A Neoplatonic Pagan Philosophical introduction on The Problem of Evil

 Hello everyone, Salvete Omnes

The famous problem of Evil often attributed by Ancient Greek Philosopher Epicurus follows as this

"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"

This exact formulation is actually from De ira Dei, a treatise by the Early Christian writer Lactantius, who definitely heard of Epicurus being from the Eastern Roman Empire who sought to make a philosophical tradition contrast with what he (presumably) saw as pagan hogwash and he was a notable apologetic for the early Church and its theology, being dubbed a Christian Cicero by Renaissance era humanists. De ira Dei or On the Anger of God is a critique of Stoic and Epicurean philosophy, seeing it as something to intellectually vanquished in the service of advancing the worldview of the early Christian Church at the time.

It is also known well by the version that David Hume wrote.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is He impotent. Is He able but not willing? Then is He malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Whence then is evil?

It is very likely Epicurus never wrote anything like these quotes or even had the problem of evil his supposed famous work that he didn't do. 

The Ancient Greek Religion, for a lack of a better term did not have the same beliefs on the Gods like Abrahamic monotheism or more specifically Christian monotheism (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are different religions even if they share the same god, the God of Abraham). Christianity in particular is notorious for the lengths the apologists go in a theological version of mental gymnastics. 

Epicurus was likely a polytheist, at least according to our standards of theism. I had assumed Epicurus had some sort of skepticism of theism or god-belief, but it is not necessarily there. It does not seem like it; he is not an atheist even if modern day atheists find the paradox written in his name to be a key argument. I also found that argument as presented in a 100 level philosophy course in college. He can either be seen as a soft polytheist or deist, though I do not think we necessarily need such strictly defined labels, that would not be in the spirit of stoic philosophy at all.

Looking at his beliefs, I find myself agreeing with them and even seeing no contradiction with religious or theistic belief, at least as a pagan and polytheist. 

• Don't fear god
  
• Don't worry about death
• What is good is easy to get
• What is terrible is easy to endure

These four points from the Tetrapharmakos, a four part remedy, is something I can agree with, though the singular theos is not a reference to monotheism. Epicuruean theology sees the Gods as more of role models and hypothetical beings, though I personally land more in a hard polytheist belief in which each deity is their own distinct being that is real and my practice is based on Ancient Greek and Roman traditions with modernized influences especially from spiritual movements and witchcraft in particular.

I think what is something I can agree with the first point is that I too believe that Gods are not to be feared. Fear in Gods or any deity is exactly what leads to superstition and this was the same sentiment in many Roman writers like Plinius the Elder, though he and I may differ on some exact details especially with magic. However, it was yet again early Christian writers who latched on to superstition as the best term to slander polytheistic religions and folk magic, or anything that did not fit into orthodox and standard Christian religion. Religion and superstition were often contrasting terms in the Roman Empire, and again pagan writers like Pliny, Ennius, Plautus, Ovid, and Virgil were all polytheists looking to define what is and what is not acceptable by assessing the harm a belief can do to a person. 

Modern pagans definitely still can get this distinction and I think we should still strive for it. I know of many prominent creators and community leaders among neopagans whether they are reconstructionists or eclectics or they hold a practice based on the Hellenes or Heathen Norse, still have this discussion and call out pseudoscience and superstition, usually as woo-woo or fluffy bunny nonsense.

Being both a witch and a Greco-Roman Polytheist is important to me.

This turned into a whole tangent about Epicurus and hedonism.

The Problem of Evil was useful for Christians since it was the perfect enemy for their intellect, if they can refute that argument, they then can show the worth of Christian thinking. But to me, it had the exact opposite effect, it shows that Christianity is an incoherent religion and that polytheism and paganism hold up better to scrutiny, I was an agnostic atheist at one point before realizing that I'm actually pagan.

I can understand the theodicies, at least the reason why they put out those arguments, but I end up finding that pro-theist arguments work better for polytheism than they do for monotheism, especially Christian monotheism and other related concepts such as the trinity (which isn't universal for all Christians, but most churches are Trinitarian, ie belief in the trinity, rather than Unitarian which believes God and Jesus were separate beings entirely) 

All of that work to hold up something that is very intellectually, materially, and even spiritually fragile and unstable. The contradictions of the christian god are not there in Hellenic polytheism, and there was never a single unified theology of Hellenism either, because you have sects like Orphics, Stoics, Pyrrhonists, Neoplatonists, and Julianists, but they all have a common pantheon, kinda, well the details can change depending on the sect and different epithets are almost like different versions of a God or Goddess. I can name a ton of examples but I think that's best for a different time.

Now what does Hellenic and or Roman polytheism have to say about evil and the Gods?

Sallust or Salustius On the Gods and the World does talk about evil, though he has the Neoplatonist belief that the Gods are fundamentally good or benevolent. Evil is the absence of a good mind, evil can be explained by the fact that humanity is flawed and imperfect and that people simply mistakes. Humans create evil in the absence of good mind and soul, Salustius argues however he does not argue that humanity is fundamentally evil or malevolent. In other words it be like that sometimes. Evil in this view exists as darkness exists in the absence of light. That is one view, it is Platonist in nature, something that stoicism originally sought to critique but it works in a similar way at least belief that the Gods are the powerful minds, though neoplatonists do insist on their belief in divine benevolence. I think the Gods are largely good in nature, but also nature can be both good or bad in and many deities are embodiment of the natural world, or that the natural world reflects their powers.

The roar of the ocean, crackling of the thunder and lightning, the winds from the west, the teeming of life in the forests. Nature, life, the soul, mind, and heart of the divine in each world, each universe of the multiverse. 

We sprang from Chaos, the primordial void that is all encompassing more than any god, even the fates are said to be more powerful than the Gods. Classical Hellenic religion is about the power and inevitability of fate, though Epicurus and stoicism argues against fate in favor of free will– we have free will and are not always bound by the fates' whims. That is one religious principle he differs on.

It should show that even today or then, there has always been a great diversity in thought and belief among polytheists, pagans, or ethnic religion practitioners or worshipers of the Gods.