The Problem of Pain

• #25 in Best csharp Programming Books

113 Reviews

Sort by: Most Helpful ▲ Date Rating

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.
[Update: As an aftereffect of replying to comments on the original review, I'd like to make the following clarification: Lewis would seem to deal with the issue of why moral innocents suffer by declaring that there are no moral innocents, in that even children daily commit a sin due to their "choosing" of self over God. Only an apologist desperate to pull together the incompatible strands of his theology could claim that infants are capable of making that sort of freely willed moral choice.]

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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".

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

Lewis's preface to his "Problem of Pain" is a train-wreck and it put me off him forever.

Only palatable once rendered a game of rhetorical and scientific whack-a-mole, you will find a steady precession of sloppy thinking from page one:

*Opening quote supports the opposing position, made by a thinker known for theological sophistry.

*Appeal to authority of dubious honesty. It is doubtful C.S. Lewis was ever more than agnostic, and not a very thoughtful one at that, in fact he seems to have been made out of straw.

*He claims he thought the universe was completely dark. This is certainly false.

*He claims he thought that the universe is "unimaginably cold". The universe is 3K. That is a very easily comprehensible number, especially when compared to absolute hot (Planck temperature).

*Claims that celestial bodies are 'few'. This is mind numbingly stupid. He seems stunned that things might have a little space in between them.

*Claims that few places support life, perhaps only Earth. We have discovered hundreds of planets and even by cautious estimates the Universe is boiling with life, some of it sentient.

*Thinks in terms of millions of years. Cute.

*States consciousness is necessary to feel pain. This is not obvious, and he does not try to justify himself.

At this point I threw the book down in disgust and did not return to it. He's not worth your time.

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.

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.

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.

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 23. Prior to that moment, God knows that I had no free will. Free will is not a realized trait that we are born with, but a potential ability that requires a great deal of effort to develop. In most people it remains largely dormant. Since free will is dependent on self-knowledge, the role of religion needs to be the development of introspective ability. Dogmatic adherence can only hinder this.

Lewis is at least honest enough to acknowledge evolution. Unfortunately, it is hardly possible to reconcile the notion of evolution of man from animals with his fairy-tale notion that animals only exist by destroying each other because they were corrupted by Satan before man's appearance on Earth. Somehow, the perfectly good "Paradisal Man" descended from animals already corrupted by Satan. Lewis can be abominably silly sometimes.

Lewis is given to disjunctive, either/or, logic. Either the common human experience of supernatural awe is a mere twist in the mind with no biological purpose, or it is direct experience of the supernatural - a Revelation. I would once have scoffed at this, but a Numinous vision of Christ was the major turning point of my life. The problem is that this Revelation was not at all consistent with Mere Christianity. According to Lewis, the purpose of pain is to break our will, since it is our tarnished wills that keep us from God. I had only recently come to realize that I had not had free will until my sense of self was awakened by an illegal drug. I experienced Christ in the very moment that I was cursing Christ for demanding that I beg forgiveness for that which He was responsible. Albeit, at the time I was an atheist, and was only cursing at what I had been taught about Christ. I experienced Christ as the core of my being, not as an entity completely separate from myself, and as an awakening of will, not a surrender. Lewis assures me that the feeling of being one with God, rather than a creature of God, is Satan's ultimate deception. But I have also experienced Satan within myself. If Christ were not the core of my being, I would never have survived Satan. I know the difference. I do not acknowledge that Christianity has the authority tell me what my experience of God must be.

I am a scientist by training, not given to superstitious credulity, however much like it what I have written above must sound. In my attempt to make sense of my experience of Christ and Satan battling within my mind, I have come up with the following myth: It is, at least, not completely unreasonable to assume that consciousness is an inherent quality of existence. This consciousness would first be in a primordial state, probably in some way responsible for evolution, though not by anything like intelligent design by direct control. There could be no distinction between good and evil; in fact the terms could have no meaning, until consciousness evolved to a complexity capable of self-awareness. As self-awareness developed, so did awareness of pain and terror, and a rebellion against achieving a level of awareness capable of experiencing pain. The human mind, as the vessel of consciousness experiences these antagonistic trends and, for whatever reason, tends to personify them as God and Satan, or their various cultural equivalents. What makes the Christian God so detestable is His complete refusal to accept responsibility for anything. Satan can therefore be described as "God's self-ignorance." Buddhists are apparently able to put themselves into the conscious state of inanimate matter, hence there insistence that good and evil are identical. C. S. Lewis tells us that "it is not God's purpose that we should go back into that old identity." I think I agree with him on this point. Mankind's goal must be to attain free will be becoming conscious of what we really are.
(Peter Payne, author of CAPTAIN CALIFORNIA: A YOUNG MAN'S ENCOUNTER WITH THE EVIL WITHIN HIMSELF)

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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).

"The Problem of Pain," by C.S. Lewis, is a non-fiction work that looks at the title phenomenon in a Christian theological context. The chapters in the book look at human pain, animal pain, divine omnipotence, human wickedness, and other theological/philosophical concepts.

I found "Problem" to be a curious book. Some parts are well-written and thought-provoking, some parts are dull. Some parts just seem self-indulgent and even silly; at its worst the book reads like an eggheaded parody of theology. The chapter on hell is particularly unsatisfying; I found it to sound patronizing and frustratingly vague at times. But the book as a whole is thankfully enlivened by delightful flashes of wit.

Theologically, Lewis seems to be at odds with strict biblical literalism; in chapter 5 he appears to endorse the idea of biological evolution, for example. Despite my reservations, I feel that this is a worthwhile book for both Christians and those of other belief traditions.

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.

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.

I'm not sure I agree with the previous review which states that this book is only for Christians. C.S. Lewis was a real skeptic and agnostic for much of his life and only slowly came to belief in Christ. His writing reflects that struggle with none of the glib self-satisfaction of so many writing "Christian" books. His ideas about pain and how it relates to our ideas about God are not unique to Christians or only applicable in that context. I think this is a book for people who are searching, who don't know what their faith is and how to proceed in the world. This is a book about also ideas. Lewis speaks honestly about his own Christian faith and eloquently about ideas themselves but I don't think his work attempts to force or presuposes that you have reached any conclusions about religion God, life's meaning - infact his argument almost starts from the position of atheism - Lewis is also a great story teller - see Screwtape Letters, Narnia, etc.

