Agreement, and Moral Law

The following is in part responding to an excerpt from C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity. If you are a random passerby, stop for a minute. Feel free to comment, question, discuss, and/or debate.

One thing that I would like to remark on, is that without even looking at everyone's separate posts, I am positive that nearly all of them (or indeed each one) is affirmative of Lewis in this writing.  What is the correct reaction to this?  Should we belittle others posts for simply agreeing with Lewis?  Should we be upset that we or they feel no controversy towards the subject?  It is feasible to follow any of these routes, and feel as if it is the correct one.  I would not be so fool hearty to accuse everyone of those or other less useful thinking patterns; I only mean to bring up the likelihood of this sort of circumstance to increase awareness.  It was my first instinct to feel upset that I could not find any controversy within Lewis' material to blog about, but after thinking about it for some time, I realized how foolish this was.  The strength of Lewis' argument is something I believe we should all find comforting, and for those of you who already do, I am glad that you have already come to that conclusion.  It is influential and solidifying thinkers like Lewis that really should be an aid to our faith, because in a world that is covered in misunderstanding and uncertainty, God speaks through influential people to spread illumination.  

Because this reading was so long, and I would have to skim over parts in attempts to cover the whole thing, I will instead focus on the chapter that was most interesting to me.  C.S. Lewis' goal here is to slowly work into the argument.  He does not mean to burst all of his ideas at once, but instead takes a slow approach in order to "lure" them in, if you will, in order to have them look at things with a more open mind.  Chapter three was a proof of a moral law.  Lewis utilizes basic english techniques beginning with concrete examples.  The Law of Gravity, for instance, causes rocks to fall.  There is no evidence of the law being a question, because the rock seemingly always falls, so it is more because the rock is in the air, and there is a law of gravity, it falls.  You can not really blame the rock for being the wrong shape either, for its shape is a constant.  Lewis then turns to humans attempting to view a "Moral Law."  To choose a vibrant example, when we see another human drowning, our desire is to help them out.   The secondary desire is to conserve our own life, and avoid going to help them.  What should a man do in this situation?  Morally, it is well agreed upon that he should help the individual in the water.  Where does this morality come from though?  It comes from The Moral Law, which Lewis would go on to explain origins in a greater power.

The basic point that I am attempting to make, is that I agree with Lewis.  His thoughts on The Moral Law are very insightful, and the best I can do is simply agree.  However, agreeing is not a bad thing to do here; agreeing is, in a case in which there is no reason to disagree, more productive.  If you do not agree with something, then by all means, you should explain those points, but if you do, there is no logic in finding miniature faults to work against.