08 Dec 2013

C.S. Lewis on The Problem of Pain

Religious 50 Comments

An excerpt from his wonderful book, where he’s showing that a “loving God” wouldn’t just sit back and let us persist in our natural state and try to just let us “be happy”:

Another type [of love that humans understand] is love of a man for a beast–a relation constantly used in Scripture to symbolise the relation between God and men; ‘we are his people and the sheep of his pasture.’…[T]he 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. Yet at the same time, the dog’s interests are not sacrificed to the man’s. The one end (that he may love it) cannot be fully attained unless it also, in its fashion, loves him, nor can it serve him unless he, in a different fashion, serves it. Now just because the dog is by human standards one of the ‘best’ of irrational creatures, and a proper object for a man to love…man interferes with the dog and makes it more lovable than it was in mere nature. 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, if it were a theologian, 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, and admitted, as it were, by Grace, to a whole world of affections, loyalties, interests, and comforts entirely beyond its animal destiny, would have no such doubts. It will be noted that the man…takes all these pains with the dog…only because it is an animal high in the scale–because it is so nearly lovable that it is worth his while to make it fully lovable. He does not house-train the earwig or give baths to centipedes.

50 Responses to “C.S. Lewis on The Problem of Pain”

  1. Harold says:

    C.S. Lewis was an entertaining writer, but his philosophy leaves an awful lot to be desired. “[T]he association of (say) man and dog is primarily for the man’s sake” Well, it is for the man, but not for the dog. You can re-write this whole passage from the dog’s perspective and it works. The dog gets the man to feed and protect him, take him for walks, tickle his tummy – even pick up his shit in a plastic baggie these days. Dog interferes with man and makes it more lovable than it was in mere nature.

    For man and dog there is a symbiotic relationship going back a very long time. There are theories that man evolved the ability to talk because he could afford to reduce the size of the sensory membranes in the nose as he had the dog’s smelling abilities to rely on. This allowed the evolution of large cavities in the skull and the huge range of utterances that humans can make. Certainly in the early days of domestication, dogs had the choice as much as the people.

    What is this “scale” he talks of? Dogs are not adopted because they are high on a scale – unless it is an arbitrary scale of usefulness and desirability to humans. Tigers are as high as dogs on most scales, yet we don’t have them in our homes. We don’t give baths to centipedes, nor do we hose train the lion. It is not because the lion is “low an the scale”. Again, this is using a scale of usefulness and desirability to humans to justify that dogs are desirable and useful to humans.

    So when we look at it a bit deeper, we see that humans are quite happy to hunt and kill animals of equal “objective” value as dogs, just to provide a bit of fun and an ornament for the wall or floor. We treat dogs well because they have been useful to us.

    Sheep are useful to us as well, primarily as dinner. If we extend the sheep analogy a bit further, we arrive at a different picture. We do not keep sheep in the field for their benefit, but we kill and eat them for our benefit. Is this really the picture of God that Lewis is after?

    • Ken B says:

      Excellent comment Harold. +1

      • knoxharrington says:

        Harold +1, Major_Troll, er, Freedom -1.

    • Major_Freedom says:

      “You can re-write this whole passage from the dog’s perspective and it works. The dog gets the man to feed and protect him, take him for walks, tickle his tummy – even pick up his shit in a plastic baggie these days. Dog interferes with man and makes it more lovable than it was in mere nature.”

      This comment attributes a human mental faculty to the dog, as if it is a non-controversial every day knowledge that dogs act with a purpose. Are the dogs interfering with man the way man is interfering with dogs? It isn’t so clear because we don’t know what it’s like to think like a dog. For all you know, the dog can be behaving solely in terms of reacting to stimuli, in a way that makes it look like it is purpsefully behaving (acting).

      Humans pick up dog shit because humans have decided to do that, not the dog. Humans tickle dog tummies because humans have decided to do that.

      I find “a lot to be desired” in the statement: “You can re-write this whole passage from the dog’s perspective…” I doubt very strongly that you have the mental capacity to “think from a dog’s perspective”. You only have your own perspective.

