The Problem of Pain Reviews

• Brilliant Christian Exposition - Proceed with Caution

  
  By A2Y59UIT8C78E on 2003-07-06
  A quick warning to those who have been pointed to this book but are not Christian: you are not the audience Lewis is speaking to. This book cannot be fully grasped in its original context without some degree of belief or acceptance of Christian doctrine. It is apologetics at its best, but cannot be considered in the "self-help" category like many contemporary titles are.

  That said, this must be the finest treatise on the apparent contradiction between the existence of pain and the existence of a supposedly loving God that has been written.

  Succint, well-organized, thorough, yet "The Problem of Pain" still reads like it was written by a human being rather than a scholar. Some chapters bring conviction. The chapter on Hell brings fear and dread, and respect for Him who can "destroy both body and soul in Hell". The chapter on Heaven, which Lewis admits is his own philosophical foray, no one else's -- brings hope and reassurance that Heaven is your true calling, your one True Home.

  This is not light reading, at least not at first. This may not be a book to recommend to someone at the height of a crisis; Lewis taxes your attention and does not take any short cuts. A "Cliff Notes" version of this book would miss the point. Pain is one of the toughest theological problems a Christian can face, either in their lives or the life of another person they know -- and Lewis does not want you going in armed with half an argument or some "Precious Moments" sentiment.

  From a non-Christian POV, I would be surprised if this book made much sense -- so many of the pillars are set on Christian theology, philosophy, and tradition. If you cannot (or will not) accept the possibility of the existence of Heaven, Hell, or God, this book will be just so much incomprehensible babble.

  But, as I said, it is not written for that segment of the market. This book is best read by the thinking Christian who has reservations about aspects of Christianity that seem to gloss over, avoid, or ignore the issue of human suffering.
  
  

• Clarifying experience

  
  By A3DV0YMO2ECR0F on 1999-12-02
  This book clarified many issues in my life and turned my God from One that was a bit of a stretch to fit into my everyday world, into a God which makes himself evident in every aspect of the earth, evil and pain included. I think this book frankly is a better apology for Christianity than Mere Christianity. Definitely a good introduction to the problem of pain, and the clearest exposition of the free-will defense I have read. C.S. Lewis deals with a concept lofty and philosophical in a manner that grips my attention and bolsters my faith. I recommend this book first above all Lewis' other books on theology.
  
  

• Thought Provoking Jack Lewis

  
  By ARTST8JB04TBC on 2005-05-26
  I'm a blogger. Blogging makes me read. It makes me turn off the television and read. This is very good. What I have been reading lately is C. S. Lewis. Particularly, I've been re-reading The Chronicles of Narnia. After reading through The Magician's Nephew and The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, I decided to shift gears and read one of Lewis's theological works before resuming the Chronicles.
  
  All I can say is, "Wow!" The Problem of Pain is not what I expected. I'm not sure what it was that I did expect. Perhaps something more along the line of a good evangelical book - you know, shallow, but with lots of Bible verses. Pain is exactly the opposite. Deep and with very little use of prooftexting. How the Church of the twenty-first century needs more minds like C. S. Lewis! We have been drowning in the fluff of "make-me-feel-good-like-Jabez-bless-me-bless-me" Christian publishing for years. It is very difficult to find a Christian book store that sells theology anymore (perhaps because Christians don't think or read anymore). I bought this copy of Pain from Amazon.
  
  Lewis is surprising because he doesn't go where you anticipate he will. He tackles the issue of pain from a very human angle. He asks the right questions and doesn't always give us the answers we want. Lewis is often held up by evangelical Christianity as a beacon of evangelical thought. I wonder if those evangelicals have even read him lately? Lewis disagrees with the doctrine of total depravity, questions original sin, weaves a parable of the fall which includes evolution, and leaves the door wide open for something other than an ever-burning hell.
  
  The answer to the problem of pain is that we are works in progress, being made lovable by a God who loves us even when we are not yet lovable. Says Lewis, "If the world is indeed a 'vale of soul making' it seems on the whole to be doing its work." The true heart of the book is the two chapters in the middle of it all: "Human Pain," and "Human Pain, Continued." Lewis says, "God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pain: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world."
  
