On the Riddle of Epicurus

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then He is not omnipotent.
Is He able, but not willing?
Then He is malevolent.
Is He both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is He neither able nor willing?
Then why call Him God?

The Problem of evil

This is the famous 'riddle' attributed to Epicurus. It's a version of the Problem of Evil that is used to question the existence or qualities of a certain kind of supernatural deity. Its particular targets are the monotheistic religions.

It's doubtful that Epicurus himself is the originator of the 'riddle'. He lived at a time when monotheism was a marginal trend in his society. It could have been coined by a later Epicurean, who was confronting the early christian missionaries (perhaps Paul himself).

The 'riddle' targets a conception of a deity that has the following qualities:

• There is only one god.
• He is the creator of the universe.
• He is all-powerful (omnipotent).
• He is all-good (omnibenevolent).

This conception is contrasted with the self-evident fact that there are many things that a human would say are evil. There are both natural disasters (storms, disease, etc.) and man-made disasters (war, ethnic cleansing, murder, etc.). The 'riddle' asserts that some or all of this evil contradicts the existence of an all-good, all-powerful god...

This post looks at the answers christian writers have offered to the riddle. While there is little hope that any of these will convince a believer, perhaps someone will find them useful in their thinking.

Christian answers

Free Will and natural evil

The most common argument offered is that evil exists because humans have free will. In essence, the world contains evil because humans choose to do evil or to disobey god's commands. While this might hold water with human-caused evil, there is also natural evil that humans couldn't possibly be the cause of.

Many humans die every year from disasters or diseases that could have easily been left out of the world. Such omission wouldn't have had any effect on human free will. Humans can't choose to cause such events so they aren't a matter of human will.

Yet there are children dying from malaria or drought right this second. They are far too young to have made any use of their free will... but are still the victims of evil.

The only way that these natural events could be the fault of humans, is if you say — as some actually do — that god causes these disasters because some humans don't obey him in all things. Phrases like "victim blaming" and "collective punishment" come to mind.

Created humans and Free Will

The assertion is that evil has to exist because humans were created with free will, and what would the use of it be if no evil existed...

The problem with this argument from a christian is that it's not true!

Humans were specifically created without the capability to choose between good and evil. Without free will by extension. Don't believe me? Go take a look at Genesis 2:16 — 17. We'll wait right here for you...

For the record, it says:

2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

If he already knew good from evil -- and therefore had free will -- why would "man" eat from the tree?

The story isn't true — obviously — but it illustrates the contradiction in the christian claim that humans were created with free will and chose evil, instead of good and god.

All humans are sinful.

Since we are humans and descended from Eve (who — btw — didn't have free will either), we are automatically sinners and therefore evil. Then we also commit the acts that are defined as sinful, and are doubly damned.

If we look at the list of sins that the Bible contains, it becomes obvious that the game is rigged in another way as well. Many sins aren't actions. They are thoughts! If you want something that someone else has, there has been no harm to anyone... but you're guilty of "coveting". Sin is a thought-crime.

An Epicurean system of justice would consider such non-actions that result in no harm to others as irrelevant, and certainly not deserving of punishment. It might be that "coveting" isn't good for the coveter himself, but that is a matter of education, not eternal damnation.

You can learn from evil.

The claim is that you can't know good, except in contrast with evil. On the surface, this looks sort of reasonable, especially when the point is made that light reveals the existence of dark (or some other such dichotomy).

An Epicurean says that this is nonsense.

Humans have an inborn detection mechanism to tell the good from the evil. It's automatic, and the only learning involved is how to listen constantly. Epicurus called it the Criterion of all choice and avoidance: Pleasure and Pain.

In a nutshell, all good things are pleasurable in the long-term, and all the evil things will ultimately lead to pain.

A human is born knowing the difference between good and evil. The real evils aren't all that hard to recognize — most babies can do that, and toddlers know fairness from injustice. What many religious people mean when they say "we need to learn from evil", is in reference to the things that are supposedly crimes against a god. As if such a thing was possible...

Epicurean points

Epicurus' definition of evil

The Epicurean definition of evil is relatively easy to remember: Pain is evil.

