pyrochronos's review
challenging
emotional
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
4.0
It's evident that academics of Lewis' time had a much greater capacity for understanding than I do as someone with a bachelor's degree, today. Some topics were too difficult for me to grasp but others were firmly grounded enough that even I, a layman, could understand. Lewis gives great insight as to why human beings experience suffering. I'm glad to have read it.
bookishlybeauty's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
informative
reflective
fast-paced
4.0
gosia_maria99's review against another edition
5.0
I read most of this book two years ago for a bookclub, and found it a bit tedious. Now rereading it through listening to the audiobook, I absolutely loved it.
jbmorgan86's review against another edition
3.0
For any form of polytheism or atheism, pain is not a problem. For polytheists, pain and suffering happen when the wicked gods/demons/spirits get the upper hand over the benevolent gods/angels/spirits. For atheists, pain and suffering are just part of life because there is no Providence guiding the affairs of humanity.
For monotheists (at least, believers of an omni-benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent god), pain does pose a problem. As Lewis puts it, "If God were good, He would make His creatures perfectly happy, and if He were almighty He would be able to do what he wished. But the creatures are not happy. Therefore God lacks either goodness, or power, or both."
Therefore, Christians must explain the existence and purpose of pain (this is often referred to as "theodicy"). The Problem of Pain is apologist C.S. Lewis' attempt at answering the problem. As is typical for Lewis, he sets out a problem and then gives a series of arguments to solve the problem. So much of his arguments are underwhelming to me: God is all-good/power/knowing, God created humans and gave them free will, humans sinned (or continue to reenact the original sin), the sin results in "fallenness," fallenness results in suffering, God can then use suffering to bring about good results. While the argument is an old (even trite?) argument, Lewis adds some unexpected nuance to it. Particularly interesting to me was his differentiation between "love" and "kindness," his discussion of the mythic character of "The Fall," his idea that Hell is not a place of eternal torment but a state of non-existence, and the discussion of animal pain.
I read The Problem of Pain a few days after reading A Grief Observed. It is interesting comparing and contrasting these two books. In Pain, Lewis is the scholar in the chair, musing about philosophical/theological concepts. In Grief, he lives through those concepts. Personally, Grief was much more impactful.
For monotheists (at least, believers of an omni-benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent god), pain does pose a problem. As Lewis puts it, "If God were good, He would make His creatures perfectly happy, and if He were almighty He would be able to do what he wished. But the creatures are not happy. Therefore God lacks either goodness, or power, or both."
Therefore, Christians must explain the existence and purpose of pain (this is often referred to as "theodicy"). The Problem of Pain is apologist C.S. Lewis' attempt at answering the problem. As is typical for Lewis, he sets out a problem and then gives a series of arguments to solve the problem. So much of his arguments are underwhelming to me: God is all-good/power/knowing, God created humans and gave them free will, humans sinned (or continue to reenact the original sin), the sin results in "fallenness," fallenness results in suffering, God can then use suffering to bring about good results. While the argument is an old (even trite?) argument, Lewis adds some unexpected nuance to it. Particularly interesting to me was his differentiation between "love" and "kindness," his discussion of the mythic character of "The Fall," his idea that Hell is not a place of eternal torment but a state of non-existence, and the discussion of animal pain.
I read The Problem of Pain a few days after reading A Grief Observed. It is interesting comparing and contrasting these two books. In Pain, Lewis is the scholar in the chair, musing about philosophical/theological concepts. In Grief, he lives through those concepts. Personally, Grief was much more impactful.
marylaffey's review against another edition
4.0
As always, C. S. Lewis provides logical answers to life's toughest questions, and reminds his readers of the love God has for them, and asks them to spread to others.
jacobman0313's review against another edition
Will have to read a couple more times to get it. Lewis writes with such clarity then careens into obtuseness. Rational deduction mixed with elaborate personal wonderings. He makes this clear and doesn’t purport to be otherwise.
Mortification. Obliteration. Horrible pleasures and wonderful pains.
Mortification. Obliteration. Horrible pleasures and wonderful pains.
kristidurbs's review
5.0
A great examination of the classic obstacle many face to the Christian faith... Lewis adeptly addresses the issue of pain and suffering, without being uncompassionate or removed from the reality of its existence.
emma_lynn_writes's review against another edition
3.0
In his usual detailed and logical fashion, in this book C.S. Lewis succeeds in breaking down the idea that pain can not exist in a world created by a good God. His words speak not only to the skeptic, but to the Christian who needs to be encouraged to look to God, not the world, for their joy and satisfaction.
However, I did disagree with a few of Lewis' assumptions, and as a result, conclusions. One of the big ones is his assumption of the truth of evolution, which undergirds his explanation of the Fall, as well as his discussions of animal pain. Less problematic is his assumption of the centrality of free will, which may nevertheless result in many of his arguments falling flat for the Calvinist like me.
However, I did disagree with a few of Lewis' assumptions, and as a result, conclusions. One of the big ones is his assumption of the truth of evolution, which undergirds his explanation of the Fall, as well as his discussions of animal pain. Less problematic is his assumption of the centrality of free will, which may nevertheless result in many of his arguments falling flat for the Calvinist like me.