  One of the most intriguing and thought provoking passages I encountered was this: "As for the fact of sin, is it probable that anything cancels it? All times are eternally present to God. Is it not at least possible that along some one line of His multi-dimensional eternity He sees you forever in the nursery pulling the wings off a fly, forever toadying, lying, lusting as a schoolboy, forever in that moment of cowardice or insolence as a subaltern? It may be that salvation consists not in the cancelling of these eternal moments but in the perfected humanity that bears the shame forever, rejoicing in the occasion which it furnished to God's compassion and glad that it should be common knowledge to the universe. Perhaps in that eternal moment St Peter - he will forgive me if I am wrong - forever denies his Master. If so, it would indeed be true that the joys of Heaven are for most of us, in our present condition, 'an acquired taste' - and certain ways of life may render the taste impossible of acquisition. Perhaps the lost are those who dare not go to such a public place. Of course I do not know that this is true; but I think the possibility is worth keeping in mind." Are we to understand in this passage a bit of Eastern Christian thinking? Is salvation not exclusively individual, but also corporate? Is pain part of the process whereby a corporate humanity is brought to a heavenly perfection in Christ?
  
  Lewis always makes me think and re-think. We need more of that in the Church today. O, that our teachers and preachers would read!
  
  
  

• Why we have pain

  
  By on 2000-05-11
  Lewis analyzes the fundamental question, or problem, of pain: how can God be omnipotent and yet allow pain (war, injury, cruelty, etc.)? Lewis's answer has many levels. Foremost, is that nature had to be created with certain unchangeable properties. For example, the same hardness which allows wood to serve as a beam in my house allows it to serve as an instrument of potential injury, as when that beam collapses and hits my head.

  The world also had to be created neutral so that humans could interact equally with one another, i.e., those same, unchanging properties of wood allow it to be manipulated similarly by anyone. But, obviously a neutral world contains the potential for good or evil. Wood can be used to build a home, which is good, or to create a weapon, which is evil. But, this is what makes us human. We have free will.

  If I choose evil, God could not intervene. For to intervene some times but not others would be unjust and illogical (this is why miracles, if you believe in them, are extraordinarily rare). And to intervene once is to intervene always. Imagine if God intervened each time one person was going to cause another, or himself, pain. If he did, we all would be puppets, not humans.

  Another interesting idea in this book is that of Original Sin. According to Lewis, we have not inherited Adam's sin, as is commonly believed, but instead everyday face Adam's identical choice, perhaps thousands of times a day. For Adam's sin was not disobedience in eating the apple, but in choosing himself over God. Adam had the opportunity to see himself either as a creation or an individual self existing apart from God. Thus, according to Lewis, a final reason for pain, is that it is God's wake-up call that we have, in constantly choosing ourselves, chosen the wrong thing.

  This is a profound and provocative book.
  
  

• Theological musings from a non theologian

  
  By A156P4FPL8OGXB on 2001-04-17
  Is pain God's megaphone?

  Lewis ably examines the thorny subjects of pain and suffering in this book. The brief work is at once philosophical, logical, and semi-theological, even though Clive points out in his preface that he is no theologian (We can thank God for that!).

  Lewis seeks to answer questions such as "If God is good and all-powerful, why does he allow his creatures to suffer pain?"

  No stranger to pain himself, Lewis sheds some valuable light on the subject and on human nature. The book is both a comfort and a discomfort. One wonders how differently Lewis might have approached the subject after the death of his wife, for example.

  I found the later chapters, particularly those on Hell, Animal Pain, and Heaven particularly enlightening.

  "Pain," writes Lewis in the end, "offers an opportunity for heroism." His words ring true. Those who have suffered, to any degree, will find the book intriguing.

  A fine work, I would not recommend that the Lewis neophyte begin with this work, but perhaps "Mere Christianity."
  
  

• A tricky problem
  By A2VE83MZF98ITY on 2005-10-21
  C.S. Lewis was a rare individual. One of the few non-clerics to be recognised as a theologian by the Anglican church, he put forth the case for Christianity in general in ways that many Christians beyond the Anglican world can accept, and a clear description for non-Christians of what Christian faith and practice should be. Indeed, Lewis says in his introduction that this text (or indeed, hardly any other he produced) will help in deciding between Christian denominations. While he describes himself as a 'very ordinary layman' in the Church of England, he looks to the broader picture of Christianity, particularly for those who have little or no background. The discussion of division points rarely wins a convert, Lewis observed, and so he leaves the issues of ecclesiology and high theology differences to 'experts'. Lewis is of course selling himself short in this regard, but it helps to reinforce his point.
  
