This book is amazing and it's very insightful. C.S. Lewis is very honest in this book and states clearly his view on pain. I truly enjoyed this book and recommend anything written by him.

This is an awesome book. I cant say anymore about it or I would take away from it. If you are struggling to understand why a loving God would allow pain and suffering, then you need to read this book.

On a recent trip from Europe to Australia, I re-read "The Problem of Pain" and was - as several years before - once again pulled in by Lewis' exquisite prose.

He starts off with a bang by describing how he used to see the world when he was an atheist, painting a bleak picture of the kind of universe we live in.

Most of it is empty space, he says, dark and cold. The heavenly bodies are really no more than a little dust in this great emptiness. Even if every speck of this dust were inhabited with happy creatures, "it would still be difficult to believe that life and happiness were more than a by-product to the power that made the universe."

As it is, however, so far Earth is the only speck we know of that is inhabited at all, and it is far from being a happy place. It is arranged in such a manner that every creature can only survive by annihilating other creatures. Lower forms of life are caught in this vicious cycle as much as higher forms, except that higher forms are so unfortunate as to experience years of pain before annihilation.

The most complex creatures of all - human beings - are beset with yet another curse, namely the ability to foresee their own suffering and death, which extends their physical pain into the mental arena. It also enables them in this vicious battle of mutual annihilation to come up with many cruel devices to inflict even more pain, both on one another and on less complex forms of life.

The conclusion of the old, atheist Lewis: "If you ask me to believe that this is the work of a benevolent and omnipotent spirit, I reply that all the evidence points in the opposite direction. Either there is no spirit behind the universe, or else a spirit indifferent to good and evil, or else an evil spirit."

Today's atheists such as Christopher Hitchens still make this same point, so "The Problem of Pain" has not lost its applicability in our times. It addresses a timeless theme.

But does Lewis succeed in providing an answer? That, I am not entirely sure of. Yes, I did feel myself being convinced by Lewis' force of writing, but I also couldn't help wondering whether that was due to his ability as an author or due to the actual points he was making. If you put down Lewis' main arguments in an unadorned list, would they still be convincing? Some, probably, but I fear not all.

Lewis himself said in a letter years after publishing "The Problem of Pain" that he wished he had known more when he wrote the book. It is, therefore, by Lewis' own admission, far from being a perfect work. For me, even after reading the book more than once, there still is a problem of pain.

But the book should be applauded all the same for its attempt to address the problem of pain and evil honestly, and it is definitely worth reading and re-reading.

- Jacob Schriftman, Author of The C. S. Lewis Book on the Bible: What the Greatest Christian Writer Thought About the Greatest Book

On a recent trip from Europe to Australia, I re-read "The Problem of Pain" and was - as several years before - once again pulled in by Lewis' exquisite prose.

He starts off with a bang by describing how he used to see the world when he was an atheist, painting a bleak picture of the kind of universe we live in.

Most of it is empty space, he says, dark and cold. The heavenly bodies are really no more than a little dust in this great emptiness. Even if every speck of this dust were inhabited with happy creatures, "it would still be difficult to believe that life and happiness were more than a by-product to the power that made the universe."

As it is, however, so far Earth is the only speck we know of that is inhabited at all, and it is far from being a happy place. It is arranged in such a manner that every creature can only survive by annihilating other creatures. Lower forms of life are caught in this vicious cycle as much as higher forms, except that higher forms are so unfortunate as to experience years of pain before annihilation.

The most complex creatures of all - human beings - are beset with yet another curse, namely the ability to foresee their own suffering and death, which extends their physical pain into the mental arena. It also enables them in this vicious battle of mutual annihilation to come up with many cruel devices to inflict even more pain, both on one another and on less complex forms of life.

The conclusion of the old, atheist Lewis: "If you ask me to believe that this is the work of a benevolent and omnipotent spirit, I reply that all the evidence points in the opposite direction. Either there is no spirit behind the universe, or else a spirit indifferent to good and evil, or else an evil spirit."

Today's atheists such as Christopher Hitchens still make this same point, so "The Problem of Pain" has not lost its applicability in our times. It addresses a timeless theme.

But does Lewis succeed in providing an answer? That, I am not entirely sure of. Yes, I did feel myself being convinced by Lewis' force of writing, but I also couldn't help wondering whether that was due to his ability as an author or due to the actual points he was making. If you put down Lewis' main arguments in an unadorned list, would they still be convincing? Some, probably, but I fear not all.

Lewis himself said in a letter years after publishing "The Problem of Pain" that he wished he had known more when he wrote the book. It is, therefore, by Lewis' own admission, far from being a perfect work.

But it should be applauded all the same for its attempt to address the problem of pain and evil honestly, and it is definitely worth reading and re-reading.

- Jacob Schriftman, Author of The C. S. Lewis Book on the Bible: What the Greatest Christian Writer Thought About the Greatest Book

The question or 'problem' that C.S. Lewis sets out to answer in "The Problem of Pain" is one that has confounded believers and non-believers alike: if God is good and loves his creation, why does he allow such pain and suffering to exist? How can that be good and exist within his creation? While Lewis' ponderings may not seem like straightforward answers to those questions, he paints a picture of a God revealed through his creation where even pain and evil can exist.

C.S. Lewis is perhaps the best person to examine this topic: a former atheist, he commences the book by speaking of what his former answer to that question would've been. It is only through his eventual conversion to a belief in Christ that he is able to see the order behind the seeming chaos. Lewis examines an array of issues, covering commonalities between religions but what sets Christianity apart, the Fall of Man, and why Heaven and Hell must exist. Moreover, he examines the distinct individuality that plays a role in our relation to our Creator.

Lewis' prose has the contradiction of being both dense and enlightening. His examinations are not necessarily for the ordinary reader, nor are they too lofty either, but they require a great deal of thoght and reflection. Therefore, "The Problem of Pain" is best read perhaps a chapter at a time, allowing the reader to meditate on what has been presented. The ultimate irony of human suffering might be that as believers, we have had every opportunity to not experience suffering, since Christ has already suffered supreme - but because of how God created us, we have the will to choose, no matter what that choice might be.

Punctuated with a thin veil of lyricism and argued from a Christian perspective, C. S. Lewis does not only explore the psychological ramifications of experiencing pain (suffering) but also provides an intellectual discussion geared at reconciling theological tenets about the relationship between God as the essence of love and individuals stricken by sorrow. His views are very theoretical since the book was written many years before his beloved wife died. However, the book raises interesting questions relevant to the role of pain in our lives and misconceptions of what happiness and love are. During his compelling analysis of the Christian dilemma, Lewis journeys from atheism to Christianity with masterful clarity and empathizing inquiry into the Christian doctrine of a loving God in a world plagued by suffering.

