El Problema del Dolor

Por C. S. Lewis

¿Por qué debemos sufrir? ""Si Dios es bueno y todopoderoso, ¿por qué permite que suscriaturas sufran?"" ¿Y qué del sufrimiento de los animales, quienes ni se merecen el dolor ni pueden mejorarse por medio de él? C. S. Lewis, el más importante pensador cristiano de nuestros tiempos, se propone aclarar este tema espinoso en este libro. Con su estilo conocido, su profunda compasión y su extenso entendimiento, el autor ofrece respuestas a estas cruciales preguntas, y comparte su esperanza y su conocimiento para ayudar a sanar a un mundo hambriento por el verdadero entendimiento de la naturaleza humana.

• Idioma: Español
• Editorial: HarperCollins
• Fecha de lanzamiento: 29 abr 2014
• ISBN: 9780062346964

C. S. Lewis

Clive Staples Lewis (1898-1963) was one of the intellectual giants of the twentieth century and arguably one of the most influential writers of his day. He was a Fellow and Tutor in English Literature at Oxford University until 1954, when he was unanimously elected to the Chair of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge University, a position he held until his retirement. He wrote more than thirty books, allowing him to reach a vast audience, and his works continue to attract thousands of new readers every year. His most distinguished and popular accomplishments include Out of the Silent Planet, The Great Divorce, The Screwtape Letters, and the universally acknowledged classics The Chronicles of Narnia. To date, the Narnia books have sold over 100 million copies and have been transformed into three major motion pictures. Clive Staples Lewis (1898-1963) fue uno de los intelectuales más importantes del siglo veinte y podría decirse que fue el escritor cristiano más influyente de su tiempo. Fue profesor particular de literatura inglesa y miembro de la junta de gobierno en la Universidad Oxford hasta 1954, cuando fue nombrado profesor de literatura medieval y renacentista en la Universidad Cambridge, cargo que desempeñó hasta que se jubiló. Sus contribuciones a la crítica literaria, literatura infantil, literatura fantástica y teología popular le trajeron fama y aclamación a nivel internacional. C. S. Lewis escribió más de treinta libros, lo cual le permitió alcanzar una enorme audiencia, y sus obras aún atraen a miles de nuevos lectores cada año. Sus más distinguidas y populares obras incluyen Las Crónicas de Narnia, Los Cuatro Amores, Cartas del Diablo a Su Sobrino y Mero Cristianismo.

Vista previa del libro

I. INTRODUCCIÓN

Yo admiro con qué osadía esas personas se determinan a hablar de Dios. Al dirigir sus discursos a los impíos, su primer capítulo es probar la divinidad por las obras de la naturaleza… [esto] es darles motivo para creer que las pruebas de nuestra religión son bien débiles…Es admirable que jamás un autor canónico se haya servido de la naturaleza para la prueba de Dios.

PASCAL. Pensamientos, II, 366; I, 6.

