El problema del dolor

Por Clive Staples Lewis

El dolor es un misterio universal e inevitable que sobrecoge y desconcierta al ser humano. Con frecuencia se proponen fórmulas más o menos anestésicas -resignación pasiva, escapismo, anulación de la voluntad-, pero que en ningún caso resuelven las preguntas que todo hombre se hace: ¿Qué sentido tiene el sufrimiento? ¿Cómo se armoniza la realidad dolorosa con la bondad divina?
Lewis se sumerge en El problema del dolor para extraer esperanza con las armas que le han ganado el aprecio de sus lectores: estilo directo, sentido práctico y el poder de convicción de los hechos.
Este libro trata del problema del dolor enfocado desde un punto de vista cristiano: cómo puede entenderse. Los capítulos tratan de la omnipotencia y la bondad divina, la maldad humana, la caída del hombre, el dolor humano, el dolor animal, el infierno y el cielo.

• Idioma: Español
• Editorial: Ediciones Rialp, S.A.
• Fecha de lanzamiento: 1 feb 2017
• ISBN: 9788432147401

Vista previa del libro

C. S. LEWIS

EL PROBLEMA DEL DOLOR

Undécima edición

EDICIONES RIALP, S. A.

MADRID

Título original: The problem of pain

© 1947, C. S. Lewis Pte. Ltd.

© 2016, de la versión castellana, realizada por

JOSÉ LUIS DEL BARCO, by EDICIONES RIALP, S. A.,

Colmbia, 83. 28016 Madrid. www.rialp.com

Primera edición: junio 1994

Undécima edición: noviembre 2016

No está permitida la reproducción total o parcial de este libro, ni su tratamiento informático, ni la transmisión de ninguna forma o por cualquier medio, ya sea elec-trónico, mecánico, por fotocopia, por registro u otros métodos, sin el permiso previo y por escrito de los titulares del copyright.

Diríjase a CEDRO (Centro Español de Derechos Reprográficos, www.cedro.org) si necesita reproducir, fotocopiar o escanear algún fragmento de esta obra.

Realización ePub: produccioneditorial.com

ISBN: 978-84-321-4740-1

A los Inklings

ÍNDICE

PORTADA

PORTADA INTERIOR

CRÉDITOS

DEDICATORIA

PRESENTACIÓN

A MIS LECTORES

I. INTRODUCCIÓN

II. LA OMNIPOTENCIA DIVINA

III. LA BONDAD DIVINA

IV. LA MALDAD HUMANA

V. LA CAÍDA DEL HOMBRE

VI. EL DOLOR HUMANO

VII. MÁS SOBRE EL DOLOR HUMANO

VIII. EL INFIERNO

IX. EL DOLOR ANIMAL

X. EL CIELO

APÉNDICE

CLIVE STAPLES LEWIS

PRESENTACIÓN

EL DOLOR ES UNA realidad misteriosa. Ninguna hay tan ineludible, universal e inmediata; ninguna tan inexplicable, arcana y desconcertante. En el dolor conviven en paz la evidencia y el misterio. La certeza de que es inevitable, la seguridad de que deberemos enfrentamos con él antes o después —«todos acabamos por ser hombres dolientes»[1]— y la experiencia directa de los seres humanos permiten vislumbrar confusamente algunos rasgos suyos, pero no consiguen disipar el halo de misterio que lo envuelve. Ni siquiera su condición de «certeza existencial», que arruina «la imposible utopía de una vida sin dolor»[2], descubre completamente sus secretos. Tan solo deja entrever destellos intermitentes de un lejano foco de luz. «No soy conocedor aún del dolor, dice Rilke, por eso hazme pequeña esta enorme tiniebla»[3].

