Epicurus's riddle

[white_wolf]

I'm curious if any of DU's theists can address this quote about the Problem of Evil: "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?" — Epicurus Here is the Buddha's veriaon of Epicurus's riddle: "If the creator of the world entire They call God, of every being be the Lord. Why does he order such misfortune And not create concord? If the creator of the world entire They call God, of every being be the Lord. Why prevail deceit, lies and ignorance And he such inequity and injustice create? If the creator of the world entire They call God, of every being be the Lord. Then an evil master is he, (O Aritta) Knowing what's right did let wrong prevail!"

[ZombieHorde]

1. Mysterious ways! nt

[white_wolf]

2. I get so sick of hearing that.

The other one I hear is the "free will" argument which never really works for me,because if we applied that to society today than we wouldn't have any laws at all. If God has the power to stop murder than he should have the responsibility to stop it. I tried to find Buddha's quote on this when he is talking to one Braman priests he says something similar to Epicurius. Found it. It's in my OP now.

[TheMadMonk]

3. God gave man the capacity to do evil, Satan, the capacity to know...

...the difference.

You tell me.

[white_wolf]

4. I can't tell you.

I have no clue.

[Ninjaneer]

13. How does that even *begin* to address the issue? eom

[Taverner]

56. Exactly. American Law "gives" people the freedom of movement

Yet, if one person, moving in a westwardly direction, is also carrying a bomb and plans to set it off at some location - the police, citizens, fire department, people at all levels of government, would try to stop him.

Yet god does not...

[Deep13]

53. So he's not god anymore.

Anyway, since he supposedly made humans with the capacity for evil, it is still his fault.

[Duer 157099]

5. The theists won't have the answer.

Ask an atheist.

[Confusious]

6. Anything good in the world is because of god

Anything evil in the world is because of man

It's something you pick up on after years of watching theists.

Makes no sense, but there you have it. I think I was talking about deformities of children once, and the person said "You can't blame god for that!"

Personally, I'm an agnostic. I hope there is a "heaven" or afterlife, but don't want to be with some of the people who are sure they're going. I'd just like to see my pets again. Of course, if there is not a heaven, the Universe is a cruel, cruel place. It seems to strive for balance in almost everything, so maybe there will be some balance yet. Of course, these are all just fantasies, not worth making a fuss over.

[MineralMan]

14. Nope. The Judeo-Christian deity claims responsibility for

creating evil, too:

ISAIAH 45
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and CREATE EVIL: I the LORD do all these things.

And there you have it, right from the "Word of God," the Bible.

[cleanhippie]

18. Look at the difference between the KJV and NIV bibles on that passage.

KJV - I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.


NIV - I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.





Its been MY experience that evangelical fundies, the ones that want a theocracy, the ones that want christianity in public schools, the ones that argue for creationism/ID, ALL use the NIV, and this is why.

[MineralMan]

21. Yeah. That's convenient, huh?

Translations. Each one includes the politics of the translator. And so it goes.

[cleanhippie]

23. Yep. TOO convenient, IMO.

[MineralMan]

24. Well, the very canon of the Bible, the books chosen to be

included, particularly in the New Testament, was a political decision. Religion and politics always seem to go hand in hand.

[white_wolf]

47. Actually a lot of Fundalmentaist Christians

follow the KJV-only rule. Where they believe that the KJV is an inspired translation.

[TexasProgresive]

7. Nothing I say and converserly nothing you say will affect our beliefs.

A better use of your time and energy would be to do what you can to eliminate evil around you because it is an aberration that will ultimately destroy us. Others belief in God or not should have no effect on your course of action.

[Ninjaneer]

10. Wrong.

If you, or anyone, had anything that really satisfies the problem of evil, it would indeed affect people's beliefs.

Just because you can't be swayed with reason ("nothing you say will affect our beliefs") doesn't mean I wont or others wont. Exclude us from your self erected tent of stupid.

[RandomThoughts]

8. I have posted my thoughts on that before.

I think that is a really shallow look at the situation.

And I am due beer and travel money.