Lewis believed we should try to enter into the meaning, the intent of the authors we read, instead of bringing our own biases and immediately subjecting them to our own categories of thought. We cannot help but enrich our minds if "in reading great literature I become a thousand men and yet remain myself." Therefore, if you've stumbled upon this book for whatever reason and feel inclined to read it then I'd urge -- pay no attention to the humbug critics, at least until after you've read what could be a life enriching book, as this was for me.

Ten years ago I began reading Lewis; the Problem of Pain was one of the first of his works, after Mere Christianity, I picked up. It wasn't long after I read PoP that I was watching Schindler's List. Scene by scene, the dilemma of evil in the face of a good God assaulted me till I was overcome with intense and sickening violence. I ended up falling to the ground, in anguish, crying "how"? I received no blinding insight, I'm sorry to say, into the mystery of evil; but Lewis' logic had infected me, and suddenly an argument took hold of my mind, checked my despair, and gave me something to hold onto (incidentally, those critics who, in reading Lewis have immediately subjected him to their atheist framework have a-priori cut themselves off from understanding the ultimate logic of their own position - or they just don't care, which is far worse).

The argument, in so many words, ran something like this: the proposition that God doesn't exist amounts, at the same time, to the proposition that all this anguish at the injustice unfolding before me on my TV screen is not rooted in reality, that it's all a purely subjective illusion, which reflects no eternal value, goodness or justice, and, logically, could just as well be delight and approval. In other words, the extent I thought evil truly evil and wrong - that was the extent to which I had to believe in a good God; to deny Him would be, at the same time, a denial of the reality of evil, which was driving me to deny Him in the first place. I simply refused to concede that the Nazis, slaughtering Jews, were no more morally culpable than if they were involuntarily swatting mosquitoes.

Many people are keen to respond something along these lines, "well, I personally feel this or that is wrong," and seriously think they've resolved the matter. However, this "line" has a shocking corollary, which runs thusly: "...but it is not really wrong". In it's blunt, down to earth form, and applied to my experience above, it looks like this: "I feel the Nazi's were wrong, but I cannot speak for them and say they were wrong, because they were not REALLY wrong." When the mind reflects objective reality it has truth; if my mind isn't reflecting the eternal reality of value, goodness, and justice, then my gut reactions and intense emotions are a response to nothing in reality, to no quality innate to human beings, which categorically warrants such a reaction - they're a fictional response, a response to a pretended reality. We all know, deep down inside, that this cannot be true, and that evil really exists because there's an eternal standard of goodness (God) by which to identify evil as evil...

Read this book - make your own judgments...

Lewis deals with a timeless issue in this book: why is there suffering and pain? In the UK, this issue has come centre stage in moral debates. Should a being being permitted to exist if its life is destined to be one of "useless" suffering.

There was an article in the paper about a year ago about a couple who had a child with cystic fibrosis and wanted through IVF to conceive a child free of this nasty disease. Through the "miracle" of science, they were enabled to screen out any embryos with the disease so that they could have a "perfect" child. The logic for this was, so they said: "why would anyone want anyone to suffer" (aside: what would their existing child with CF be now thinking: it would have been better that I had not existed?) as if all who suffer, would wish not to be rather than to be. This kind of thinking is becoming indemic. It is a rejection of the truth which shines forth luminously from every human being, a truth which causes the beholder to say: "It is indeed wonderful that you exist"

And, this is where Lewis comes in with an attempt at answering the question of: "why is there suffering"?:

"The problem of reconciling human suffering with the existence of a God who loves, is only insoluble so long as we attach a trivial meaning to the word "love", and look on things as if man were the centre of them. Man is not the centre, God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake".

Thus, love has become associated with a soft type of sentimentality in our culture; but it is much greater than that: it actively seeks for the good of the person loved - love may thus permit suffering to enable the person loved to become a person, who is himself capable of self emptying love. Lewis notes: "We are not merely imperfect creatures who must be improved; we are, as Newman said, rebels who must lay down our arms".

Lewis does not shrink from giving suffering its due: "No doubt pain as God's megaphone is a terrible instrument; it may lead to final and unrepented rebellion. But it gives the only opportunity the bad man can have for amendment. It removes the view; it plants the flag of truh within the fortress of a rebel soul"

In a word, suffering destroys our self delusion that we are in control, that we are demi-gods: when we suffer, we know where we are and its not at the centre of the universe.

Thus, whilst suffering (be it physical, natural or emotional), is an effect of evil, being a privation of the good, it can lead us to a recognition of our creaturely place in the universe and hence to find out true "orientation".

On hell, Lewis states; "I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful rebels to the end; that the doors of hell are locked on the inside"

Lewis is very good indeed in this book; he synthesises brillianty key christian doctrines coherently and intelligibly.

Brilliant!

This book is a theological and logical argument why God can be all loving and yet there can be such awful pain in the world. The initial argument that "If God is loving and there is evil in the world implies that something is wrong with God", is methodically and logically taken apart. There are arguments for the Christian about how they should live given this logical argument, but the non believer or searcher can take the arguments and come to a very balanced view of God Almighty.

The Problem of Pain is C. S. Lewis's theodicy - his attempt to explain why, if God is omnipotent and good, bad things happen in the world and people suffer. His target audience is Christians; non-Christians are likely to dismiss this work out of hand.

In this book, Lewis addresses the goodness and omnipotence of God, the fall of man and human wickedness, human and animal pain, and heaven and hell. In doing so, he gives a strong case for the free will of humanity (stronger even, perhaps, than might be biblically defensible).

As per usual, most of Lewis's arguments are logically rather than theologically based. The problem is, in this book, his logic is noticeably faulty. It does often tend to be "either/or" - Lewis will say, "this must be X or Y", almost arbitrarily, and will not leave room for other options. Much of Lewis's logic here is based on the rampant speculation he makes without theological or biblical support, particularly in his chapters on hell and animal suffering. The illustrations Lewis uses in this book tend to be general and academic, and he qualifies many of the things he says.

At one point, Lewis breaks from his own argument to embrace a personal position in direct opposition to the case he has been making. Lewis says that he presupposes that "the good man ordinarily continues to seek simple good. I say `ordinarily' because a man is sometimes entitled to hurt (or even, in my opinion, to kill) his fellow, but only where the necessity is urgent and the good to be attained obvious..." The reader familiar with Lewis knows that his position here is strongly rooted in the time he spent in the military and fighting in World War I. But here he has contradicted things he's said earlier in the book, and in other books, about love and good. Obviously the urgency of necessity and the obviousness of good are often completely subjective. Lewis really dropped the ball here.

It is interesting to note (although it really has little to do with the quality of the work) that Lewis here both embraces evolution and says quite clearly that he believes that the creation accounts in Genesis are myths. Neither of these cause any problem for his faith.

The Problem of Pain is hardly Lewis's finest work. The logic is often faulty and the illustrations he uses are too hypothetical and vague. There is some good here also, particularly the message that God can use pain to reach and change people. But this is far from being the definitive work on pain.

