God's Goodness and Omnipotence: Answering the Problem of Pain - Essay Sample

Introduction

Christianity has two basic beliefs like attacking. The first is that Yahweh is both good and omnipotent. To them, God is the source of good because nothing evil can come from Him. God is also very powerful because He created everything known and unknown in the universe. I find that The Problem of Pain (1940) advances a theodicy that seeks to explain away how suffering in the world can co-exist with the Christian image of God as being good and omnipotent God. Lewis, therefore, sets out to answer the question "If God is good, why does He not want humans to easily access a happy life?" and " If God is as powerful as the Scriptures claim, why has He not done so?." I find that The Problem of Pain (1940) is an over-intellectualized book, helpful but lacking in existential engagement. Be that as it may, the author successfully argues that the presence of suffering in the world does not disprove the existence of a good and omnipotent God.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The Problem of Suffering

Religion is losing its value in contemporary society. An alarmingly large amount of people considers themselves an atheist. In The Problem of Suffering (1940), the author tackles the argument leveled against Christianity that if its vision of God was true, the world would not know pain and suffering (Lewis,1940). To his credit, he concedes that the historical development of Christianity creates the problem of pain.

The Christian conception of God is that He is loving, fair, and all-powerful. When he was an atheist, argued that since the universe was an unpopulated space, the earth must have been lifeless for many years before humans emerged. Lewis deduced that since human existence involves pain and suffering, the universe cannot be the work of the God depicted by Christian theologists. First Lewis says "when pain is to be borne, a little courage helps more than much knowledge, a little human sympathy more than much courage, and the least tincture of the love of God more than all" (p.10). Lewis later goes on to say "If God were good, He 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" (p. 26).

Lewis contended that it is easy for an atheist to maintain logical consistency by claiming that there is no God, and if there is one, He is at best not benevolent and at worst, He is evil. All this to say that when Lewis was an atheist, he saw it as a contradiction for Christians to assert that despite difficulties humans face daily, they believe in a powerful and omnipresent God. So, Lewis concludes that Christianity creates the problem of pain as adherents are made to expect the world to be a fair, and less painful place.

After this concession about the problem of pain caused by Christian doctrine in chapter one, Lewis proceeds to explain his defense of faith in light of suffering (i.e. theodicy). Even if Lewis is wrong about how Christian doctrines are inconsistent with objective reality, the ideology of atheism does not have to justify any claims about the supernatural origins of good or evil. Its simple explanation that pain, suffering, and hardships are expected in a world that is subject to change and the impersonal laws of nature.

The first phase of the theodicy present by Lewis in The Problem of Suffering (1940), is an effort to redefine the "almighty" character of God. Lewis disagrees with any theologian asserting that there are no limits to God's power (Lewis,1940, pp 27-28). To Lewis, a holist reading of the Bible reveals that God can not engage in "self-contradictory" conduct (page 27). He cannot do things that are "intrinsically impossible" (p. 28). He most certainly will not "give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it" (page 28). Finally, Lewis contends that God will not "create a society of free souls without at the same time creating a relatively independent and 'inexorable' Nature" (Lewis,1940, p. 29). My interpretation of this final claim is that Lewis is proposing that it would have been impractical for God to humans beings endowed with free will but immune from being hurt by nature or suffering because of the choices they make as they exercise their autonomy (p. 35).

The second phase of the theodicy advanced by Lewis is that the problem of pain used to challenge the existence of God erroneous equates the human understanding of good and evil with that of God (Lewis,1940,pp.37-39). Lewis believes that belief in God is justified by a better appreciation of God's view of goodness (p. 39). In this way, we can avoid the common problem of assuming that God wants humans to always be happy. Lewis instead contends that Biblical scripture reveals that God wants us to become good rather than living a happy life(pp.43-46). From this perspective, Lewis asserts God is (1) an artist shaping us into a "glorious ... destiny"; (2) a dog owner training us into "more lovable" beings; (3) a father using His authority to raise his children into the adults He wants them to be; and (4) a husband who wants the best for His bride (p. 46).

All this to say that when understanding the goodness of God, one must account for His love always being expressed as a paternalist concerned for our general welfare, personal improvement, and success(Lewis,1940, p.48). Lewis deduces that God will not love when we are in a fallen (wicked) state. Thus, He will sometimes let us endure pain and suffering to lift us out of wickedness. To Lewis, since it is a selfless type of love, it cannot be categorized as an egotistical exercise of power by a God indifferent to human suffering(p.50). He offers us divine protection when we love Him and we obey His divine authority.

