The
Epicurus Riddle goes like this:
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?
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?
Being
Greek, and having lived before Christ, Epicurus certainly wasn't
talking about Christianity, but his same arguments have been used to
attack the God of the Bible. It's a series of questions meant to
highlight the “problem of evil” and create some sort of dilemma
for Christians: if God is good and omnipotent, why does He allow
evil? The conclusion the critic wants us to draw is that God doesn't
stop evil because there really is no god. As is always the case, any
opinion that is not founded on the rock of Christ is founded on sand
and cannot bear scrutiny. I see a few failings with this argument.
If an
unbeliever wants to leverage evil to prove the nonexistence of God,
he must first explain what he means by “evil.” As simple as that
might sound, this is a real problem for unbelievers. If there were
no god, then there is no greater being who administers justice. The
universe would be all there is and the universe doesn't care what
happens. An apple falling from a tree, a lion eating a zebra, one
man killing another man, are just inconsequential events that happen
while an indifferent cosmos just chugs along for billions of more
years.
A star
1 billion light-years away goes nova and destroys a solar system?
The universe doesn't care.
A
meteor strikes the earth 60 million years ago and kills all the
dinosaurs? The universe doesn't care.
A
tsunami hits the coast of Japan and kills tens of thousands of
people? The universe doesn't care.
A man
pushes an old lady down and steals her purse? The universe doesn't
care.
Of
course, some things affect us more than others. I might not care
about the rabbit fleeing from a wolf or a distant star going nova.
However, I do care about a tsunami or an old lady being assaulted.
What makes some things evil and not others? Does “evil” mean
only “things we don't like”? Without an objective, transcendent
standard of what makes a thing “evil,” Epicurus might as well
have asked, “Why does God allow things I don't like?” Of course,
that doesn't have the same ring to it, does it?
Unbelievers
regularly display a sort of schizophrenia. They claim to believe
there is no god, yet still live their lives as though there were.
It's like a deluded person who claims not to believe in gravity but
still knows better than to step off a building. You cannot question
God about the existence of evil without first acknowledging that
there is a such thing as evil. Yet evil can only exist if God
exists, so to even claim there is “evil” is to tacitly
acknowledge there must be a God.
Let's
concede, for the sake of argument, that evil is just a term we use to
describe anything that affects the greater good of humanity.
Something like stealing, for example, might be called evil because it
helps one person but harms another. Never mind that it's not evil
when a lion steals a zebra that a cheetah has killed. We can all
agree that it's wrong for one human to steal from another... unless
maybe it's to help someone. I mean, what if I stole a loaf of bread
from a rich person so that I could feed my poor, starving family for
a day? Does the skeptic believe God should not allow me to do this?
A quick thinking skeptic might point out that, if God is willing and
able to do good, then my family shouldn't be starving. I raise this
point only to say that there is a spectrum of what we consider right
and wrong.
Is
rape wrong? Is pedophilia wrong? Is incest wrong? Is homosexuality
wrong? Is adultery wrong? Is premarital sex wrong? Is viewing
pornography wrong? Since the skeptic has no transcendent standard
that says what is right and what is wrong, where to draw the line is
somewhat subjective. Different people will draw the line at
different places and who is to say which is the correct place? Many
will say there is nothing wrong with looking at porn even though the
Bible equates lust with adultery. So, does the skeptic mean God
should not allow pornography? Should He not allow premarital sex?
Which of his own sins does the skeptic expect God to punish him for?
You see, most people who would use this argument really only mean for
God to stop the really bad people but let the unbeliever
practice his own pet sin. Anyone can justify his own sin by saying
someone else is worse but if you expect God to deal with sin, be
prepared for Him to deal with your sins as well!
I've
watched several videos made by Ray Comfort where he asks people on
the street to judge themselves. He asks them, for example, is it
wrong to lie? Most people will say, yes. Of course, these same
people will all admit to telling many lies. In fact, every one of us
has broken all of God's commandments and so are guilty before God.
You want God to do something about sin? OK, since we're all guilty,
how would you feel if God just destroyed the world now? That would
be just. It's certainly within His right. The fact that He allows
evil to continue for a while is not because He is uncaring but rather
because He is merciful. God is not willing that any should perish
but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).
We
sometimes expect God to act a certain way. When Jesus came into
Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, the people praised Him saying, “Save us,
Son of David.” They thought Jesus would be a conqueror who would
deliver them from Roman tyranny. They were looking for the Lion of
Judah. They didn't understand that Jesus first had come to be a
Lamb. In a very real sense, He did come to save them – just not
they way they expected.
God
has a different plan, a better plan, for dealing with sin. He took
on flesh, became a man, lived a perfect life – one undeserving of
death, and then shed His blood on the Cross as the payment for our
sin. If we repent of our sins and believe in Him, we pass from death
unto life. One day soon, the worries of this world will seem like a
fleeting moment, the blink of an eye that is over as we go on to live
an eternity in a paradise He has prepared for us. God is not only
willing and able to deal with evil, He has already done it!!