As a dentist I've had the opportunity to treat several patients with chronic idiopathic oral-facial pain. While I can access the best scientific medical literature in the world on the topic I am consistently reminded of the spiritual aspects of pain by my patients. In this excellent treatment of the topic by the Oxford professor and prolific writer C.S. Lewis, we are challenged to see a loving and omnipotent Creator despite the obvious dilemma represented in the human condition and the many faces of pain. I can't imagine trying to offer empathetic and genuine care to my patients who live in the shadow land of chronic pain without the grounding Lewis offers in this short, yet magnificent book. I re-read it frequently.

This book attempts to tackle the problem of evil from the perspective of Christain theology. Ultimately, I feel this book falls short of its objective; I am an atheist, so it's not exactly surprising that I consider theodicy to be a doomed endeavor.

However, I found this book to be a thought-provoking presentation of the subject, and the most solid presentation of the free-will theodicy that I've ever seen. I think the book provides a great deal of food for thought to those interested in the subject of religion, whether or not they agree with Lewis's theology.

The problem is a real one, and Lewis brings considerable intellectual power to bear. But the result is disappointing. If his role is to "justify the ways of God to man", then in an intellectual sense he has succeeded to the extent of internal consistency. But his chapter on animal pain is chilling; if he had ever seen an animal in pain he could hardly have written so callously. His avowed fear of pain makes him intellectualize it to the vanishing point. This was an intensely human man, in some ways a noble man, but the humanity and nobility are missing and all that is left is the Oxford don. Read this, then read A Grief Observed, when he has to face the loss of his wife. That's the real book. That book gives the whole truth about the problem of pain. As he says in A Grief Observed, the cardplayers are right. if there's no money riding on the game, no one takes it seriously. The problem with The Problem of Pain is that Lewis had no money riding on the game when he wrote it.

The book may be of interest to a devout Christian. But if you are looking for logic and sense that would stand an objective and independent test, look elsewhere. That's why the 3 star rating. It would have been an excellent reading and a 5 star for a religious person, and a 0 for anybody with a critical mind (or from a non-Christian background).

the problem of pain is classic lewis: an inimitable combination of deep philosophical thought, razor-sharp wit, the ability to poke fun at himself and a heart that is truly amazed by his God.

his premise is not to make pain or suffering any less distasteful, but to show that back of it all is the love of God. the book can really be broken into three sections. 1) the divine heart 2) human suffering 3) speculative ponderings.

the first section (ch. 1-3) gives the basis for all of lewis' further thoughts and arguments: the ultimate goodness and omnipotence of God. this section defines what true goodness and benefit are in the light God's being. lewis shows that our common conceptions of "happiness" and "what is good" may be less accurate than we think. he distinguishes true kindness from what may be called mere pity.

some highlights from the first couple chapters:

-"love is something more stern and splendid than mere kindness" - the idea in context being that God loves us too much to simply give us everything we think we want. (anyone with children ought to be able to understand the truth of that statement).

- "try to exclude the possibility of suffering which the order of nature and the existence of free will involve, and you find that you have excluded life itself."

- "the election of man, from nonentity, to be the beloved of God, and therefore (in some sense) the needed and desired of God, who but for that act needs and desires nothing, since He eternally has, ans is, all goodness."

the second section (ch. 4-7) is about the actual suffering of humans and how that plays out against divine goodness. lewis discusses the fall of adam with a lot of poetic license and conjecture on the way things were before the fall... can't be taken as fact, but some very provocative ideas. also there is a fascinating discussion on the humility of God in receiving us even when we come to Him only as a last resort; He will have us on any terms.

here are a handful of quotes from this section:

- "all sadness which is not either arising from the repentance of a concrete sin and hastening towards concrete amendment or restitution, or else arising from pity and hastening to active assistance, is simply bad."

- "the proper good of a creature is to surrender itself to its Creator - to enact intellectually, volitionally, and emotionally, that relationship which is given in the mere fact of its being a creature. when it does so, it is good and happy."

- "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."

- "the human spirit will not even begin to try to surrender self-will as long as all seems to be well with it."

the third section (ch. 8-10) is very speculative, as all the chapters concern things which no human living on earth has had actual experience of: heaven, hell, and pain in animals. lewis' thoughts on hell are excellent, revolving around the idea that if the fulfillment of our humanity is in submitting to our Creator, then entering hell is ceasing to be human, but continuing existence in some more wretched state. the thoughts on heaven are equally as fascinating. the chapter on animal pain is a unique discussion in Christian theology (i can't remember ever hearing someone talk about it as a theological issue). there are also, albeit highly speculative, great possibilities suggested for what animal pain can and can't mean. also the thesis of humans "transforming" animals in a way vaguely similar to how God transforms man will at least set your gray matter in motion. however, where lewis really falls short in this section is his upholding of "theistic evolution". sadly, lewis believed that God used evolution to create the world and the species. this belief, however, skews the whole understanding of goodness and pain. if pain was part of God's creative process, it is not an evil or a temporary necessity in a fallen world, but rather death is a manifestation of the divine being, part of God's essential nature: clearly a problem for all the rest of the ideas in the book.

some excerpts from section 3:

- "to enter heaven is to become more human than you ever succeeded in being on earth; to enter hell, is to be banished from humanity."

- "the demand that God should forgive such a [wicked] man while he remains what he is, is based on a confusion between condoning and forgiving. to condone and evil is simply to ignore it, to treat it as if it were good."

-"there are rewards that do not sully motives. a man's love for a woman is not mercenary because he wants to marry her, nor his love for poetry mercenary because he wants to read it, nor his love of exercise, less disinterested because he wants to run and leap and walk. love by definition, seeks to enjoy its object."

aside from the theistic evolution, a wonderful book. lot's of food for thought. chew away!

the problem of pain is classic lewis: an inimitable combination of deep philosophical thought, razor-sharp wit, the ability to poke fun at himself and a heart that is truly amazed by his God.

his premise is not to make pain or suffering any less distasteful, but to show that back of it all is the love of God. the book can really be broken into three sections. 1) the divine heart 2) human suffering 3) speculative ponderings.

the first section (ch. 1-3) gives the basis for all of lewis' further thoughts and arguments: the ultimate goodness and omnipotence of God. this section defines what true goodness and benefit are in the light God's being. lewis shows that our common conceptions of "happiness" and "what is good" may be less accurate than we think. he distinguishes true kindness from what may be called mere pity.

some highlights from the first couple chapters:

-"love is something more stern and splendid than mere kindness" - the idea in context being that God loves us too much to simply give us everything we think we want. (anyone with children ought to be able to understand the truth of that statement).

- "try to exclude the possibility of suffering which the order of nature and the existence of free will involve, and you find that you have excluded life itself."