  Lewis sees pain as an inevitable part of the human experience, given our condition of being estranged from God. He does not pain and suffering as being caused by God. 'The possibility of pain in inherent in the very existence of a world where souls can meet,' Lewis writes. 'When souls become wicked they will certainly use this possibility to hurt one another; and this, perhaps, accounts for four-fifths of the sufferings of men.' God has a role in that God is the creator of all things, and set things in motion, but God is not responsible in Lewis' view for the individual or corporate acts of humankind in contradiction of God's will. In this, Lewis does go against the Calvinist strain that goes through Anglican and other theologies.
  
  Lewis highlights part of the problem with pain in that it cannot be easily ignored. 'We can rest contentedly in our sins and our stupidities; and anyone who has watched gluttons shovelling down the most exquisite foods as if they did not know what they were eating, will admit that we can ignore even pleasure. But pain insists upon being attended to.' Lewis admits that this is a 'terrible instrument' that God uses to draw people back to God's will, and that it isn't always successful. In addressing the doctrine and idea of Hell, Lewis admits that this too is a terrible idea (in fact, he states it is an 'intolerable' one), but also states that this is not meant to be an intellectually satisfying or comprehensible doctrine, but rather a moral one. Lewis does hasten to state that people often confuse the imagery of Hell for the doctrine of Hell - the ideas of Dante et al. are very pervasive, and our conceptions of what is meant by Hell usually owes more to such sources than the actual Biblical text.
  
  Lewis also shows part of his method of biblical interpretation in different passages in this book. In the chapter on Animal Pain, he discusses the absence of statements in scripture about whether animals share in immortality. 'The complete silence of Scripture and Christian tradition on animal immortality is a more serious objection; but it would be fatal only if Christian revelation showed any signs of being intended as a "system de la nature" answering all questions. But it is nothing of the sort.'
  
  Lewis explores the issues of divine omnipotence, divine omniscience, and divine goodness as possible contradictions and stumbling blocks to the way we see the world (or the way in which we can see a world with God operating in it, or responsible for it). Lewis comes to no definitive, systematic conclusions that will satisfy everyone. In the case of this particular text, Lewis is writing is a specifically Christian context, and readers from other backgrounds and adherents of other traditions may find less to connect with in this text.
  
  This is a key piece in the overall structure of Lewis' theological construction.
  
  
  
• A good place to start
  By AGHIV0V0ON7MO on 1998-03-28
  There are better books about the theological problem of pain (the biblical book of JOB, Paul Brand's PAIN: THE GIFT NOBODY WANTS, and Philip Yancey's WHERE IS GOD WHEN IT HURTS?, to name three), but Lewis's book is a good place to start. Lewis himself makes it clear in the introduction that this book only addresses the intellectual problem arising from suffering, and as such does not pretend to give advice about living with pain. Lewis offers this by way of observation, that "when pain is to be borne, a little courage helps more than much knowledge, a little human sympathy more than much courage, and the least tincture of the love of God more than all." As a catalyst for considering the theological difficulty of resolving the idea of a good God with the pain and suffering in His creation, this book is worth reading.
  
  
• Clear as a bell. . .
  By A3IDPIU1ARF29M on 1999-11-26
  Many times through my second reading of the book (first time a decade ago), I felt-"this is what language was made for." Of course, no apologist can posit an argument without counter. However, Lewis shows himself vested with not just "divine" insight, but also with his unique, unmatched grasp of the human condition, primarily as expressed in literature and linguistics. This book echoes many themes from his earlier writings, he reveals himself consistent throughout. His intellectual foundations (he might not call them quite philosophical) are strong. His discussion of the "neutral field" as a requirement for interaction is masterful. Anyone that doubts the validity of his comments on free will won't be convinced of such by any arguments. For the rest of us, Lewis clarifies a conviction consistent with the broadest sweep of churchdom-what he would most certainly call "mere" Christianity. If one sees contradiction between his comments here and his own "A Grief Observed" then rest assured you are sitting at the feet of a human teacher. His writing is intensely personal-his comment "how can I say with sufficient tenderness what here needs to be said" reveals his heart for humanity in the comments that follow. Furthermore, he takes the high ground decades ahead of the animal rights movement in his ideas about animal pain, to which he devotes an entire chapter. He is an able voice to promote real care-stewardship-of animals long before the issue became so trenchant. His final chapter on heaven is best illustrated by reading his adult fiction "Perelandra" where he re-creates Eden, and to stages their triumph over original sin.
  
