The Problem of Pain

Rating:
Summary: Interesting and Thought-provoking.
Review: In "The Problem of Pain" Lewis deciphers a very trying question for the whole of Christianity - why must humanity suffer. Many atheists argue that if God were both omnipotent and good, why does he allow such a world of pain to exist? Lewis answers this question and many others in a style that can easily be compared with a learned scholar, not a layman.

While I don't agree with all of Lewis's suppositions in "The Problem of Pain" (namely some of the statements found in the chapter "The Fall of Man" dealing with the origins of the human species), he still by and large offers up a very convincing case deeply rooted in the best Christian doctrine around - The Bible. The problem of pain for the Christian may be summed up rather simply: 1) Man, not God, was and is the creator and instigator of pain through Adam's sin. 2) Pain is a megaphone God uses to speak to us - sharply perhaps, uncomfortably, even unbearably - but if pain did not exist, would the joy and peace of God's love be the same? God uses pain to rouse a deaf world, to let us all know that something is wrong, that we need something beyond ourselves. 3) While life can be exceedingly painful at times, there is always the happiness, the sunrises and the mountain streams, for us to enjoy. Pain allows us see joy even more clearly. As Lewis himself writes, "Our Father refreshed us on the journey with some pleasant Inns, but will not encourage us to mistake them for home."

An interesting and thought-provoking read from the 20th century's greatest Christian theologian, apologist, and "layman".

Rating:
Summary: Lewis tackles one of the chief objections to Christianity
Review: The Problem of Pain is the first of C.S. Lewis's apologetic works. Having been an athiest(or maybe just a skeptic?) ten years before, Lewis certainly had walked through this problem on his own and in 1940 wanted to help many of his fellow British skeptics through it, too.

The book starts, after a disclaimer on his lack of theological schooling, with an explaination of selves that are distinct from God and a description of the fall of man before tackling human pain. His basic argument is that, while human pain is a result of Adam's Fall, God uses it for our good to A)alert us that something is wrong with the universe and B)to refine Christians into better people. Lewis does admit that while pain can "rouse the bad man to a knowledge that all was not well" it can also "lead to final and unrepented rebellion". He finishes with a very good explaination of Hell,"the doors of hell are locked on the inside" and an equally good chapter on Heaven.

This is a book for those who are struggling with the "idea" of pain; in other words, "If God is so good why does allow people to be in pain and even send some of them to Hell?" But if your question is more concrete, like "Why did God allow my husband to die from a fatal illness?" you will probably find this book to be like salt in a wound. If that's you I would recomend Lewis's other book on pain, A Grief Observed, or Philip Yancy's Where is God when it Hurts. The Problem of Pain is certainly an excellent piece of apologetics, however, and I found it to be very helpful.

Rating:
Summary: A simple, satisfying solution to a complex problem
Review: CS Lewis was a master at making complicated theological questions make sense. In this short work, he tackles what is perhaps one of his most difficult subjects yet. Why does pain exist? If there is a God, and he is benevolent, why does he allow his creatures to feel both physical and mental anguish? The answer, as Lewis sees it, is simple, though the explanation for it may not be. Because he loves us.

In this book, Lewis shows how God molds us through our afflictions, and how he actually works toward our greater good by allowing us to experience pain and misfortune, that we may be more willing to give of our own free will back to him. It is through pain, says Lewis, that God can guide us back to Heaven.

Lewis continues the argument made in many others of his books: that no one goes to Heaven or Hell without choosing to. God guides us by allowing us to experience pain, but it is our choice whether we choose to submit to His will or not. And no one will go to Hell without having first refused the helping hand. As Lewis says, the gates of Hell will be locked from the inside.

This is some of the simplest, yet most beautiful theology around, expounded by a man who's humility made him always refer to himself as a 'layman.' If you're a fan of other Lewis works, pick this one up--you won't be disappointed. And if you're just looking for some good Christian reading material, with great insight, then you won't want to miss CS Lewis's the Problem of Pain.