Cuando era ateo, no hace muchos años, si alguien me hubiese preguntado, ¿por qué no cree en Dios?, mi respuesta habría sido más o menos la siguiente: "Observe el universo en que vivimos. Es en su mayor parte un espacio vacío, completamente oscuro e increíblemente frío. Los cuerpos que se mueven en él son tan pocos y pequeños en comparación con el espacio mismo que, aun si supiéramos que cada uno de ellos está repleto de creaturas perfectamente felices, sería difícil creer que la vida y la felicidad fueran algo más que un mero subproducto para el poder que creó el universo. Sin embargo, tal como se ve, los científicos creen probable que muy pocos soles, quizá ninguno a excepción del nuestro, tengan planetas; y, en nuestro sistema solar, es muy poco factible que exista vida en algún planeta que no sea la Tierra. La Tierra ya existía millones de años antes que hubiese vida en ella, y puede existir millones más, una vez que ésta desaparezca. Y, ¿cómo es la vida mientras dura? Se da de un modo tal, que todas sus formas pueden vivir solamente mediante la depredación. En las formas inferiores este proceso sólo implica muerte; pero, en las formas superiores se manifiesta una cualidad diferente, llamada conciencia, que les permite llevarlo a efecto con dolor. Las creaturas producen dolor al nacer, viven causando dolor y, en su mayoría, mueren con dolor. En la creatura más compleja de todas, el hombre, se manifiesta, aun, otra cualidad, que llamamos razón, que le permite prever su propio dolor —que es precedido por un agudo sufrimiento intelectual—, como también prever su propia muerte, aun cuando ansíe fervientemente seguir viviendo. La razón también permite a los hombres, mediante un centenar de maquinaciones ingeniosas, infligir muchísimo más dolor del que sin ella podrían haberse causado unos a otros y a las creaturas irracionales. El hombre ha ejercido este poder al máximo; su historia es en gran parte un archivo de crímenes, guerras, enfermedades y terror, con suficientes dosis de felicidad como para producirle, mientras dura, un angustioso temor a perderla y, una vez que se ha perdido, la terrible desgracia de recordar. De vez en cuando, el hombre mejora su condición y aparece aquello que llamamos civilización. Sin embargo, todas las civilizaciones desaparecen e, incluso mientras duran, producen suficientes sufrimientos que le son propios y que, probablemente, exceden el alivio que pueda haber traído consigo a los sufrimientos normales del hombre. Que nuestra civilización haya hecho esto, no puede discutirse; que morirá al igual que todas las anteriores, es seguramente probable. Incluso, si no fuera así, ¿qué pasaría? La raza está condenada. Toda raza que nace a la vida, en cualquier lugar del universo, está condenada; ya que, según se dice, el universo se está debilitando y será algún día un infinito uniforme de materia homogénea a baja temperatura. Todo terminará en nada: al final toda vida resultará haber sido una mueca transitoria y sin sentido de la faz necia de la materia infinita. Si me pide que crea que esto es obra de un espíritu benévolo y omnipotente, mi respuesta es que toda evidencia apunta en sentido opuesto: o a éste el bien y el mal le son indiferentes, o se trata de un espíritu maligno".

Hubo un asunto que jamás se me ocurrió plantearme. Nunca me di cuenta que la misma fuerza y facilidad de la postura pesimista nos presenta un problema en forma inmediata. Si el universo es tan malo, o aun medianamente malo, ¿cómo explicarse el que a los seres humanos se les ocurriera atribuirlo a un creador sabio y bueno? Puede que los hombres sean necios, pero no tanto como para llegar a eso. El inferir en forma directa del negro al blanco, de la flor ponzoñosa a la raíz virtuosa, de la obra sin sentido a un artífice infinitamente sabio, desequilibra la fe. El espectáculo del universo, tal como lo revela la experiencia, jamás puede haber sido el fundamento de la religión; siempre debe haber sido algo, a pesar de lo cual la religión, adquirida de una fuente diferente, se conservó.

Sería un error argumentar que nuestros antepasados eran ignorantes y, por ende, abrigaban ilusiones placenteras respecto a la naturaleza, ilusiones que han sido descartadas por el progreso de la ciencia. Durante siglos, en que todos los hombres eran creyentes, el espeluznante tamaño y la vacuidad del universo eran ya conocidos. En algunos libros se encontrará con que el hombre de la Edad Media pensaba que la Tierra era plana y que las estrellas estaban cercanas, pero eso es falso. Tolomeo ya había dicho que la Tierra era un simple punto matemático en relación a la distancia de las estrellas fijas, distancia que un texto popular medieval calcula en 117 millones de millas. Y, en tiempos aún más remotos, incluso desde un comienzo, el hombre debe haber experimentado, frente a algo mucho más evidente, la misma sensación de hostil inmensidad. Para el hombre prehistórico, el bosque vecino debe haber sido infinito, y aquello completamente extraño y hostil que sentimos al pensar en rayos cósmicos y soles en proceso de enfriamiento, husmeaba y aullaba noche a noche a su puerta. Sin lugar a dudas, el dolor y el desperdicio de la vida humana han sido algo obvio en toda época. Nuestra propia religión comienza entre los judíos, un pueblo oprimido por grandes imperios guerreros, continuamente derrotado y sometido a cautiverio, familiarizado como Polonia y Armenia con la trágica historia del conquistado. Incluir el dolor entre los descubrimientos de la ciencia es una simple tontería. Deje este libro por unos minutos y reflexione sobre lo siguiente: todas las religiones fueron predicadas y practicadas durante largo tiempo en un mundo en que no existía el cloroformo.

Por consiguiente, inferir la bondad y sabiduría del Creador a partir de los acontecimientos de este mundo, habría sido, en toda época, igualmente descabellado; por lo demás, esto no se ha hecho jamás³. La religión tiene un origen diferente. Debo aclarar que mi objetivo principal, en lo que digo a continuación, no es defender la verdad del cristianismo, sino que describir su origen; una tarea, a mi parecer, necesaria si hemos de poner el problema del dolor en su verdadero contexto.

