In her rebuttal to John Beversluis’ C. S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion, Emily McCarty makes the following arguments. Lewis maintains throughout these three works that God’s goodness is recognizable. In The Problem of Pain, what seems unlike or even not good to us, is upon reflection, good. In fact, there are similar human examples that show God’s goodness is not so very unlike our own. In “The Poison of Subjectivism,” Lewis does not empty good of meaning: rather he sources that meaning in the divine so that our morals have enduring meaning. In A Grief Observed, Lewis is not denying recognizable goodness by accepting what has happened; He is acknowledging that God knows more than him, including more about morality. God’s goodness is recognizable, but one must be willing to accept that God knows more than we do.
"“Recognizable Goodness” A Response to Beversluis’ Understanding of God’s Goodness,"
Montview Journal of Research & Scholarship: Vol. 2, Article 12.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/montview/vol2/iss1/12