- "the election of man, from nonentity, to be the beloved of God, and therefore (in some sense) the needed and desired of God, who but for that act needs and desires nothing, since He eternally has, ans is, all goodness."

the second section (ch. 4-7) is about the actual suffering of humans and how that plays out against divine goodness. lewis discusses the fall of adam with a lot of poetic license and conjecture on the way things were before the fall... can't be taken as fact, but some very provocative ideas. also there is a fascinating discussion on the humility of God in receiving us even when we come to Him only as a last resort; He will have us on any terms.

here are a handful of quotes from this section:

- "all sadness which is not either arising from the repentance of a concrete sin and hastening towards concrete amendment or restitution, or else arising from pity and hastening to active assistance, is simply bad."

- "the proper good of a creature is to surrender itself to its Creator - to enact intellectually, volitionally, and emotionally, that relationship which is given in the mere fact of its being a creature. when it does so, it is good and happy."

- "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."

- "the human spirit will not even begin to try to surrender self-will as long as all seems to be well with it."

the third section (ch. 8-10) are very speculative, as they all concern things which not human living on earth has had actual experience of: heaven, hell, and pain in animals. lewis' thought on hell are excellent, revolving around the idea that if the fulfillment of our humanity is in submitting to our creator, than entering hell is ceasing to be human, but continuing existence in some more wretched state. the thoughts on heaven are equally as fascinating. the chapter on animal pain is a unique discussion in Christian theology (i can't remember ever hearing someone talk about it as a theological issue). there are also, albeit highly speculative, great possibilities suggested for what animal pain can and can't mean. also the thesis of humans "transforming" animals in a vaguely similar way that God transforms man will at least set your gray matter in motion. however, where lewis really falls short in this section is his upholding of "theistic evolution". sadly, lewis believed that God used evolution to create the world and the species. this belief, however, skews the whole understanding of goodness and pain. if pain was part of God's creative process, it is not an evil or a temporary necessity in a fallen world, but rather death is a manifestation of the divine being: clearly a problem for all the rest of the ideas in the book.

some excerpts from section 3:

- "to enter heaven is to become more human than you ever succeeded in being on earth; to enter hell, is to be banished from humanity."

- "the demand that God should forgive such a [wicked] man while he remains what he is, is based on a confusion between condoning and forgiving. to condone and evil is simply to ignore it, to treat it as if it were good."

-"there are rewards that do not sully motives. a man's love for a woman is not mercenary because he wants to marry her, nor his love for poetry mercenary because he wants to read it, nor his love of exercise, less disinterested because he wants to run and leap and walk. love by definition, seeks to enjoy its object."

aside from the theistic evolution, a wonderful book. lot's of food for thought. chew away!

If you are a Christian... or if you were once a Christian, "The Problem of Pain" is one of the most important books you could read in your lifetime. Perhaps, it is one of the most important books in Christian thought and scholarship.

Stan Faryna

It says something that after so many years C. S. Lewis is still one of the foremost Christian apologists of our time. The Problem of Pain is a difficult question every religion has to deal with, and one which has been especially difficult for Christianity. Some religions have the luxury of explaining pain as something deserved - a result of bad behavior from a previous life, or perhaps pain and suffering are caused by a malevolent deity in opposition to a good and loving God. Christianity has no such option.

"If God were good, he would wish to make His creatures perfectly happy, and if God 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."

Lewis presents a very readable and widely accessible solution to this problem, covering the origins of human suffering, incurred in the fall, what divine omnipotence and goodness really mean, and why they allow for the existence of pain in creation, heaven and hell, and a topic not often treated but important - the existence of pain in animals who are in every sense innocent.

Particularly useful is Lewis' distinction between kindness and love. Lewis reminds us that real love, a love that looks out for the best interests of the beloved, sometimes requires the inflicting of painful experience. From the perspective of the one undergoing the experience, this may not seem like love, but any parent, teacher, or anyone tasked with the guidance of the young will understand that this sort of "tough love" is often necessary if one does not want a spoiled child to grow into a spoiled adult.

Clive Staples Lewis is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, Christian writers of the twentieth century. He is always accessible to ordinary people like me because of his plain-spokenness and his willingness to use analogies and examples. That said, he had his work cut out for him here, and he wasn't up to the task. Here's where he fell short.

* "If the universe is so bad...how on earth did human beings come to attribute it to the activity of a wise and good Creator?" (p 17). This is a straw man and a non sequitur. It's a straw man because the universe isn't bad. Viewed one way, it merely *is.* Viewed another way, parts of our universe are good (sex, love, family, football) and parts are bad (pain, loss, despair, death). It's a non sequitur because there is no logical link between the universe and Lewis' implication that because we can conceive of the Good, Good therefore must exist. It would make just as much sense to say that because humans have conceived of a movie where aliens come to earth that therefore E.T. must exist.

* Lewis uses the reasoning that because we, humans, have a conception of proper conduct, with only some variation among cultures, that this must mean that God has given us morality (p 21). In response, I note that if morality is externally imposed on us as a fixed law of nature, then there would be no variation in it, or else God would be inconsistent. It would be like having the sun shine for one person but not the person right next to him. Moreover, there is a simple anthropological explanation for basic moral conduct. Conduct that perpetuates the family or group over time is more successful than conduct that harms the family or group. That's why the Hottentots, who immorally kill their "excess" babies, remain a small group, while the rest of humanity has grown.

* The key part of the book is Lewis' attempt to resolve the problem of pain inflicted on people by forces of nature, i.e., pain experienced by a person, inflicted by a force not engaging in human free will. Lewis attempts to answer this particular dilemma by essentially arguing that the nature of reality requires this type of pain to exist: "Try to exclude the possibility of suffering which the order of nature...involve[s], and you will find you have excluded life itself" (pp 33-34, see also p 54).

Frankly, Lewis' conclusion doesn't make sense. Let's take a plausible example from the 2004 Tsunami that killed more than 250,000 people, many of them children. A child is the least morally culpable type of person, I think everyone can agree. So: a three-year-old child is drowning in the tsunami, screaming for help that never comes, gasping, choking, in utter terror as he vainly attempts to catch a breath of air. He drowns after experiencing four or five minutes of torture and fear. Lewis is saying the child *had* to suffer this way -- that reality would grind to a halt if he didn't? Lewis himself in this very discussion admits God performs miracles when it suits him (p 34) but somehow God can't alter reality so that this child does not suffer?

Lewis attempts to buttress his position by arguing that to take away pain totally would be like playing chess with a player who could change the rules at his whim (p 34). That might make sense when discussing pain caused through free will, but not when discussing pain caused by nature. He inappropriately analogizes the impersonal forces of nature to a free-willed individual, the chess player.

* "When the relevant difference between the Divine ethics and your own appears to you...the change demanded of you is in the direction you already call `better'" (p 39). In response, I point out one of the classic clashes between human ethics and divine ethics presented in the bible: the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham. Gen. 22:1-2. Is Mr. Lewis really telling us that our moral compass will tell us that offering our children as sacrifices is in the direction of "better"? Which is more important -- following our morals or being obedient to God? Lewis can't make up his mind, first saying the former (pp 38-39), then the latter (pp 101-102).

