A Chapter Not Strictly Necessary

Big idea

Summary

Lewis addresses an objection he considers more emotional than logical, but common enough to deserve a chapter: that the almost inconceivable size of the universe, as revealed by modern astronomy, makes it absurd to suppose the Christian story — in which the Creator of everything takes a special interest in one small planet — could be true. He grants the vastness is real and worth feeling awe at, but questions the hidden assumption that bigness in space equals importance.

He points out that human beings have always known, at least since the ancient Greek astronomers, that the stars are vastly larger than the earth; the modern increase is one of degree, in the scale of numbers, not a wholly new kind of humbling discovery unavailable to earlier thinkers. If the sheer size of the universe were a real argument against Christianity, it would have been just as strong an argument in the second century as in the twentieth.

More importantly, Lewis argues that size and value belong to different categories altogether. A larger object is not thereby a more important one; a mountain is bigger than a man, but nobody thinks the mountain therefore matters more morally. If God does exist and does care for particular creatures, no amount of empty space between here and the nearest star could make that care less real, any more than the vast empty space inside an atom makes the electron within it insignificant. The chapter's title signals Lewis's own view: the objection, however emotionally powerful, is not strictly a necessary part of the book's argument, because it turns out to rest on a confusion rather than on genuine evidence against Christianity.

Key points

• The vastness of the universe is often felt as an argument against Christianity's claim that God cares about humanity specifically, but Lewis treats this as an emotional impression rather than a logical argument.
• The basic fact that stars vastly exceed earth in size was known to ancient astronomers; modern astronomy has increased the numbers involved but not introduced a wholly new kind of consideration.
• Size and value belong to different categories: something's being bigger does not make it more important, so cosmic vastness cannot by itself count as evidence against special divine care for a small planet.

Illustrations & analogies

• The comparison between a mountain and a man is used to separate size from value directly: the mountain's greater bulk gives it no greater moral importance, which is exactly the confusion Lewis thinks lies behind the 'vastness of space' objection.

For reflection and discussion

1. Have you ever felt the sheer scale of the universe as an argument against your own faith, or against religious belief generally? How does Lewis's response land for you?
2. Can you think of other places where people quietly assume that 'bigger' means 'more important,' the way Lewis says happens with space and significance?