The Epicurean problem of evil

The earliest statement of the problem of evil is attributed to the Greek philosopher Epicurus. It is frequently used as an argument against God as defined by the Bible. Epicurus’s version of the problem is commonly summarized as follows:

“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 from whence comes evil?”

A more structured and detailed version could be written like:

• P1. If there exists an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God, then no evil exists.
  • P1a. God exists.
  • P1b. God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.
  • P1c. An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
  • P1d. An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
  • P1e. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.
  • P1f. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
• P2. Evil exists (logical contradiction).

If all premises P1 + sub-premises P1a - P1f, and P2 are true then we would have a logical contradiction. However, if any of the premises are false, or if there are other false assumptions, then the Epicurean problem of evil falls apart and can’t be used as an argument against the existence of God.

The assumption of happiness

The biggest flaw in the whole reasoning is that it assumes that immediate happiness is the highest possible good. This is the Epicurean worldview, a form of hedonism. It assumes that the function, purpose or responsibility of God is to make sure that everyone is as happy, content, safe and secure as possible at all times.

But this is clearly not the case. A common thread in the Bible is that since the beginning, even the most loyal servants of God have struggled, and God has allowed them to struggle and experience quite uncomfortable and distressing circumstances.

Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son, Job enduring illness, Israel had to endure 40 years in the wilderness, Jesus was tempted by the Devil and so on.

Why? Because while God loves and cares for us, our temporal immediate physical comfort is not his main concern. (Not right now anyway.) He sees the big picture, and knows that our physicality is just a lesser important part of who we are.

We are souls who just happen to have physical bodies in order to interact with a physical world. So our souls are more important. It appears he is more concerned about soul-building than providing constant physical comfort. He is more interested in the long term, eternal, well-being of our souls, as well as us living a purposeful and virtuous life.

It may sound awful to someone with a merely materialistic view of humans, but suffering actually strengthens and builds the soul. However, constant comfort and pampering destroys the soul. People already know this, which is why when parents give a child everything they ever want and remove all obstacles and problems from their lives, we call it “spoiling the child”. They are actually spoiling or damaging the child’s soul. It produces a proud, arrogant, entitled, selfish brat that no one likes.

On the other hand suffering and hardship in various degrees is like body building for the soul. In body building you stress and damage your muscles which makes them grow back stronger. Likewise suffering, depending on how people respond to it, can be beneficial. Unless the person chooses to allow it to twist them with bitterness and hate, suffering tends to make people more humble, strong, caring and understanding of others. More virtuous people.

Granted, if too much stress is put on muscles they can be severely hurt, which may require the help of a doctor. And souls can also get severely hurt. But even so, God is the healer of souls. And his perspective is not confined to this short lifespan, but to eternity.

Omnipotence and Plantinga’s Free Will argument

Philosopher Alvin Plantinga formulated an answer to premise 1c, “an omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.” As quoted in Introducing Philosophy of Religion((Meister, Chad (2009). Introducing Philosophy of Religion. Taylor & Francis. p. 134. ISBN 9781134141791.)) Plantinga argues:

A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He can’t cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren’t significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can’t give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God’s omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.So the logical argument from evil is unsuccessful because it is at least logically possible that God (an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being) could have created a world with free creatures and yet be unable to ensure that this world would have no evil in it.

Essentially The Problem is based on a false understanding of omnipotence and free will.

Omnipotence does not mean being able to do anything that can be conceived, even if logically impossible. Omnipotence only means having the power to do what is logically possible.

An omnipotent being can not make a square circle or a married bachelor, because they’re logically contradictory. An omnipotent being can also not create a world with free will but where no one uses their free will to do evil. Such a world is a logical impossibility and no amount of power can create it.

Most philosophers accept Plantinga’s free-will defense and see the logical problem of evil as having been fully rebutted. ((Ibid.))

Neglecting other possible factors

Premise 1f says “A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.”

This assumes that there could not possibly be any other factors that could play in, and that an omniscient being would have no reason to not act in a certain way. People every day have both the power, will and ability to do things, but still choose not to, without for that reason being immoral.

A simple example of a reason why, could be that they can see the bigger picture or are wise enough to know that their choice can have consequences. A loving parent may allow their child to deal with the consequences of a mistake. The parent knows the child will suffer from their mistake, but also knows that the lesson the child will learn is more valuable than any temporary respite from being saved from their own foolish actions.

Or someone may trade discomfort now for benefit in the long term. For example an athlete may put their body through a lot of suffering to strengthen and toughen it to perform well in a competition. Or a person who has a plaster cast on their broken leg or a bandage on a wound may have to endure a terrible itch, because trying to scratch it would cause more damage.

These are just a few simple examples that shows that there exists many reasons why a person may allow suffering that they could prevent. And if there exists any good reasons at all why a loving person would allow suffering that they could have prevented, then the problem of evil falls apart.

Thus an omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving being would know all the factors in every situation, and have myriads of good reasons to allow evil and suffering that we just don’t know of or understand.

A reasonable person understanding this would not have the hubris of criticising the judgment of the omniscient creator.

TL;DR

The Epicurean or logical problem of evil falls apart if any of the premises are false. False premises include (but are probably not limited to):

• The Problem is based off the false assumption that the ultimate goal of life and the responsibility of the Creator is to make sure people are as happy, safe and comfortable as possible at all times. This is not true. God is more interested in our long term wellbeing, soul building and meaningful purpose.
• The Problem assumes a definition of “omnipotent” that includes the power to do the logically impossible, like creating a world with free will but no possibility for evil.
• The Problem assumes that there can’t possibly be any other factors at play, when in fact there are countless reasons why a good being would allow suffering they can prevent.

Hence like the majority of philosophers agree, the Epicurean problem of evil is thoroughly debunked.