I consider this little book on a par with the author's well-known classic Mere Christianity, as it addresses many profound questions that those in search of truth must have grappled with. Lewis was not an academic theologian so he writes for the ordinary person, which makes his words easy to understand. The introduction deals with the 3 elements found in all developed religions: The experience of the Numinous (sense of awe), the Sense of Morality, and the Numinous as the Guardian of Morality. Christianity contains a fourth element: A Redeemer who reconciles fallen mankind to the Righteous God.

The chapter Divine Omnipotence places the problem in context: God's goodness and the problem of suffering. How can a loving God allow this? Here the author discusses the implications of free will and co-existence in a common medium or external world. The next chapter, Divine Goodness, deals with the nature of divine love. Love is sterner and more splendid than mere kindness. Simple happiness in the here and now is not what God has in mind. Love may cause pain but only in order to alter and improve the object of love.

The chapter Human Wickedness looks at the state of the human psyche. Our character is, in its current state, not well. Lewis discusses our problems by examining a set of 8 very prevalent illusions. Following from this, The Fall Of Man investigates the abuse of free will while at the same time refuting Monism and Dualism. He suggests that the fall represented our loss of status as a species, and that a new species had then willed itself into existence. But remedial or corrective good exists even in our present debased state.

The next two chapters deal with Human Pain. When souls become wicked they will use free will to harm one another. The human will becomes truly creative only when it aligns itself with the will of God. Christianity demands that we correct a misdirection of our nature. The author advances 6 propositions that are necessary to complete the understanding of human suffering. The chapter titled Hell addresses the seemingly cruel doctrine of hell. Pain mostly leads to redemption but may unfortunately also lead to unrepentant rebellion. This means that some individuals will ultimately prefer darkness to light. The author also discusses the apparent disproportion between eternal damnation and transitory sin, pointing out that some souls do not want to be forgiven.

The chapter Animal Pain is speculation as Lewis admits, but such fascinating and plausible possibilities are presented here. If you love your pets and animals in general, be sure to read it! It will give you hope and peace of mind as to the mercy and justice of a righteous God. The chapter titled Heaven contains more speculation but of a most awesome, gripping and mind expanding nature. Lewis explores the idea of an eternal special relationship of each individual soul with the Divine Majesty, an eternal dance of joy in splendid diversity. This is not the unconscious nirvana of Pantheism but a condition of maximum distinctiveness of the individual in a higher form reunited with God.

The Appendix is a note on the observed effects of pain, supplied by R Havard, MD, from clinical experience. It includes observations of both physical and mental pain. The Problem Of Pain is filled with compassion and illuminating insight. It is highly instructive and edifying, making a convincing case for the profound meaning of life. In addition, it is the perfect antidote for the hedonism and nihilism that are running rampant in the world today.

Lewis points out that this volume is a defense of the idea of an omnibenevolent God against the 'argument from the existence of pain' and is not conceived as a theodicy. That is, Lewis makes no attempt to separate God from the problem of pain, in fact, apart from certain classic theological ideas, the suffering of 'conscious' beings (humans) cannot be coherently understood as being a "problem" at all. In an atheistically meaningless universe, the concept of suffering is meaningless, thus the awareness of a pain "problem" can only be addressed theologically. Although he modestly suggests that others might offer better theological arguments, it seems that Lewis argues plausibly, rationally and soundly. The following sentences present, generally and briefly, one of Lewis' more famous arguments:
". . . anyone who has watched gluttons shoveling 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 on being attended to. 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) "While what we call 'our own life' remains agreeable we will not surrender it to him. What then can God do in our interests but to make 'our own life' less agreeable to us, and take away the plausible source of false happiness?" (p 94) "How can I say with sufficient tenderness what here needs to be said? It does not matter that I know I must become, in the eyes of every hostile reader, as it were, personally responsible for all the sufferings I try to explain . . . (p 95) " . . . [God] is not proud, He stoops to conquer, He will have us even though we have shown that we . . . come to Him because there is 'nothing better' now to be had." (p 96) "Those who would like the God of Scripture to be more purely ethical, do not know what they ask. If God were a Kantian, who would not have us till we came to him from the purest and best motives, who could be saved? And this illusion of self-sufficiency may be at its strongest in some very honest, kindly, and temperate people, and on such people, therefore, misfortune must fall." (p 96) " . . . but from our present point of view it ought to be clear that the real problem is not why some . . . people suffer, but why some do not. Our Lord Himself, it will be remembered, explained the salvation of those who are fortunate in this world only by referring to the unsearchable omnipotence of God." (p104)
Other problems and arguments are treated, but the approach is not exhaustive. Lewis doesn't intend it to be; he merely wants to address certain obvious questions (and he does this quite ably). As I read this I concurrently read J. C. Polkinghorne's "Quarks, Chaos & Christianity" which addresses the problem of pain as well as the problem of "natural evil" -- as each relate to the concept of freedom. Some say that Polkinghorne thinks as Lewis would have if he had been a quantum physicist; so if you find yourself agreeing with Lewis or at least intrigued by his arguments, I'll suggest you read Polkinghorne as well.

I think it is Lewis' point that this life on planet earth involves a series of good events intersperced with very painfult ones. We start this life with few of its bumps and terrors. [Even embryos can absorb painful events if they survive at all.] God seeks to create man as one with whom He can have companionship so He does not want to control the creation. Man struggles through random events of pain and sorrow but also of beauty and joy. Man develops his own character during the course of his life. In this way God creates man with character by letting man develop it himself but using pain, sorrow, beauty and joy supplied by God's creation. One of the mysteries of the universe is how we can take with us through death the character God wants for his companionship.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.
There are astounding ideas captured in words. For example, in answer to people saying that they couldn't believe in a God who needed our worship, comes a lucid response about how God doesn't need us, but humbles himself for us to relate to. Lewis writes:
"A man no more diminishes God's glory by not worshipping Him, than a lunatic can put out the sun by writing the word "Darkness" on the walls of his cell"

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 book can change the way you view things, if you let it. If you are looking for a book that is relevant now, as it was when it was written, and will be relevant still in 100 years, read this book. And then re-read it often. CS Lewis was ahead of his time...still is. Awesome book.

The Problem of Pain is the first of C.S. Lewis's apologetic works. Having been an athiest(or maybe just a skeptic?) ten years before, Lewis certainly had walked through this problem on his own and in 1940 wanted to help many of his fellow British skeptics through it, too.