  
• Touches on more than just pain
  By APQ1JOMLO2XV4 on 2000-09-05
  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.
  
  

• Suffer, little children
  By A21R976UPA22M4 on 2004-09-09
  Lewis spends much time discussing the redemptive role of pain; problems of goodness, free will, and evil; and hell. He even includes a chapter on the suffering of animals. There is, however, no chapter on the suffering of children. Typical of Christian apologists, Lewis focuses on why God would create rational creatures capable of evil and allow them, and others affected by them, to suffer from the consequences of their evil choices. The problem he ignores is why his God, supposedly without whom nothing could exist, underwrites, for example, the very being of the cancer cells that ravage the body of a child. Such an omission renders the book useless.
  
  
• A stand out on a difficult subject
  By A3MOHAYDKS7SG2 on 2002-10-31
  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.
  
  

• Christian Theology's Insoluble Problem
  By ADGLKLN0LTDVG on 2003-01-04
  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.
  
  

• Clarifies some things but leaves me wondering more
  By AXYL2RTNRQ0NS on 2002-02-06
  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.
  
  
• Atheism has nothing to worry about
  By A1VA170GUYGTB on 2006-05-06
  Lewis here takes on the knotty question of the role of pain and evil in the world for a Christian. I am a former Christian and an atheist. I had heard Lewis was the best Christian apologist there is. If these arguments are the best Christianity can come up with, atheism doesn't have much to worry about.
  
  Lewis seems to think that the universal human sense of guilt when one has done something wrong is evidence of God. I disagree. I don't see any reason why evolution could not produce human beings having a sense of right and wrong. To some extent, a sense of right and wrong is a necessity for social animals. Chimpanzees complain when something they have worked to get is stolen from them. Wolves reject another wolf from the pack if he doesn't behave as a wolf should. Why would human beings be different?
  
  Lewis has a reputation for being a logician. In my opinion, much of his "logic" is absurd. For example, Lewis spends a lot of time on how God can be omnipotent and omnibenevolent. After all, how can a merciful God love all his children but send some of them to Hell? Why is there so much pointless suffering? Fortunately for me, atheism doesn't have to twist itself into knots over questions like this. After all, if pain is simply an evolved signal which proved useful to our ancestors, there's no particular reason why there shouldn't be a lot of it around. We can spend our time thinking about the best way to arrange our society to keep pain to the minimum necessary, not worrying about why pain exists in the first place. Atheism has intellectual coherence in this respect which is totally lacking in Christianity. What evidence is there that God is really omniscient or omnipotent or omnibenevolent, anyway? Just because someone said so thousands of years ago? I sometimes get the feeling that Christians choose paradoxical terms to describe God to make him as difficult to understand as possible. I suppose this makes God seem grander.
  
  Lewis also gives a lot of attention to the question of whether animals are immortal. Lewis thinks animal pain is quite different in quality from human pain, since he believes animals lack souls. Lewis discusses the question of what people will do in Heaven, why it is so wonderful there, and what makes Hell so awful. Honestly, I know of no better evidence for atheism than the need for serious Christians to consider the sorts of absurd questions Lewis discusses here. Lewis tries his best to come up with sensible answers, without much success.
  
  Lewis wants Christianity judged by its fruits. If Christianity really worked to make bad people good and good people better, I would be the first to sign up. If Christianity was an effective way to relieve poverty and bring peace, I would definitely consider it. If Christianity were just a silly hobby that made people feel good and harmed no one, it wouldn't bother me. Unfortunately, that isn't what I see. Even when in power, Christianity has made little or no progress in solving the social problems that it deals with, such as poverty and violence. Christianity systematically ignores the most serious problems of our times: overpopulation, exhaustion of resources, and pollution, among others. Why does Christianity ignore these problems? Because they receive little or no attention in the Bible, a book written thousands of years ago.
  