      • Ken B says:

        FreeAdvice — An Evolution-free Zone

        • Major_Freedom says:

          Not denying evolution nor did anything I say contradict evolution.

          Humans evolved the capacity to behave with a purpose, and, we evolved to have the perspective of a human, not a dog.

          Geez, you’re like the Kirk Cameron of the atheist side.

          • Keshav Srinivasan says:

            So is there a gene for action and free will? You still haven’t answered my question from a previous thread: how is it possible that a system of interacting particles initially behaves deterministicaly, but then the system later behaves non-deterministicaly, even though each particle is still having the same deterministic interaction with its neighboring particles?

            • Major_Freedom says:

              “So is there a gene for action and free will?”

              Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. You can’t find that in a single gene.

              “You still haven’t answered my question from a previous thread: how is it possible that a system of interacting particles initially behaves deterministicaly, but then the system later behaves non-deterministicaly, even though each particle is still having the same deterministic interaction with its neighboring particles?”

              Emergence.

              Hydrogen atoms have a particular nature.

              Oxygen atoms have a particular nature different from hydrogen atoms.

              Water molecules have a particular nature different from both hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms, even though they are “made from” those atoms.

              If you were to split my body up into individual atoms, or for the unstable atoms individual stable molecules, or let’s just say you turn me into plasma, then that matter would have very different properties than the me that stands before you, despite there being the same atoms.

              We can’t know the entirety of the universe by knowing the exact nature of hydrogen atoms and hydrogen atoms only.

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                “You can’t find that in a single gene.” Well then, shouldn’t you at least be able to find it in a set of multiple genes? Evolution does, after all, work through changes in the genetic code.

                “Water molecules have a particular nature different from both hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms, even though they are “made from” those atoms.” Water molecules behave in a way that is entirely explicable in terms of the properties of the constituent atoms and the properties of the interactions between neighboring atoms. Do you believe the same thing about free will?

                “If you were to split my body up into individual atoms, or for the unstable atoms individual stable molecules, or let’s just say you turn me into plasma, then that matter would have very different properties than the me that stands before you, despite there being the same atoms.” Yes, because you’re changing the properties of the interactions between neighboring atoms. But as long as you understand the properties of each atom and the properties of each interaction between two neighboring atoms, what else is required to describe the behavior of a system of N interacting particles?

              • Major_Freedom says:

                Keshav:

                “Well then, shouldn’t you at least be able to find it in a set of multiple genes?”

                How can I find my own self-awareness, by observing a gene or genes? Observing a gene or genes would imply an observer that is not the genes themselves.

                “Evolution does, after all, work through changes in the genetic code.”

                Sure, but that doesn’t mean we’ll ever know what you think can be known through observing genes.

                “Water molecules behave in a way that is entirely explicable in terms of the properties of the constituent atoms and the properties of the interactions between neighboring atoms.”

                Ah, the “interaction”. That’s my point. Water properties are emergent properties that are not taking place when those constituent atoms are separated.

                Consciousness is the same way. And the knowledge of this cannot be observed, it can only be known internally.

                “Do you believe the same thing about free will?”

                I am a compatibilist. I do not hold that one explanation fits everything.

                “Yes, because you’re changing the properties of the interactions between neighboring atoms.”

                Yes, and that “interaction” I hold to be emergent in the case of consciousness. We can’t know what consciousness is like through observing atoms or genes.

                It’s something to experience.

                “But as long as you understand the properties of each atom and the properties of each interaction between two neighboring atoms”

                Right, but we don’t know the interaction in the case of consciousness through observation. The interaction of consciousness is internal. It’s self-awareness, not external awareness.

                “what else is required to describe the behavior of a system of N interacting particles?”

                Who says you can know every interaction through observation only?

          • Ken B says:

            Minds evolved. Minds were not-free floating ghosts waiting for the right kind of host, the human brain, to evolve. Minds are the workings of sophisticated nervous systems. Dogs have minds, and some level of cognition, and anyone can observe they act apparently purposively.

            • Major_Freedom says:

              “and anyone can observe they act apparently purposively.”

              Bzzzzzzttt.

              None of us can observe purposeful activity. We can only observe bodily movements.

              To impute action requires self-reflective understanding.