"While therefore all pleasure because it is naturally akin to us is good, not all pleasure is choiceworthy, just as all pain is an evil and yet not all pain is to be shunned."
Letter to Menoeceus, 129 [emphasis by me]

Though you can tell that the situation isn't all that easy. It may be necessary to accept some pain in order to avoid a greater pain. Much of Epicurus's ethics is about teaching us how to distinguish the pain to avoid from the pain to endure.

The non-interventionist gods

Epicurus says many difficult things about the gods, but for this discussion the most relevant is that the gods do not interfere in the world for or against humans. They didn't create us. They don't reward the holy, nor punish the wicked. They didn't give us ethics, nor do they judge us.

And they certainly didn't spoil the world because a woman liked some fruit!

The capability to know good from evil is such a central ability in Epicurean Philosophy that the belief in a god who would punish for it would be laughable... if it wasn't so tragic at the same time.

On Epicurean Extremes

Extremes?

Epicurean Philosophy is a subtle one. Its meant to be a guide to life, and since human existence is a really complex issue, the philosophy has to be as well. There are very few black-and-white issues in the system. It's not even a question of grays. Epicurean Philosophy is a rainbow.

On the surface, things seem rather easy. Pleasure, good; Pain, bad. But... and there is always a but... but almost immediately, questions arise. What kinds of pleasures are good. Whose pleasure? Pleasure at what cost? A proper hedonistic philosophy would answer such questions. And Epicurus does.

It's just that it takes time and effort to grasp all the subtleties. It's perhaps this difficulty — more than any other — that provokes the extreme positions that circulate among the Epicureans today.

Here we'll tackle three of them. Perhaps by the end you'll see the common thread.

Asceticism

"We must also reflect that of desires some are natural, others are groundless; and that of the natural some are necessary as well as natural, and some natural only. And of the necessary desires some are necessary if we are to be happy, some if the body is to be rid of uneasiness, some if we are even to live. 128. He who has a clear and certain understanding of these things will direct every preference and aversion toward securing health of body and tranquillity of mind, seeing that this is the sum and end of a blessed life."
Laertius 127 — 128, Letter to Menoeceus.

There are some Epicureans that promote asceticism. Considering that they are talking about a hedonistic system, this might seem odd, but there is a reason for this opinion. It's not one that can be swept away simply as obviously wrong, because there is a reason why someone might reach this conclusion.

Epicurus doesn't advocate that you should fulfill any and all of your desires. There are limits to what pleasures you should pursue. The pleasures of lying, cheating, and stealing are self-evident... but what about the natural-but-not-necessary ones? The vast majority of pleasures?

You can live a happy life without ever fulfilling any of them. That's why they are not-necessary. Some argue that you ought not to fulfill them, that you should abstain from them. Like you must abstain from the vain ones. This view is reinforced by the fact that many not-necessary desires and pleasures can become dangerous. You can over-indulge and come to harm. So wouldn't it be better to only fulfill the necessary ones, just to be on the safe side?

Hopefully all of you have the vague sense that this is somehow wrong. Can you articulate why? Take a few minutes to try before reading on.

Because all pleasures are good.

"No pleasure is in itself evil, but the things which produce certain pleasures entail annoyances many times greater than the pleasures themselves."
Principal Doctrine 8

If you say that "These pleasures are categorically bad", you are mistaking Epicurus. For him all pleasures are good... It's just that some bring long-term consequences that are bad. The classification of pleasures in the Menoeceus is conceptual. In the real world there is only pleasure, not clearly definable types of pleasures.

Condemnation of some pleasures without analyzing consequences is very common today, but it's a mistake nonetheless.

(Note for those of us who have been in the trenches a long time: Yes, it's the influence of that philosophical school.)

Katastematic is better than kinetic.

This extreme takes two forms. Firstly, it's the disvaluing of the active (kinetic) pleasures, in favor of the stable (katastematic) ones. Secondly, it's the disvaluing of bodily pleasures, in favor of the pleasures of mind. They are slightly different from each other, but basically caused by the same mistake.