En toda religión desarrollada encontramos tres aspectos o elementos, y en el cristianismo, uno más. El primero es aquello que el profesor Otto denomina la experiencia de lo numinoso. Quienes no conozcan este término, podrán comprenderlo mediante el siguiente ejemplo. Imagínese que le dijeran que hay un tigre en el cuarto contiguo; usted sabría que está en peligro y, probablemente, sentiría miedo. Pero, si le dijeran, hay un fantasma en el cuarto contiguo, y lo creyera, sin lugar a dudas sentiría lo que comúnmente llamamos miedo, pero de un tipo diferente. Éste no se basaría en un conocimiento del peligro, ya que nadie teme lo que un fantasma puede hacerle, sino que al hecho de que sea un fantasma. Es más bien extraño, que peligroso, y la forma especial de miedo que suscita podría llamarse pavor. Mediante lo extraño se llega al umbral de lo numinoso. Ahora, imagínese que le dijeran hay un espíritu poderoso en el cuarto, y lo creyera. Sus sentimientos se parecerían aun menos al simple miedo al peligro, pero su turbación sería profunda; sentiría asombro y un cierto sobrecogimiento —una sensación de incapacidad para enfrentarse a tal visitante y la necesidad de postrarse ante él—, una emoción que podría expresarse con las siguientes palabras de Shakespeare, mi genio se intimida ante el suyo⁴. Este sentimiento puede describirse como temor reverencial, y aquello que lo suscita, como lo numinoso. Ahora bien, nada hay más cierto que, desde épocas muy remotas, el hombre ha creído que el universo está acechado por espíritus. Quizá el profesor Otto supone, con excesiva facilidad, que tales espíritus hayan sido acogidos desde un comienzo con temor numinoso. Esto es imposible de probar, por la sencilla razón que se puede usar un lenguaje idéntico para expresar temor ante lo numinoso y miedo ante el peligro, ya que podemos decir que estamos asustados de un fantasma o asustados de un alza de precios. Es, por lo tanto, teóricamente posible que existiera una época en que el hombre considerara a estos espíritus simplemente como peligrosos y que sintiera hacia ellos lo mismo que sentía por los tigres. Lo que sí es seguro, es que hoy por hoy la experiencia numinosa existe y que, partiendo de nosotros mismos, podemos remontarnos bastante atrás en busca de su origen.

Podemos encontrar un ejemplo moderno en The Wind in the Willows (siempre que no seamos demasiado orgullosos para buscarlo allí), cuando Rat y Mole⁵ se acercan a Pan en la isla:

‘Rat’, buscó aliento para susurrar, temblando, ‘¿Tienes miedo?’ ‘¿Miedo?’, murmuró Rat, con los ojos relucientes de amor inexpresable. ‘¿Miedo?, ¿de Él? Oh, jamás, jamás. Y sin embargo —y, sin embargo —Oh, Mole, tengo miedo’.

Retrocediendo alrededor de un siglo, encontramos numerosos ejemplos en Wordsworth, siendo quizá el mejor aquel pasaje en el primer libro de El Preludio, en que describe su experiencia en el lago mientras rema en el bote robado. Retrocediendo aún más, encontramos un ejemplo de gran pureza y vigor en Malory ⁶, cuando Galahad comenzó a estremecerse violentamente al empezar su carne mortal a percibir las cosas espirituales. A comienzos de nuestra era, la experiencia numinosa encuentra su expresión en el Apocalipsis, cuando San Juan, refiriéndose a Cristo resucitado, dice: caí a sus pies como muerto⁷. En la literatura pagana, encontramos la imagen que entrega Ovidio del bosque oscuro al pie del Aventino, del cual a simple vista se diría numen inest ⁸ —el lugar está embrujado, o aquí hay una presencia; Virgilio nos muestra el palacio de Latino, que con sus cien columnas llenaban de religioso terror tradicional la devoción de la que era objeto y las selvas que le rodeaban⁹. Un fragmento griego atribuido a Esquilo, nos cuenta de la tierra, el mar y la montaña, estremeciéndose ante la mirada terrible de su Señor¹⁰. Aun antes, Ezequiel, al hablar de las ruedas en su Teofanía, dice que tenían tal circunferencia y altura, que causaba espanto el verlas¹¹; y, Jacob, al despertar de su sueño, dice, ¡Cuán terrible es este lugar!¹².