              You are at best making a guesstimate that dogs act. You don’t know they do based on their bodily movements.

      • Keshav Srinivasan says:

        Major_Freedom, there are a lot of people who believe that humans don’t “act” either (under your definition of act). They just think they’re a collection of particles behaving according to deterministic laws.

        • Major_Freedom says:

          Good for them. They’re wrong. Determinism is self-contradictory when uttered by a consciousness.

          See Newcomb’s paradox.

          • Keshav Srinivasan says:

            Why is it self-contradictory for a conscious being to say that he believes that his behavior is predetermined.

            Concerning Newcomb’s paradox, the resolution is simple pick only one box, because whatever choice you make is predetermined, so you either live in a universe in which you will choose one box and it makes you better off, or you live in universe in which you will choose two boxes and it makes you worse off. So obviously you should choose one box, because you prefer the first universe to the second universe.

            Here is the fundamental point: just because you believe that your choices are predetermined doesn’t mean that there’s no point in trying to make good choices.

            • Major_Freedom says:

              “Why is it self-contradictory for a conscious being to say that he believes that his behavior is predetermined.”

              “Concerning Newcomb’s paradox, the resolution is simple pick only one box, because whatever choice you make is predetermined, so you either live in a universe in which you will choose one box and it makes you better off, or you live in universe in which you will choose two boxes and it makes you worse off. So obviously you should choose one box, because you prefer the first universe to the second universe.”

              But the past is already settled. You can’t change what’s already been done by making one choice in the present over another choice in the present.

              It isn’t so “simple” Keshav.

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                Major_Freedom, yes, the past is settled, but we’re assuming that the future is also settled. There is no conceivable universe in which you’re better off choosing two boxes.

                If the argument is that there’s no point making a choice between two pasts, because the past is fixed, the argument could be equally applied to say that there’s no point in making a choice between two futures, because the future is fixed. But the latter argument is fallacious. As I said, the mere fact that your choices are predetermined does not mean that there’s no point in making good choices.

              • Major_Freedom says:

                “Major_Freedom, yes, the past is settled, but we’re assuming that the future is also settled. There is no conceivable universe in which you’re better off choosing two boxes.”

                Of course there is a conceivable universe where you’re better off choosing both boxes. If you accept that the past is already settled, then a reasonable argument here is that there would be no harm in choosing both boxes. Nothing can change by virtue of your choice, in this interpretation.

                “If the argument is that there’s no point making a choice between two pasts, because the past is fixed…”

                No, that isn’t the argument.

                “As I said, the mere fact that your choices are predetermined does not mean that there’s no point in making good choices.”

                That isn’t the issue here.

              • Harold says:

                Thought experiments are useful to clarify our thinking, but we must be careful what lesson we take. Newcomb’s paradox remains in the realm of thought, and thus tells us absolutely nothing about determinism in the absence of an actual predictor who is “nearly always right”.

                Determinism is unpalatable, but so is effect without a cause, which is what you seem to mean by “emergence”. It is very different to say we cannot know what will happen to saying things are not caused by the interactions of their constituent parts.

                I am on the fence personally.

              • Ken B says:

                I certainly don’t mean effect without cause. I mean explanations cannot be framed without concepts appropriate to the level of discourse. As has been noted, as if I was being refuted, nothing I’ve said prohibits determinism.

                Bob criticizes me as unjustifiably confident, but I have never taken a stand on whether determinism is true. Bob through introspection claims know the answer. Which of us I ask is unjustifiably confident?

              • Major_Freedom says:

                Harold:

                “Newcomb’s paradox remains in the realm of thought, and thus tells us absolutely nothing about determinism in the absence of an actual predictor who is “nearly always right”.”

                1. It actually does tell us something about determinism. It assumes a perfect predictor to perform the concept of knowing determinism. In order for us to know determinism is true, we need to make clear the idea of a perfect predictor.

                2. It is necessary that Newcomb’s paradox is in “the realm of thought”. It is a feature, not a bug. Since two mutually exclusive, and yet reasonable, courses of action seem to be justified, it means there is something wrong with either determinism, or the past being settled and incapable of reversing.