If you
ask me, it is unbelief that is truly a riddle. People want to deny
God. They want to mock the sacrifice of His Son. They want to
flout the Law and live their lives however they want, indulging the
most base desires of their flesh. Then they have the nerve to ask
why God allows bad things to happen to them?! Incredible!
Galatians
6:7, Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for
whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
Related
articles:
I think you mean that unbelievers want to flout the law, not flaunt it.
ReplyDeleteEpicurus' Riddle is a response to the Platonic description of God as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. This description was later imported into Christian theology by Augustine of Hippo, a former neo-Platonist, and is quite routinely accepted as applicable to the biblical God.
Now, Epicurus himself attempted to describe "good" without reference to divine commands, emphasizing the avoidance of causing (oneself or others) unnecessary suffering. He assumes that an omnibenevolent being will likewise wish to prevent unnecessary suffering, while an omnipotent being will be able to do so, and an omniscient being would know how and when intervention was necessary to do this.
Side note: a finite being would not necessarily know these things; disagreements will arise over morality, based on Epicurean views, because humans disagree on how best to avoid harm and what sorts of things actually constitute harm.
You could view the Riddle as an attempt to treat "an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good Being exists" as a scientific hypothesis (though admittedly that's a bit anachronistic: Epicurus wouldn't have been familiar with hypothesis-testing as the only proper foundation for the study of nature). The Bible itself often describes God as interested in preventing human suffering, from promises to comfort believers to descriptions of healing the sick and raising the dead. So, if God can do such things, and wishes to prevent human suffering, why doesn't He do it more routinely and consistently?
A critique of Epicurus' riddle, therefore, can't proceed by denying that Epicurus has any standard of "good." Aside from the questionable nature of that assertion, it is irrelevant: believers in God have a standard of good, and the question is, is there any evidence that God actually acts to uphold that standard?
Rather, a critique must challenge Epicurus' deductions from the God Hypothesis; you must argue either that preventing unnecessary suffering is not God's standard of goodness, or that the suffering that exists is necessary for the good that God seeks (remembering, always, that God is supposed to be omnipotent -- He is not constrained, as humans are, to accept the costs to achieve the benefits (e.g. the doctor doesn't want to hurt the child, but the shot is necessary to immunize the child; if the doctor could confer the immunity painlessly, he would).
Steven J,
ReplyDeleteFirst, yes; I meant to say, “flout.” “Flaunt” means almost the opposite of what I intended. How embarrassing. I'm going to correct that so thanks for pointing it out.
As you have pointed out, “what is evil?” cannot be objectively answered in a universe without God. “Avoiding unnecessary suffering” is very subjective. It could easily be used to justify euthanizing the chronically poor, for example, because their poverty causes suffering to both the poor and the productive members of society. The fact that people disagree over what “evil” is, undermines the whole notion that God doesn't do anything about evil. If I may paraphrase a point I made in my post, Epicurus might as well have asked, “Why doesn't God handle evil the way I think He should handle evil?”
Concerning the suffering that does exist, I suggested a point in my post but let me be a little more clear about it now. The suffering that exists in the world is the consequence of sin. The Bible says the wages of sin is death. In your claim that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, you fail to include the fact that God is also perfectly just. We have all sinned. You have sinned. Why are you so anxious for God to exercise His judgment?
A day of reckoning will come. At that time, saints will enter into an eternal paradise and the lost will enter into an eternal judgment. Just as in the parable, God allows the wheat and the tares to grow together for a while. At the time of the harvest, the wheat is gathered into the barn and the tares are thrown into the fire. The saints likely will not remember the things of this life. At worst, it will be like the travail of labor when a woman delivers. It's painful for a while but is immediately forgotten when her child is born. The lost, however, will have an eternity to regret their decisions and would probably leap at a chance to return to this “evil” world.
Thanks for your comments. God bless!!
RKBentley
Excellent article! God and the Bible are the basis for ALL morality.
ReplyDeleteJM,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the encouragement. I'm sorry it took a couple of days to publish your comments. I was a little busy over the holidays. I hope your Christmas and New Year was blessed.
By the way, I've visited your blog a couple of times. Great work! I'm a little bit of a language buff as well, though my specialty is Greek. I've studied Hebrew a little in the past but just never found the time to get past the initial hurdles. The Hebrew alphabet is so different from English that it just makes it harder for me to memorize words. I've heard that Greek is easier at first, then becomes harder; Hebrew is harder at first, then becomes easier. Maybe if I kept at Hebrew long enough, I could see if that's true. LOL. In the meantime, I have to turn to the experts when I have a question about a Hebrew word. I'll definitely have to keep reading your translations! Keep up the good work, brother!
Thanks again for your comments. God bless!!
RKBentley
Hi RKBentley,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your remarks. I confess I need to catch up on learning my Hebrew (I look up the words in a concordance, but haven't actually "learnt" them yet). LOL