No debe sorprender, pues, la insistencia humana en descifrar tan impenetrable enigma. Decir que el dolor es una sensación desagradable producida por estímulos nocivos, o una de las emociones contrapuestas al placer, o un reflejo de protección-evasión para prevenir males peores, o una señal corporal para indicar determinados trastornos o, en fin, una reacción local impotente, supone simplificar excesivamente las cosas. Nada de todo eso da cuenta del rechazo, la quiebra y el desgarro íntimos del afligido, ni explica la repulsa del que lo padece o la resistencia «a la división»[4] de la víctima. Se halla muy lejos, en fin, de aclarar su significado para la vida. ¿Es un regalo siniestro que envilece al hombre o una posibilidad excepcional de mostrar su hechura y ser más íntimos? ¿Es «el banco de pruebas de la existencia humana, el fuego de la fragua donde, como los buenos aceros, debe ennoblecerse y templarse»[5]?

La magnitud del problema explica que el empeño puesto en descifrar el enigma haya terminado a veces en derrota. Así ocurre con la interpretación pesimista, uno de los grandes extravíos sobre el asunto. El pesimista estima que la sed humana de amor es una necia aspiración condenada a perpetua insatisfacción. Lo mismo le ocurre a la apetencia general de placer y al anhelo irreprimible de felicidad. Nada hay en la realidad capaz de colmarlos. La demanda humana de felicidad y amor no es oída por nadie; es un grito incontenible lanzado al vacío. De ahí el empeño en arrancarlo de raíz del corazón del hombre: como la felicidad y el amor son «pasiones inútiles», el único modo de evitar el descalabro y eludir el dolor de ver defraudadas las esperanzas consiste en suprimirlas[6]. El programa pesimista «tiende a la anulación del yo (...) a través de la anulación de la voluntad»[7]. Si la fuente del dolor son ciertas aspiraciones del yo, el mejor modo de liberarse de él deberá ser suprimirlas. Si aniquilamos al hombre, suprimiremos el sufrimiento para siempre. Esa es la insensata consigna de Schopenhauer, Lucrecio, Epicuro y la mística budista. A todos ellos les falta esperanza, sin cuyos áureos destellos, la subjetividad, entristecida y replegada en sí misma, queda incapacitada para salir al encuentro del Amor en que se consuma todo amor.

A veces se ha intentado superar el desenlace pesimista adoptando una ufana actitud heroica: aunque carezca de respuesta, aunque no halle nunca reposo ni sea acogida jamás con cordialidad, hay que afirmar titánicamente el ansia humana de felicidad y convertir la afirmación en algo absoluto. Una exaltación así de la energía volitiva, que parece desafiar arrogantemente la adversidad y retar el infortunio, es una fatua afirmación de la superioridad del sujeto, cuya soberbia grandeza le permitiría resistir el embate de cualquier fuerza cósmica. Una afirmación así del poder apetitivo del hombre es una declaración jactanciosa condenada al pesimismo y la misantropía[8], pues la energía ostentosamente proclamada se quiebra ante el dolor intenso y la tristeza profunda. «El programa de Nietzsche es una épica y una lírica de la patología que, en el fondo, no puede ser vivida»[9].

Las vacilaciones anteriores ponen de manifiesto que la pregunta «¿qué es el dolor?» está mal formulada. No hay dolor sin un ser afligido; ni quebranto sin un sujeto consciente de su amargura.

El enigma del dolor como fenómeno vital, como algo real en tanto que vivido, es el misterio de su sentido. La pregunta decisiva se podría formular, pues, más o menos así: «¿Tiene sentido el dolor?».

Si la vida humana fuera como la del animal, si discurriera maquinalmente sin otro quehacer que sobrevivir, tal vez cupiera no plantear tan inquietante interrogación. Pero el hombre, lejos de instalarse de forma extática en la realidad, se enfrenta interrogativamente con ella. El ser humano indaga, busca e inquiere; todo atrae su mirada escrutadora. Él mismo es el más grande desafío para su avidez de saber. Le inquieta ser «un signo indescifrado» (Hölderlin), y busca afanosamente el sentido de la existencia, la vida, el dolor y la muerte.