                “Determinism is unpalatable, but so is effect without a cause, which is what you seem to mean by “emergence”.”

                “It is very different to say we cannot know what will happen to saying things are not caused by the interactions of their constituent parts.
                I am on the fence personally.”

                Why can’t consciousness be a point of departure from causality?

                Remember, quantum mechanics has shown us that even macroscopic entities can only be known as behaving probabilistically, not deterministically.

                Why can’t consciousness be a reflection of indeterminism already proven as inherent in material phenomena?

                Personally, I find determinism to be an antiquated philosophy. No serious physicist subscribes to it, even the hardcore atheists ones.

              • Major_Freedom says:

                Ken B:

                Does it not take MORE confidence to claim to know the truth of things outside of you, relative to you claiming to know the truths about yourself?

              • Harold says:

                Determinism may be true without us knowing it. It may be true without there being any possibility of us knowing. If the predictor is not possible, then the thought experiment is meaningless.

                “Why can’t consciousness be a point of departure from causality?” Indeed, that’s why I am on the fence.

                As Ken B says, “explanations cannot be framed without concepts appropriate to the level of discourse.” I agree. “Emergence” is necessary in order for us to discuss things, but may not be a “real” thing. I pick up a cup. I could attempt to describe the motion of every atom in my arm and cup. This would probably be impossible. Few would say that my picking up the cup was not determined by the movements of those atoms, but few would say it was a sensible way to discuss it when “I picked up the cup” conveys what we need.

            • Matt Tanous says:

              “just because you believe that your choices are predetermined doesn’t mean that there’s no point in trying to make good choices.”

              Just because a material nihilist doesn’t believe in reality, doesn’t mean there’s no reason to not act as though it exists. Except that is hypocrisy.

              You can’t make choices if things are predetermined. There is no such thing. If you have even the option to “try to make good choices” you are negating determinism in the first place.

        • Major_Freedom says:

          Besides, radical determinism has logical outcomes that very few, if any, determinists would accept.

          • Keshav Srinivasan says:

            Like what?

            • Major_Freedom says:

              Like everything one has ever said, thought, or did, as being neither right nor wrong, just a mechanistic process of cause and effect.

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                Determinism need not absolve moral responsibility. The villain in a movie does the same thing every time we watch the movie. Yet we still consider him evil, even though his actions are fixed. Or better yet, a Hitler documentary plays the same way every time. The past is fixed, yet we can still judge past actions as good or bad. So similarly view your actions as the past of someone living in the distant future.

                The thing is, just because everything is a chain of causes and effects does not mean that you’re not doing anything. You would be a particular subset of causes and effects, and insider as that subsystem does thinks which violate moral principles, we can blame you for that.

              • Keshav Srinivasan says:

                *insofar, not insider

              • Ken B says:

                Today is already the tomorrow the bad moralist told us to ignore yesterday.

              • Matt Tanous says:

                ” The villain in a movie does the same thing every time we watch the movie. Yet we still consider him evil, even though his actions are fixed”

                No one considers the villain truly evil. They consider them a villain. In a story. That isn’t reality. If you come across the actor that played the guy, you aren’t going to stone him for the part he played in a story. Because there is no REAL villain, no REAL hero.

                “Or better yet, a Hitler documentary plays the same way every time. The past is fixed, yet we can still judge past actions as good or bad. So similarly view your actions as the past of someone living in the distant future.”

                So many assumptions are made here. Most importantly, you presume you are already proven correct then use that to “prove” you are correct. None of this is actually true without determinism, and if it is it STILL absolves moral responsibility, because there is no choice – you are still applying a view that free will exists.

                “we can blame you for that.”

                There is no “we” or “you” in determinism. “You” are deterministically required to “blame” “me” for “my” actions that I am likewise required to commit. And none of anything matters.

              • Major_Freedom says:

                “Determinism need not absolve moral responsibility.”

                Morality requires choice. If there is no choice, there is no moral activity.

                A moral code is an argument that you ought to do X, rather than ought not do X (or vice versa).

                If every phenomena in the universe was purely causal, then morality is incoherent.