[Silent3]

9. If it's shallow, does that make "the Lord works in mysterious ways"...

...in all of its variations deep?

I've never seen how all of the hand-waving about free will or some supposed need to learn or to be tested or to "grow spiritually" by suffering really answers the Epicurean paradox in a very convincing way.

[Ninjaneer]

11. The hand-waving doesn't accomplish anything

except to push the idea that god is a sadistic fuck. Why make us grow through suffering when he could have just built us right in the first place.

The lengths people will go to to defend an idea that clearly does not make sense is just unbelievable to me.

[BillStein]

15. Is the "mysterious" answer necessary

because religion is basically a way of "solving" the mysteries of life? If someone points to the unfairness of life, eg why do evil people got rich while more honest people lose ground. The answer? Your reward will come in the next life. Your innocent infant child died? Only the good die young. Why is there evil? Because as mortals, we cannot understand g-d.

Religion is based on the mysterious. The problem is when people look for logical answers in it.

[Silent3]

16. As far as I'm concerned, the best response to a mystery...

...is to either trying to solve the mystery, or, failing that, saying "I don't know". Religion is a way of kinda-sorta claiming to kinda-sorta know The Answer to what you've called "a mystery", which isn't really a proper "mystery" anyway if you go around acting like you have The Answer.

The problem is when people look for logical answers in it.

It's only a problem for religion when people do that, not a problem in general. :)

By the way, I'm not exactly sure I properly understood the tone of your post, so I don't quite know if I'm arguing against or re-emphasizing what you meant.

[BillStein]

17. re-emphasizing!

It's only a problem for religion when people do that, not a problem in general

-that was exactly my point, you just stated it better than I did.

:fistbump:

I'm basically an agnostic, leaning toward atheist. My biggest problem is when people take the allegorical sources as truth. Or profess to know the unknowable

[Ninjaneer]

12. Not shallow at all.

You label it so because it facilitates the ridiculous mental gymnastics required to even come close to "answering" the problem.

[cleanhippie]

19. Zzzzzzzzzz

:boring:

[struggle4progress]

20. Genesis tells us that the Creator worked on creation for a time, then rested. And that story

also tells us: in His own image he created man: male and female He created him

This philosophy hiding in this passage seems extraordinary to me

We know that humans since ancient times have created images of gods and have worshiped those idols. Of course, those images cannot really represent gods or have any real power, being simply phantasms of our imagination. But this passage inverts that common practice: it tells us that if we really seek images of G-d, we will find genuine images everywhere -- in our fellow human beings

And in saying male and female He created him, the passage further tells us that the real image of G-d cannot be solitary and alone but appears in relationship to others

So the passage takes this view: we in our relations to others are the image of the Creator, bestowing on us some of the power of creation. And then the story continues by telling us that the Creator rested. The story does not say that the work was finished but merely that the Creator made us in His creative image and then paused for a time

Who then should take up the creative labor?


Rabbi Tarfon said: You are not required to finish the work but neither may you neglect it
Ethics Of The Fathers
http://www.shechem.org/torah/avot.html#chap2

[dmallind]

22. Well the standard answer is free will. But theodicy remains a problem

Not all the evil in the world is the free will of anyone. We don't choose childhood deformities, cancers and brain damage. We don't choose earthquakes and tsunamis. Free will deployed with flawless piety will not save us from many infectious diseases. Hell we cannot even choose the breathtakingly unintelligent design of our own bodies, where pain continues much longer and more severely than is necessary to serve as an alert to potential damage; where it has taken us millennia, a lot of luck and a lot of expensive maintenance to even have a chance that our teeth will last as long as we do without causing screaming agony; where our pelvic and spinal alignment makes birth an excruciating and potentially lethal experience and makes avoiding chronic back pain and loss of function a multibillion dollar industry. In the image of a god? Pfft. I could do a better design for the pinnacle of creation. What a blunderer a god who designed us was!

