be fooled by the Bible’s claims of a virgin birth. Lewis replies that Joseph also knew the physics of pregnancy, which is precisely why he considered Mary’s pregnancy miraculous. The friend argues that modern science has disproved the supernatural. Lewis counters that science can only observe and describe patterns of nature, and that it cannot predict or rule out outside interference. Physics can predict how a billiard ball will move on a table, but not what might happen if an outsider decides to interfere.

Lewis’s friend argues that new discoveries about the size of the universe make human life seem insignificant. Lewis demonstrates that the ancients also understood the size of the universe. He questions why this argument has only recently been raised by atheists, calling them uncurious.

Note: this essay first appeared in the Coventry Evening Telegraph in April 1945.

An anonymous friend tells Lewis about an acquaintance who believes her son survived the devastating Battle of Arnhem because she prayed for him. The friend believes that the son survived because he was in the right place at the right time, and that her prayers had nothing to do with it. Lewis argues that although the laws of nature dictate the path of the bullet, they do not dictate when the trigger is pulled, or where the gun is aimed. 

He compares the laws of physics to the rules of math: Knowing how to add sums of money does not mean you understand how to make money. Lewis argues that modern physics describes a world set in motion by God, and that God is acting in the world constantly. He claims that prayers are eternal, and that God considers all prayers.

Note: Lewis preached this essay at St. Jude on the Hill Church in London in April 1945. It was published in The Guardian the same month.

Lewis claims that Christianity is the only religion that cannot be stripped of its mythology and survive. He argues that Christianity is the story of one great miracle: The eternal God becoming human, dying, and being resurrected to save creation. Lewis argues that the miracle of a resurrected God is repeated in religions throughout history, and that the myth was realized in Jesus. Lewis acknowledges that resurrection seems unlikely, but that the universe is also unlikely, and that the unlikely nature of both makes them more remarkable. 

Lewis argues that cycles of death and life in the natural world offered a familiar example of the resurrection for early Christians. Lewis argues that the incarnation of Jesus also reflects the “vicariousness” (85) of nature: All beings rely on each other for survival, just as all Christians rely on Jesus Christ’s sacrifice. Lewis calls on the audience to persevere through the current darkness into the promised spring.