                “The villain in a movie does the same thing every time we watch the movie. Yet we still consider him evil, even though his actions are fixed.”

                That’s because we take it for granted that the villain chose to act that way, and we’re just watching a replay of a past set of choices.

                We say the villain is evil because he chose to do bad things instead of good things.

                We don’t say a tree is evil for falling and killing someone, because we take it for granted that the tree lacks choice.

                “Or better yet, a Hitler documentary plays the same way every time. The past is fixed, yet we can still judge past actions as good or bad.”

                Because you’re attributing choice to the actors.

                “So similarly view your actions as the past of someone living in the distant future.”

                Yes, same assumption of choice.

                “The thing is, just because everything is a chain of causes and effects does not mean that you’re not doing anything.”

                The point is about morality, not whether there is action.

                “You would be a particular subset of causes and effects, and insider as that subsystem does thinks which violate moral principles, we can blame you for that.”

                But if everything is causal, then you must blame everything else in the universe as well, including yourself, because every event was caused by the sum total of all past events.

        • Hank says:

          The concept of action is not against determinism. Even if you think a persons actions are pre-determined, the person is still acting. You, Ken, and Lord Keynes still cannot grasp, or refuse to grasp, the concept of action for some reason.

          Just because you accept the action axiom does not mean you must accept the deductions made by Mises. But to deny the action axiom itself is plainly ridiculous in my opinion.

          • Ken B says:

            Hank, meet Major Freedom. Major Freedom, Hank.

          • Ken B says:

            Hank meet Matt Tanous. Matt, Hank.

    • Andrew Keen says:

      You’re believe that dogs voluntarily choose human captivity in order to be taken for walks? Sounds reasonable.

    • Lucifer says:

      But there is no god.

  2. Major_Freedom says:

    The belief here is that evil is necessary in order for there to be good. Good and evil are “benevolent” creations.

  3. Andrea says:

    Dogs are “high on the scale” because, through careful breeding, they have attuned themselves to humans and are able to read our body language to use US for problem solving. No other animal on earth has adapted to us in this way. I have a ten year old Boston Terrier. He was five when I brought him home to live with us. He had been living in an outdoor cage, cold and unloved. When I brought him home I gave him a bath, food, and warmth. It took a great deal of discipline to teach him how to live in a human’s house. I’m sure to him I appeared mean at first but as he learned what was expected of him he became very comfortable in his new life. Now he has a mommy who he snuggles with and a fire place to lie next to when he’s cold. He did nothing to deserve this new life. It was a gift and he loves it and I love him dearly.
    I was once like him. I was so alone inside myself. I would look out the window at the frozen landscape and see nothing but desolation and feel nothing but loneliness and fear. Finally the pain of living the life I created for myself was too much and I called out to God to help me. A new life emerged for me and today I never feel alone. If I hadn’t had that pain, I wouldn’t have reached out to God for help. Today my relationship with God is as real as my dog’s relationship is with me. We are “high on the scale” for God, designed to be capable of attuning to Him. I did nothing to deserve the life I’m living today so I try to treat my life like a gift with gratitude and devotion.

  4. Innocent says:

    I dislike this analogy by Lewis.

    Man is not Dog just as God is not simply Dog spelled backwards.

    God does not create joy or pain. God is. Man is. God does little but teach man how to be ‘happy’ though perhaps happy is the incorrect term to be used. I would suggest that happiness is not what God brings to man. God brings, for lack of a better word ‘growth’ or ‘enlightenment’ to man.

    Now there are three aspects to this growth.

    1 ) God teaches how we should interact
    2 ) God enlightens minds
    3 ) God gives Wisdom

    Now does God create ‘evil’. We are more than capable of choosing to do ill without His intervention or invention. This means that good/evil exist outside of God. But wait you say, God is the creator of all things, or at least that is what I have been told. God did in fact form many things and I believe many will find what I say as heresy but God is not both good and evil, He did not create them, these things simply are, they exist, they are laws unto themselves, What God does is understand perfectly ‘good’ and ‘evil’ and does the good.

    Now you can ask where good and evil come from, I mean how can something simply exist. To put it simply, I do not know. I only know these things are independent of God. So to what end are we moving when we become disciples of God? That is what you can find out.