The book starts, after a disclaimer on his lack of theological schooling, with an explaination of selves that are distinct from God and a description of the fall of man before tackling human pain. His basic argument is that, while human pain is a result of Adam's Fall, God uses it for our good to A)alert us that something is wrong with the universe and B)to refine Christians into better people. Lewis does admit that while pain can "rouse the bad man to a knowledge that all was not well" it can also "lead to final and unrepented rebellion". He finishes with a very good explaination of Hell,"the doors of hell are locked on the inside" and an equally good chapter on Heaven.

This is a book for those who are struggling with the "idea" of pain; in other words, "If God is so good why does allow people to be in pain and even send some of them to Hell?" But if your question is more concrete, like "Why did God allow my husband to die from a fatal illness?" you will probably find this book to be like salt in a wound. If that's you I would recomend Lewis's other book on pain, A Grief Observed, or Philip Yancy's Where is God when it Hurts. The Problem of Pain is certainly an excellent piece of apologetics, however, and I found it to be very helpful.

This book predates Lewis' _Mere Christianity_ (collected as such, anyway) and the first edition of _Miracles: A Preliminary Study_. It is, in fact, the first 'religious' book he ever wrote, aside from his semi-autobiographical allegory _The Pilgrim's Regress_.

As such, the reader (pro or con) should be prepared to keep in mind a caveat or two. For instance, Lewis rightly notes that pain and evil only become problems for Christianity once certain relevant Christian doctrines have been established (or at least are on the table). In order to be consistent to this precept, Lewis must begin the book by making an argument for the acceptance of some of these doctrines being true.

It is hardly a comprehensive or solid argument, although it is a novel one. It is also one Lewis doesn't seem to have bothered to ever use again--which should alert critics to what his own opinion of its merits ended up being! (This is why I am not bothering to summarize it here; read the book. |g|) The weight of his main argument, however, does not rest strictly on the argument from his Introduction: if on these grounds _or better_, he says (and he had better ones in development), we accept certain truths about Christianity, then the problem of pain arises. And that is what TPoP is about.

This puts TPoP in a curious place among Lewis' books. In effect, it should be read as a sequel to his final, best Christian apologetic (MaPS, the 1960 revised edition): although, again, I don't think any of the TPoP argument necessarily requires (or is thrown out by) the _specific_ arguments of MaPS. This keeps it useful for (most?) other methods of proposing or arguing in favor of Christian doctrines.

(Most, maybe not all. The first time I reviewed this book, I was reminded that any Christian denomination which denies human free will--or is heavily into theistic predestination, which amounts to the same thing in my opinion--is not likely to find this book very useful, since Lewis _does_ rely on the existence of human free will. I accept the qualification; with the further observation that most Christians in most times have accepted and relied upon the existence of human free will--including, in my experience, those who attempt to deny human free will.)

I wish oppositional critics to Christian (or any mono)theism were more familiar with the principles discussed in this book. I believe Lewis is entirely correct to notice, for instance, that the power of an anti-theistic Argument from Evil (not necessarily from Pain, though), requires the presupposed existence of the objective personal ethical source which the anti-theistic argument is attempting to deny.

Still, the book does have some weaknesses (partly due to its early authorship). Lewis mentions that he has grounds for believing God to be good, for instance, yet I don't think he actually presents the best grounds in this book. The closest he comes is, I think, the aforementioned point that if he tries to argue against God's existence and character via the subject of 'evil', he finds he must presuppose the very properties of existence and characteristc which he wished to attack. This is an important point, worth keeping in mind, but isn't a positive argument for those characteristics.

He does mention the Euthyprho dilemma explicitly in a later chapter (although he doesn't credit it to Socrates via Plato here--apologies in advance for possible misspelling |g|); but while he comes down in favor of one side (God is following a standard) he doesn't explain in TPoP why this standard isn't above God.

There _is_ a proper answer to the Euthyphro dilemma (do we say God is good because He holds to a standard? Then the standard is above Him and He is not God. Do we say God is good because He is the most powerful? Then His standard is arbitrary and not objective goodness). And Lewis did touch on it elsewhere (I know ,because I learned it from one of his works--I just don't remember which |g|). However, since he didn't do it in _this_ book (I believe it may be in _Mere Christianity_), it wouldn't be proper to comment on it here.

(He does partly address a somewhat different dilemma, regarding the question of how we could possibly be in a position to perceive God's goodness if His omniscient wisdom is so superior to ours. Again, it isn't the most technically accurate solution, but it does have strong practical value, coming as it does from Lewis' own experience as a former atheist and moral relativist.)

Be that as it may: TPoP does offer considerable resources and principles for springboarding disputes past the typical deadlocks of religio-philosophical debate on this subject. For instance, his discussion of hell is highly worth keeping in mind; as well as his discussion of the implications of omnipotence.

The collection of Lewis essays _God in the Dock_ features a reply from Lewis to some criticisms of the speculative chapter on animal pain.

Not the best place to start if you want to see the strongest logical underpinnings of Christianity (_Miracles: A Preliminary Study_, post-1960 edition, would be the best; _Mere Christianity_ would be the most popular and easiest to digest). However, _The Problem of Pain_ (TPoP) does fully address the most popular theological question of all: if there's a good God, then why do we suffer? The question is deep, and the answers here are logically strong (although any serious sceptic of Christianity will probably rankle at them... go read one of the other two books, first!) This is not a book to read if you've just suffered a personal disaster and want to be comforted (although Lewis himself published the final edition of the book just after his wife's death from bone cancer.) It is, however, an essential book for Christians who want to be forearmed in advance when tragedy strikes: remember that strength of will is an intellectual asset that must be developed unless you're a prodigy, and that our reason is our prime (perhaps only) defense against the overwhelming sorrow of our personal tragedies. Lewis' book places the answers squarely within Christian perceptions, and any ideas in the book should be acceptable to members of any denomination. I'll gladly field any questions or comments (or corrections) at the above address, but take note: hatemail will be immediately deleted (so be polite!), and sceptical non-Christians will probably be referred back to one of the earlier books (which I'll also gladly help out on.) As Lewis himself once wrote, "If I _am_ wrong, then the sooner I find out, the better off I'll be." Just remember it works both ways.

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).

"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

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.

"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

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 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.

Lewis' work audaciously attempts to conquer the issues surrounding the most touchy subject of pain. His boldness pays off, as he presents a clear view of the place of pain with respect to God and man.