No sabemos cuán atrás en la historia del hombre se remonta este sentimiento. Se puede afirmar, casi con certeza, que los primeros hombres creían en cosas que, de creerlas nosotros, nos producirían el mismo sentimiento y, por lo tanto, es probable que el temor numinoso sea tan antiguo como la humanidad misma. Las fechas, sin embargo, no son nuestra mayor preocupación; lo que importa es que, de una forma u otra, este sentimiento ha surgido y se ha difundido, y no desaparece con el desarrollo del conocimiento y de la civilización.

Ahora bien, este temor reverencial no se infiere del universo visible. No existe posibilidad alguna de llegar a lo extraño, y menos aún a lo completamente numinoso, a partir de lo meramente peligroso. Podría usted decir que le parece muy normal que el hombre primitivo, al verse rodeado de peligros reales y estar asustado, inventara lo extraño y lo numinoso. En cierto sentido es así, pero entendamos bien lo que se quiere decir con esto. Le parece normal porque, por compartir la naturaleza humana con sus ancestros remotos, bien puede verse a sí mismo reaccionando de la misma manera frente a una soledad peligrosa. Y, en efecto, esta relación es normal en el sentido de ser consecuente con la naturaleza humana; pero no es en lo más mínimo normal que lo extraño o lo numinoso sea parte de lo peligroso, como tampoco es normal que cualquier percepción de peligro, o cualquier desagrado frente a las heridas y muerte asociadas a éste, pueda dar la más mínima idea de lo que es el pavor fantasmal o el temor numinoso a una inteligencia que no comprendiera estos conceptos de antemano. Cuando el hombre pasa del miedo físico al pavor y al temor reverencial, da un gran paso y percibe algo que jamás podría serle transmitido —como es la idea de peligro—, por los hechos físicos y por las deducciones lógicas que se puedan hacer a partir de éstos. La mayoría de los intentos que se hacen para explicar lo numinoso, dan por sentado aquello que necesita explicación, como cuando los antropólogos lo deducen del miedo a los muertos, sin explicar por qué éstos (sin lugar a dudas los hombres menos peligrosos) producen esta sensación tan peculiar. Se debe insistir, rebatiendo esos intentos, que el pavor y el temor reverencial se encuentran en una dimensión diferente. Son algo así como una interpretación que el hombre hace del universo, o una impresión que recibe de éste; y, así como ninguna enumeración de las cualidades físicas de

Comentarios para El Problema del Dolor

[justagirlwithabook · Calificación: 5 de 5 estrellas]

This book is part of my C.S. Lewis collection. I went through a huge phase where I was just obsessed with anything and everything by him. While I don't agree with all of his theology, I do love his writing style and the things he has to say about faith. He was a good one.

[allenkeith · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

Excellent book to understand life and pain. Peter Kreeft, Boston College Professor, says this is the best book on the topic. He, I am sure is nore knowledgeable than I. My impression is that one has to read and re-read to get it - what Lewis is saying. He is orthodox in his Chritian view; so, obviously this is his perspecive. Since this is mine also, I found the book fasinating. CSL is not offering a perspective but what he views a TRUTH. I love the book and read it three times and will likely read it again.

[cmbohn · Calificación: 3 de 5 estrellas]

I have read and loved C S Lewis in the past, but this was not quite what I was hoping for. He spend a lot of time focusing on one aspect of suffering, threw in a whole chapter about whether animals suffer and if so why, and then wrapped it up. A lot in here that I didn't agree with, and then some that didn't apply at all. Still worth reading, but I'm glad I didn't buy a paper copy to keep on my shelf as I don't think I will refer back to it very often.

[jazmsngr · Calificación: 2 de 5 estrellas]

Lewis' The Problem of Pain is, by his own admission, a 'layman's' take on the complex issue of suffering and pain in the presence of an all-loving God. Lewis begins with a compulsory statement of God's sovereignty and omnipotence followed by an examination of free-will and the price humanity pays for the right to choose unencumbered by God's will. Readers who are searching for a complete unassailable answer to the question Lewis poses may be disappointed. The issue of human suffering in its varying forms is extremely complex. Answers to why children and other innocents, as Lewis calls them, die and why does evil exist, I don't believe will be answered with the sufficiency some readers and most atheists seek. Nevertheless, Lewis attempts to help explain some possible causes around pain/suffering.