And all this assumes free will is possible, but with an omniscient omnipotent creator god it can never be. If you will permit a hamfisted dmallind's corollary to Epicurus:


If God creates all he created our brains and our souls
If God knows all he knew our future at the time of that creation
If God can do all, he had the power to change that future
What then is left for us to decide?

All that leaves the apologist, without admitting to a vicious god, an incompetent god or a feckless unconcerned god, is "original sin", an absurd bit of theology from the depths of medieval thought at best, and one posited without embarrassment by only the most froth-spittled fundamentalist.

Free will and evil, including unchosen evil. Not a single acceptable answer in thousands of years that leaves us with a god worthy of anything but terror and revulsion.

[Sal316]

25. One big problem with Epicurus' Riddle...

...is that it absolves humanity of any responsibility for anything that happens and places sole responsibility on God.

[laconicsax]

27. What responsibility does humanity have for earthquakes and other natural disasters?

Why would an all-powerful creator god not have responsibility for them?

[Sal316]

28. So God causes natural disasters?

Interesting view... think I've heard that one before.

Or are you saying Nature is evil?

Perhaps humanity bears responsibility because we're not living in harmony with creation, forgetting that we are charged with 'tending the garden', taking care of the planet, and not throwing it all out of balance.

[laconicsax]

29. I didn't say that.

Many of your Chrisian brethren, however, have.

Presumably, an all-powerful god could prevent such occurrences. Is God able, but not willing?

If God created everything, why not do so that these things didn't happen? Was God able, but not willing?

[Sal316]

32. Ok, if you're not saying that....

....then are you defining natural disasters as evil, therefore nature as evil?

It's easy to define individual events as 'evil' and, as some do, attribute natural disasters to a vengeful, wrathful OT God.

Are natural disasters tragedies? Undoubtedly.
Are they evil? I would say no.

Some of the greatest displays of human love and compassion have come out of what we call "evil", whether it be natural or moral (human caused).

I'm more in line with Leibniz here.

Leibniz almost exclusively studied the problem of God and evil. His counter to the argument that evil’s existence was contradictory with God’s omniscience was two fold. First, the postulated that we typically chose individual events to define evil. He argued that there is no way to determine what effect on the world removing those events would have. While we think they may make the world better, Leibniz postulated that it is entirely possible that removing those events would make the world worse.

The second part of his argument was simply that we judge what is good and evil using our human standards, which God does not use. He believed it was bold of man to say the world would be good if each event was taken in isolation or if it was judged by human happiness.

Taking these two parts into consideration, then evil is consistent with the existence of God. Since God is omnipotent, he sometimes allows evil, not to be malevolent, but for two reasons. 1) To minimize human suffering and; 2) To bring about good on a much larger scale.

Leibniz also rejected the idea of a world without evil as pure fantasy. He stated that God created a real, not imaginary, world and that a world without evil would put human happiness above God’s plan. We look at evil with a very limited viewpoint and often do not see the greater good that it brings about.

[laconicsax]

35. Using death and suffering as a teaching tool is pure malevolence.

Also, natural disasters and evil are equivalent as far as Epicurus' riddle goes. Replace "evil" with "natural disasters" and the problem remains the same. All that changes is that "free will" is no longer a possible dodge.

[Sal316]

39. Since natural disasters are a "teaching tool"...

....then it follows that, by that logic, there is a teacher, God, therefore God causes natural disasters in order to teach humanity.

Secondly, using Epicurus' riddle as a way to disprove God is a misapplication of the riddle and a misunderstanding of Epicurus.

Epicurus did believe in God, or Gods, but not the idea that they concerned themselves with human existence, blessing "us" and cursing "them", but in a transcendent 'far-away' kind of God.