Lewis dedicates chapter four of his book to re-assert his earlier claim that since human beings are morally imperfect, they need suffering to be transformed into creatures who deserve God's love (Lewis,1940,p. 55). Lewis' assumes a lack of shame makes us bad people (pp.57-58). Lewis believes unless we feel guilty when we engage in sin, we will ignore God. All this to say that the suffering in the world at the hands of fellow human beings is not caused by the absence of a God but rather, the absence of a belief in Yahweh. Lewis uses eight proofs to buttress his claim. They are as follows :

• We tend to assume that we are more moral than other people even when we know we're not;
• We justify being unfair because society is unfair (p.60);
• We imagine that the passage of time absolves us of all sins;
• We engage in immoral conduct if other people are doing the same (p. 62);
• We tend to rebel against God's divine authority;
• We tend to focus on one good trait while ignoring others;
• We tend to rebel against religious norms because we think they are too strict; and
• We give ourselves excuses for our moral failures rather than accepting that we choose to do evil.

Lewis recommends that if engaging in sin makes a person feel shame, there is an opportunity for them to regain God's favor.

I agree with Lewis that we are not naturally virtuous and feelings of shame can be a powerful tool in mitigating our natural tendency to justify immoral conduct. It is reasonable for Lewis to argue that God can't love us while we are rebelling against His divine authority. The fate of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah is a testament to this fact. Lewis' theodicy does not seem entirely wrong when it asserts that God allows suffering to remind us of His divine authority. But I find this second branch of his theodicy problematic.

Lewis is challenging the Biblical conception of God by asking Christians to believe that in God's eyes, human suffering (e.g. being victimized by crime, the death of your loved ones, terminal diseases, murder, famine, and poverty .e.t.c) is a good rather than an evil thing(Lewis,1940). Furthermore, the "soul-making" explanation advanced by Lewis on why it is fair for me to suffer less than a person in a poor country since we all are imperfect and destined to always fall short of the glory of God (p.108). Lewis fails to address this issue of the disparity in human suffering across the globe. He concedes as much by stating that "The causes of this distribution I do not know" (p. 104). Finally, by asserting the path to righteousness for a member of the faith community is through suffering, Lewis is contradicting and even minimizing the crucifixion of Christ.

Chapter five is dedicated to explaining the "fall of man" and consequently why God allows humans to endure pain(Lewis,1940,69). Lewis blames humanity for the suffering they endure because they can choose to exercise free will imperfectly. He concludes that when Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, they acquired free will that could be corrupted by evil intent (p. 69). Lewis believed in Darwinian evolution but concedes that he doesn't know how to estimate when people evolved the trait of wickedness, or if they are worse than their evolutionary ancestors when they evilly exercise free will.

In this chapter of his theodicy, Lewis presents free will as a permanent sin against God that is intergenerational (Lewis,1940, pp.75-85). Consequently, as the descendants of Adam, our fate is to suffer since we possess an "internal perversion" that separates that our Creator never intended for us to have (p.84). Lewis concludes that we do not suffer because God wants us to suffer but instead, we suffer because the machinations of Lucifer, we became permanently "spoiled" (p. 85). The purpose of this chapter is clearly to reinforce his argument that we are morally imperfect and that is why suffering is how God asserts His divine authority over us. Lewis is essentially repeating his claim that suffering is a form of divine correction rather than pure evil. Merging Darwinism with Genesis makes no sense because it contradicts the express text of the Biblical depiction of creation. This is why it failed miserably.

Chapter six of his book is connected to the previous one by extolling the virtue of pain as an essential component of divine correction. (Lewis,1940). He explains that because we have free will, we cannot avoid pain as we interact with other people also exercising personal autonomy (p.85). He explains that this is because when "souls become wicked" people tend to use free will in a manner that harms others (p.89). Lewis wants to justify why an omnipotent and good God does not intervene by eradicating human suffering (p.90). Lewis asserts that pain is a divine tool used to steer us onto the path of recognizing and surrendering to God's divine authority over human life. Hence pain is our only way to access a happy life as we abide by Biblical norms and the teachings of Christ (pp.90- 91). To Lewis, we are "rebels who must lay down our arms" to appease God and suffering helps us submit ourselves to His divine rule (p. 91). Lewis submits three proofs to justify his views on pain. They are as follows:

• We are spoiled creatures who will never willingly surrender to God's will. Pain is, therefore "God's megaphone to rouse a deaf world" that "shatters the illusion that all is well" (pp.93- 95).
• Pain reminds us that we cannot defeat evil without the help of God (p. 97). Thus God makes good people suffer so that they seek Him out for help (p.97).
• Suffering makes us choose to surrender to God in a genuine manner (p.99). To Lewis, an easy surrender to God is impure. He cites the painful surrender of Christ and martyrs to God's will as examples of purity through suffering (p.102).

Lewis does not convince the reader that good people must suffer pain for their edification, sanctification, and mortification. God is portrayed as a tyrant who enjoys inflicting pain as a tool to secure obedience. This seems counter-intuitive to the Christian depict...