The Problem of Pain

Rating:
Summary: Not a Painful Read
Review: This book is a good honest look at issues involving the issue of God, suffering and evil. Lewis maintains the theist position in this difficult subject. His honesty in this book is exposed by him willing to address issues most theologians side-step, such as the suffering of animals. As a philosopher, I was expecting a more philosophical approach, but his practical approach was a pleasant surprise.

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 brilliant, reasonable answer to an old question
Review: This is for me one of Lewis's greatest and most challenging works. The questions he tackles are among the most profound that human beings face, and Lewis approaches them with characteristic logic, sensitivity, and humility. I found myself nodding in agreement time and again, and I marveled at Lewis's ability to get straight down to the heart of the matter. His "solutions" (and he would not call them solutions) are not easy but they are very sensible and true to his faith. I continue to grapple with the issues he raises and find that this book makes more and more sense with the passing of time. That such a little book can contain so much wisdom is testimony to Lewis's genius. No other modern religious writer can come close to him in my estimation. He has helped me more than I can say.

Rating:
Summary: Nice try, but...
Review: Though Lewis's exposition of the problem of suffering is heartfelt, and he obviously gave it a good deal of thought, I find his account ultimately unconvincing. If we assume that suffering is deliberately designed to develop godly character leading to salvation, we are immediately faced with a vast number of devastating counterexamples. I want to mention just one that should cause even the most unfeeling and dogmatic to shudder. Consider the hymn-writer Thomas Cowper(Lewis mentions him in passing in "The Great Divorce"). Chances are at least a few of his hymns are in your hymnbook. This poor man wanted nothing more than to follow and love God, but he suffered from a manic-depressive psychosis. When he was manic, he wrote great hymns. When he was depressed, he believed (with a horrible fixitude incomprehensible to modern man) that he was damned for all eternity. Once, he had a dream during a time of deep depression that he had been saved and was in heaven, but when he awoke, he realized it was just a dream and he was damned after all. He called this one of God's cruelest arrows. How hard would it have been for God to reach out and heal this poor man's mind? How can anybody claim to have received "peace of mind" from a loving God and not mourn for poor Cowper?

We moderns have so many man-made conveniences that spare us from the suffering our anscestors had to endure. We take anaesthetics and good dental care for granted. We know much more about the mind and can heal mental diseases. Did God love the people whose teeth rotted away in their heads more than he loves us now? He sent them so much more suffering...

After years of mulling over the problem of evil, I think I have found an incomparably better answer in the writings of Benedict de Spinoza. Spinoza thinks all forms of suffering are just plain bad. The happier we are, the more we live out the powers that lie within us, the greater we approach the divine nature. Why then do we suffer? Because the world was not made for our benefit. We are simply tiny creatures who live in an incomparably vast (indeed, infinite) universe. The universe is wonderful and an expression of divinity because it can support an amazing variety of life, but it is not "perfect" in the sense of beineg perfectly-adjusted for our happiness. God bears us no ill-will; the world is simply as it is, and our comfort is not its goal. To the extent Lewis adopts at least in part a similar view, that is the strongest reasoning in his book.

Rating:
Summary: Utterly fascinating
Review: When reading the works of C.S Lewis it is often hard not to stop reading for a second and ponder how someone can think at such a high level.

A word of warning, for probably any devout Christian, the thesis of this book,(If God is good and all-powerful, why does he allow his creatures to suffer pain?) will sound compelling and certainly invoke a desire to read this book. Just be forewarned, it's a complicated issue, and Mr. Lewis has a complicated solution. While this book is probably accessible for anybody, Be aware that this isn't light reading, it , as it says on the quote on the front, "demands the entire energy of the mind".

Over 159 pages, C.S Lewis builds a convincing case for why pain exists. His main(but certainly not his entire) argument for this is that our own ideas and presuppositions about "love" are not God's same ideas. Not that ours and God's are totally different, as black-and-white, but that ours is "like that of a three year old trying to draw his first wheel" in comparison to God's "perfect circle". Also key in Lewis's case are his ideas about free will and how that relates to suffering.

There are also chapters about Heaven and Hell. The chapter on Hell might have been the best chapter in the book and may even solitarily warrant a purchase. It was certainly the most convincing work I've ever read by a Christian apologist attempting to justify the existence of hell. In fact, after reading it you may find that the existence of hell is more just than if it did NOT exist. Very well done.

The one thing that disturbed me about this book was the preface, in which Lewis states that because he wasn't allowed to write the book anonymously, he couldn't make statements of "apparent fortitude that would become ridiculous had people known who wrote them". I kind of feel cheated...does Lewis dummy down his real beliefs on the subject for this book? It is saddening to think so.

Other than that, I found this book excellent.

Rating:
Summary: Utterly fascinating
Review: When reading the works of C.S Lewis it is often hard not to stop reading for a second and ponder how someone can think at such a high level.

A word of warning, for probably any devout Christian, the thesis of this book,(If God is good and all-powerful, why does he allow his creatures to suffer pain?) will sound compelling and certainly invoke a desire to read this book. Just be forewarned, it's a complicated issue, and Mr. Lewis has a complicated solution. While this book is probably accessible for anybody, Be aware that this isn't light reading, it , as it says on the quote on the front, "demands the entire energy of the mind".

Over 159 pages, C.S Lewis builds a convincing case for why pain exists. His main(but certainly not his entire) argument for this is that our own ideas and presuppositions about "love" are not God's same ideas. Not that ours and God's are totally different, as black-and-white, but that ours is "like that of a three year old trying to draw his first wheel" in comparison to God's "perfect circle". Also key in Lewis's case are his ideas about free will and how that relates to suffering.

There are also chapters about Heaven and Hell. The chapter on Hell might have been the best chapter in the book and may even solitarily warrant a purchase. It was certainly the most convincing work I've ever read by a Christian apologist attempting to justify the existence of hell. In fact, after reading it you may find that the existence of hell is more just than if it did NOT exist. Very well done.

The one thing that disturbed me about this book was the preface, in which Lewis states that because he wasn't allowed to write the book anonymously, he couldn't make statements of "apparent fortitude that would become ridiculous had people known who wrote them". I kind of feel cheated...does Lewis dummy down his real beliefs on the subject for this book? It is saddening to think so.

Other than that, I found this book excellent.

Rating:
Summary: Touches on more than just pain
Review: While I read this book (in fact, an old, battered version of my mother's) in order to answer some questions regarding pain and why it exists in a universe created by a loving God (if one accepts this hypothesis), Lewis not only convincingly answered those but also dug into topics such as free will and election, clarifying many other not necessarily pain-related questions in the process. I am now convinced (my apologies to all the Calvinists out there) that free will is an essential ingredient to human being and that it is necessary in order for Christian self-surrender to have any sense at all.

I usually don't riposte to other reviews, but I don't believe the reviewer was correct in saying Dr. Lewis chickened out, largely because his concept of innocent children seems erroneous to me. I remember my younger brother was fully capable of scheming before he could even talk. The helplessness of children does not make them innocent.

I fully recommend this book to anyone grappling with problems of pain.

Rating:
Summary: Brilliant and profound.
Review: While some (including myself) would disagree with Lewis on some parts of the book, the profound insights more than make up for the differences. The chapter on Heaven somehow manages to describe, in clear and flowing prose, the normally indescribable longing of the spirit.