* "[L]ove may cause pain to its object, but only on the supposition that the object needs alteration to become fully loveable" (pp 55, 91-92). While that may be true in some circumstances -- "For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth" Prov. 3:12 -- it certainly doesn't make sense when it comes to the suffering of children. Does a baby really need to die screaming in agony in that house fire in order for God to fully love it? Ridiculous. Outrageous. Monstrous. Contemptible.

Lewis can throw in the towel, and claim that spiritual realities are not "even explicable in terms of our abstract thought" (p 86). Or he can cherry-pick his examples on pain by claiming that free will necessarily must include pain (pp 32-31, 81-82) and we need pain to whip us, adults, into shape morally (pp 55, 104-107, 120). Fine. But don't pretend the existence of pain can be satisfactorily answered if you can't answer the problem of pain inflicted by nature on children. Every, EVERY scenario in which pain is felt and inflicted must be satisfactorily answered, or the premise of a loving, personal God, fails.

Personally, I think the only real response to the problem of pain is the one God gave to Job: "Shut up." See Job 38:1 - 40:2.

I read this book some time before I abandoned Christianity. I was looking for answers to some of the serious questions and doubts that are bound to come in any thinking Christian's life. My reaction to Lewis's arguments in this book were, "Is this really the best we can do?" I was deeply disappointed. I'd expected something a lot better and I was astonished at the poverty of Lewis's theodicy. If this is top-shelf apologetics, then apologetics is a poor field.

C.S. Lewis offers a brilliant defense of Christian theism despite the pain in the world in this brief book. Combining sharp thinking and excellent prose, this book is highly recommended for Christians and non-Christians alike.

Lewis's arguments are similar to many theodicies (defenses of God's existence despite suffering) developed by great Christian thinkers past and present. Man's suffering is in fact a result of free will, not an original creation of God. And suffering continues to result due to the evil wills and deeds of men. As Lewis observes, "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." If men are to have any significant free will at all, the bad consequences of evil deeds must be allowed.

This, of course, leaves the problem of so-called natural evil. Lewis contends that such evil and pain are necessary for our own repentance. In order to recognize our sins and ask God for forgiveness (and thus restore the proper relationship between created and Creator) we humans must be awoken with pain and suffering. Pain shatters the notion that what we have is ours and is good enough.

The Problem of Pain, despite its brevity, covers a great deal of ground, including a defense of the doctrine of the fall and the doctrines of heaven and hell. All throughout, Lewis's writing style is accessible and convincing. For a powerful defense of Christian theism in the face of a cruel world, "The Problem of Pain" is highly recommended.

"Try to exclude the possibility of suffering which the order of nature and the existence of free wills involve, and you find that you have excluded life itself."

Another serious and powerful work in a long series by C.S. Lewis: why must we suffer, mentally and physically? He hits on subjects we all struggle with. Lewis detests the doctrine of hell, but it is written, so it must be discussed. The chapter on animal suffering is fascinating. The only chapter that led me to question his words is on man's fall.

On human wickedness: "A God who did not regard this with unappeasable distaste would not be a good being. We cannot even wish for such a God----it is like wishing that every nose in the universe were abolished, that smell of hay or roses or the sea should never again delight any creature, because our own breath happens to stink."

On saving grace: "The dangers of apparent self-sufficiency explain why Our Lord regards the vices of the feckless and dissipated so much more leniently than the vices that lead to worldly success. Prostitutes are in no danger of finding their present life so satisfactory that they cannot turn to God: the proud, the avaricious, the self-righteous, are in that danger."

By the Lord's love we suffer; this strengthens, and it also keeps us on the straight and narrow. If we are to look for easiness, then we are to look for less love. It is for our sake.

"The full acting out of the self's surrender to God therefore demands pain: this action, to be perfect, must be done from the pure will to obey, in the absence, or in the teeth, of inclination. How impossible it is to enact the surrender of the self by doing what we like,..........."

After finishing the book, a thought on heaven came to my mind:
The differences are what makes up a community whether here or in heaven: God has created us after a time where all was God (but that is no more!); we are all unique parts to a puzzle. He needs us all back to complete it----to rejoin our family in heaven; it pangs Him that many will not make it, and choose to ignore their created purpose, because they have surrendered to the self and not to the Lord. Once all was God, but after the creation all has changed; we are asked to be with God because we are of God. We are distinct here on earth, but the maximum distinction awaits us in heaven, to be reunited with our Creator.

Wish you well
Scott

"Try to exclude the possibility of suffering which the order of nature and the existence of free wills involve, and you find that you have excluded life itself."

Another serious and powerful work in a long series by C.S. Lewis: why must we suffer, mentally and physically? He hits on subjects we all struggle with. Lewis detests the doctrine of hell, but it is written, so it must be discussed. The chapter on animal suffering is fascinating. The only chapter that led me to question his words is on man's fall.

On human wickedness: "A God who did not regard this with unappeasable distaste would not be a good being. We cannot even wish for such a God----it is like wishing that every nose in the universe were abolished, that smell of hay or roses or the sea should never again delight any creature, because our own breath happens to stink."

On saving grace: "The dangers of apparent self-sufficiency explain why Our Lord regards the vices of the feckless and dissipated so much more leniently than the vices that lead to worldly success. Prostitutes are in no danger of finding their present life so satisfactory that they cannot turn to God: the proud, the avaricious, the self-righteous, are in that danger."

By the Lord's love we suffer; this strengthens, and it also keeps us on the straight and narrow. If we are to look for easiness, then we are to look for less love. It is for our sake.

"The full acting out of the self's surrender to God therefore demands pain: this action, to be perfect, must be done from the pure will to obey, in the absence, or in the teeth, of inclination. How impossible it is to enact the surrender of the self by doing what we like,..........."

After finishing the book, a thought on heaven came to my mind:
The differences are what makes up a community whether here or in heaven: God has created us after a time where all was God (but that is no more!); we are all unique parts to a puzzle. He needs us all back to complete it----to rejoin our family in heaven; it pangs Him that many will not make it, and choose to ignore their created purpose, because they have surrendered to the self and not to the Lord. Once all was God, but after the creation all has changed; we are asked to be with God because we are of God. We are distinct here on earth, but the maximum distinction awaits us in heaven, to be reunited with our Creator.

Wish you well
Scott

Excellent book by C. S. Lewis. Used for adult Bible Study discussion group.

Pain is real, just as sorrow, death, and wickedness. Your becoming a Christian will not encapsulate you away from it. Christ did not promise that in the first place. But there are reasons why pain happens, as much to Christians as non Christians, and we should reach a better understanding of the circumstances in which we live, so that we can apprehend the promises that are envolved through that pain. Everyone is to pick up a cross at childbirth, but whether you follow Christ with it depends only on you.