Later Lewis focuses on human free-will and its relation to the fall. The human capacity to choose self-serving options rather than seeking God first, Lewis believes, is the primary source of pain/suffering and the resultant pain/suffering is a purifying element that drives us back to God. Lewis believes God's creation-- humans-- does not actively seek God while they are content so pain and suffering through free-will choices forces them to actively seek God.

Lewis writes:

If the first and lowest operation of pain shatters the illusion that all is well, the second shatters the illusion that what we have, whether good or bad in itself, is our own and enough for us. Everyone has notice how hard it is to turn our thoughts to God when everything is going well with us (94).

Lewis is a fantastic writer who is able to project a mental image for the reader that is unparalleled; however, Lewis does, in my opinion, sometimes stray too far in the descriptive so much so that some readers may lose the original point of the statement. Lewis also makes references to 'the Uncanny', 'the Numinous' and other literary theories and proponents-- there was a subtle in-passing reference to Freud's theories-- which are excellent illustrations for those who understand them; but for those who do not it may only serve to obfuscate the point rendering it less potent.

Lewis' books are not easy reads. To truly have an understanding of what he is attempting to say would require multiple readings-- especially for the casual reader. The Problem of Pain is very esoteric and perhaps not something the casual reader would necessarily grasp with one reading. This is certainly not a book I would recommend to someone who is in the midst of a life event and suffering. It may come across as glib or, worse, condescending.

[alexthehunn · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

Lewis tackles the problem of why an omniscient, omnipotent god would allow pain, suffering, and tragedy to occur. His ultimate answer is that free will would be compromised if god did not allow his creation to suffer.

[ameliaiif · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

CS Lewis class!Not as good or as understandable as MERE CHRISTIANITY, but still a great read :)

[sprite_2 · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

Not my favorite Lewis but it gets points for being the only book that might (in a lefthanded way) reconcile me to _Anne's House of Dreams_ (spoilers.)

[afderrick · Calificación: 3 de 5 estrellas]

I found the book a very difficult book to get into. The idea of the book was the problem of pain that we see in society. Why does pain exist in society and why is it such a problem for us? This is the problem that this book seeks to explain. A good book to read but it took me about the third chapter before I really started to understand and get into a groove of reading this book.

[nesum_1 · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

I don't think I've read quite as convincing of an argument for the importance and necessity for pain in our lives than this from C. S. Lewis. He takes on this very delicate subject (which we most often, unfortunately, wrestle with in the very moments that we shouldn't be debating heavy theological questions in our hearts) with logic and faith.The chapter on animal pain can almost be skipped, since it all rests on an assumption that evolution did indeed happen, while the theory has weakened quite a bit since 1940. I frankly find the older, God-based discussions of the topic more helpful. But that is one chapter, and the others, focused on what God wishes to do with us, are wonderfully helpful.This is not the book to read when you are broken and needing encouragement. Lewis' A Grief Observed is better for that. But if you want a theological discussion of pain, this is a great one.

[edwinbcn · Calificación: 1 de 5 estrellas]

The problem of pain is C.S. Lewis first book about Christianity. Many readers are disappointed that the book is not about "pain," as they might be looking for solace. In C.S. Lewis' book pain is a problem, because it seemingly denies the existence of God.In The problem of pain Lewis is still a hesitant apologist. His main thesis is born out of a negation. In the first chapter he refers to the time he was an atheist as "not many years ago" (which was in fact nearly a decade), posing that if anyone had asked him then why he were not a Christian, his answer would refer to the coldness and suffering in the world. Had God designed the world, it would not be a world so frail and faulty as we see. (Lucretius in On the Nature of ThingsC.S. Lewis had been an atheist since his early teenage years. The foundation for his atheism seems rather weak. After a Christian upbringing he "abandoned" the faith for Nordic mythology and the occult. It seems Lewis built a personal cult around his professed atheism, which was more like a cloak, a screen behind which he made up his mind about the existence of God.Although Lewis remained an atheist until at least 1929, when he embraced theism, before his Christian conversion in 1931. The problem of pain seems born out of his youthful "{anger} with God for not existing" and the horrors Lewis had witnessed during the trench war of the Great War in France. His poetry of that period Spirits in bondage. A cycle of lyrics seems to carry the seeds of a return to Christianity, with its focus on evil, pain and suffering.A peculiar aspect of the publication history is that Lewis originally hoped to publish The problem of pain as shame and inexperience (as a layman) made him want to hide in anonymity. It hints at a certain uncertainty and discomfort at making bold statements, which he however not shuns, and which make this and later books so unpalatable to readers. Unlike many of his later works, which are outspoken apologetic, The problem of pain is written as a theodicy, an attempt at reconciliation.Superficially, The problem of pain seems a very readable book. At a glance, many sentences are captivating and invite to further reading. However, as in other, later works, Lewis has a very dogmatic style, which leaves the reader no space to make up their own mind. There is no residual trace of doubt in Lewis' mind, but denying readers to retrace their own steps, makes his books unreadable, to all those readers who are less convinced.Lewis' Christian works are likely enjoyable to Christian readers. But what is the point of writing apologetic works for your own congregation?

