Syllogistic and Symbolic Logic Formulations of C.S. Lewis’ Moral Argument and its Critique

---

I. C.S. Lewis’ Moral Argument for God’s Goodness

• Premises of the Argument:
  • P1: If universal moral laws exist, they must have a universal, transcendent source (God).
  • P2: Universal moral laws exist and are not derived from evolutionary or societal factors.
  • P3: God is the only being that could meet the conditions of being this universal, transcendent source.
  • Conclusion (C1): Therefore, God exists and is the foundation of objective moral standards.

---

II. General Counter-Argument Against C.S. Lewis’ Deductive Idealism

• Premises of Empirical Critique:
  • P4: If objective moral laws exist, they should not vary by time, culture, or societal values.
  • P5: Historical and cross-cultural evidence demonstrates significant variation in moral standards (examples: human sacrifice, infanticide, land ownership, etc.).
  • P6: The Bible itself contains examples of moral directives (genocide, slavery, deception) that conflict with modern moral intuitions and societal standards.
  • Conclusion (C2): Therefore, either moral laws are not objective or the claim that they originate from a singular, immutable deity is invalid.

---

III. Analysis of Biblical Examples

• Premises Related to Biblical Morality:
  • P7: A morally perfect God would issue commands that align with universally acceptable moral standards.
  • P8: Biblical commands include acts (e.g., genocide, child sacrifice, slavery) that violate widely accepted modern moral standards.
  • P9: If these commands are morally objectionable by modern standards, then either:
    • (a) God’s nature is inconsistent with being morally perfect, or
    • (b) Moral standards evolve and are not universal or objective.
  • Conclusion (C3): Therefore, either God is not morally perfect or morality is not objective.

---

IV. Rebuttals and Their Failures

• Divine Command Theory (DCT):
  • P10: DCT claims that morality is defined by God’s commands.
  • P11: If morality is defined solely by God’s commands, it becomes arbitrary (e.g., any act commanded by God would be deemed “good”).
  • P12: Arbitrary morality undermines the coherence of objective moral standards.
  • Conclusion (C4): Therefore, DCT fails to account for objective morality in a non-arbitrary manner.
• Skeptical Theism:
  • P13: Skeptical theism posits that God’s ways are beyond human understanding.
  • P14: If God’s ways are incomprehensible, then moral claims about God’s goodness are equally unfalsifiable.
  • P15: Unfalsifiable claims cannot serve as a rational foundation for objective morality.
  • Conclusion (C5): Therefore, skeptical theism undermines the epistemic credibility of God’s moral nature.
• Progressive Revelation:
  • P16: Progressive revelation argues that morality in scripture evolves to reflect changing human understanding of God.
  • P17: If morality evolves, it is contingent upon human, historical, and cultural factors.
  • P18: Contingent morality contradicts the premise of timeless, objective moral laws.
  • Conclusion (C6): Therefore, progressive revelation contradicts the claim of objective and immutable divine morality.

---

V. Core Syllogism Summarizing the Critique

• Syllogism:
  • P19: Objective moral standards require consistency across time and cultures.
  • P20: Empirical evidence shows significant variations in moral standards.
  • P21: The Bible contains examples of moral directives that conflict with both modern moral intuitions and claims of divine perfection.
  • Conclusion (C7): Therefore, Lewis’ idealistic moral argument for God fails due to contradictions with both empirical data and biblical pragmatics.

---

VI. Final Conclusion

• Overall Conclusion:
  The idealistic framework posited by C.S. Lewis collapses under the weight of empirical pragmatism. His deductive argument, while internally consistent, fails when exposed to the realities of both human moral diversity and the morally problematic directives within the Bible.

---

Symbolic Logic Representation

---

I. C.S. Lewis’ Moral Argument for God’s Goodness

• Symbolic Representation:
  • Premises:
    • 
      (If universal moral laws exist, then they require a transcendent source: God.
    • 
      (Universal moral laws exist.)
    • 
      (God is the only transcendent source.)
  • Conclusion:
    • 
      (Therefore, God exists as the foundation of objective moral laws.)
  • Deduction:
    • 
      (Modus ponens)

---

II. General Counter-Argument Against Deductive Idealism

• Symbolic Representation:
  • Premises:
    • 
      (If objective moral laws exist, they should not vary by time and culture.)
    • 
      (Historical and cross-cultural evidence shows moral variation.)
  • Conclusion:
    • 
      (Therefore, universal moral laws do not exist.)
  • Deduction:
    • 
      (Modus tollens)

---

III. Analysis of Biblical Morality

• Symbolic Representation:
  • Premises:
    • 
      (If God is morally perfect, His commands should align with universally acceptable standards.)
    • 
      (Biblical commands contradict modern moral standards.)
  • Intermediate Step:
    • 
      (If commands do not align, God is not morally perfect.)
    • 
      (Alternatively, if commands do not align, morality is relativistic.)
  • Conclusions:
    • 
      (Therefore, either God is not morally perfect or morality is relativistic.)
  • Deduction:
    • 
      (Disjunctive syllogism)

---

IV. Rebuttals

A. Divine Command Theory (DCT)

• Symbolic Representation:
  • Premises:
    • 
      (If God commands something, it is deemed morally good.)
    • 
      (If morality is defined by God’s commands, it is arbitrary.)
  • Intermediate Step:
    • 
      (Objective morality cannot be arbitrary.)
  • Conclusion:
    • 
      (Therefore, objective morality does not exist.)
  • Deduction:
    • 
      (Contrapositive reasoning)

B. Skeptical Theism

• Symbolic Representation:
  • Premises:
    • 
      (God’s ways are beyond human comprehension.)
    • 
      (If God’s ways are incomprehensible, humans cannot judge God’s moral nature.)
    • 
      (If God’s moral nature cannot be judged, it cannot serve as a rational basis for objective ethics.)
  • Conclusion:
    • 
      (Therefore, God’s moral nature cannot justify objective morality.)
  • Deduction:
    • 
      (Hypothetical syllogism)

C. Progressive Revelation

• Symbolic Representation:
  • Premises:
    • 
      (Progressive revelation posits evolving moral standards.)
    • 
      (If moral standards evolve, they are not objective.)
  • Conclusion:
    • 
      (Therefore, moral standards are not objective.)
  • Deduction:
    • 
      (Hypothetical syllogism)

---

V. Core Syllogism

• Symbolic Representation:
  • Premises:
    • 
      (If objective moral standards exist, they should be consistent across time and cultures.)
    • 
      (Empirical evidence shows significant moral variation.)
    • 
      (Biblical examples contradict objective morality.)
  • Conclusion:
    • 
      (Therefore, Lewis’ idealistic argument for objective morality fails.)
  • Deduction:
    • 
      (Modus tollens and disjunctive elimination)

---

This symbolic formulation presents the exhaustive logic underlying C.S. Lewis’ argument and its critique, emphasizing deductive, hypothetical, and contrapositive reasoning throughout.