Scan barcode
srestrepo92886's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
daja57's review against another edition
2.0
I hated this book.
n Catch-22 by Joseph Heller, the hero Yossarian gets angry at the thought of a God who has created a world in which there is pain: "Good God, how much reverence can you have for a Supreme Being who found it necessary to include such phenomena as phlegm and tooth decay in His divine system of creation? What in the world was running through that warped, evil, scatological mind of His when he robbed old people of the power to control their bowel movements? Why in the world did He ever create pain? ... Why couldn't He have used a doorbell instead to notify us, or one of His celestial choirs? Or a system of blue-and-red neon tubes right in the middle of each person's forehead? Any jukebox manufacturer worth his salt could have done that. Why couldn't he?”
In this book C S Lewis argues that God uses pain to shake us out of our complacency. When we are happy and content, we tend not to think of God. But when we are suffering, we seek God as a comfort. “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.” (Ch 6)
Fundamentally CSL believes that the ultimate human happiness lies in submission to God. He uses the analogy of a man with a pet dog: “The association of (say) man and dog is primarily for the man’s sake: he tames the dog primarily that he may love it, not that it may love him, and that it may serve him, not that he may serve it ...man interferes with the dog ... In its state of nature it has a smell, and habits, which frustrate man’s love: he washes it, house-trains it, teaches it not to steal, and is so enabled to love it completely. To the puppy the whole proceeding would seem ... to cast grave doubts on the ‘goodness’ of man: but the full-grown and full-trained dog, larger, healthier, and longer-lived than the wild dog ... would have no such doubts.” (Ch 3)
Another analogy, often used in Christianity, is of God as father. But CSL's ideal father is fundamentally authoritarian: “Love between father and son ... means essentially authoritative love on the one side, and obedient love on the other. The father uses his authority to make his son into the sort of human being he, rightly, and in his superior wisdom, wants him to be.” (Ch 3)
Pain is therefore the way God whips us into obedience, using the pretext that it is good for us in the long run. Presumably to a man like CSL, an Oxbridge don, cocooned in multiple privileges, this is the perfect God because he is the perfect excuse for authority, the authority of the master over the slave, the man over the dog, the father over the child, the husband over the wife, the boss over the worker. Pain and suffering can be justified because it props up the status quo. The only true sin is rebellion. This sounds like a classic justification for tyranny.
It wouldn't be so bad if I could feel that CSL's arguments were unanswerable. After all, he was an Oxbridge don. His arguments should be powerful.
But they are shoddy.
He has a habit of introducing hypotheses as if they were fact. For example, he states: “Now the proper good of a creature is to surrender itself to its Creator” (Ch 6) This statement is unevidenced. But he never makes clear that it is an assumption that could be challenged. He then bases his arguments upon this statement. But there are alternatives! You could instead say: ‘The proper good of a creature is to fulfil its potential’. This would lead to radically different conclusions. Such a use of unacknowledged hypotheses suggests either that he is insufficiently imaginative to conceive of alternative points of view, or that he is using rhetoric in place of reason, to manipulate the reader into agreement.
He also enjoys offering dichotomies. This is another rhetorical technique which allows a propagandist to bolster a weak argument. For example, he describes Jesus and says “only two views of this man are possible. Either he was a raving lunatic of an unusually abominable type, or else He was, and is, precisely what He said. There is no middle way.” (Ch 1) Which is an absurd statement. There are lots and lots of middle ways. Jesus might have been sincere but mistaken, for example. He is deliberately narrowing down the reader's choices to two alternatives so that by demolishing one, you are forced to accept the other. And notice how the work of demolition is packaged into the choice by his description 'unusually abominable'.
In another example he says that our experience of the Numinous (eg dread as opposed to fear) can be explained in only two ways: “either it is a mere twist in the human mind, corresponding to nothing objective and serving no biological function ... or else it is a direct experience of the really supernatural.” (Ch 1). Of course this is not the only choice. And again, he blackens the path he dislikes, with the adjective 'mere' and the qualifier 'nothing objective and serving no biological function'. (I would argue that dreams are natural but potentially numinous and that dread and wonder could easily have a biological function, as does curiosity.)
I was appalled at the attitudes revealed in this book and even more shocked at the lack of academic rigour in the arguments. At least it was short.
n Catch-22 by Joseph Heller, the hero Yossarian gets angry at the thought of a God who has created a world in which there is pain: "Good God, how much reverence can you have for a Supreme Being who found it necessary to include such phenomena as phlegm and tooth decay in His divine system of creation? What in the world was running through that warped, evil, scatological mind of His when he robbed old people of the power to control their bowel movements? Why in the world did He ever create pain? ... Why couldn't He have used a doorbell instead to notify us, or one of His celestial choirs? Or a system of blue-and-red neon tubes right in the middle of each person's forehead? Any jukebox manufacturer worth his salt could have done that. Why couldn't he?”
In this book C S Lewis argues that God uses pain to shake us out of our complacency. When we are happy and content, we tend not to think of God. But when we are suffering, we seek God as a comfort. “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.” (Ch 6)
Fundamentally CSL believes that the ultimate human happiness lies in submission to God. He uses the analogy of a man with a pet dog: “The association of (say) man and dog is primarily for the man’s sake: he tames the dog primarily that he may love it, not that it may love him, and that it may serve him, not that he may serve it ...man interferes with the dog ... In its state of nature it has a smell, and habits, which frustrate man’s love: he washes it, house-trains it, teaches it not to steal, and is so enabled to love it completely. To the puppy the whole proceeding would seem ... to cast grave doubts on the ‘goodness’ of man: but the full-grown and full-trained dog, larger, healthier, and longer-lived than the wild dog ... would have no such doubts.” (Ch 3)
Another analogy, often used in Christianity, is of God as father. But CSL's ideal father is fundamentally authoritarian: “Love between father and son ... means essentially authoritative love on the one side, and obedient love on the other. The father uses his authority to make his son into the sort of human being he, rightly, and in his superior wisdom, wants him to be.” (Ch 3)
Pain is therefore the way God whips us into obedience, using the pretext that it is good for us in the long run. Presumably to a man like CSL, an Oxbridge don, cocooned in multiple privileges, this is the perfect God because he is the perfect excuse for authority, the authority of the master over the slave, the man over the dog, the father over the child, the husband over the wife, the boss over the worker. Pain and suffering can be justified because it props up the status quo. The only true sin is rebellion. This sounds like a classic justification for tyranny.
It wouldn't be so bad if I could feel that CSL's arguments were unanswerable. After all, he was an Oxbridge don. His arguments should be powerful.
But they are shoddy.
He has a habit of introducing hypotheses as if they were fact. For example, he states: “Now the proper good of a creature is to surrender itself to its Creator” (Ch 6) This statement is unevidenced. But he never makes clear that it is an assumption that could be challenged. He then bases his arguments upon this statement. But there are alternatives! You could instead say: ‘The proper good of a creature is to fulfil its potential’. This would lead to radically different conclusions. Such a use of unacknowledged hypotheses suggests either that he is insufficiently imaginative to conceive of alternative points of view, or that he is using rhetoric in place of reason, to manipulate the reader into agreement.
He also enjoys offering dichotomies. This is another rhetorical technique which allows a propagandist to bolster a weak argument. For example, he describes Jesus and says “only two views of this man are possible. Either he was a raving lunatic of an unusually abominable type, or else He was, and is, precisely what He said. There is no middle way.” (Ch 1) Which is an absurd statement. There are lots and lots of middle ways. Jesus might have been sincere but mistaken, for example. He is deliberately narrowing down the reader's choices to two alternatives so that by demolishing one, you are forced to accept the other. And notice how the work of demolition is packaged into the choice by his description 'unusually abominable'.
In another example he says that our experience of the Numinous (eg dread as opposed to fear) can be explained in only two ways: “either it is a mere twist in the human mind, corresponding to nothing objective and serving no biological function ... or else it is a direct experience of the really supernatural.” (Ch 1). Of course this is not the only choice. And again, he blackens the path he dislikes, with the adjective 'mere' and the qualifier 'nothing objective and serving no biological function'. (I would argue that dreams are natural but potentially numinous and that dread and wonder could easily have a biological function, as does curiosity.)
I was appalled at the attitudes revealed in this book and even more shocked at the lack of academic rigour in the arguments. At least it was short.
kurtiskozel's review against another edition
3.0
I am not entirely sure how to rate this, but I am certain to not rate it well; furthermore, I am all the more certain that I am being pedantic.
Very little of the book has to do with the title (directly, although one could say that every topic Lewis touches has to do with it *indirectly*); for example, he covers around 10-12 pages on the issue of Animal Immortality, and I feel comfortable leaving it at that.
Most other issues I have stem not from his Content (or meaning) but rather his Method of Conveying (that is, how he conveys it). In reasoning, it is often hard to tell sophistry from earnest intent and I believe Lewis has a bit of both. In some places he works backwards (from a foregone conclusion), and in yet other more splendid places he works forwards towards a things conclusion. That is to say, I agree with much of what he says, but disagree whole-heartedly with how he got there (in many places).
I see much influence from Chesterton in this work, even from the one book of his I have read so far, and I enjoyed seeing it. However, the concern here is that no Calvinist could possibly give this (nor Chesterton's) book his complete sympathy nor complete agreement: for reasons both in his conclusions and his rhetoric.