[briarthorn · Calificación: 5 de 5 estrellas]

I listened to this as an audiobook, as it is one I will have to sit down and read again. It will probably call for many re-readings. One of the reasons I needed and wanted to read this book is because I have fibromylgia. C.S. Lewis does away with two popular theories of chronic pain that the suffer is being directly punished for a sin or that the suffer is lacking in the faith required to have the pain taken from them.

God give us free will so that we may love in fully. That gave us the ability to fall from His grace. With that fall came pain. No amount of faith in God can undo the fall from grace.

Of course C.S. Lewis also says that it is natural as good people for us to want pain to go away and for us to wish that our loved ones did not feel it. The author never says do not wish for pain to go away and do not pray for healing.

[medievalgirl-1 · Calificación: 5 de 5 estrellas]

By far one of my favourite of all Lewis' works on Christianity, which, in spite of the title explores far more than just the topic of pain but also examines such subjects as forgiveness, and the nature of belief.

It does not so much seek to provide clear cut or definitive answers to the 'big questions' but rather examines the nature, purpose and basis of the questions themselves in the wider context of the subject of pain and physical suffering, and the purposes and attitudes towards this itself.

Thus the book may disappoint to those 'looking for all the answers', but for those in search of an interesting and thought-provoking examination of a 'tough subject' this may be a good choice

[piperling · Calificación: 2 de 5 estrellas]

Not Lewis' best work. His remarks become more metaphysical as the book progresses as he dabbles in speculative theology. The chapter on animal suffering is irrelevant and much of his conclusions throughout are questionable because he begins with a premise of theistic evolution.Unfortunately, he spends so much time in speculative goose-chases that he gives little attention to his real premise--that human suffering has a redemptive quality.As always, however, Lewis has something worthwhile to say. Best quote of the book:'God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pain.' p. 91

[temsmail · Calificación: 5 de 5 estrellas]

Lewis' "Pain" and "Grief" should be read together. Pain is Lewis' intellectual approach to the idea of evil in the world, experienced as pain; "Grief" was his personal experience of it.

[lesliehurd · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

C.S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain was heavy going for me. I found I needed to read it in small portions and then ponder what he had to say. This work is intellectual and complex, but I was comforted that he could explain so fully at least one point that I had always dimly understood: when we are content in the lives we believe we have made for ourselves, we often feel we have no need of God. Only when we've lost much do we decide to rely on our creator. Of course the book has much more to say and he says it unapologetically and with great focus. Lewis' non-fiction calls for re-reading. I'm sure I'll refer to it as a reference in the future.

[tymfos · Calificación: 3 de 5 estrellas]

I decided to read this (it may be a re-read from many years ago) because a number of people in my life are dealing with issues of pain. Lewis deals with all manner of suffering -- physical, emotional, mental -- in this work. I did not find this book terribly helpful. Perhaps it is simply that, as he stated in his preface, he was not claiming to say anything original except in the last two chapters, but simply to articulate traditional teachings of the faith, and I've read enough theology for his points to be familiar. Of those last two chapters, where he admittedly indulged in some speculation, the one on animal pain was not at all akin to my views -- I feel he does not fully appreciate the intelligence and nobility of some of God's created creatures. The one about heaven was interesting.

[mariefriesen · Calificación: 5 de 5 estrellas]

The Problem of Pain answers the universal question, "Why would an all-loving, all-knowing God allow people to experience pain and suffering?" Master Christian apologist C.S. Lewis asserts that pain is a problem because our finite, human minds selfishly believe that pain-free lives would prove that God loves us. In truth, by asking for this, we want God to love us less, not more than he does. "Love, in its own nature, demands the perfecting of the beloved; that the mere 'kindness' which tolerates anything except suffering in its object is, in that respect at the opposite pole from Love."