This book won't be the treat that 'Mere Christianity' was. It's more philosophical; it assumes the reader is a Christian and has some knowledge of Scripture. But nevertheless, everyone can follow his thinking and it will all make sense. About 160 pages, it has chapters of between 10 and 20 pages, and frames the problem in its right context before reaching his conclusion at the end of the book. This is not a make-you-feel-good (dumb) self-help book. It's a make you understand book.

The first book of CS Lewis I read was "Mere Christianity" and I was profoundly stunned by how effective and witty he could be in his explanation of Christianity and Christian doctrine. So it was with eagerness that I devoted myself to the reading of this book.

And I was not disappointed in the least. The problem of pain is tightly linked with that of evil, in a world supposedly created and led by God. This is one of the most common, and most important, issues in theology, and I dare say, in everybody's life, provided they're somewhat curious about the world they live in. Justifying God on the counts of evil and pain is called theodicy, if I'm not mistaken, and that is what Lewis does in this book, but he does much more.

He deals with the basic problem I just mentioned, how could there be a good God when we live in such a wretched world, but he goes further and treats the human nature as "fallen", and that in a very interesting manner, not your silly Adam & Eve story taken literally (and by "silly" I don't mean the actual myth of Adam & Eve, just the literal taking of it).

Lewis tackles even such a complicated issue as animal pain and the condition of animals in Christianity. That shows quite some bravery.

One chapter is devoted to Hell, and another to Heaven, and either are really amazing prowess of theology. I'm no specialist of theology, but Lewis has a true gift in explaining of all this in a very clear fashion. He truly makes theology a thrilling matter!

After having read "Mere Christianity" and "The Problem of Pain", I'm absolutely convinced that I will get to read everything he wrote on theology, Christianity, and the likes. Regardless of your actual faith or lack thereof, you will find this book (or these books) worth your while. If you're interested in such things, please do yourself a favour and purchase those profoundly marvelous books.

In this classic by C.S. Lewis, the writer's brilliance really shows. Aside from his somewhat speculative approach to applying Eden to evolution and the way he treated Heaven and Hell as the final destinations rather than resurrection with New Heavens/New Earth, this book is excellent. I was inspired, challenged and strengthened by the reading, and will certainly read it again sometime down the road.

According to the Author, Lewis took up the daunting task of trying to understand why pain exists if a good God exists too on a suggestion from a colleague. He notes in the book that figuring the problem of pain out started out as a duty, then quickly became an immense pleasure. Reading the book may give the reader the same progression of feelings. One may feel the urge to confront the deep question of pain and how that impacts one's faith is an obligation to be met grudgingly against one's will. However, while delving into the work, one will find it extremely pleasurable as the author reveals that there really isn't a problem of pain. The question eventually evolves from why, in a world created by a good and all-powerful God, is there pain and suffering to why, in some instances, is there a lack of pain.

Lewis illustrates his resolution of this problem eloquently and sufficiently, though concisely. The book could be much longer and still not fulfill every but, though, or what if created by these major life concepts.

I recommend "Mere Christianity" over this book, but suggest that this is a great supplement. While some ideas overlap, there is much to be learned by each book.

According to the Author, Lewis took up the daunting task of trying to understand why pain exists if a good God exists too on a suggestion from a colleague. He notes in the book that figuring the problem of pain out started out as a duty, then quickly became an immense pleasure. Reading the book may give the reader the same progression of feelings. One may feel the urge to confront the deep question of pain and how that impacts one's faith is an obligation to be met grudgingly against one's will. However, while delving into the work, one will find it extremely pleasurable as the author reveals that there really isn't a problem of pain. The question eventually evolves from why, in a world created by a good and all-powerful God, is there pain and suffering to why, in some instances, is there a lack of pain.

Lewis illustrates his resolution of this problem eloquently and sufficiently, though concisely. The book could be much longer and still not fulfill every but, though, or what if created by these major life concepts.

I recommend "Mere Christianity" over this book, but suggest that this is a great supplement. While some ideas overlap, there is much to be learned by each book.

"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" - p. 91.

The problem of pain or our objection to its existence as CS Lewis emphasized, in parallel, can be summarized by the word of Epicurus, a first century philosopher, "Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to; or he cannot and does not want to. If he wants to, but he cannot, he is impotent. If he can, and does not want to, he is wicked. But, if God both can and wants to abolish evil, then how comes evil in the world?" The problem statement seem to bring a contradiction in God's attribute of Omnipotence and Love in solving the problem of pain/evil (there is a reason I use pain/evil term correspondingly) which is CS Lewis first tackled in this book.

The trick question which is often brought up regarding God's omnipotence is going like this, `Can God create a stone that He can not lift?' is like asking, `Can God be a No-God or un-Godlike?' As CS Lewis put it, "This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it', you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combination of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them to other words `God can'" (p. 18). In the end, "not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God". (p.18)

And then came the second problem (or so it seem we make a fuss and problem about it), any consideration of the goodness of God at once threatened us with the following dilemma. "On the one hand, if God is wiser than we His judgment must differ from ours on many things, and not least on good and evil. What seems to us good may therefore not be good in His eyes, and what seems to us evil may not be evil. On the other hand, if God's moral judgment differs from ours so that our `black' may be His `white', we can mean nothing by calling Him good". (p. 28). The point is our conceptions of the Divine goodness which tend to dominate our thought though seldom expressed, are open to criticism. Or is it what we thought of God's goodness is like we want the heaven but we do not want God in it, if God comply with that demand then He is a good God.

If we can come to term with....well the above terms then we can talk the problem of pain/evil reasonably and objectively (as objective as a human can be) as CS Lewis proceeded with the rest of the book. The book does not present an essay of problem of pain for practical application. It is in the realm of our mind that we perceive pain as a problem and it is in this realm CS Lewis quenching our intellectual curiosity of such perceived problem. For practical application (as in emotionally), I suggest Where is God when it Hurts? by Philip Yancey.

`What are you asking God to do? To wipe out their past sins and, at all costs to give them a fresh start, smoothing every difficulty and offering every miraculous help? But he has done so, on Calvary. To forgive them? They will not be forgiven. To leave them alone? Alas, I am afraid that is what He does. - p. 130

What is truly amazing is the timeless nature of C.S. Lewis' work. The Problem of Pain was written decades ago yet is still just as pertinent as the day it was written. The Problem of Pain, not unlike Mere Christianity, reveals concepts that are not always the easiest to wrap one's mind around in such a light as to allow the reader to feel as if they have been studying the issue for years. With a little help from some poignant imagery, Lewis manages to depict unfathomable concepts in a very human manner. It is with his literary gift that C.S. Lewis, once again, passes on a glimpse of deeper understanding to the laypeople of the world.

