Scan barcode
sarahelizasmith's review against another edition
challenging
informative
mysterious
medium-paced
3.75
bergamot_breeze's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
fast-paced
5.0
This book changed my brain on a molecular level
_emma_rose_'s review against another edition
informative
reflective
slow-paced
4.5
This is a very interesting philosophical approach to the Problem of Pain that believing in a good God produces. I found it informative and well-thought-out, with plenty of good quotes to jot down for future reference.
res_curans's review against another edition
4.0
In this book, C.S. Lewis addresses the problem of evil: if God is good and all-powerful, why is there suffering? His answer to this is dense and philosophical. Before he starts his main argument however, he says that this “problem” is peculiar to Christianity - if you are an atheist, the “evil” you might see in the universe is really just an “is” which suggests no “ought.” So really, it’s only when you have already accepted the central tenets of Christianity that this even becomes a “problem” at all. (Interestingly, although not really its purpose, his discussion amounts to a rejection of the intelligent design argument. He does not think that anyone could look at the universe as it is, and infer a loving, good, all-powerful God from it.)
He begins his proper argument by asserting that a universe without suffering is a logical absurdity — you might as well ask if God could have made a universe in which squares were round. As far as I can understand, the idea is that in order for consciousnesses to interact with each other, there must be a neutral “field” in which this occurs — and its neutrality (i.e., not malleable to one’s every whim) necessitates the potential for pain. This is a weird argument, and I get the sense that Lewis feels awkward making it, but in the end it works, I think.
Next, he suggests that the mistake in the objection is that, when it comes to talking about God, we generally equate goodness with kindness — easing suffering. He argues, rather, that God’s love is such that requires pain on our part, and that this is ultimately a good thing, due to our fallen state. The first chapter called “Human Pain” is one of the clearest, most uncompromising and straightforward articulations of the Christian doctrine of man’s relationship to God that I’ve ever read. This is no namby-pamby feel-good Christian fluff, despite how Lewis’s books are marketed these days. This is hardcore.
He ends with a discussion about Hell, and here I think he slips a little bit on his conception of free will (which clashes somewhat with his discussion of man’s fallenness elsewhere, and I think is a sticky point for Lewis in general). His chapter on animal pain is interesting, in that even though he doesn’t see animals as conscious beings capable of “real” (i.e., human-like) suffering, he finds a place for our sympathy toward them and our desire that they would be in heaven.
Overall this book provides a lucid and striking discussion of ideas that would seem counterintuitive at first glance (and indeed have troubled philosophers throughout the ages). Lewis’s talent is in explaining them in such a way that they became so clear I wondered why I hadn’t thought of them myself already.
He begins his proper argument by asserting that a universe without suffering is a logical absurdity — you might as well ask if God could have made a universe in which squares were round. As far as I can understand, the idea is that in order for consciousnesses to interact with each other, there must be a neutral “field” in which this occurs — and its neutrality (i.e., not malleable to one’s every whim) necessitates the potential for pain. This is a weird argument, and I get the sense that Lewis feels awkward making it, but in the end it works, I think.
Next, he suggests that the mistake in the objection is that, when it comes to talking about God, we generally equate goodness with kindness — easing suffering. He argues, rather, that God’s love is such that requires pain on our part, and that this is ultimately a good thing, due to our fallen state. The first chapter called “Human Pain” is one of the clearest, most uncompromising and straightforward articulations of the Christian doctrine of man’s relationship to God that I’ve ever read. This is no namby-pamby feel-good Christian fluff, despite how Lewis’s books are marketed these days. This is hardcore.
He ends with a discussion about Hell, and here I think he slips a little bit on his conception of free will (which clashes somewhat with his discussion of man’s fallenness elsewhere, and I think is a sticky point for Lewis in general). His chapter on animal pain is interesting, in that even though he doesn’t see animals as conscious beings capable of “real” (i.e., human-like) suffering, he finds a place for our sympathy toward them and our desire that they would be in heaven.
Overall this book provides a lucid and striking discussion of ideas that would seem counterintuitive at first glance (and indeed have troubled philosophers throughout the ages). Lewis’s talent is in explaining them in such a way that they became so clear I wondered why I hadn’t thought of them myself already.