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.
Comments
Post a Comment