Wrote a bit on The Problem of Pain, part two and The Great Divorce. Of course, I haven't actually re-read the latter yet, but I will...
The more I read of this book, the more interesting it is, though chapters six and seven held my interest particularly strongly. In chapter six, Lewis goes through and talks about why people have to suffer and in chapter seven, he outlines this even more. One thing that struck me really hard and really fast was how Lewis comments that “when souls become wicked they will certainly use this possibility to hurt one another” (601 ), which is something that I have seen over and over again in life. People, whether this is a conscious desire or not, will often use their talents and abilities to hurt others because we are subbourn, rebellious creatures who refuse to go down without a fight. It is in human nature, I believe, to take something that we’ve been given, pervert it into something atrocious and then hurt as many people as possible (including ourselves often enough) in the process.
However, Lewis also talks of justice and how one might get what he deserves. Pain from justice, Lewis argues, is a good thing because at some level, everyone agrees that the good guys should get rewarded and the bad guys should get punished. But when does this idea of giving the bad guy what he deserves cross the fine line into becoming what Lewis terms as “vindictive passion”? Who are we, as humans, to decide what a fair and just punishment for another human would be? Who makes sure that the punishments that we give out are fair and just?
By far, one of my favourite things that Lewis talks about in the reading for this week is his idea of the necessity of pain in the role of knowing God and responding to him. In order to make a choice, we must be educated about the different options, Lewis argues. Before we experience pain, we live in the dangerous illusion that all of life is good. In this sense, what pain is able to do is provide a wake-up call and alerts us to the fact that there is a greater reality outside of our own little world. He comments that even atheists, who claim not to believe in God’s existence, become upset at him when they experience pain. This is rather interesting and quite true. You cannot deny that something exists and simultaneously be angry at it. Take gravity, for instance. If you jump off a cliff because you do not believe in the existence of gravity, you cannot logically blame gravity and become upset at it when you fall to the ground and hurt yourself. It is the same way with God. You can either deny his existence (and therefore, he cannot be blamed for anything, nor thanked... he’s like the tooth faerie or Santa Claus) or you can accept that he exists and get angry at him. You cannot logically have it both ways.
A couple last points of interest... I thought it noteworthy to mention that Lewis alludes to the idea of Pascal’s wager, particularly when he comments that “it is hardly complimentary to God that we should choose Him as an alternative to Hell” (606). It is also interesting to note that Lewis acknowledges that his explanation of suffering is theological in nature.
Even though Lewis primarily argues from an intellectual standpoint, he is very aware of the personal issues that may arise and at least in my eyes, this improves his credibility. I think that for everyone, the problem of pain is a very personal issue and it is something that has the potential to break a person’s faith. In all truth, I don’t think that the problem of pain can be argued from a purely logical and theoretical standpoint, as it is something that we all have to deal with on a very personal level and if you’ve ever dealt with someone who has faced those questions (or perhaps these are questions you’ve faced yourself), you will find that it is utterly absurd to expect that a philosophical argument will provide any comfort.
On a completely separate note, I thought that The Great Divorce was brilliantly written. It is one of my favourite Lewis books and it is interesting to see how he was so heavily influenced by the ideas of Plato, specifically the idea of Plato's cave and the world of the forms. In The Great Divorce, the narrator is no stranger of pain. In fact, he experiences a great amount of pain when he first arrives in Heaven (the sun is too bright and the grass is as sharp as razor-blades). This ties in very nicely with the idea in The Problem of Pain that one must be able to experience pain in order to know God.
The more I read of this book, the more interesting it is, though chapters six and seven held my interest particularly strongly. In chapter six, Lewis goes through and talks about why people have to suffer and in chapter seven, he outlines this even more. One thing that struck me really hard and really fast was how Lewis comments that “when souls become wicked they will certainly use this possibility to hurt one another” (601 ), which is something that I have seen over and over again in life. People, whether this is a conscious desire or not, will often use their talents and abilities to hurt others because we are subbourn, rebellious creatures who refuse to go down without a fight. It is in human nature, I believe, to take something that we’ve been given, pervert it into something atrocious and then hurt as many people as possible (including ourselves often enough) in the process.
However, Lewis also talks of justice and how one might get what he deserves. Pain from justice, Lewis argues, is a good thing because at some level, everyone agrees that the good guys should get rewarded and the bad guys should get punished. But when does this idea of giving the bad guy what he deserves cross the fine line into becoming what Lewis terms as “vindictive passion”? Who are we, as humans, to decide what a fair and just punishment for another human would be? Who makes sure that the punishments that we give out are fair and just?
By far, one of my favourite things that Lewis talks about in the reading for this week is his idea of the necessity of pain in the role of knowing God and responding to him. In order to make a choice, we must be educated about the different options, Lewis argues. Before we experience pain, we live in the dangerous illusion that all of life is good. In this sense, what pain is able to do is provide a wake-up call and alerts us to the fact that there is a greater reality outside of our own little world. He comments that even atheists, who claim not to believe in God’s existence, become upset at him when they experience pain. This is rather interesting and quite true. You cannot deny that something exists and simultaneously be angry at it. Take gravity, for instance. If you jump off a cliff because you do not believe in the existence of gravity, you cannot logically blame gravity and become upset at it when you fall to the ground and hurt yourself. It is the same way with God. You can either deny his existence (and therefore, he cannot be blamed for anything, nor thanked... he’s like the tooth faerie or Santa Claus) or you can accept that he exists and get angry at him. You cannot logically have it both ways.
A couple last points of interest... I thought it noteworthy to mention that Lewis alludes to the idea of Pascal’s wager, particularly when he comments that “it is hardly complimentary to God that we should choose Him as an alternative to Hell” (606). It is also interesting to note that Lewis acknowledges that his explanation of suffering is theological in nature.
Even though Lewis primarily argues from an intellectual standpoint, he is very aware of the personal issues that may arise and at least in my eyes, this improves his credibility. I think that for everyone, the problem of pain is a very personal issue and it is something that has the potential to break a person’s faith. In all truth, I don’t think that the problem of pain can be argued from a purely logical and theoretical standpoint, as it is something that we all have to deal with on a very personal level and if you’ve ever dealt with someone who has faced those questions (or perhaps these are questions you’ve faced yourself), you will find that it is utterly absurd to expect that a philosophical argument will provide any comfort.
On a completely separate note, I thought that The Great Divorce was brilliantly written. It is one of my favourite Lewis books and it is interesting to see how he was so heavily influenced by the ideas of Plato, specifically the idea of Plato's cave and the world of the forms. In The Great Divorce, the narrator is no stranger of pain. In fact, he experiences a great amount of pain when he first arrives in Heaven (the sun is too bright and the grass is as sharp as razor-blades). This ties in very nicely with the idea in The Problem of Pain that one must be able to experience pain in order to know God.
No comments:
Post a Comment