[tjsjohanna_1 · Calificación: 5 de 5 estrellas]

While this slim book deals effectively with how pain fits into the larger picture of a world created by God, it is even more effective in explaining the role of agency in that world. I especially enjoyed Mr. Lewis' chapters on "Human Pain" and "Hell" and "Heaven". If one is looking for something beyond a simplistic picture of Christianity, Mr. Lewis is a fine choice for readability and for thoughtfulness.

[jenniferrobb · Calificación: 3 de 5 estrellas]

Reading C.S. Lewis makes me feel so unintelligent--with this book, I started out understanding his intent and arguments but about halfway through the book, I ended up feeling lost.

[ctpress_1 · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

In this book the Christian writer C. S. Lewis tries to answer the question: "If God is good and all-powerful, why does he allow his creatures to suffer pain?". Lewis is not trying to give advice on how to overcome pain and adversary - this is more a philosophical and theological treatise - and he goes straight back addressing God's omnipotence and the concept of sin and evil. I enjoy Lewis' writings - he's so original and have funny and surprising ways of explaining difficult theological issues (although at times difficult to follow) - and you always walk away with new thoughts and ideas. Also there's an interesting chapter on Animal pain (Lewis was very fond of animals). The book ends with a chapter on Heaven as the ultimate source of hope and relief from the suffering on earth.

[juva_3 · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

A lovely little examination of one of the greatest theological issues of all time. Elegantly tackled. I love Lewis' view of heaven and hell, and his unperturbed stance regarding science.

[Mikele Maríncolo · Calificación: 5 de 5 estrellas]

Lectura muy aconsejada para todos los que se preguntan acerca del porqué del sufrimiento.

[snotbottom-1 · Calificación: 3 de 5 estrellas]

Why does God allow pain and suffering? A question Lewis begrudgingly tackles in this book. A bit harder to follow along with than much of his other work. Best if you actually sit down a run through it, rather than casually read. The subject matter doesn't help with the readability, since there are arguments to every theory. However, Lewis does a fine job addressing as many of these as he can while holding God up as the ultimate provider of solutions. Did I come away understanding why pain exists in the world? No... nor does Lewis expect this, but rather it provides a bit of comfort knowing that there is a reason for it all, and it will all be worth it.