    So can you be a ‘good’ person without God? Of course. Do you ‘have’ to have God in your life? Of course not. Will you go to Hell without a God? Well define Hell… Fire brimstone etc? Of course not. Will God accept someone in his presence that does not wish to be with Him? Probably not. Will he later accept someone that admits fault after this life once they see there is more? He has not really said, and I would suggest this is due to the same reason you don’t say to a child ‘Don’t worry about studying in grade school it does not “count” anyway’

    So here is where I stand. God is. You can get to know Him and it will be to your benefit. He will ask you to change, but you can walk away from it at anytime. What you get out of the relationship is knowledge that comes from a different level of… existence? Darn words as not being adequate lol…

    Finally have horrible things happened in God’s name? Is not the bible and other scripture laced with atrocity? Yes it is, but since understanding is something that is needed before judgement can take place. I would suggest that the understanding often times placed on these events is lacking in context and a basis of true knowledge of God… Which you can only obtain through meditation, humble prayer, and study. God does not keep bad things from happening, this life is, perhaps the right word might be ‘incidental’ to growth? Ah it is again an inadequate explaination.

    Do I expect anyone to do it? No not really. Then why say it? Well I will be honest it is simply to let you see the words and have the opportunity to know at the end that there was truth in them. I know that these words CANNOT make you change your heart or your mind. In the end only you can do that, it is a choice. Am I correct in my explanation of God? Well only as to my own experience to date. Which unfortunately is lacking even by my own standards.

    In the end I finish with the old Stand-by… I may be delusional, heck I may be lying to you and myself. Yet nothing can keep me from admitting God exists for I have knocked at the door and been let in. God is. Please take the time to get to know Him, He is worth knowing on a personal level. If you would like help I would suggest prayer, study of others word who have gotten to know Him ( scriptures ) and meditation. Prayer is not a vehicle to simply get what you want it is a method for placing yourself and God in Harmony. Did not the Christ himself as for the bitter cup to be taken from Him? Yet did He not accept that which was told Him?

    At times you will get what you desire of physical things, but all too often ‘physical’ things are not what is important to God, ironically enough YOU are what is important, just not what YOU want. I would suggest not bartering with God as the blessings and wonders He has are already laid out for the most part are there and you are most likely not going to live up to your end of the bargain anyway.

    Accept the grace He proffers you. Learn from Him. Learn of Him. You will be better for the experience.

    There is no argument to these words. You can disagree with them all you like. I understand. I simply state these things as an invitation to learn of God. I know all the objections you may have concerning science and God, and the silliness of the ‘scriptures’ ( I believe my God is a God of Science but you will not understand what I mean by that until you know God yourself ) I am not advocating religion in this, how you choose to come to know God and what help you receive along the way is your lookout. If you wish I can suggest a few that I have found helpful, but I would prefer the earnest seeker to ask God what religion, if any, they should join. God knows better than I do what you need.

    Cheers!

    • Andrew Keen says:

      I like to call this type of argument “adversarial agreement.” Here, the respondant (Innocent) claims to disagree with some statement at the outset, but then goes on to enumerate arguments that actually support the statement he intended to refute.

      • Innocent says:

        lol well sort of. I can see what you mean.

  5. Ken B says:

    Here we see the besetting sin of FreeAdvice, a problem shared by its host and many of its denizens: the belief that humans and their minds are special, exempt from scientific scrutiny.

    You can call that confident or patronizing Bob but I call it impatience with a refusal to move past 1858.

    • Hank says:

      Denigrating others for your inability to grasp simple concepts is no ones fault but your own.

      Animals don’t have the same mental capacity as humans, and that is a scientific fact. It’s beside the main point anyway.

      You could conceive animals as actors, and draw praxeological deductions if wanted, but not many people would find it very useful. i.e. no one cares about your nonsense.

    • Andrew Keen says:

      You don’t believe that humans and their minds are special?

      What scientific scrutiny?

      Is your comment in response to the article at the top of this page?

  6. Silas Barta says:

    So … we’re like God’s [female dog]?

Leave a Reply to Bob Murphy

Cancel Reply