Epicurus’ old questions

Since we are being sophomoric here, and pondering some of the old questions here is one. 

The monotheistic problem of evil is often summarized as a trilemma cited in David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (book 10):

“Epicurus’ old questions are yet unanswered. Is he [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?

Note on April 8, 2009

Apparently it is going to remain unanswered.

22 Replies to “Epicurus’ old questions”

  1. Let’s first define evil. Is it Evil as a personification or is it evil as an act or deeds?

    Personally, I believe it is a construct that humans use to define the total absence of God.

    We kill our own kind in great wars over the definition of God(s). I doubt that we are capable of a normalized definition of either God or evil.

  2. To me Evil personified translates as “The Devil”. To me that automatically implies a belief in a god.

    Merriam Webster defines evil as morally reprehensible; causing discomfort or repulsion; causing harm; and other meanings but the 3, I believe, apply to the discussion at hand.

    Is genocide evil? Is child abuse evil? Is excessive greed to the point impoverishes others, evil? Is discriminating against another human because of his color, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, evil?

    To my way of thinking there is not a question that there is evil in this world.

    Given your argument, you seem to imply an absence of God in this world???

    Even if evil was personified as “The Devil” the trilemna still stands.

  3. God gave us a brain. If we choose to do evil, be evil or whatever that’s our problem. Why should God get involved? Just like all the life he/she put on the planet ain’t lovey dovey cutesy wootsey it all works together in some chaotic way. I don’t know if evil gets offset; I don’t want to think that hard. I believe we have all we need to do the “right” thing and we can choose to do it or not. Free will.

  4. The absence or presence of God in the world has been and will continue to be created by our choice. Just as we can define darkness as the absence of light. evil is the absence of good or God.

  5. Let me see if follow your point. Good equals God. An absence of God equals evil.

    I guess I need to understand what you mean by absence of God. Since I am agnostic leaning towards atheism believing there to be no God then this world is evil????

    I have heard one argument that there is no God and all morality is a human construct. Therefore any action is simply is an action. It is neither good nor evil. It just is.

    I don’t buy it, though. In the context in which we operate as humans we define some things as evil. See my previous list; I do not think you would get too many arguments against the bad nature of those acts.

    Epicurus’ question still stands, if there is a God (which I assume you believe) and he is omnipotent by monotheistic teachings why would he allow an absence of himself to allow evil to happen to his creations. Some things like the Holocaust are so horrific to contemplate you have to believe that no one is behind the steering wheel.

  6. I believe that we possess a need to find meaning and purpose in our lives. We are very much spiritual animals that have created a belief in “God” based on our stories that have been given to us by our families, cultures and times that we live in.
    Most people say they believe in God.
    Which God? Whose God? By which dogma?

    Is there evil? you bet.
    Is there goodness? you bet.

    Who is responsible? You? Me? Nature? God?
    Is spiritual belief like art?

    The goal is to have peaceful dialog and peaceful acceptance of all beliefs and persuasions. I continue to encourage heart to heart conversations with other people about the meaning of our lives. Everyday there is something to be learned.
    Wish I could give you the answers but I am still on a journey. Maybe tomorrow. Get back with me.

  7. I firmly believe in a position of “doubt”. There maybe some pretty good guesses as to what “the truth” is. But I know that no one knows for 100%.

    Skepticism is the best approach.

  8. In your email response to my posts here (not sure why the dialog was off-blog), you say “I have no answer for you… and I am not sure how the [response] pertains to the original question.” I believe it does pertain because your question, in essence, asks about the very nature of God.

  9. I just finished reading “The Shack.” Your question is answered on too many pages of that book to quote here. At first, I noted the pages to reference, but soon realized that the whole book addresses your question. Read it with your “advertised” open mind and realize the love of God.

  10. When I was a kid I loved the Edgar Rice Burroughs Barsoom series about the Earthman John Carter on Mars. I often felt the heat of battle as I engaged a 6 armed Martian in sword play. I floated across the Martain landscape in a lighter-than-air Martian sky ship. But it did not make it true.

    My question to you is how many books on religion/philosphy have you read/explored outside of your Protestant faith? I’ve read a fair number of books on Christianity. I have also read a number of books on other religions, on atheism, etc.

    Could I suggest a few to you:

    Betrand Russell’s Why I am not a Christian

    Jennifer Michael Hecht’s Doubt: A History

    Karen Armstrong’s The Battle for God

    Or Ms. Armstrong’s book The Spiral Staircase: My Climb Out of Darkness

    Sam Harris’s book A Letter to a Christian Nation

    I could go on…

    1. These questions and answers are very good,,yet if you want the truth, I’m talking about the complete truth,,the answers lay in the true philosophy of Nichiren Daishonin Buddhism,,and it needs to come from the Soka Gakkai the only true distorted lineage of Nichiren Buddhism. Everything begins from within. Nothing Outhere will save you.