The greatest strength in this work is the fact that it addresses the place of pain with respect to God first. It discusses those attributes of God such as goodness and omnipotence in such a way that they are ultimately related to the question of the nature and end of pain. This foundation provides a stable foundation for considering the fall and turnaround of redemption with respect to pain in the world and its relationship to Heaven and Hell.

Lewis is well versed in philosophy and theology and presents his considerations in an accessible but also academic fashion. While I have a few qualms about some of his conclusions, they are not enough to utterly "rock the boat" and tip his arguments overboard. There are a few minor points with respect to the character of man as a relational being and the implications thereof for the subject at hand. Nonetheless, I highly suggest this text.

Granted, while I do not quite get into C.S. Lewis' works as I do other Christian authors (A.W. Tozer, Andrew Murray, E.M. Bounds, Charles Spurgeon, Charles Stanley, Chuck Swindoll), The Problem of Pain will challenge you to think of the book's seems to address the age old question - why would a loving God allow suffering in this world? Sometimes I wonder if that is the right question to ask. Perhaps a better question would be - apart from God's grace through Jesus Christ, why should we demand any better treatment in this life than did Jesus? Indeed, as a Christian, since I am identified with Jesus Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection, I have no right to demand that I be spared the pain that is prevalent in this world.

I like Lewis' assertion that perhaps God would not love us any more if we did not experience pain. I submit that the times when I and countless other Christians most experienced God's presence and comfort was during times of pain and trials. Readers will note that Lewis himself experienced the loss of a wife through illness.

Lewis will challenge you to think through why you beleive what you believe and this book is no exception. This is not an easy read and you will have to concentrate on this one! Lewis touches on the following areas in The Problem of Pain:

1. God's Omnipotence
2. Heaven and Hell
3. Human Wickedness and Pain
4. God's Goodness

Read and prepare to think and be challenged! Recommended. Lord have mercy on the scientist who classifies herself as an ex-Christian turned atheist:

1. If you were really a true Christian, then you would not have turned to atheism. If I were to generous to say that you knew about 25% of everything there is know in this world, would you allow the possibility that God exists in the 75% that you do not know?
2. Please consider John 10:10-16 in terms of folks who think they are Christian but in essence really are not.
3. Is it possible that the reason you deny the existence of a literal hell is because deep down in the crevices of your soul, you really do believe there is a hell and just do not like the reality of it?

C.S. Lewis is by far one of the most influencial authors of the 20th century. His book digs deep into tough spiritual questions and analyzes each issue he tackles from all aspects. I recommend this book to anyone who has a lot of questions about God's love. C.S. Lewis shows us all of the aspects of love and the reason for why things are as they are on the earth. His unique analytical skills are certainly something to treasure as you seek to find your way through life.

Lewis does an excellent job of conveying his reasoning for pain's necessary existence, though as other reviewer's have noted, if you have no concept or acceptance in the existence of a God, then this book would seem no more than an inept grouping of essays from yet another of "God's sheep." I had often pondered the thought as to why God allowed such atrocity to exist in the world, but this book did definitely lead me to a greater understanding of why, from God's perspective, that such things must be as they are. Essentially, Lewis says it is for the greater good of mankind and that it proves God's love for us, for pain more often than not drives us closer to the God who so wants our communion, (that same God that we so often neglect to commune with when all is going well) though Lewis does readily admit that at times pain creates feelings of bitterness or resentment towards God.

Lewis does not try to obscure the fact that he probably tolerated pain no better than anyone else. In both the exposition of his vulnerabilities as a person that he makes throughout the book and the scriptural references he uses to back up what he says, Lewis does an outstanding job of conveying the message that God would neither have given us free will nor pain if he did not love us with complete abandon. Definitely recommended reading for any Christian seeking a better understanding as to why hardships must be endured.

The book is pretty good, I guess I was looking for ways to "bolster my resolve" in dealing with chronic, intractable pain. This doesn't address that aspect. More of a societal view of pain and those in pain.

I definitely like the premise of Lewis' book - Christians must be able to explain "The Problem of Pain". Or in other words, given the fact that we belive in a loving God why is there so much pain and suffering in the world. Definitely not an easy task, but a necessary one.

Overall I think that Lewis does an excellent job explaining in a very logical fashion why pain exists, and the purpose that it serves. He covers many difficult facets of this topic in a unique way. I believe that his analogies are very powerful, and well beyond my capability of coming up with this material. I truly appreciate the way he so easily works his way through the material. He was truly gifted by God with a unique apologetic approach.

I agree with a few other reviewers that this book is not without fault. Two sections I did not find to be very good were the chapter on the pain of animals, and some of the chapter about the fall of man. The chapter on animals seems out of place, the one about the fall includes some obscure rambling about the origin of man. Not really Lewis at his best.

Having said that, I still highly recommend this book to any Lewis fan, and definitely any Christian. We need to be able to provide answers to life's difficult questions, and Lewis is a great source of material for supplying the Christian world view.

C.S. Lewis does an awesome job in this book of explaining the problem of pain, which many cite as a reason for denying the existince of God. In this book Lewis takes small things that don't seem to mean much, but then he builds this small concepts up into something much larger, and he creates strong powerful arguments like this, and many of them are things that I wouldn't ever think of.
All in all this book can be farily heavy reading, so read it slowly, even though it is pretty small, and keep in mind there are going to be many times where you will have to read parts of this book multiple times, until you have a firm grasp on the concept that Lewis is laying out.

The only goal of my brief and amateur review is to simply express my unqualified opinion of what the reader should expect to find within the pages of this amazing work of literary art. To quote directly from C.S. Lewis himself "What I am now going to say is merely an opinion of my own without the slightest authority, which I submit to the judgment of better Christians and better scholars than myself." Even worse, Lewis actually was a scholar, and I am not.

As you may suppose from the title, The Problem of Pain is not a lighthearted work designed to keep the passive reader entertained while he waits for a flight, or passes time in the library. It is not meant to be read in one sitting, nor is it meant to be skimmed over for the highlights. There is no point in this book where the reader suddenly realizes that he has already "figured this out", or "gotten what he needs". This book is meant to be read in a quiet, even peaceful, place where your mind can focus on the depth of the material and allow the concepts and theological analyses to sink in completely. It is a book that will cause you, or at least it caused me, to go back and reread paragraphs or entire chapters because you suddenly realized he lost you ten minutes ago. In short, it is much like the second half of "Mere Christianity", it can be a tough read.