Rating:
Summary: Christian Theology's Insoluble Problem
Review: C. S. Lewis, the late professor of Medieval and Renaissance literature at Cambridge University, was one of the most popular, thought-provoking Christian apologists of the Twentieth Century. In his book on the problem of pain, he acknowledges in his Introduction that Christianity actually "creates, rather than solves, the problem of pain, for pain would be no problem unless...we had received what we think a good assurance that ultimate reality is righteous and loving." On the other hand, as he also points out, merely discarding Christianity creates the problem of explaining why, if "the universe is so bad...humans ever came to attribute it to the activity of a wise and good Creator?" He then follows this statement with a mini case for Christianity, discussing four religious elements.

The first three elements are: (1) experience of numinous awe, (2) consciousness of a moral law which we both approve and yet disobey, and (3) identification of the "Numinous Power of which we feel awe" as also being "the guardian of the morality to which [we] feel ablation." Lewis perhaps rightly contends that these experieces are neither "the result of an inference from the visible universe" nor a logical deduction "from the environment and [our] physical experiences." He then contends that our religious experience must be either "a mere twist in the human mind, corresponding to nothing objective and serving no bioligical function...or else it is a direct experience of the really supernatural." Religious experience and thought may indeed be a "twist in the human mind" that nevertheless has a useful function without necessarily being an actual experience of the supernatural. Anyone interested in finding out more about how religious thought may have developed without invoking the supernatural may consult Pascal Boyer's excellent book, Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought (New York: Basic Books, 2001).

The fourth religious element Lewis discusses is the Incarnation as follows:

"Either he [Jesus Christ] was a raving lunatic of an unusually abominable type, or else he was, and is, precisely what He said. There is no middle way. If the records make the first hypothesis unacceptable, you must submit to the second."

Far from being cogent, this argument would make an excellent example of an either/or fallacy for textbooks on logic. It is also called the fallacy of "incomplete enumeration." Christ could have been mistaken about himself without necessarily having to be designated an "abominable lunatic," and he could be misrepresented in the Gospels. These rational alternatives show that the dilemma presented by Lewis for the unbeliever is false. Having introduced how Christianity causes the problem of pain, Lewis then proceeds to deal with it via the free-will defense.

In his chapter on "Divine Omnipotence," Lewis states the following:

"We can...conceive of a world in which God corrected the results of this abuse of free will...at every moment...But such a world would be one in which wrong actions were impossible, and in which, therefore, freedom of the will would be void."

However, the contention that free will necessarily includes the option to commit wrong actions is erroneous. Am I less morally free if I am only able to care lovingly for my little dog and incapable of choosing to abuse him? Is my moral freedom diminished in the least by my incapacity to terrorize mentally and abuse physically the woman I love? Are persons capable of choosing to do evil as morally free as those capable of only choosing good? Free will is always limited by the capacities and opportunities of any moral agent. Hence, there is no logical contradiction in conceiving of a limited moral freedom to choose only from among various good actions.

Furthermore, free will limited to choosing only good options need not diminish the total amount of free will. God creating greater capacities and opportunities for choosing good could replace the loss of the capacity to do evil. Consequently, since even Christian apologists acknowledge that free will is never absolutely free and since the option to do evil is unnecessary to possess limited free will, the free-will apologetic attempting to rationally explain evil in a world created by an omnipotent, loving God is fallacious. Another of the problems for Christian theology concerns a doctrine Lewis discusses in his chapter, "The Fall of Man."

Lewis says that, in the developed doctrine of the Fall, "Man, as God made him, was completely good and completely happy, but...he disobeyed God and became what we now see." This doctrine creates another problem, which Lewis states as follows:

"For the difficulty about the first sin is that it must be very heinous, or its consequences would not be so terrible, and yet it must be something which a being free from the temptations of fallen man could conceivably have committed."

The sin that Lewis suggests as being possible to someone completely good is "turning from God to self" or "self-idolatry." However, the notion that enyone completely good would commit "self-idolatry" or any other sin is self-contradictory. If turning to God and not to self is essential to being good, then a morally perfect agent ipso facto could never turn from God.