  11. The point of the exercise was to get answers to that question from various walks of life. So far, people have dismissed the question as irrelevant. Tried to answer it with more questions, or simply referred me xyz book.

    Where evil comes from is a separate discussion. The question stands as yet unanswered.

  12. It is not a seperate question because your question presumes the existence of evil. So before we “assume” its existence, I believe it important to establish the origin and validity of the question.

  13. Sounds like you need to take the time to think and write a coherent essay. Rather than dissembling with multiple questions.

    If you think you have an answer to where evil comes from explore it as part of a reasoned answer. Otherwise we are just Facebooking.

    I really do not think it matters where evil comes from. We know it is there.

  14. First, we must understand that in reality Epicurus’ questions are about free will.

    Therefore, the answer:

    God is manifest and hidden as revealed by Him in holy scripture. Intervention is only to the degree that does not violate free will in humans and its effect on nature. ??

    Consider the two scenarios: ??

    1. Manifest God:
    ??Man lacks free will. In the Presence of God we have no say, nor could Epicurus ask such a question. Man does as is bound to do by the very logic that God is there and does not allow him to think, feel or act of his own will. This has an immediate affect on nature. When God controls man completely and openly, He controls his perception and controls what he perceives of nature (includes man himself): nature’s laws are malleable before the Lawmaker. This is a reality where God’s benevolence prevails, because man has no choice (free will). ??

    2. Hidden God:
    ??Our reality. Means free will in humans. This freedom of will granted to humans by God, necessitates the reality where God remains hidden. This also means that nature’s laws remain un-amended precisely to allow man his free will. Otherwise, if God’s interference in nature’s laws (that He created and sustains) becomes apparent, there is no reason why man should continue to exercise his free will. As is revealed in holy scripture, where God granted “miracles” (bending of nature’s laws) to chosen Prophets after which humans who were present had no choice but to believe. If this were constant than also man would lose his free will and with it the opportunity to have faith (faith is not possible without free will).

    ??Therefore, evil comes from man’s primordial desire to have free will, of which God granted him as revealed in holy scripture. Thus, man should be obedient to God to work his way (of his own free will) in the opposite direction from this desire. This means to submit or to surrender to God. ??

    Keep in mind:

    ??- God is Omnipotent, therefore He tells you how to worship him. Revelation is from God to man and not vice-versa, which is no different from the fact that our birth precedes our knowledge of it. This means everything we have, everything there is, is God’s.

    ??- Epicurus’ questions reveal him as a man who would only accept God, if he is subjected to him without free will. This is the opposite of faith which is possible through free will. Faith means, an intellectual being having feelings of love toward his Creator. Epicurus’ hidden offer is, to accept God only when your mind does not allow you otherwise (when God is there and your mind cannot deny it). Why would a creature with intellect lose the opportunity of having love for his Creator?

    When we understand this, it follows that Epicurus’ questions are a violation of the free will that God granted the prototype of the human being.

    ??- Faith like love is not a matter of calculations but of feelings. Therefore, don’t argue about such matters and leave those who wish to argue. ??

    God forgive us for the evil we utter due to our limited knowledge (science & gnosis) and ignorance!

  15. First I would have to buy the Bible as an authoritative source. I do not. It is a deeply flawed work of man.

    To quote a great American philosopher, Kurt Vonnegut, “Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile!”

    I forgive your presumptuousness of asking for forgiveness for me.

  16. This does not rely on Bible as an authoritative source although I am partially inspired by it. Also the Bible is not work of man but the word of God mixed with word of man (a possibility that deists dismiss completely when they go to the other extreme).

    But that is not the topic here, as the answer does not rely on it. You could easily remove references to scripture and still consider the two scenarios:

    1. Manifest God that is omnipotent does not allow one to choose what he sees, feels, believes out of his own free will, because His presence is an answer to all questions. Consider what Epicurus means when he refers to God, especially since he mentions omnipotence, and put yourself and everything else in perspective or being in the presence of God when your mind cannot choose to think otherwise. In such reality your choices are not too many, but to accept what happens in your reality and to yourself.

    2. Hidden God that is omnipotent allows man free will, and interferes only to a degree that does not change the nature of this reality. He is still omnipotent but your free will requires this. Otherwise God’s constant and open interference would dissolve your free will by diminishing your choices in all matters. Whatever is said here extends to nature also since you are part of it. It means the laws of nature (volcanos, hurricanes, that are usually taken as example of evil) maintain their course to give credibility to them and to avoid changing our perception and with it our free will.

    Therefore, I concluded that our reality is warranted by our free will and that the opposite of this means lack of free will.

    If you don’t like my answer that is fine, but we must understand that Epicurus is talking about God, and he stresses the omnipotence, so we must analyze it in that light: what would it mean to be in a reality where God is manifest versus being in a reality where God is hidden? How would this affect our perception and our choices?

    I don’t care what Kurt Vonnegut has to say or what he feels. His authority as a philosopher does not prove anything.

Don't be shy, reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.