Another thing you may infer from the title is that this book may be ideal for someone who is in a season of difficulty or pain in their life right now. In my humble opinion, it is not that kind of book. This material is for those who are seeking a greater understanding of the evil, suffering, and pain in this world. To rethink the Fall of Man and the Doctrine of Original Sin, the effects of the natural world, and ultimately to begin to consider the realities of Heaven and Hell.

It is a tool to be used in the education of a Christian adult who is trying to more deeply understand this fallen world, how we got here, and what lays ahead. To prepare a person to be ready for whatever challenges this broken world may bring. It is not a book to comfort the grieving widow or widower with flowery and fanciful, yet understandably comforting, prayers of strength and fortitude as they struggle with their grief. I see nothing in these pages that would comfort the parent of a sick or dying child, if read from their perspective deep within such unimaginable anguish. It is no good to bolster the foundation and board up the windows after a hurricane. That is the time to pick up pieces and rebuild. This book is for the calm before the storm, it is to set a deeper foundation and ready the steel shutters that allow the house to withstand the forces of the storms of life. It is an essential tool in the mature yet still developing Christians belt to help him more confidently and faithfully face the realities of evil in a world full of fallen men and the ultimate mixed blessing, free will.

The Problem of Pain addresses one of the most difficult objections to Christianity in a very clear and thought provoking way. You may find the tact to be quite direct, and less than gentle, which is precisely why this is not a book for those currently in a painful season. For those people, and in time we shall be one of them, there are far more gentle and consoling books available. One last thought on this, it is also possible that this book is for those who have had great suffering in their past, and are now trying to come to grips with it, and move forward in, or even return to, their walk with Christ. For that application though, be gentle and consider all that I have said before giving this book as a gift to a healing soul.

In summary, I recommend this book to anyone who is seeking to become closer to God by gaining a more clear understanding of His Word, His world and His people. It is for those who seek answers to the difficult questions, whether for their own edification, or to be prepared to defend the Faith when called upon to do so. Jesus Himself said to "...bring you mind", and this book requires you to do just that.
-------------------
Side note: Before he was saved by Christ, C.S. Lewis was an atheist. This is of little importance now because once he was saved he became one of the best and most prolific advocates of Christianity in literary history. In the "introduction" of this book, Lewis gives what had previously been his response to the question, "Why do you not believe in God?". His answer consists of one long paragraph taking a little more than one page of the book. That answer is one of the most difficult passages I have ever read, and far from being a convincing argument for atheism, it gives the reader a very clear example of how truly blessed we are to have our Faith in a loving God. The other option is nothing less than horrific.

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.

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.

Lewis comes in hard and hits at the basis of pain from many aspects. He gives many different points where he forces the reader to put the pieces together and doesn't just give an answer to the problem. Through this he really makes the reader have think and understand by comming to conclutions in their own life and apply it. He shows how pain is really a gift and we don't often understand it. In depth and not to be read lightly. It changed my undertanding of pain, it is a must read. He puts his finger on truths that the church today doesn't often grasp well. Every growing Christian should read this; most people don't really understand pain.

Pain is such a hard subject to ponder and yet that is just what this amazing Christian apologist does! This book is very moving and will move you in ways you didn't dream possible. I cherish this book in my personal library.

The wonderful thing about C.S. Lewis was that he put an amazing amount of thought into his faith. He understood better than most that becoming a Christian meant constantly trying to understand more, to examine both one's self and one's relationship to God. His penetrating intellegence towards Christianity is something that is often lacking in religion, and every time I read Lewis I learn something new, both about myself and my faith. Lewis is a true master. Another author who I'd highly recomend to anyone who enjoys Lewis, one who explores the Christian faith as brilliantly as Lewis, is Brian Caldwell. His novel, We All Fall Down is breathtaking. I'd put him on a par with Lewis, both for writing ability and theological brilliance. His novel is one of the few Christian masterpieces. Both Lewis and Caldwell should be read by those who have discovered God and want to explore that faith as deeply as possible, and perhaps more importantly, by those who have not.

Jack wrote this toward the beginning of WWII, and it was sort of the beginning of quite a bit of attention focused on the problem of suffering. This problem was particularly something that he had to deal with before his conversion to Christianity, so you find a tincture of his theodicy in many of his fictional works.

What is particularly fascinating about this work is the way he used myth to handle the unknowns of Christianity (Eden, Heaven, Hell). When you read this book and all of his books regarding theology, keep in mind that he is not a theologian, as he admits himself. What he writes about suffering is not even how he actually believed it was, it was what could have been.

I suggest reading this work along the side of the Space Trilogy or The Great Divorce. He incorperates much of his own theology presented here with these pieces. I've focused a bit of study on Lewis' handling of suffering, though I'm not a scholar by any stretch. If you would like to read a little I've written on the subject, let me know.

All in all, what Jack wanted to do with this book was to take the reader's mind's eye on a pilgrimage to the gateway of possibilities that lie within God's own imagination. Although we may certainly never be able to totally conceive the mind of the Lord, Lewis does the best he can to take us to the edge of knowing Him as we are known.

Lewis has great talent for explaining difficult concepts. I read this book to help myself understand the pains in my life and found it extremely useful. I also found it helpful in explaining pain to others, especially those who are not Christians. Lewis helped me to see "why do bad things happen to good people" and sparked an interest in me to study Christianity all the more.

This is for me one of Lewis's greatest and most challenging works. The questions he tackles are among the most profound that human beings face, and Lewis approaches them with characteristic logic, sensitivity, and humility. I found myself nodding in agreement time and again, and I marveled at Lewis's ability to get straight down to the heart of the matter. His "solutions" (and he would not call them solutions) are not easy but they are very sensible and true to his faith. I continue to grapple with the issues he raises and find that this book makes more and more sense with the passing of time. That such a little book can contain so much wisdom is testimony to Lewis's genius.

I think this was the first book by Lewis I had exposure to. I was 15 to 16 years old, and I remember not being able to know what I was reading, but falling in love with however it was being said. It was through this book that I came to love not just Lewis, but reading in general. Over time, I became a better reader and this book has had a huge impact on my life.