The aim of Epicurean Philosophy is Happiness. This is the state of perfect painlessness, either in the body or the mind. The ancient greek word for this is eudaimonia. Because this term was most prominently used by Aristotle, Epicurus and the Epicureans used the more precise terms of aponia and ataraxia. The painlessness of the body, and the painlessness of the mind. Freedom from pain and anxiety.

This is where the trouble starts. It's common to conflate active and bodily on one hand, and stable and mental on the other. Equally common is to think that mental is superior to the body. There is some justification for this mistake in our sources, but remember that the philosophy is a subtle one.

"He further disagrees with the Cyrenaics in that they hold that pains of body are worse than mental pains; at all events evil-doers are made to suffer bodily punishment; whereas Epicurus holds the pains of the mind to be the worse; at any rate the flesh endures the storms of the present alone, the mind those of the past and future as well as the present. In this way also he holds mental pleasures to be greater than those of the body."
Laertius 137.

It's understandable to read this passage in Laertius, and come away with the ideas of "katastematic is better than kinetic" and "mental is better than bodily". The mistake is a matter of quoting out of context... This passage is both the source and the answer to this extreme position.

Read the paragraph carefully. Do you see it? Again, take your time...

The difference between mental and bodily, or katastematic and kinetic, isn't a matter of quality, but of quantity. Mental pains are worse because there are more of them, and katastematic pleasures are better than kinetic because there are more of them. Bodily and kinetic are for the here and now, while mental and katastematic extend in time and quantity.

You can have all the mental pleasures you can, but if you neglect the body you'll never be happy. You can also bask in the light of all the katastematic pleasures that you want, but if you don't indulge in the kinetic pleasure of eating... you'll die.

(Note from the trenches on the other front: Mind-Body Dualism is religious hogwash. A human is a whole, not a collection of parts.)

Epicurus was an atheist.

"First believe that God is a living being immortal and blessed, [...] For verily there are gods, and the knowledge of them is manifest;[...]"
Letter to Menoeceus, 123

You understand that calling Epicurus an atheist was an insult, don't you? And a lethal one, at that. They murdered Socrates on trumped up charges of atheism...

Reading the Letter to Menoeceus should cure people of this notion, but apparently Epicurus' own words aren't enough.

Epicurus wasn't some silly person who understood nothing about human societies of his time. Religion is still a major issue in our societies today. He saw the importance of proper understanding of the divine, and taught accordingly.

The purpose of Epicurean Philosophy isn't to promote atheism or any other theological position. The goal (telos) is to teach humans how to live happily. Could you live peacefully if you thought that there was torture in the afterlife waiting for you? Or that the roar in the Heavens was Thor coming to kill you?

"If you do not on every separate occasion refer each of your actions to the end prescribed by nature, but instead of this in the act of choice or avoidance swerve aside to some other end, your acts will not be consistent with your theories."
Principal Doctrine 25.

This Principal Doctrine applies to the end goal of the whole system as well as to the goal of a single life. The goal is only and always the happy life of a human.

God does not hate you.

This is the beginning of the theological positions in Epicurean Philosophy. And make no mistake, the philosophy is a religious worldview.

For those of you who are having a fit over this... You should go read this.

Epicurean Philosophy isn't atheism in principle, but it is in practice. The gods (who don't exist) are utterly and totally uninvolved in human life. So un-rip your shirts and un-bunch your underwear, and take a deep breath.

Epicurean Philosophy has religious implications and positions, but it isn't a religion. In fact... You can have your atheistic cake, and eat it too.

The common thread?

Did you catch it?

Admittedly that was a rhetorical question, and a bit unfair. The answer was in the first sentence: subtlety. The mistake so saddeningly common is that people reach for the seemingly easy answer... and it betrays them. The ascetic denies himself perfectly good pleasures, the Katastematic ignores her body, and the atheist charges head on against religion when a flanking maneuver is far superior.

Having the occasional feast with friends is a marvelous thing. Using your body in many different ways is the road to health. And watching the confusion in the face of a religious leader when you start to talk about souls, is pure schadenfreude... but still a pleasure.