  As far as the book "The Problem of Pain" itself, Lewis is a fine writer who is never boring. For that reason I give the book two stars. If you're interested in basic Christian doctrine on some thorny theological subjects, this is a good introduction. Before taking it too seriously, however, I would strongly recommend reading other points of view. As far as the major problems of our times, I would suggest Kunstler's "The Long Emergency." For a defense of atheism and the naturalistic worldview,I would suggest Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World" or Taner Edis' "The Ghost in the Universe."
  
  I read "The Problem of Pain" because I feel as a scientist that it is important not to simply dismiss religion as silly, but to give Christians their chance to convince me. If you're a Christian, are you willing to do the same for the other side?
  
  
• The theoLOGICAL reason we suffer.
  By A3AY3EV2MFRFGG on 2003-08-17
  If God loves us, why do we suffer? Why is there pain? Why? Christian Apologist extraordinaire C.S. Lewis studies the possible answer to these questions. The answers are intellectually stimulating and thought provoking, to say the least, for those interested in the direction (Christian, primarily orthodox) Lewis's argument takes. What is more fascinating about the text is the rigid emotional distance Lewis has to the subject, his own personal experience with Pain (told in A Grief Observed) still many years away. Those wanting a more easy to relate to study should read Grief. Those wanting a strictly intellectual and emotionally distant look at the concepts and Christian answers could do a lot worse than The Problem With Pain. Highly recommended.
  
  
• C. S. Lewis calls himself a "layman" -- Its a lie!
  By on 1997-06-30
  C.S. Lewis, once again, proves himself the master apologist. This book gives many thought-provoking answers to the Question "Why, if 'God is Love', is there pain and suffering in the world we inhabit?" He goes on to explain the difference between Godly and human love. He has chapters explaining the subjects of Heaven, Hell, and Animal pain and all his arguements are very well presented. I would be a good idea to read this book with a dictionary (I had to!), because he writes on a really high level
  
  
• Interesting and Thought-provoking.
  By AKBH21PTTCWVJ on 2003-03-10
  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".
  
  

• Clear as day.....
  By A3NCKDPCAUOD4T on 2005-03-30
  C.S. Lewis tackles the seeming paradox of pain in a world created by a loving God. We find it isn't so paradoxical. How can we escape pain without the forfeiture of free will? How would we love? How would we cherish? All that was good would be provided. All that was bad, extinguished. What, then, would be good? What measure could we take? Without free will we would be mere automata and, as automata, we would be nonsense.
  
  Grief exists because love exists. People die premature deaths because they must if we are to exist in a world where free will is possible. Anything else would be a controlled experiment, a massive fraud where we are not free to love God, but are predetermined to do so. There'd be no upside for there would be no down. We, in essence, would be pointless.
  
  The problem of pain, once looked at through Lewis, becomes not so much a problem, but a requirement. Indeed, it becomes surprising that one hadn't arrived at this reality before. C.S. Lewis' clarity of mind is as evident in The Problem of Pain as in his other apologetics. His works are immeasurably helpful to those willing to assess them objectively. 5 stars
  
  
• A life altering book
  By ANNYNAVAA3D04 on 2005-08-22
  I first listened to this book in audio form on a long drive, so heard the entire text in one session. It really was an inspiring experience. I actually listened to it a second time on the return trip. Lewis' gift for verbalizing complex logical and moral issues amazed and inspired me. As one reviewer said, Lewis is the "ideal persuader for the ... good man who would like to be a Christian but finds his intellect getting in the way." His discussions are logical, yet human. A masterful book.
  
  
• Good stuff, except for the Arminian slant
  By A1G7GU75AV2AVR on 2005-07-22
  C.S. Lewis makes many insightful points, but his Arminian (vs. Calvinistic) views distort his presentation at times. For example, he suggests that it isn't God's "fault" that pain and suffering entered the world, i.e. God's sovereign will was thwarted by man. When of course Calvinists like myself argue that it's the Biblical view that our all powerful and sovereign God foreordains all things as the prophet Isaiah says. But overall, it was a worthwhile read.
  