I shall never forget reading the first couple paragraphs of the chapter on Heaven. I remember reading them over and over again, cherishing how true his longings mirrored my own. I remember pulling aside anyone I could get a hold of and reading this beautiful passage. Almost without fail, whenever I read these passages to others, they are stricken with delight, and touched by that same stab of joy Lewis himself felt all those years ago as a child in Ireland.

As a philosopher major, I can testify to Lewis' philosophical abilities. He is an able philosopher with remarkable philosophical intuitions. He is one of the finest writer of pros I've come across, and his style has made me fall in love with the English language.

As for the content, Lewis probes one of the deepest mysteries in life: the riddle of pain in a Christian universe. And there are no easy answers. Having read Plantinga, van Inwagen, and Alston, though these world-class philosophers do great, I prefer Lewis. There is a tone in Lewis' pros that is almost deliciously Christ-like, a sweet aroma that makes you feel like you're being talked to by someone who isn't here to mock you or make you feel stupid. He is here - as he once said - like a patient in the same hospital, who has been here a little longer, and has learned some tips on how to cope.

His chapter on Animal Pain is the most speculative (as he admits), but his speculations are thought provoking, taking away from the beasts self-consciousness, leaving them with sentience. The logic is that if you take away self-consciousness, the beast can't discern an 'I' which experiences successive states of pain: in other words, there is no 'I' to connect together all the successive pain states.

The Fall entertains Lewis' theory about how the rational faculties - once man disobeyed - sunk beneath the tide of the passions and became subject to them, all within the historical context of biological evolution: once man evolved sufficiently, rational capacities were directly implanted by God, giving us the Adam and Eve of Scripture.

The Chapter on Hell was the most unclear to me, even after the Peter Kreeft commmentary you can find in his books on Heaven. In Hell, the 'I' is abolished, and so there is no unifying 'I' to tie together the various facets of the soul, like a book without a spine, the pages eternally blown away. Time is no longer linear succession or progression - time stops growing in length, and the soul somehow lingers in this eternal final instant where - mysteriously - the soul is destined to linger in time's eternal width. If you imagine time as a line, then eternity in Hell is like a plane; or if you imagine time as a plane, then eternity is like a cube. Just as the plane is a dimension of the cube, time is a dimension of eternity.

As you can see, Lewis' speculations build upon the speculations of past philosophies about these issues. Lewis confesses to be standing on the shoulder's of giants, and when he himself is a titan, we are able to see very far indeed.

The best thing about Lewis is that even if you disagree with him, the presentation is given in a logical order, with clearly written pros, illuminating analogies, and penetrating insights into the human condition.

A must read!

C.S. Lewis is never light reading. He is highly educated and challenges the intellect. Which is good. Especially for a topic such as this.
He explains the age old question - If God is Good, and if God is all powerful, and if God is loving, then why is there pain and suffering in the world?
Lewis starts out presenting the problem. He explains that if there was no God, then there would be no problem. If life is mere chance, then the fact that there is pain would be a non-issue.
So where did we come up with this idea of a good and loving God? Certainly not by looking around us! Pain, suffering and injustice are older than recorded history.
He then proceeds to explain that in a universe where the creatures have free will, there is going to be a chance that one of us its going to hurt someone else. For example, God made wood which can be used for many purposes. It can be used to make fine furniture; or to make a baseball bat which can be used for fun, or can be used to hurt someone else.
This is an excellent book for anyone who wants to be able to explain the problem of pain to themselves, or to those who who are skeptical or searching.

Are evil, suffering, pain, and loss all evidence that God doesn't exist (or if he does, that he is not "good")? The intellectual "giant", CS Lewis, says NO WAY. Although it reads much like a Lewis lecture, a dense argument, it is none the less strong and powerful if you can follow it all the way through. Lewis is a good writer, and presents a very compelling answer to these important questions about humanity and the God of Christianity. If you aren't used to Lewis' writing style, you might have to read it twice to be able to understand the depths of his argument. Otherwise, it is easy to get lose the thesis within the evidence and forget exactly what he is arguing. However, like most of Lewis' writings, it is one you want to read.

For a person who includes "Mere Christianity" in any list of my favorite books (most influential, most often read, etc.), I really haven't read much of C.S. Lewis's other work. I intend to remedy that, having just finished "A Grief Observed" and, more recently, "The Problem of Pain".

As would be expected, the book is full of brilliant insights and Lewis's trademark logic and disarming wit. Consequently, it should be read by just about everyone, although it is probably not the best introduction to the subject for non-Christians.

I held back one star only because Lewis's writings on the origins of sin and mankind are wildly speculative and arbitrary, and are founded on next to nothing. His views on the topic are further clarified in the chapter on animals, but just as I was starting to track with him, he tossed in a little more craziness. One of Lewis's usual strengths is a fresh and unorthodox perspective, but he gets a little out of hand for a stretch. My criticism is not that these portions of the book were not what I expected, but rather that they were not useful.

CS Lewis' observations and thoughts speak to a deeper, inner man. He never fails to spark a meaningful conversation.

C.S. Lewis is a deep thinker and an articulate author, speaking to the hearts of many. This is evidenced by the fact that he has a 90% positive rating, so one more positive review is superfluous. Read the book and decide for yourself. As to some the replies from struggling Christians to the negative reviews, particularly regarding God's reasons for allowing the suffering of "innocents", here is just one of many possible explanations, directly from the His word.

Exodus 20:5 "You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me"

A worldview where the suffering of a child is meaningless is easier for many people to deal with than one where the meaning may be difficult to understand or accept.

I have been reading several of CS Lewis' books lately because I enjoy the way this man of great intellect and faith expresses the major doctrines of Christianity. He has a way of taking very difficult concepts and making them easy for me to understand. This book not only addresses why we have pain, but also explains several related doctrines more clearly than I have seen before.

His discussions on the characteristics of God and his love were presented well. He talks about God having power to do what is intrinsically possible, not the intrinsically impossible. God cannot allow free will and also make sure there is no pain. A loving God does allow pain, just as a loving parent sometimes allows pain to help his child become wiser and stronger. A child that has been totally protected from pain or consequences is spoiled and does not reach his or her potential.

From the above it appears that Lewis does strongly believe in free will, which does make the problem of pain much easier to comprehend. This happens to agree with my feelings on the subject. He also points out that we humans sometimes need pain to remind us of our need for God. I sometimes find myself forgetting to pray as often as I should when things are going smoothly; but I always seem to remember God when things are not going well.

