I am beginning to doubt my decision to become a Christian. I was convinced by Lewis’s arguments about the Moral Law; however, I have stumbled upon a problem. If there is only a single deity, then those creatures created without the ability to make moral decisions must naturally follow the imperative of their creator. Given the actions of various animals though, it becomes hard to reconcile with a the deity that implanted the moral nature into mankind. For example, the duck, if judged by human standards, is a most vile creature. Male ducks practice gang-rape, often killing the female in the process. Furthermore, ducks commit other sexual crimes. There are records of male ducks sodomizing the corpse of a fellow male for over an hour. Take also the setup of insects. Would the deity that allowed patriarchy create creatures where the males are simple slaves serving an all powerful queen? In some species the males have their legs removed by drones to keep them from leaving the nest, and the drones are sometimes used as building materials for the hive. Ants have even been known to practice a form of slavery. One could argue that animals lacking consciousness can not commit moral crimes; but, then what of the prohibition on the treatment of animals in most religious texts. What is the matter with torturing an animal if they are not moral beings. Is it possible that the spirits of evil mentioned in the Abrahamic faiths can influence the actions of animals as well?
Another issue is the differences in cultural morals. Lewis dismisses this claim by saying that the morals are really more alike than they are different. But, he fails to account for the differences that are of great importance. The ancient Greeks ritualized and legitimized pederasty; however, sex between social equals was frowned upon. The ancient Celts on the other hand openly practiced sex among social equals, and the Romans reported that they even became upset if their offers were rebuffed. In some cultures in Africa it is still permitted to acquire a wife by abducting and raping a young girl. These are all acts which would have carried capital punishment in the Abrahamic faiths. There is no evidence that the men who committed these acts felt they were wrong. Just as the Spartans felt culling their slave labor once a year was a good thing. If the crimes are so deserving of death, then how could we think they arose from the same deity. And if any spiritual force can affect the morals of a culture, then how do we know that the one that created Jewish morality is the superior force.
A study of the natural world shows that the most brutal and uncaring are often the most successful in species that are individualist. In herd species though we see a morality that is closer to our own various forms. These differences would better show polytheism than monotheism. The various versions of morality seem to act more as competing meme complexes than the guidance of some greater power. If morality is understood then as a set of competing memes, then how does this provide evidence for the existence of a god? Lewis’s book seems to rest upon this common morality as the foundation of his proof, but he really just seems to be unable to have the humility to say that we are just a very very smart variant of chimpanzees. In fact there are groups of humans discovered that have no language and no music who are culturally indistinguishable from pan paniscus.