The Epicurus quote, Part II

So we return today to the notorious Epicurus "quote," which many treat as a definitive development of the "problem of evil" for theisms. Here again is Lactantius' account, the earliest source known to us.

"That argument also of Epicurus is done away. God, he says, either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? or why does He not remove them?"

I think it is possible the whole thing is a mistake: Lactantius (whose image I have provided here) may simply have been gullible about some untrustworthy source of what Epicurus said.

But, assuming that there was something in some now-lost text of Epicurus to which Lactantius was making direct or indirect reference here: with whom was Epicurus arguing? As I said in the last post, in is not obvious that anyone Epicurus would have known about worshipped the all-powerful monotheistic God of the sort he seems to be targeting, and Lactantius is definitely advancing, in these texts.

But it is possible Epicurus may have had some expressions of Stoicism in mind as a foil here. The Stoics saw Nature in pantheistic term. And a pantheist may talk about God/Nature as all-powerful in the sense that there is nothing outside of it which might be said to be a limit to its power. But one cannot really expect a pantheist, Stoic or otherwise, to see his God as compassionate. (Among the great early modern figures, consider Spinoza here.)

How does Lactantius think he has "done away" with the argument of Epicurus that he cites? I set that question aside the last time I raised it. I will address it directly now.

Lactantius does not appear to think this is an atheistic argument. He appears to think that it is an argument between two sets of theists, although both of a "pagan" sort. He seems to think he is intervening in a debate between Stoics and Epicureans, like the bored spectator at a boxing match who is said to have shouted, "I hope both of you bums lose."

He sees the Stoics as the target of the argument and the Epicureans as the advocates of another sort of God concept. Epicureans believe that there are gods and they live in some distant place analogous to the top of Mount Olympus and they do not concern themselves with human life at all. They are neither all powerful NOR compassionate.

This is why Lactantius keeps using the phrase "not in accordance with the character of God." He is using a (purportedly) Epicurian argument AGAINST the god concept of Epicurus. He is saying that only Christianity gives us a notion of God that is consistent with the character of God. Stoics give us a universe and call it God. Epicureans imagine a distant feast and call the feasters gods. Neither makes sense. That, at any rate, is the point of the above quoted passage.

Lactantius simply doesn't see any of this as requiring a theodicy, so he does not offer one.

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave. First, Plato is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability. I only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere. At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog