Yes.
I think that in a way similar to that in which Pythagoras, Euclid ... Lobachevsky make new mathematical discoveries by the application of innate abilities to perceptions, there is a sense among humans (generally, though not in every case) of justice and mercy and the rest and that ethical thought.
You would have to have a human lab specimen to show that this is so. Of course this is not possible, so we have to rely on few examples of children being raised in isolation from other humans. The few known children who were raised or survived in the wild had no speech and no concepts, no social graces, etc.
Everything from God onward had to be taught to them.
What's your take on the first arguments in Lewis's Mere Christianity?
I do realize that you are asking me for an opinion of what is considered a Christian giant of modern age. My reply to you is that I am not impressed with this work because it is lukewarm, it is pure speculation, and it is vague enough to satisfy all Christian denominations.
I am certainly deeply opposed to his concept of becoming "amalgamated" with God's nature. From an Orthodox point of view that is pure heresy. We are made god-like by grace and not by nature.
His work certainly rests on a priori assumptions stated as "facts." But this is no different than a primitive man concluding that inside a rumbling volcano there must be an angry "god."
What do you think the imago deiincludes?
Our sovereignty on earth. Who is higher than man on this planet? Humans are above all else by leaps and bounds. There is not even a chance of any competition from other species. Not even a semblance. The gap between humans and chimps (who share 99% of our genetic code) is not nearly as wide as it is abysmally deep. There is really nothing human about chimps. Nothing.
So, our thoughts are not their thoughts and our ways are not their ways. God gave us dominion on earth, in his image, as sovereigns. That's all.
But we also believe that God created us in his likeness, which we lost after the Fall. It is attaining the likeness of God, becoming Christ-like, that is true restoration of humanity to its original purpose. Two very different concepts: image and likeness of God.
“I am certainly deeply opposed to his concept of becoming “amalgamated” with God’s nature. From an Orthodox point of view that is pure heresy. We are made god-like by grace and not by nature.”
MD, you mustn’t think for a moment that we can share God’s “nature” or that we can by nature become like God:
“Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostases. As we have seen, those privileged to be united to God so as to become one spirit with Him - as St. Paul said, ‘He who cleaves to the Lord is one spirit with Him’ (I Cor. 6:17) - are not united to God with respect to His essence, since all theologians testify that with respect to His essence God suffers no participation.
Moreover, the hypostatic union is fulfilled only in the case of the Logos, the God-man.
Thus those privileged to attain union with God are united to Him with respect to His energy; and the ‘spirit’, according to which they who cleave to God are one with Him, is and is called the uncreated energy of the Holy Spirit, but not the essence of God...” +Gregory Palamas, Topics on Natural and Theologic Science #75