Ni siquiera el materialista puede hurtarse a la solicitud de sentido. Si acaso, tratar de ocultarla, limitar su alcance y disimular su premura. Su postura al respecto consiste en identificar sentido y praxis; el obrar humano es el único ámbito de sentido, fuera de él está la férrea legalidad natural, el reino de la necesidad, lo inmutable. Y lo inmutable es como es y sucede como sucede. Es disparatado, pues, preguntarse por su sentido; ante el sufrimiento y la muerte solo cabe la resignación: el hombre debe renunciar a esperanzas excesivas y entregarse con frenesí a un «activismo intramundano».

El primer atisbo para sortear el escollo lo proporciona la idea de que ni el placer ni el dolor tienen la última palabra. Si la tuvieran, la existencia sería un injusto juego de azar que repartiría caprichosamente la prosperidad y la desgracia. El afortunado llevaría una vida de goces, y el desdichado pasaría miserablemente por la existencia apesadumbrado y triste. ¿Cómo evitar en ese caso el desdén del afortunado en la rueda de la fortuna? ¿Cómo impedir la desesperación del atribulado? ¿Qué hacer ante el sarcasmo del hábil tramposo que dispusiera las «reglas el juego» en su propio beneficio? ¿Qué decir de su complacido regocijo con el sufrimiento ajeno?

El problema del sentido del sufrimiento surge cuando el dolor y el placer dejan de ser jueces últimos e inapelables, cuando obedecen, como todo lo demás, las órdenes de una autoridad más alta. Es, pues, una cuestión específicamente cristiana. Los héroes homéricos, por ejemplo, no se la plantean. Se consideran títeres en manos de un destino que gobierna ciegamente sus vidas, y reciben el placer y el dolor como avatares de una existencia sometida a inexorable necesidad. Por eso vagan tristemente por la existencia antes de llegar a su miserable destino en el Hades. La actitud cristiana es muy diferente. El cristianismo, dice Lewis, no es «un sistema en el que debamos encajar la compleja realidad del dolor, sino un hecho difícil de ajustar con cualquier sistema que podamos construir. En cierto sentido, el cristianismo crea más que resuelve el problema el dolor, pues el dolor no sería problema si, junto con nuestra experiencia diaria de un mundo doloroso, no hubiéramos recibido una garantía suficiente de que la realidad última es justa y amorosa».

Es extraño oír que el cristianismo «crea» el problema del dolor. De ahí la perplejidad aparente de palabras como estas de Eugène Ionesco: «Creo en Dios, a pesar de todo, porque creo en el mal. Si hay mal, hay también Dios». El problema del mal, en la forma de dolor o en cualquiera otra, se le presenta al gran dramaturgo como pregunta sobre el obrar divino y su justificación, y surge cuando se acepta un sentido universal y se cree en un Dios todopoderoso y bueno. ¿Cómo conciliar la existencia de un Ser bondadoso y omnipotente con la realidad del dolor? He ahí el problema del sufrimiento en su forma más simple.

El dolor tiene un sentido profundo. Lleva al hombre a preguntar sobre el significado de su vida y le ayuda a «crecer en hondura». «El dolor abierto parece que queda dispuesto para una fecundidad insospechada: para descifrar la gran noche del alma»[10]. Pero, además de todo eso, está destinado a convertirse en alegría. Esa anulación real del sufrimiento supone la fe en una «ilimitada totalidad de sentido». Si el saldo de la vida en su conjunto fuera el sinsentido, ¿cómo no acusar de absurda la existencia? Pero si «la realidad última es justa y amorosa», si acoge, consuela y alivia a los atribulados, si «los padecimientos del tiempo presente no son nada comparados con la gloria que ha de manifestarse en nosotros», el triunfo del sufrimiento es una victoria efímera. Al final deberá ceder su puesto al júbilo y el gozo eternos.

«El sufrimiento solo puede tener sentido si es relativo, y solo es relativo si todos los sufrimientos pueden ser suprimidos»[11]. ¿Es excesiva la esperanza en la transformación del sufrimiento en alegría? ¿Es ilusión vana creer que Dios «enjugará toda lágrima de sus ojos y ya no habrá muerte, ni llanto, ni sufrimiento, ni fatigas, porque todo lo anterior ha pasado»?[12].

Es, desde luego, una elevada esperanza, pero cuenta con la mayor garantía imaginable: la promesa ya realizada.