  
• Not a Painful Read
  By A3BBMQDYIGUDOF on 2000-03-29
  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.
  
  
• Problem of The Problem of Pain
  By A3N6QTOHOWCIQX on 2001-01-15
  The Problem of Pain was good in some areas and not so good in others. C.S. Lewis makes quite a few assumptions without any Biblical basis. Some of the things he mentions make completely no sense. Here's a quote; "Our Lord while stressing terror of hell with unsparing severity, usually emphasises the idea, not the duration but of finality. Consignment to the destroying fire is usually treated as the end of the story - not the beginning of a new story. That the lost soul is eternally fixed in its diabolical attitude we cannnot doubt: but whether this eternal fixity implies endless duration-or duration at all we cannot say." What exactlly is he suggesting? That those in hell will not suffer eternally? Revelations 14:11 says "The smoke of their torment rises forever and ever, and they will have no relief day or night for they have worshipped the beast..." Aside from this there are many other things he says which make no sense. Yes, he does make some good points, but not many. I guess this is to be expected considering his apologetics are about 60 years old. I highly respect C.S. Lewis and he was definitely one of the geniuses of his time. Sadly since there is such a lack in good Christian apologetics these days with a few exceptions; we are left with only the long and gone apologetics of C.S. Lewis and Francis Schaffer. More recent apologetics would be Hugh Ross, William Dembski, and Michael Behe, who are very underappreciated for there hard work. C.S. Lewis wrote very good fiction which can still be highly appreciated by today's society. I'm not saying his apologetics are terrible; not at all. Merely that they are old and a lot of the theory's can be easily debunked. If you love to read, then I'm sure his work is well worth your time. If your merely looking for answers to certain problems; I would suggest something a bit more recent, or maybe searching for the answer yourself.
  
  
• Insights Presented for and to and about Christians
  By A3JAP0HHZ035FE on 2004-09-07
  I would recommend this book--The Problem of Pain--very strongly to the Christian reader. Certainly, the thrust of this book is NOT to convince agnostics and atheists of the validity of the Christian platform, and anyone choosing to live in the Fool's Paradise that is agnosticism will come away from a reading of this book just as incredulous and empirically-minded as before. As any well-versed Christian knows, a testimony of God and of Christ comes not through study and reason alone. Any agnostic or atheist wishing to investigate the fundamental claims of Christianity would be better off studying C.S. Lewis' "God in the Dock," or "The Grand Miracle"(an abridged version of "God in the Dock").
  
  Chiefly, I think that this book is meant to help Christians--or those with Judeo-Christian leanings--to reconcile the existence of pain with the realities of God's mercy, benevolence, and grace. Christians--and people of many other religions--believe life in the universe to be the result of a deliberate and calculated act of creation (nothing random or irrational, as the agnostics postulate). In light of this fact, a great number of Christians wonder why God would knowingly and intentionally create a world in which pain and sin had the possibility of being introduced.
  
  Lewis very accutely observes, in this book, that free will--while certainly POSSIBLE without the option to commit evil--would be utterly WORTHLESS without the option to commit evil. As I have prayerfully contemplated this doctrine, I have come to know if its truth. For instance, when my father or mother told me--and still tell me--that they love me, it was and is deeply meaningful because I know that they CHOOSE to love me. If all my parents could possibly have done was love me, with no active decision on their part to do so, their love would have no meaning. They COULD have chosen to abandon or abuse me, but they did not. And that gives meaning, indeed, to all of their love and nurturing. We do not congratulate fish for breathing under water, after all (it's the only way they possibly can breathe!).
  
  Lewis also observes, with emphasis, the fact that Jesus Christ could only have been one of two things: A lunatic or a God. The combined multitude of witnesses that knew Him--according to both Scriptural and Non-Scriptural documentation--affirm that if there was one thing Jesus constantly declared it was His own Godhood, and His Sonship to God the Father. When all of the evidence is taken into account, the representation universally set forth is that Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be God. Some denied it, some believed it, but all knew that this was, at least, His claim.
  
  And, of course, all things taken into consideration, only a madman would have even the slightest inclination to make such claims unless the claims were true. Jim Jones and David Koresh are two primary examples of men who falsely claimed to be God, and who were, as is undoubtedly known, both certifiably insane.
  