Those things which without ceasing I have declared unto you, do them, and exercise yourself in them, holding them to be the elements of right life. First believe that God is a living being immortal and blessed, according to the notion of a god indicated by the common sense of mankind; and so believing, you shall not affirm of him anything that is foreign to his immortality or that is repugnant to his blessedness. Believe about him whatever may uphold both his blessedness and his immortality. For there are gods, and the knowledge of them is manifest; but they are not such as the multitude believe, seeing that men do not steadfastly maintain the notions they form respecting them. Not the man who denies the gods worshipped by the multitude, but he who affirms of the gods what the multitude believes about them is truly impious. For the utterances of the multitude about the gods are not true preconceptions but false assumptions; hence it is that the greatest evils happen to the wicked and the greatest blessings happen to the good from the hand of the gods, seeing that they are always favorable to their own good qualities and take pleasure in men like themselves, but reject as alien whatever is not of their kind.Letter to Menoeceus

Third, it is debatable whether Epicurus believed that events, in and of themselves, were evil. What is apparent, however, is that he believed that the fear that accompanied these things were evil. For his philosophy was that ultimate pleasure was the removal of all pain, physical and mental. Since fear is a mental 'pain', so to speak, it is more likely that the evil Epicurus spoke of was fear of what the Gods might do or inflict on humanity. Therefore his concept of God was not like the rest of the 'multitude', ones that can be influenced by humanity or inflict punishment on humanity, but one of indifference to the world.

[laconicsax]

40. True or false: An all-powerful god can prevent natural disasters.

True or false: the Abrahamic god is described as all-powerful.

True or false: You said that God uses evil to bring about good.

True or false: Evil causes suffering.

True or false: To allow evil is to allow suffering.

True or false: Causing suffering to make people do good is malevolent.

[white_wolf]

37. Are natural disasters evil? No.

However, it is is evil to allow innocent people to do when you have the power to save them. If we have the power to help someone we have the responsibility to help them as well. God does not use his power responsibility. It is as Buddha said "an evil master is he, who knowing what's right did let wrong prevail."

[Ninjaneer]

30. So god is not in control of natural disasters?

So hilarious talking to people who play the "he doesn't do x!" card. I'd like to think that one day they'll reinterpret god right out of the bible/quran/fiction of choice.

[laconicsax]

31. Don't forget the tandem claim:

"God's ways are unknowable."

They're unknowable, but not so unknowable as to categorically state what they are. :eyes:

[Sal316]

34. So God causes natural disasters?

That's what you're saying here... God being "in control" of natural disasters.

Are you admitting, then, there is a God?

[LAGC]

48. I think the point being made is...

If God really exists as the Abrahamic religions claim, how can God be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent yet allow such disasters and so much suffering to ensue?

Either God intervenes and has full control over nature, or nature does its thing on its own, without God. Which is it?

[Ninjaneer]

49. According to the three major religions, yes he DOES.

You can do your hand waving and play the "thats not my god" card, but there it is. And really, that was your rebuttal to my last post? that I'm "admitting" the existence of god? someone is running low on stalling tactics :eyes:.

[okasha]

52. "The three major relgions?"

That takes the prize for a culture-centric statement.

[Ninjaneer]

55. Yes, I based my statement on my experiences in the US.

Yes, I would have been better served by terming them the abrahamic religions.

No, I'm not surprised you don't have anything to say regarding the point being made.

[dmallind]

50. So wait a minute...

Despite clear geological evidence of massive natural disasters before our ancestors even had legs, they are our fault? And of course God causes natural disasters if he exists as posited by Christians - not only is his doing so scriptural but he designed, built and manages the entire planet does he not? Being omnipotent that is....


Epicurus does not absolve humans for the evil they cause. It merely states that an omnipotent God could have done a better job of designing, and an omnibenevolent one would have.

[Lost-in-FL]

42. Wrong! You are speaking of Stoicism which is the opposite of Epicureanism.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/stoicism/

"...the Stoics, like the Epicureans, make God material. But while the Epicureans think the gods are too busy being blessed and happy to be bothered with the governance of the universe (Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus 123–4), the Stoic God is immanent throughout the whole of creation and directs its development down to the smallest detail."

[Boojatta]

26. "Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent."

Not helping is different from wishing for harm. Perhaps the word "indifferent" would be more appropriate than "malevolent."

[laconicsax]

33. That would depend on whether God is omniscient.

If a god started things with the knowledge that suffering would ensue, malevolence can be attributed. It's akin to someone starting a fire knowing that people will die as a result.