I strongly recommend this book for anyone wanting to understand why God allows pain. I don't agree with all of his arguments, but I thought they all were well presented and it got me thinking.

Even though this book is thin, it took me a long time to make it through the first 3 chapters because there is so much food for thought. Chapter 3 especially changed the way I look at things. This is an important read for anyone who has ever asked "Why me?" or said "It doesn't seem fair". Or even for anyone who wants to experience a level of writing far beyond the normal read. I bought this book and made it through chapter 3 before giving it away to a friend in need, and had to buy a new one because I was desperate to read the rest.

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

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

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.

Hello,
I am searching for answers for my grief. I bought The Problem of Pain and a grief workbook, Write from Your Heart, A Healing Grief Journal,that is helping work my way through this difficult time. In the journal I have the opportunity create a memory book while at the same time I am working through my grief using the daily prompts, Bible verses, and quotes.
It is helping.

While some (including myself) would disagree with Lewis on some parts of the book, the profound insights more than make up for the differences. The chapter on Heaven somehow manages to describe, in clear and flowing prose, the normally indescribable longing of the spirit.

A question which so often plagues us is what Lewis attempts to answer. His examples, as good as they have been in the past, have never been better, cornering us at every position, until we can't help but admit that he was right, even if we don't want to. And, when you read this book, as in so many others of his, you are surprised by the internal joy you feel which makes you never want to lose the memory of even the moment you are in.

If you have the patience to re-read every page a few times, then get started as soon as possible; if not, then read Mere Christianity first to get an understanding of why people love this author so much, and then you'll know why it's worth going over each page several times.

In an earlier review of this work, I noted that the material should be acceptable to any Christian denomination. This is not exactly true, as there are a few denominations which deny the existence of free will... a main staple of Lewis' apologetica. A member of these congregations reading any of Lewis' work will either reject his conclusions, or be convinced by him that free will actually exists in a Christian context (thus probably removing the reader from that congregation.) TPoP does not bother arguing in favor of free will; so members of these congregations will not be likely to get anything useful out of it. (Lewis' best treatment of the free will issue is probably in the 2nd edition of _Miracles: A Preliminary Study_.)

On the related issue of predestination: Lewis uses a modified version of this theory which transcends the limitations of predestination (ie, providing for free will) while concurrently keeping the idea of God as omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. Denominations where predestination is not an issue will find Lewis easy to deal with. Denominations where predestination is definitely an issue will have a tougher time, as Lewis' ideas on the matter are very complicated. As someone who has believed in predestination, I can vouch that Lewis' work keeps the essentials while solving most (perhaps all) of the philosophical problems... it has worked for me.

Finally, Lewis' major work does not largely reflect his Anglicanism; in fact, he caught a lot of heat from some Anglican clergy because of this. M:aPS, MC and TPoP are written from a non-denominational standpoint, which is why I wrote that any denomination will find them useful, and which is what Lewis specifically intended. However, there are very many Christian denominations in the world--every Baptist church, for instance, has the potential to be its own 'denomination' if it wishes--so please take this recommendation as the generalization it was intended to be, not in a rigorous sense.

In the beginning of Saint John's gospel, Philip finds Nathaniel and excitingly tells him, "We have found the [Messiah], Jesus, son of Joseph, from Nazareth!" Nathaniel's obviously less than enthusiastic response was, "Can anything good come from Nazareth?" (Jn 1:45-46). I think if we approached a friend and told that friend, "I have a new richer outlook about pain!" Our friend would most assuredly respond very glumly, "Can anything good come from pain?" Let me qualify that statement! Our friend would reply thus, unless they had read "The Problem of Pain" by C. S. Lewis.

This book is based on the claim and belief that underlies all Lewis' works, and that Nathaniel quickly found out, that something good did come out of Nazareth! With his extraordinarily rare brilliance that mystifies his readers, Lewis takes a subject that does not make sense, cannot be understood, and cannot be readily accepted. Startlingly, we then marvel as his incredible mind begins to make sense of all this, so that we, the reader, can begin to understand, and learn to accept to some degree, certainly in this case, one of the most difficult aspects of life that many people have to face or experience.

Nathaniel did not just swallow what Philip said; but, he accepted the invitation, "Come and see!" We certainly do not have to buy this whole matter blindly. I even propose that we do not even have to read the entire book! We just need to go and see for ourselves. Begin to read the book and see what happens!

I'm a great fan of CS Lewis, and I've been eager to load his books on my Kindle. This one, however, I couldn't even get through. Whoever put the book into Kindle format didn't pay attention to good grammar, and there are apostrophes all over the place. Where it should say "its" you see "it's" and so on. This doesn't happen just a time or two, but many times. Enough that I'm looking into returning the book to Amazon. I don't know if they'll do that, but if it were a physical book, I'd take it back to the store for a refund.

Hopefully Kindle's other CS Lewis books don't have this problem...

This is a very helpful book for those facing and or enduring pain. He gives a needed and unusual perspective on the whole issue of pain and suffering which answers the argument "Why is there pain and suffering if there is a good God?"

What more can be said about C.S. Lewis... indeed!

This book gets off to a slow rambling start as noted in a previous review but gets up to speed about a quarter of the way in. And once you are in the book is VERY mentally engaging (not one of Lewis's lighter books).

Lewis tackles the big question: How can a supposedly loving God allow suffering?

If you haven't asked that question yourself then you are probably too shallow to get into a book like this ;-)

If you haven't been confronted with a question like that from someone else then you need to get out a bit more...

Lewis tackles the big question with intellectual depth. However, some of the most interesting portions of the book come when Lewis allows his fertile and creative mind to speculate. For example, he touches on the pre-history of man before Adam which might be problematic for some but should given a chance...

His short sidebar discussion on the purpose of pain in animals is wild and wacky (almost trippy) stuff that I had never thought about.

His thoughts on hell and damnation are weak. Caution: I believe the final punishment for unrepentant sin is permanent death (or non-being)... so you may want to take me with a grain of salt.

Anyhoo... if you like to have your brain stretched and tickled at the same time you might want to try this one. But I'd recommend you try some of his fiction first. My personal favorite of his fiction is Till We Have Faces: A Myth Retold, then try the more accessible apologetic Mere Christianity.

The Problem of Pain is a bit tougher to chew.