  Lewis makes the point, also, that with pain comes humility, and with humility comes receptiveness to God. If we were never to experience pains or disappointments in life, we would always take our blessings and gifts for granted. Either that, or we would worship the gifts (blessings) instead of the Gift-giver (God).
  
  The point is also made--and it agrees perfectly with Emerson's essay on the Law of Compensation--that every "loss" in life is, in reality, a sacrifice offered to the acquisition of something else: If a man loses his left arm, he develops an impressivley strong right arm; If a woman loses a husband to death, she is relieved of her duties as wife, and thus is free to go about doing other things.
  
  Finally, the Tester and the tested are both positively identified. Unfortunately, many--including some professed Christians--assume to be testing God. If, for example, they read in the newspapers of an elderly man shot down and robbed by thugs, they will say, "God failed him." But, the fact is, through all of the tribulations and turmoils of life, WE are the ones being tested, NOT God. God is already the paragon of absolute perfection. We, on the other hand, must prove ourselves in the test that is life (and, in the case of thugs robbing elderly men, such thugs fail the test quite horribly).
  
  To love and adore God in a perfect world--a world without pain or opposition--would be no major accomplishment. But, to love and adore Him in spite of all temptation and adversity is a most supreme accomplishment.
  
  This is a most praiseworthy book!
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• Read with "A grief observed"
  By A22B9UW7MAG1AI on 2004-09-12
  Lewis wrote this book in 1940, twenty years before his wife Joy died of cancer. After this experience he wrote "A Grief Observed". "The Problem of Pain" begins "Not many years ago when I was an atheist ... ". Thus, with first hand experience of the view that pain and an Almighty God cannot co-exist, Lewis plainly sets out the "problem": "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."
  From here he takes the reader on a journey that does not merely attempt to tackle the co-existence of God and pain, but scrutinses the very concepts of God, pain, love and happiness. Later, in "A Grief Observed", what was (relatively) impersonal writing on a theological dilemma in "The Problem of Pain" becomes a personal testimony.
  
  
  
• Doesn't give adequate answers for a modern
  By on 1999-03-08
  The problem of pain is an enormous one that can lead directly to atheism. Jack Lewis tries to give a theological answer and succeeds within his own frame of reference. But he depends on the doctrine of the Fall and this is not one easily accepted by a modern audience.

  Those looking for a rational explanation that squares with history and science will not find it here. Unknown in the US, I would suggest Peter Vardy's 'The Puzzle of Evil' for an introduction and part answer to the problem.
  
  

• Profoud Ideas
  By A3KSBNXFCEY6D6 on 2002-10-25
  In this book, C. S. Lewis makes an attempt to explain the causes and purposes of pain. He explains its necessity in the universe in which we live and how God makes use of it. Out of the nature of both God and the universe, Lewis tells of how we have helped to usher pain into our existence. In doing so, he touches on the very essence of creation and the relationship between God and man. There are some very poignant notions in this book. The reader will develop a greater understanding of how we relate to God. The Problem of Pain will probably not comfort someone who is in the midst of dealing with his or her own suffering or heartbreak. It appears that it was intended for more of an intellectual approach to the subject. There are, however, some cumbersome and awkward moments in the book. Lewis makes what seem to be some largely unsubstantiated claims that are outside his realm of expertise, such as man's ability to control all his own biochemical processes before the fall and how animals come to God through man. These ideas seem to come at best from Lewis's imagination. He is humble in his consciousness of his own imperfection. In the preface, Lewis states, "If any real theologian reads these pages he will very easily see that they are the work of a layman and an amateur." His writing style is like free flowing thought which can be difficult to read at times. Nonetheless, the work is in no way incomprehensible. Overall, the profound ideas Lewis has on the nature of pain have deepened my own spiritual understanding, and I considered it a privilege to have read his work.
  
  
• Penetrating and Cohesive
  By A2ACHVOFMAIQ1K on 2006-01-22
  In reading "The Problem of Pain", it struck me how thoroughly Augustinian CS Lewis was. Not, perhaps, since St. Augustine has there been so approachable a writer coupled with such a penetrating intellect.
  