[Boojatta]

38. My response is in poll format.

People who reproduce ...

1. believe "no offspring of mine will ever die."

2. believe that their offspring will die painlessly.

3. are malevolent.

[Thats my opinion]

36. The old Epicurean dilemma

It has always been theology's Gordian knot. It is akin to the most central of all philosophic questions, "Why is there something and not nothing?" Theologians have been whacking away at the problem of evil for a long time, as were Plato and about everybody else who has though about it.

The problem, however, is not about the existence of evil, but revolves around the definition of God. It still assumes a personal God who is "all loving, all powerful, all knowing and everywhere present." There is no way you can ask the wrong question, which the dilemma does, and come out with a helpful answer. I have dealt with it as a process theologian. Do you know that theological/ philosophical discipline which begins with Whitehead and continues through John Cobb, who is a neighbor and a good friend of mine? There are now 70 major universities in China with departments of Process Thought. We have some of the Chinese professors at lunch at least once a week. Since they understand Buddhism they have a leg up on the conversation. The center is headquartered in a Methodist seminary in Claremont, CA.

The over simplistic answer to the dilemma is that God is not omnipotent. And that means we do not think of God as a big, smart, powerful person. But the problem both on R/T and elsewhere is like the Australian who heard about a new boomerang, but was unable to throw the old one away--even it he didn't think boomerangs even existed..
Read some process thought and get back to me. Thanks for the question.

[Lost-in-FL]

41. Epicurus was NOT an atheist.

His riddle only implies that "god" does NOT intervene in the lives of humans. God does exist according to Epicurus, but in a different dimension and totally disconnected from us.

[white_wolf]

43. Regardless of whether he was an atheist or not

his riddle has yet to be solved by theists who believe in a perfectly good God,such as the Christians.

[Lost-in-FL]

44. I guess we can say that.

However, I tend to take on this quote within the context of Epicureanism. It seems people are unaware or ignore the context of this "riddle" altogether.

[white_wolf]

45. There is still the Buddhist version.

Which says pretty much the same thing and the Buddha rejected the idea of God.

[Lost-in-FL]

46. Thanks. Forgot that little detail.

:hi:

[struggle4progress]

51. Gautama Buddha actually seems not to have been interested in such metaphysical questions:

Cula Malunkyovada Sutta

... Malunkyaputta arose from seclusion and went to the Blessed One ... "Lord, if the Blessed One knows that 'The cosmos is eternal,' then may he disclose to me that 'the cosmos is eternal.' If he knows that 'The cosmos is not eternal,' then may he disclose to me that 'The cosmos is not eternal.' But if he doesn't know or see whether the cosmos is eternal or not eternal, then, in one who is unknowing and unseeing, the straightforward thing is to admit, 'I don't know. I don't see' ... If he doesn't know or see whether after death a Tathágata exists ... does not exist... both exists and does not exist ... neither exists nor does not exist,' then, in one who is unknowing and unseeing, the straightforward thing is to admit, 'I don't know. I don't see.'"

"Malunkyaputta, did I ever say to you, 'Come, Malunkyaputta, live the holy life under me, and I will disclose to you that 'The cosmos is eternal,' or 'The cosmos is not eternal,' or 'The cosmos is finite,' or 'The cosmos is infinite,' or 'The soul and the body are the same,' or 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' or 'After death a Tathágata exists,' or 'After death a Tathágata does not exist,' or 'After death a Tathágata both exists and does not exist,' or 'After death a Tathágata neither exists nor does not exist'?"

"No, lord" ...

"It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends and companions, kinsmen and relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name and clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him.

http://www.buddhasutra.com/files/cula_malunkyovada_sutta.htm

[Deep13]

54. If there are no gods, it is no longer a riddle.

Evil happens because as biologically evolved and imperfect beings, our actions fall short of our values (a gross understatement in many cases). Or it happens because the earth is not entirely compatible with the unplanned, undesigned life forms on it. Natural disasters just happen, in other words.