The Problem of Pain is written about exactly what the title suggests. How could a loving and merciful God allow so much pain to occur in a world that He created? This, of course, is not an unfamiliar topic of debate for Christians and atheists alike. It appears that Lewis realized the popularity of this question and, as such, touched on questions that are raised from both sides of the fence. As exquisitely as Lewis transfers his logical reasoning onto paper he still, throughout the book, maintains his humble demeanor by giving credit to what, he considers, true theologians.

I have seen it written that this book is only relevant to Christian believers, yet as a recent convert, I would have to disagree. While it would certainly provide some bearing to have done some reading on similar topics before reading The Problem of Pain, the manner in which Lewis vividly explains his thoughts creates relevance for any reader who has ever wondered why pain exists and if there is a God, what sort of being would establish such a thing. In my opinion, Lewis has created another beautiful masterpiece in The Problem of Pain and has provided me with, at least, a general idea to answer one of the hardest questions I have ever asked. This book is a must for any Christian and just might offer some insight for those who have not quite made up their minds yet.

Probably less appealing (than, say, Mere Christianity) because Lewis is needing to be more "lateral" here, more horizontal, more earthbound. There is nothing merely inspirational about his book, in other words, since it is taking as its subject a pretty serious philosophical problem.

I'm not a hundred percent on board with reviewers who insist that one must be a Christian to appreciate this book. But an openmindedness to thoughts about a deity, and some grasp that humility and submission can be good things, that one can learn from them, are probably essential qualities to bring to this reading. No proud atheist will be satisfied by these arguments.

For my money, Lewis is at his best here when speculating about the afterlife. His subjective version of heaven, as a place where personal joys are extended and sustained, is so much more appealing than centuries of talk about streets of gold, or harps and clouds. He has a way of making heaven meaningful, a place you'd like to be.

I relly Enjoy C.S Lewis, This book helped me realize in the logical sence that God Does love me, even though I have Pain.
Great Book, I relly Enjoyed reading it.

This is one of Lewis's landmark books that should be read by anyone who ever has difficulty of coming to terms with a loving God who allows/initiates pain in the lives of the ones He loves

Needless to say, this book does a wonderful job of shifting the perspective off of pain as something that hurts us and has absolutely no value whatsoever to the reality that we experience pain for a reason. Physically, we experience pain in order to prevent us from repeating a mistake. Like the example of leaving your hand on a hot pan; the heat and pain you experience is your body's way of telling you that if you leave it there longer it might result in irreparable harm. Thus, what value might emotional or spiritual pain have for us as well? This is where Lewis examines thoroughly.

I love the fact that despite proving a very rational and profound point about pain that Lewis, still, basically says that some pain...just hurts, which is life. But that there is always an opportunity for growth whenever, if not because, pain is present in our lives.

This can honestly open up your eyes and possibly shift your thinking or way of seeing things if you really read it as it is intended to be read. Though, Lewis is one of those writers that you either get or don't get.

Much like J.G. Marking's "A Voice Is Calling," however much you put into this book is how much you will get out of it because the sheer depth and power of "Problem of Pain" is in its intimacy with the reader and its ability to express a cathartic exhale for the reader.

With his influence on new, contemporary writers, many of which draw comparisons to Lewis because of style or ability, see J.G. Marking above, it is not difficult to see why Lewis was labeled as the most influential thinker/writer of the 20th century and why he will continue into the 21st as well.

Sometimes there are just things that we'd just as soon avoid. Pain can probably be one of those subjects. Take the advice of the spotlight reviewer, because if you aren't a Christian, then you aren't who Lewis is talking to. No offense to ANYBODY, but that's just the simple truth. I think only C.S. Lewis could make sense out of something such as pain. How could he pull stuff like this off? Like he always does, and he certainly does it better than I do! What's this about? Read on.

In classic Lewis form, he concludes his "Introductory" (which is the title of the first chapter) by saying, "If, on such grounds, or on better ones, we follow the course on which humanity has been led, and become Christians, we then have the 'problem' of pain." I guess that's a good thing, right? Uh, yeah. Hey, if we know about how God molds our lives, the Great Potter has to shape us as clay, and He has to chip away at the rough edges in order to have that perfect creation in the end. The thing you can't exactly get around in this is that there are no easy answers. You ever hear somebody say, "Either you're a Christian, or you're not. Either you are for Jesus Christ, or against Jesus Christ."? That's not an easy answer, its reality because there is no Purgatory! Like it or not, you better believe it. I've never known Lewis to offer the easy answer, and in this case, it shouldn't be watered down. And for an added bonus, (at least I saw this a few times) he basically blows that whole Evolution theory right out of the water with some of this! I'm thinking to myself, "Hey Darwin! EVO-WHAT?!!?" I do believe that with a lot this, despite the subject, that Lewis had a lot of fun with this work. He was also very down to earth. There is pain in this life, and if you think that it is just some carnival where you always get hot dogs, cotton candy and carmel apples... THINK AGAIN! Sometimes life just plain sucks, and sometimes it just gets plain tough. But there's more to this, as there always is to Lewis. There was chapter on Hell, straight up and to the point. Basically, just mark it down that there IS a Hell, and we really don't want to go there. A few of his other remarks in that chapter threw me for a loop at first, and made perfect sense in the end. And hey, what would a book with a chapter on Hell be if it weren't followed up (and ends the book) with a chapter on Heaven! Hey, that's awesome!

Hey, if you don't want to read about The Fall, human pain, or even about human wickedness, then go find Dr. Suess and read about how people fight about buttering bread. If you are looking for something real, and we ALL have it, people, then give this a shot. Because as far as I'm concerned, there's no problem with C.S. Lewis!

Sometimes there are just things that we'd just as soon avoid. Pain can probably be one of those subjects. Take the advice of the spotlight reviewer, because if you aren't a Christian, then you aren't who Lewis is talking to. No offense to ANYBODY, but that's just the simple truth. I think only C.S. Lewis could make sense out of something such as pain. How could he pull stuff like this off? Like he always does, and he certainly does it better than I do! Sometimes I wonder if my reviews of Lewis make any sense, but read on!

In classic Lewis form, he concludes his "Introductory" (which is the title of the first chapter) by saying, "If, on such grounds, or on better ones, we follow the course on which humanity has been led, and become Christians, we then have the 'problem' of pain." I guess that's a good thing, right? Uh, yeah. Hey, if we know about how God molds our lives, the Great Potter has to shape us as clay, and He has to chip away at the rough edges in order to have that perfect creation in the end. The thing you can't exactly get around in this is that there are no easy answers. You ever hear somebody say, "Either you're a Christian, or you're not. Either you are for Jesus Christ, or against Jesus Christ."? That's not an easy answer, its reality because there is no Purgatory! Like it or not, you better believe it. I've never known Lewis to offer the easy answer, and in this case, it shouldn't be watered down. And for an added bonus, (at least I saw this a few times) he basically blows that whole Evolution theory right out of the water with some of this! I'm thinking to myself, "Hey Darwin! EVO-WHAT?!!?" I do believe that with a lot this, despite the subject, that Lewis had a lot of fun with this work. He was also very down to earth. There was chapter on Hell, straight up and to the point. Basically, just mark it down that there IS a Hell, and we really don't want to go there. A few of his other remarks in that chapter threw me for a loop at first, and made perfect sense in the end. And hey, what would a book with a chapter on Hell be if it weren't followed up (and ends the book) with a chapter on Heaven! Hey, that's awesome!