  And both Augustine and Lewis share the common trait of reaching, perhaps, too far. In Augustine's case, it was over-reliance on questionable data, such as the reports of the pheonix and the fire-salamander, or the sybillene prophecies. For Lewis, it is a tendency to get stuck in arguing from the general to the specific, on those particularly thorny issues.
  
  In "The Problem of Pain", Lewis takes on one of the thorniest issues possible, and the one on which the Judeo-Christian religions are most often attacked: the reconciliation of a loving, all-powerful God with suffering. As he states in chapter four, this is a daunting problem, particularly for modern man and his predisposition to EXPECT salvation: "It was against [a background of fear] that the Gospel appeared as good news... Christianity now has to preach the diagnosis - in itself very bad news - before it can win a hearing for the cure."
  
  Lewis' apologetic can hardly be termed a "defense" of the faith. Rather, he sets out not to solve the problem of pain, but to frame pain and suffering the larger picture of existence. As Lewis repeatedly points out, if you're going to accept certain realities about the world, including our own sensation and reason, then you're going to have to recognize that pain is a necessity. It is part of the system and intrinsically tied to free will and human choice.
  
  In butressing this argument, Lewis does an admirable job envisioning "paradisal man", while freely admitting that his view of it is a construction. Later, he extends his imagery to Hell, and that most bitter of problems (with which Augustine also struggled) of salvation that is not extended to all. Lewis argues around the issue of annihlation vs. eternal torment, and comes off rather well (I think).
  
  The only really disappointing part of his analysis is when he addresses pain in animals. In having mastered the general problem of pain, he begins to extend his model to individual cases. And while I am sure that the solution to suffering in animals is consistent with his model, I am also unconvinced that Lewis applies his own model effectively to the animal case. This chapter is clearly the weakest of the book.
  
  It also puts one in mind that Lewis rarely addresses the specific problem of Children, a case on which many a good theory has been wrecked. While it is fair to say that the lack of a fully developed intellect should have little bearing on grace and salvation, I'm afraid that the issues of infant vs. adult baptism, heaven, hell, purgatory and limbo all make unwelcome intrusions into the problem of pain. Still, I'm rather glad that Lewis avoided this question (whether intentionally or not), since the analysis of animal suffering was so unsatisfying.
  
  But I have spent too much time on very minor complaints. I cannot say that there were great revelations in "The Problem of Pain," but at the same time, Lewis' writing is so cohesive and convincing that he helps establish a Christian "world-view" that the modern world seeks to root out.
  
  I couldn't help thinking of the Indonesian Tsunami and the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans as I read The Problem of Pain. It seemed clear to me that 98% of the pundits and commentators who have wrung their hands over these disasters have given virtually no thought to this problem, or the solution offered by Lewis on behalf of Christian theology. This is unfortunate, because pain (suffering) is one of the most intrinsic, inescapable, and anentropic aspects of life.
  
  I offer here the platitude that "suffering is the most valuable thing that nobody wants" (myself and Lewis included).
  
  
• Great spiritual food
  By on 1999-02-06
  "The Problem of Pain" contains such extraordinary spiritual nourishment. Through the process of wrestling with the role of pain, Lewis gives a truly inspirational explanation of the interaction between God and humans (while also giving wonderfully realistic descriptions of most Christians' struggles!) That said, I would agree with reviewers who said that this book in *not* particularly comforting for those suffering from great grief (Lewis himself said much the same, late in his life.)

  This book has given me so much encouragement and, at the same time, challenged me greatly. I am a better Christian for having read it. My copy is underlined, often quoted, and much loved.
  
  

• A spiritual and intellectual understanding
  By A1DXRUQHNQ5AR2 on 2001-08-10
  Lewis effectively and poignantly analyzes the age-old "Problem of Pain." The logos of his reasoning never falters, but goes hand-in-hand with the pathos of his telling. More still, he effectively establishes his ethos by being uniquely qualified to disect the problem, having suffered much on his own, popularly known to have lost his wife to cancer.

  This book, an enlightening pleasure, helps the reader understand pain, why it occurs, and why it is necessary.
  
  

• A simple, satisfying solution to a complex problem
  By AHCVWPLA1O4X8 on 2003-01-27
  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.
  
  

• A Grief Observed
• Mere Christianity
• The Great Divorce
• The Four Loves
• The Screwtape Letters