Since I have already spoken of it, I may as well treat Chesterton's Orthodoxy and Lewis' book as one for this purpose: they both treat comparative religion as an actual, reasonable rhetorical device, which drives me up a wall. I understand that the pagan or heathen who reads this might make this more trustworthy, but even there I have my issues. Or, for example, that "truth might lie in all things" is equally disreputable. I will not go further, but suffice to say that I would wish a premise to stand on its own, and I don't appreciate the Noble Christian Philosophy being compared to other religions as "both have it right" (even with the inclusion, of both authors, that Christianity has some "secret spice" that makes it better. If done seldom, I could better understand it, but near every chapter has some kind of "this compared to that" and I think it is a lazy work of logic and writing to do so). I think it easy to say that Shakespeare, for instance, might be a good author, but on no real account could we count him among the Saints.
However, this is a beautiful book with many interesting parts worthy of thought. My hesitancy and frustration with it stems from, in part, how well I see aspects of this flawed book played out in society. I had thought, before I started, to find some issues within the book, but I hadn't thought to see so many (most small, but a number of them large).
I will conclude this review within this paragraph. I recommend this book to those who are extremely new or extremely old in the faith, but none in-between. I think the prose worthy of its own consideration, in particular the last chapter on Heaven and the 8th Chapter on Animals (for which he has an obvious strong affection). As for his ideas, I would recommend tricking someone else into reading this book for you and getting them to give you a summary.
Very little of the book has to do with the title (directly, although one could say that every topic Lewis touches has to do with it *indirectly*); for example, he covers around 10-12 pages on the issue of Animal Immortality, and I feel comfortable leaving it at that.
Most other issues I have stem not from his Content (or meaning) but rather his Method of Conveying (that is, how he conveys it). In reasoning, it is often hard to tell sophistry from earnest intent and I believe Lewis has a bit of both. In some places he works backwards (from a foregone conclusion), and in yet other more splendid places he works forwards towards a things conclusion. That is to say, I agree with much of what he says, but disagree whole-heartedly with how he got there (in many places).
I see much influence from Chesterton in this work, even from the one book of his I have read so far, and I enjoyed seeing it. However, the concern here is that no Calvinist could possibly give this (nor Chesterton's) book his complete sympathy nor complete agreement: for reasons both in his conclusions and his rhetoric.
Since I have already spoken of it, I may as well treat Chesterton's Orthodoxy and Lewis' book as one for this purpose: they both treat comparative religion as an actual, reasonable rhetorical device, which drives me up a wall. I understand that the pagan or heathen who reads this might make this more trustworthy, but even there I have my issues. Or, for example, that "truth might lie in all things" is equally disreputable. I will not go further, but suffice to say that I would wish a premise to stand on its own, and I don't appreciate the Noble Christian Philosophy being compared to other religions as "both have it right" (even with the inclusion, of both authors, that Christianity has some "secret spice" that makes it better. If done seldom, I could better understand it, but near every chapter has some kind of "this compared to that" and I think it is a lazy work of logic and writing to do so). I think it easy to say that Shakespeare, for instance, might be a good author, but on no real account could we count him among the Saints.
However, this is a beautiful book with many interesting parts worthy of thought. My hesitancy and frustration with it stems from, in part, how well I see aspects of this flawed book played out in society. I had thought, before I started, to find some issues within the book, but I hadn't thought to see so many (most small, but a number of them large).
I will conclude this review within this paragraph. I recommend this book to those who are extremely new or extremely old in the faith, but none in-between. I think the prose worthy of its own consideration, in particular the last chapter on Heaven and the 8th Chapter on Animals (for which he has an obvious strong affection). As for his ideas, I would recommend tricking someone else into reading this book for you and getting them to give you a summary.
cassiealexandra's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
informative
reflective
4.5
This is at least the third time I have picked up this book. I once wondered if I’d ever finish it, but sometimes it’s a matter of timing. Maybe my readings of Out of the Silent Planet last year and Letters to Malcom earlier this year contributed to finally being ready for this classic by Lewis. While I’m not certain I agree with all its contents, Lewis writes a thoughtful and compelling, while not comprehensive, treatise on the problem of pain and suffering through the lens of Christianity. He writes with humility and dry humor. I even shed a tear or two. I have a feeling this is not the type of book to read only once and that I will return over the years, understanding more upon each reread.
The bottom line: I am so glad I finally read this and think my intimidation with Lewis’s nonfiction may finally be broken.
— NOTES —
Genres: Christian nonfiction
Content: human pain, animal pain, suffering discussions
— MY RATING CONSIDERATIONS —
(all out of 5)
Levity/Humility: 5
Information: 5
Transformation: 5
Gut: 4.5
Total: 4.625
The bottom line: I am so glad I finally read this and think my intimidation with Lewis’s nonfiction may finally be broken.
— NOTES —
Genres: Christian nonfiction
Content: human pain, animal pain, suffering discussions
— MY RATING CONSIDERATIONS —
(all out of 5)
Levity/Humility: 5
Information: 5
Transformation: 5
Gut: 4.5
Total: 4.625
lydie95's review against another edition
hopeful
informative
reflective
slow-paced
4.25
Thought provoking and insightful. Would like to re read and make some notes on his ideas about pain, suffering and faith.