Near the close of his chapter, "The Fall of Man," Lewis suggests that "it would be futile to attempt to solve the problem of pain by producing another problem." However, this is just what Christian apologetics does with the problem of pain and evil. It introduces "solutions" that both fail as solutions and actually produce more problems--even when authored by C. S. Lewis.

Rating:
Summary: A starting and ending (and starting |g|) for Lewis studies.
Review: This book predates Lewis' _Mere Christianity_ (collected as such, anyway) and the first edition of _Miracles: A Preliminary Study_. It is, in fact, the first 'religious' book he ever wrote, aside from his semi-autobiographical allegory _The Pilgrim's Regress_.

As such, the reader (pro or con) should be prepared to keep in mind a caveat or two. For instance, Lewis rightly notes that pain and evil only become problems for Christianity once certain relevant Christian doctrines have been established (or at least are on the table). In order to be consistent to this precept, Lewis must begin the book by making an argument for the acceptance of some of these doctrines being true.

It is hardly a comprehensive or solid argument, although it is a novel one. It is also one Lewis doesn't seem to have bothered to ever use again--which should alert critics to what his own opinion of its merits ended up being! (This is why I am not bothering to summarize it here; read the book. |g|) The weight of his main argument, however, does not rest strictly on the argument from his Introduction: if on these grounds _or better_, he says (and he had better ones in development), we accept certain truths about Christianity, then the problem of pain arises. And that is what TPoP is about.

This puts TPoP in a curious place among Lewis' books. In effect, it should be read as a sequel to his final, best Christian apologetic (MaPS, the 1960 revised edition): although, again, I don't think any of the TPoP argument necessarily requires (or is thrown out by) the _specific_ arguments of MaPS. This keeps it useful for (most?) other methods of proposing or arguing in favor of Christian doctrines.

(Most, maybe not all. The first time I reviewed this book, I was reminded that any Christian denomination which denies human free will--or is heavily into theistic predestination, which amounts to the same thing in my opinion--is not likely to find this book very useful, since Lewis _does_ rely on the existence of human free will. I accept the qualification; with the further observation that most Christians in most times have accepted and relied upon the existence of human free will--including, in my experience, those who attempt to deny human free will.)

I wish oppositional critics to Christian (or any mono)theism were more familiar with the principles discussed in this book. I believe Lewis is entirely correct to notice, for instance, that the power of an anti-theistic Argument from Evil (not necessarily from Pain, though), requires the presupposed existence of the objective personal ethical source which the anti-theistic argument is attempting to deny.

Still, the book does have some weaknesses (partly due to its early authorship). Lewis mentions that he has grounds for believing God to be good, for instance, yet I don't think he actually presents the best grounds in this book. The closest he comes is, I think, the aforementioned point that if he tries to argue against God's existence and character via the subject of 'evil', he finds he must presuppose the very properties of existence and characteristc which he wished to attack. This is an important point, worth keeping in mind, but isn't a positive argument for those characteristics.

He does mention the Euthyprho dilemma explicitly in a later chapter (although he doesn't credit it to Socrates via Plato here--apologies in advance for possible misspelling |g|); but while he comes down in favor of one side (God is following a standard) he doesn't explain in TPoP why this standard isn't above God.

There _is_ a proper answer to the Euthyphro dilemma (do we say God is good because He holds to a standard? Then the standard is above Him and He is not God. Do we say God is good because He is the most powerful? Then His standard is arbitrary and not objective goodness). And Lewis did touch on it elsewhere (I know ,because I learned it from one of his works--I just don't remember which |g|). However, since he didn't do it in _this_ book (I believe it may be in _Mere Christianity_), it wouldn't be proper to comment on it here.

(He does partly address a somewhat different dilemma, regarding the question of how we could possibly be in a position to perceive God's goodness if His omniscient wisdom is so superior to ours. Again, it isn't the most technically accurate solution, but it does have strong practical value, coming as it does from Lewis' own experience as a former atheist and moral relativist.)

Be that as it may: TPoP does offer considerable resources and principles for springboarding disputes past the typical deadlocks of religio-philosophical debate on this subject. For instance, his discussion of hell is highly worth keeping in mind; as well as his discussion of the implications of omnipotence.