JOSÉ LUIS DEL BARCO

El Hijo de Dios padeció hasta la muerte

no para que los hombres no sufriéramos,

sino para que nuestro dolor pudiera ser como el Suyo.

GEORGE MAC DONALD,

Unspoken Sermons, First Series.

[1] A. POLAINO-LORENTE, Más allá del sufrimiento. El dolor y la aceptación de sí mismo. Atlántida, 15, p. 50.

[2] F. ALTAREJOS, El sufrimiento: un escollo en la axiología educativa. En Razón y libertad, Rialp, Madrid.

[3] Reiner María RILKE, Das Siundenbucb, III. I.

[4] «El dolor es un sentimiento que resiste a la división o corrupción». San Agustín, De libero arbitrio, III, 23, 69.

[5] A. POLAINO-LORENTE, art. cit.

[6] A. SCHOPENHAUER, Die Welt ais Wille urtd Vorstellung, en Samtlicbe Werke, F. A. Brockhaus, zweites Band, Wiesbaden 1972, pp. 607-736.

[7] R. SPAEMANN, El sentido del sufrimiento. Distintas actitudes ante el dolor humano. Atlántida, 15, pp. 66-77.

[8] Cfr. M. SCHELER, Vom Sinn des Leides. En Gesammelte Werke, Francke Verlag, Band 9, Bern 1963, pp. 52-55.

[9] J. CHOZA, Dimensiones antropológicas del dolor. En La supresión del pudor y otros ensayos, Eunsa, Pamplona 1980, p. 141.

[10] J. CHOZA, Al otro lado de la muerte. Las elegías de Rilke. Eunsa, Pamplona 1991, p. 30.

[11] R. SPAEMANN, art. cit.

[12] Apocalipsis 21, 4.

A mis lectores

Cuando Mr. Ashley Sampson me sugirió que escribiera este libro, le pedí que se me permitiera hacerlo de forma anónima, porque, si debía decir lo que realmente pensaba del dolor, me vería obligado a hacer afirmaciones tan manifiestamente valerosas que resultarían ridículas para todo aquel que supiera quién las hacía. Mi idea del anonimato fue rechazada por resultar inconsecuente con el espíritu de la serie. Mr. Sampson me indicó, no obstante, que podía escribir un prefacio para explicar que tampoco yo vivía en conformidad con mis propios principios. Este hilarante programa es el que estoy realizando ahora. Antes permítaseme confesar, con palabras del buen Walter Hilton, que a lo largo de todo el libro «me encuentro tan lejos de sentir auténticamente lo que digo, que no puedo sino suplicar misericordia y temple para sentir lo que digo hasta donde pueda»[13]. Esa razón impide, sin embargo, que se me pueda hacer cierta crítica. Nadie podrá decir «se burla de las cicatrices quien jamás sintió una herida», pues ni por un momento me he encontrado en un estado de ánimo en que no me resultara completamente intolerable el mero hecho de imaginar el dolor agudo. Si hay alguien libre del peligro de subestimar a este adversario, ese soy yo.

Debo añadir, además, que el único propósito del libro es resolver el problema intelectual suscitado por el sufrimiento. Nunca he sido tan necio como para considerarme capacitado para la alta tarea de enseñar fortaleza y paciencia. Nada tengo que ofrecer a mis lectores, pues, sino mi convicción de que, cuando llega el momento de sufrir el dolor, ayuda más un poco de valor que un conocimiento abundante; algo de compasión humana más que un gran valor; y la más leve tintura de amor de Dios más que ninguna otra cosa.

Si algún teólogo auténtico lee estas páginas, verá fácilmente que son obra de un profano y un aficionado. Salvo en los dos últimos capítulos, algunas de cuyas partes son indudablemente especulativas, creo haber expuesto doctrinas antiguas y ortodoxas. Si algunas cuestiones del libro son «originales», en el sentido de nuevas y heterodoxas, lo son contra mi voluntad y fruto de mi ignorancia.

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.

[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.

[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.)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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."

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[ameliaiif · Calificación: 4 de 5 estrellas]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.