[atimco-1 · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

C. S. Lewis’ The Problem of Pain is a layman’s look at how Christians reconcile the existence of pain with the belief in God’s goodness. How can a good God allow His creatures to suffer? I have several issues with Lewis’ theology and presuppositions. I’m going to outline these before discussing the parts of the book that I thought were excellent. One of the big things wrong with this book is Lewis’ too-ready acceptance of evolution and all the necessary adjustments it requires in the story of the Fall, etc. Lewis makes up his own projected creation/evolution myth, and traces the Fall from it instead of from the biblical account. Making up creation myths is fine, but not in a nonfiction book. His explanation of the Fall and the resulting sin and suffering is rather convoluted and complicated because it tries to reconcile everything, when really there is no need to reconcile incorrect views with correct ones. The second problem I have with Lewis’ theology is his strongly Arminian position. I believe in sovereign grace, and our starting points are so different. Because of this, I find that I strongly disagree with several of Lewis’ logical conclusions, and I believe they proceed from faulty premises. One such passage is found in chapter three, where he writes:The doctrine of Total Depravity — when the consequence is drawn that, since we are totally depraved, our idea of good is worth simply nothing — may thus turn Christianity into a form of devil worship.If Lewis can be that harsh on an opposing belief, so can I. He oversimplifies Total Depravity and completely misses its point. It is not that human beings have no sense of right and wrong, but that every part of us is tainted to some extent by the Fall. There is no island of goodness and purity in me; sin has touched every part. That does not mean that I am as bad as I could be. It simply means that though I may have a faint inkling of what is right, my view is never fully clear until the Spirit opens my eyes. Another reviewer has mentioned Lewis' annihilistic tendencies, and I agree they are problematic in light of Scripture. He doesn't commit himself completely to the notion that the damned will cease to be, but you can tell he wishes it were so, and would like to find a way to logically prove it. Now for the good points. Lewis made a casual reference to “officious vicarious indignation” on the part of a friend that can hamper the development of patience and grace in a sufferer. I found that very convicting! I tend to be very protective of the people I love, and when a person I care about is wronged and suffers as a result, my righteous indignation is certainly expressed. How new a thought to me that my indignation could actually be impairing what God is working in that life. I was also very impressed by his reasoning on the need for the self to be conscious of the other in order to have any kind of awareness of self. Lewis writes that this might at first seem to present a problem to theists; how could God know He had a Self if there was nothing and no one else, no other? But the fact of the Trinity explains how God could be self-aware before He created the universe. I appreciate his explanation of the logical impossibility of doing two opposite things at the same time. God cannot give us freedom without giving us freedom to experience the consequences of our choices. This is not something that limits God or encroaches on His omnipotence. I thought the chapter on animal pain was also very good — although I’m sure many animal-rights activists would not agree. I think Lewis is right that we project human-like qualities on to animals that they simply don’t have. Can an animal be aware of (and possess) a selfhood? Lewis argues it cannot, and his arguments are convincing. And how can something that is not aware of itself as a self suffer pain? Pain can take place in that body, certainly, but can it be processed and understood as pain by the animal’s mind? Lewis does take into account the higher animals, like dogs and others, that seem to possess human-like qualities, and even talks about his belief that the animals that are part of our lives here on earth will also, in some sense, be present in heaven. Another thing that struck me as particularly was Lewis’ discussion of heaven. In Revelation it talks about Christ giving each saint a stone with his own name on it, that no one else knows except himself. Lewis speculates on why such a statement would be made, concluding that we will retain our unique identities in heaven, even though we are perfected and united with Christ in blessedness. And each of us can praise a certain aspect of God better than anyone else; we need that individuality to glorify Him. If we didn’t have it, Lewis argues, the church would be like an orchestra in which every instrument played the same note. There are some wonderful quotes in this book. I’ll give a few:A man can no more diminish God’s glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word ‘darkness' on the walls of his cell. When I think of pain—of anxiety that gnaws like fire and loneliness that spreads out like a desert, and the heartbreaking routine of monotonous misery, or again of dull aches that blacken our whole landscape or sudden nauseating pains that knock a man’s heart out at one blow, of pains that already seem intolerable and then are suddenly increased, of infuriating scorpion-stinging pains that startle into maniacal movement a man who seemed half dead with his previous tortures—it ‘quite o’ercrows my spirit.’ If I knew any way of escape I would crawl through sewers to find it. But what is the good of telling you my feelings? You know them already; they are the same as yours. There have been times when I think we do not desire heaven; but more often I find myself wondering if we have ever desired anything else. You may have noticed that the books you love are bound together by a secret thread. You know very well what is the common quality that makes you love them, though you cannot put it into words: but most of your friends do not see it at all, and often wonder why, liking this, you should like that… We cannot tell each other about it. It is the secret signature of each soul, the incommunicable and inappeasable want, the thing we desired before we met our wives or made our friends or chose our work, and which we shall still desire on our deathbeds, when the mind no longer knows wife or friend or work. While we are, this is. If we lose this, we lose all. Though I don't agree with several of Lewis’ conclusions because of our different theological presuppositions, on the whole I found this book to be very insightful. I know I will remember many of the points he made, and of course his writing style is superb. The subjects he raises will make you think long after the last page is turned, for pain is universal. This is an excellent read.

[rdyornot · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

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 live, or perhaps pain and suffering are caused by a malevolent deity in opposition to a good and loving God. Christianity as no such option. “If God we good, e 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.

[letseatgrandpa · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

This is definitely not a book for people currently going through pain. It is weighty and theological and not very compassionate. This is CS Lewis the theologian at his best, however, working through complex ideas with grace and deep thought and a keen eye toward heaven. Tough to follow, but worth it if you’re willing to give it a shot.

[fingerpost_1 · Calificación: 2 de 5 estrellas]

I was disappointed with "The Problem of Pain". I went into the book hoping for an exploration into the eternal question: Why do bad things happen to good people? or Where was God when....? Lewis' book posits the divinity of Jesus, the redemption of sins through Jesus' death on the cross, and the existence of hell. As a reader looking at the book from a Jewish perspective, every argument he makes falls flat. This is a book very specifically for Christians (and if you are a Christian, you will certainly find the book more worthwhile than I did.) It becomes hard to concentrate on a book when one is at odds with assumed premises, and the fact that it is written in a rather academic style made it even more tedious reading.