The collection of Lewis essays _God in the Dock_ features a reply from Lewis to some criticisms of the speculative chapter on animal pain.

Rating:
Summary: A stand out on a difficult subject
Review: C.S. Lewis's "The Problem of Pain" is one of the best books I've found to address the considerable question of how a good God could allow bad things to happen. I found it to be as challenging and interesting as Harold Kushner's "When Bad Things Happen to Good People" although the two theologians come to different conclusions about what the reason for pain is.

Part of what makes Lewis amazing is the crystal clear language and metaphor he uses for examing faith. In "Pain" he talks about humanity as being an opportunity to "reverse the fall of Adam" by coming to Christ. Here, in one sentence, he has truncated the scope of the Bible down to one goal -- start with the Fall, end with the Resurrection. A perfect, crystalline comment -- one of many in this book. Then Lewis is on to the consirable task of explaining why God would require pain (in fact, death) for his creations.

Lewis -- in another excellent metaphor-- likens God to a sculptor and man to his clay. God is an artist, and won't stop until his creation is perfect. The pain we feel in life are God's attempt to make us his perfect creation, to complete the goal he has for our lives. In another collection, Lewis likens God to a heart surgeon. Knowing the full process required, the surgeon can't stop the process when the patient cries out in pain, because if he did the required outcome would never result.

Lewis likens Christians to a child drawing a circle -- they are attempting to draw something but it is rudimentary and sketchy, while the perfect circle God wants for people's lives is outside the reach without pain.

Fine, you might say, but what about needless suffering? Not the pain of death but the pain of life -- suffering children, poverty, abuse. Lewis is a little less convincing on this topic, relying on the age old excuse of blaming free will and man's sinful nature for the unneccessary pain in the world. Here I like Harold Kushner's metaphor (co-opted from another source) that human beings are "God's language". When you ask "where is God?" the answer is that God is in the spirit of inspiration of people who help out in times of crisis. God can't intervene, Kushner says, so he inspires people to do his work for him.

All in all, "The Problem of Pain" is an excellent book, well worth the read.

Rating:
Summary: Amazingly deep book!
Review: Pain is such a hard subject to ponder and yet that is just what this amazing Christian apologist does! This book is very moving and will move you in ways you didn't dream possible. I cherish this book in my personal library.

Rating:
Summary: A suggestion for C.S. Lewis Lovers
Review: I'm an enourmous fan of C.S. Lewis and have been for many years. His explorations of Christianity bring a much needed intellegence to the faith and I have always been so grateful for his writing. On more then a few occasions, I have given his books to secular friends as an introduction to Christianity and have read them myself several times. His insight and observations have always given me something new to consider. unfortunately, I've always found other Christian writers of fiction to be strongly lacking the same level of intellegence. Recently, however, a good friend loaned me a copy of We All Fall down by Brian Caldwell. I found the novel to be every bit as intellegent and enjoyable as Lewis. Caldwell writes with real energy and passion and his novel made me rethink many aspects of my faith. I would strongly recomend it for people who enjoy C.S. Lewis. It's a great book.

Rating:
Summary: Clarifies some things but leaves me wondering more
Review: I purchased this book at the recommendation of an evangelical Christian friend of mine after suffering crippling athletic injuries. Lewis does shed some light on why there is suffering in this world even though its Creator is believed to be all-powerful and loving. He spends a lot of time at the beginning justifiying belief in an omniscient, omnipotent Supreme Being & Creator (God), but it didn't really answer all my questions regarding the problem of pain. It was satisfying in some respects intellectually, but not on the emotional level. It is still worth reading, whatever your religious beliefs, if you are seeking answers to the difficult questions of life.

Rating:
Summary: Answering The Biggest Questions
Review: Reading anything by C.S. Lewis is an uplifting experience because it gives one a chance to witness a great intellect at work. In this book he explains why there is pain in the world in spite of a loving and all-powerful God. C.S. Lewis can be very helpful to anyone who is seriously seeking Christ and answers to some of the biggest questions.