The Problem of Pain seeks to answer one of the most consistently asked questions about the Christian faith: why is there suffering and how is suffering possible in a universe created by a God that claims His goodness. Lewis, in what amounts to a very long essay, not only seeks to answer why pain and suffering are present in this world, but how this most negative of situations can actually be used for good in the lives of individuals facing affliction.

Pain, whether physical or otherwise, is a problem to be explained precisely because things in the world do not seem right. The pain the Lewis addresses most are the pains caused by spiritual separation. While the pain caused by biological processes is bad, Lewis seems to indicate that much of the pain we suffer through is due to our rebellion against God and our inability and failure to achieve peace and happiness.

For those with more modern literary tastes the important thing that Lewis carries away from his speculation is how the origin of pain is absolutely correlated to the dissolution and fall of man. The Biblical narrative's statement that by sin death entered the world is a short, yet profound statement of the origin of pain. By developing his speculative story of the origin of man, Lewis ultimately says that man has refused to communicate with God by natural means, and as a result God has agreed with man and cut man off from natural communication with Himself.
Any issue dealing with pain in the lives of modern believers has to be addressed from two angles. The first is the necessity of encouraging an embattled group of people who are called out by and being changed by their Creator. The second deals with the unique challenges of the modern world where naturalistic and pantheistic tendencies point the believer inward to solve his problems of pain and suffering.

For those in need of encouragement in the midst of suffering, Lewis is quick to point out that pain is often much to be preferred over many types of temporary pleasure. Here Lewis is consistent with much of Protestant thought in that any sort of sanctification is confined to the earthly life of the believer. All pain and suffering that is used as a sanctifying process ends in life, there is no possibility of Purgatory.

The advances of the naturalism and scienticism of the modern world have for the first time led many to believe that pain can be solved successfully apart from the work of God. The generations, since the late 1800's, have believed as truth that men do not need God, and furthermore, that no sort of supernatural intervention will solve pain and suffering. From physicians to political peace brokers, much of the world has developed deep faith in its own ability to solve any natural pain or any pain caused by the suffering of others. The ever-increasing influence of pain and suffering upon modern man can be said to be inversely proportionate to the level that modern man believes he can escape from pain. The great value of The Problem of Pain is that it attempts to remind any who have a sense of arrogance about modern man that pain for them is God shouting above their pride so that they would recognize his sovereignty and His care for them.

This is a helpful book for Christians who wonder about God's permissive and causative will in regard to pain and suffering among people, Christians and non-Christians, and in regard to evil in the world.

Lewis offers intriguing and enlightening discussions that highlight man's limited and finite understanding contrasted with God infinite wisdom and understanding founded upon his unconditional and unlimited love for all people.

Lewis' bottomline rests on the truth that God is good, is love and knows all things. God sees all things in light of eternity and in light of the eternal destinations of heaven and hell. His goal, beyond pain and pleasure, is to have people with him in heaven for eternity. The problem of pain and evil must be seen in light of this reality.

Lewis offers his usual adroit, simply-stated and profound writing and argument.

Craig Stephans, author of Shakespeare On Spirituality: Life-Changing Wisdom from Shakespeare's Plays

C.S. Lewis addresses one of the most difficult issues that we as humans must face in our journey through life! Why "pain"....I could never do justice to his literary work.....I'll suffice it to say that this book holds 'the answers' to anyone's serious inquirey of the Universal Question of "WHY"! A "must read". Dr. Cary Simonds

You don't have to be religious to get something from this book. It is about one of the BIG questions we all have - and C.S. Lewis nails it. How do we mere mortals deal with a perfect God who allows things to be "less than perfect"? This is a good read, short, well written and cogent.The Problem of Pain

C.S. Lewis was a facinating writer. This is a hard read. Lewis challenges us to face and grip pain. Don't read this if you want something light. Read this if you want something more.

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.

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 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!

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.

First Reading-

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.

Second Reading-

The Problem of Pain is one of Lewis' several timeless contributions to Christian apologetics. With regard to the problem of pain in the context of Christian theology, it would be difficult to find a work that approaches the apparent issue with such precision and efficiency. Lewis presents popular questions while offering situational examples for clarity's sake and follows with accurate explanations based upon Christian doctrine. To leave few questions in the reader's mind, Lewis also offers his opinion about animal suffering; although he states within this work and in others that presenting such a question is a distraction from the truth that has been provided and can be known about human suffering. In its entirety, The Problem of Pain clarifies how and why pain and suffering is not a problem that should in any way hamper one's faith while outlining where and how Christian doctrine presents why suffering is a perceivable reality.

The Problem of Pain certainly pertains to its title by tackling the issue head on. Within this work, however, Lewis also decided to dedicate the final chapter to what he believed to be a glimpse of heaven. After presenting his standard disclaimer about his lack of authority on the matter, Lewis justifies the inclusion of this chapter on the grounds that its exclusion would result in the absence of one half of the whole account. This chapter seems to disrupt the established flow, almost to the point of being out of place. Nonetheless, in this short and perhaps unnecessary chapter Lewis might have most clearly conveyed the message he dedicated an entire book to with The Great Divorce, focused on as a key concept in Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life, and mentioned in many other works. As is the case so often in Lewis' writings, it was when he asked the reader for and granted himself permission to speak freely that he presented the concepts that were abstract even in his own mind with the greatest clarity. The Problem of Pain is worth the effort if one struggles with similar questions. However, even if one has little interest in the seemingly problematic nature of pain in Creation, the last chapter alone is worth the purchase price.

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!

In the Problem of Pain Lewis tackles a question that has morally plagued society for centuries, "Why does bad things happen to good people?"
Lewis using his logic to answer this question rewrites alot of things modern man thinks he already knows!
He does a fine job of answering this question, and explaining why a loving God would allow people to suffer, though the first few chapters come accross wordy, and the obviousness that Lewis wasn't up for the battle of this book is prevelant in the first chapter.

Reading anything by C.S. Lewis is an uplifting experience because it gives one a chance to witness a great intellect at work. In this book he explains why there is pain in the world in spite of a loving and all-powerful God. C.S. Lewis can be very helpful to anyone who is seriously seeking Christ and answers to some of the biggest questions.

Hello,
I am searching for answers for my grief. I bought The Problem of Pain and a grief workbook, Write from Your Heart, A Healing Grief Journal,that is helping work my way through this difficult time. In the journal I have the opportunity create a memory book while at the same time I am working through my grief using the daily prompts, Bible verses, and quotes.
It is helping.