This argument exemplifies an unfortunate tendency of Lewis’ that pops up elsewhere in the book: he asks a rhetorical question that has more than one answer, but then immediately moves on without considering any answer except the one he obviously wants to reach. The direct inference from black to white, from evil flower to virtuous root, from senseless work to a workman infinitely wise, staggers belief… The spectacle of the universe as revealed by experience can never have been the ground of religion: it must always have been something in spite of which religion, acquired from a different source, was held” (p.3-4). He admits the “strength and facility” (p.3) of this argument, but says that its own strength is its problem: “If the universe is so bad… how on earth did human beings ever come to attribute it to the activity of a wise and good Creator? Men are fools, perhaps, but hardly so foolish as that.

Lewis begins by summarizing the atheist argument from evil, describing all the suffering that exists in the world. As this review will seek to show, if one discards that assumption, new vistas will open on the problem of evil, perspectives which show why Judeo-Christian theodicies are wholly inadequate. More than anything, the book seems characterized by a failure of imagination – time and time again, it assumes that the best, or the only, world God could possibly have created was this one, despite Lewis’ belief in God’s omnipotence. To one who already accepts the tenets of Christianity, Lewis’ explanation may well be convincing however, to those who question its basic premises, it is unlikely to hold up. Lewis’ The Problem of Pain is another attempt at Christian theodicy, the defense of God’s goodness in the face of the world’s evil, written by the well-known pop theologian and author of the Narnia series. Summary: Unconvincing to one who does not already agree with its basic assumptions.Ĭ.S.

The problem with pain by cs lewis