PHIL 101 Lecture Notes - Lecture 8: Pierre Bayle, Epicureanism, Lactantius
The Emergence of the Problem of Evil in Pre-Modern Philosophy
● Two major philosophical schools: the Stoics and the Epicureans
● Zeno is one of the founders of the Stoics, Epicurus -> epicureans
● Stoics - their ideal person was Roman soldier, self-control, discipline, the afterlife, God
● Epicureans - pleasure, fun, no afterlife, no fear of Gods
● Main debate q: Does God exercise providence over the world?
● Epicureans as reported by Cicero- God should have made all men good, and not, they
should have provided for the welfare of the good. There seems to be no distinction
between good men and bad men
● Epicureans as reported by Lactantius - God 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. Only one suits the character of God, willing and able, therefore we must
ask - Where do evils come from?
Enter Christianity - strong belief in Providence
● Christianity laid enormous stress on the goodness of God
● “For the Almighty God, being Himself supremely good, would never permit the existence
of anything evil among his works if He were not so omnipotent and good that He can
bring good even out of evil.” - Augustine (400. CE)
● The Problem of Evil is the #1 argument against the existence of God
Early Modern Era
● Pierre Bayle reviewed Epicurus’ objection (1692)
● He is a theist and a Christian
● From the point of view of reason, the Epicurean arguments are more rational than any
response that can be given to them, but it does not matter because religion is based on
faith and not on reason.
● Leibniz - Theodicy - 1710
● Hume responded to both Bayle and Leibniz
● Let us not think us humans are more important than we are - Stoic reply
The Argument
1. You can assert the moral attributes of the Deity, his justice, benevolence, mercy, and
rectitude, to be of the same nature with these virtues in human creatures?
2. His power we allow infinite, whatever he wills is executed, but man or animal are happy,
therefore he does not will their happiness
3. His wisdom is infinite: he is never mistaken
4. Through the whole compass of human knowledge there are no inferences more certain
than these
5. In what respect then do his benevolence and mercy resemble the benevolence and
mercy of men?
6. Epicurus’ old questions are yet unanswered. Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then is he impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent, is he both able
and willing? Whence then is evil?
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