Hey, if you don't want to read about The Fall, human pain, or even about human wickedness, then go find Dr. Suess and read about how people fight about buttering bread. If you are looking for something real, and we ALL have it, people, then give this a shot. Because as far as I'm concerned, there's no problem with C.S. Lewis!

Of all the C.S. Lewis books I've read, so far, this one is by far the most philisophical. There is much meat here and much to chew on and think about (almost too much). Each sentence has something profound to think about and ponder over. C.S. has a tenancy to drift from one thought to the next, much like G.K. Chesterton did in his books. This makes following the book a little bit difficult. Still, that is the mark of a book of substance in my opinion. It means I'll be able to pick it up and read it over and over and over again and learn something new from it with each reading. How many books can you say this about? Not too many.
The painful longings we experience in this life go unfulfilled because we are obviously not made for this life. Every time we try to fill those longings or comfort our pains, be it with something or someone, we always end up feeling very unsatisfied in the end. Therefore, it goes to say that our experience of pain and longing in this life is so that we may know *REAL* joy and pleasure in the next. And more importantly, to have a much greater appreciation for it! That is why we must exibit courage in this life.
That we each have a special place for us in heaven is a given. As C.S. Lewis puts it, "...we are like a key, cut in a certain way, that is casting about for its missing and matching padlock".
However, one must allow God to have his good way so that we may realize this ultimate union of key to padlock or man to heaven. And ignoring or leaving God out of the picture is not the way to go about doing it.

It is works like this that will have C.S. Lewis ranked, in the future, with thinkers like Augustine and Aquinas. The book is very "readable" but must be re-read over and over to start to get a hold of the momentous implications of the ideas he is proposing. Do the work to try and comprehend the message and you will be rewarded with a far greater sense of personal peace in this suffering world. Changed my life 14 years ago. Changing my life again as I read it now.

This book was a fantastic read.Even though sometimes Lewis' intellect outruns mine and I have to back up and reread a few paragraphs,I found this book to be invaluable in equipping one to answer the question of pain and a loving God.The tone of the book,while very intelligent,never comes across condescendingly,and maintains a humility throughout.


Marina Kushner
Author
The Truth About Caffeine: How Companies That Promote It Deceive Us and What We Can Do about It

This book is a well-reasoned and beautifully-written explanation of the nature of God; the nature of humans and the role of pain and suffering in the relationship between God and humans. Although it lacks feeling, this is not a flaw. Its purpose is to touch the mind, not the heart. And this C.S. Lewis does brilliantly.

Lewis' begins by giving us a context on the nature of both God and humans. In brief, he says that what we know as "human" is not really human at all--at least not the "human" God originally intended. And that's because of sin. According to Lewis: ". . . it was the emergence of a new kind of man--a new species, never made by God, had sinned itself into existence." (p. 79)

And it's not just human nature that's been corrupted; it's our entire reality. "My own experience," writes Lewis, "is something like this. I am progressing along the path of life in my ordinary contentedly fallen and godless condition, absorbed in a merry meeting with my friends for the morrow or a bit of work that tickles my vanity today, a holiday or a new book, when suddenly a stab of abdominal pain that threatens serious disease, or a headline in the newspapers that threatens us all with destruction, sends this whole pack of cards tumbling down." (p.106)

The end result? God uses pain to make us fully human and jolt us into reality.

"The Problem of Pain" is an excellent book to uncover the intellectual underpinnings of these topics and their relation to us; however, if you are seeking emotional comfort in your pain, this book is not for you.

Sandra Eggers
Author
"Dying Body, Growing Faith"

This was a very good overview of the problem of evil and how to respond to it from a Christian viewpoint. Lewis does quite well in most of his chapters making solid Christian points. Yet he loses me in his chapter entitled "Animal Pain" wherein he SEEMS to identify that some animals have not only sentience but a sufficient amount of conciousness to almost be considered moral beings. He then describes a version of animal "heaven" wherein tame animals are incorporated into their masters as we are incorporated into God. Strange stuff indeed.

Besides this though, the book is quite splendid, with a great explanation of God's omnipotence and His omnibenevolence.

Since God is Infinite Goodness, we must conclude that the appearance of reckless divine cruelty is a delusion. When we are comfortable, we are too shallow-minded to realize that we need God. Since God knows that He is the only thing that we really need, He inflicts pain upon us to wake us up to this fact. So pain is God's megaphone. If some people, such as the Jews, try to love God without going through Christ, it is not yet God - merely the best approximation their fantasy can attain. Hence poor God is forced to keep screeching at them through His megaphone. But even people who try their hardest to love the true God, such as Job, or C. S. Lewis for that matter, cannot adore God as much as He wants to be adored, so He uses pain over and over again to "plant the flag of truth within their rebellious souls."

Where does this notion of an Infinitely Good God come from? Given mankind's painful existence, "an inference from the course of events in this world to the Goodness and Wisdom of the Creator would be preposterous." God had to reveal Himself to mankind by Revelation; thus it is in the likes of Abraham and Moses, who identified God as righteous, that all peoples are blessed. Lewis informs us that God expostulated with His own creatures on the basis of their own ethical conceptions - "What iniquity have your fathers found in me, that they are gone far from me?" One has to wonder if Lewis has ever actually read the Bible. Can anyone really deny that if a leader of today did exactly the sorts of things that Abraham and Moses did that they would be decried by all of sane mankind as monsters? I have never understood why, or how, I am supposed to pretend that this is not true. Of course, God is wiser than me, so if I could only see it from God's viewpoint, I would see that the butchery of whole populations, including babies and animals, was actually an act of love. In MERE CHRISTIANITY Lewis condemns this line of reasoning in eastern religions as "damn nonsense." Undoubtedly, we get the impression of a just and loving God through the teachings of Christ, but the conviction that God is Infinite Goodness, Omniscience, and Omnipotence did not come from biblical revelation; it was developed by medieval Christian philosophers by reasoning through extrapolation -- a process that Lewis, rather inexplicably, deems impossible.

Lewis's insistence that people have free will needs to be examined. Even as he describes it, since we are born in sin, we cannot use free will to avoid sin, and most people are blind to their sin. Hence, it logically follows that there can be no free will without the ability of self-perception. The evidence suggests that incessant pain, especially when inflicted upon children, destroys this ability. Abused children typically grow up to be abusers. In my own case, I adamantly insist it was the drug, marijuana, which first gave me introspective ability, at the age of