Scan barcode
A review by jbmorgan86
The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis
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.