Resolving Epicurean Paradox
The Epicurean paradox is very often used as a tool to deny or seed doubts about the existence of a God; mostly in the realm of western monotheistic religions. A friend posed this paradox to me last evening.
Surprisingly, the paradox unraveled instantly. I am posing my conclusion about this paradox ahead of the explanation deliberately; but we will come to reason behind it at the end of this short post. Before that, let us unravel the paradox.
Most paradoxes or seeming contradictions arise from one of 2 things –
a. Error or fallacy in the base assumptions
b. Error in the workings or functions
We use method of contradiction frequently in mathematical proofs; assume a statement, arrive at something that contradicts either the assumption or other known axioms and hence falsify the assumption. Contradictory result here is an indicator that one should either question the assumption(s) or the method taken. Paradox is not the end; but an indicator to regress.
So, a good place to start when faced with a paradox is to look at the base assumptions. I am stating here only a few (of the assumptions of Epicurean paradox).
1. Assumption about the nature of God — Omnipotent, Omniscient, All-loving, possess free will
2. God has no plan or purpose for Evil in Her scheme
3. Evil exists
The entire paradox rests on the validity of these assumptions. Invalidate one or few or all of these assumptions, the paradox either resolves itself (or changes form). Let us begin with the definition of God.
An alternate definition of God — For an Advaitin (Pantheist to a reasonable extent), the entire cosmos is God; a manifestation of God. The cosmos and all within (including evil if any exists) is God’s manifestation. A God who is not All-loving; but dispassionate or inert towards all of Her manifestations.
If God is inert to all of Her manifestations, there is no question of existence of Evil from God’s perspective. All categorizations become meaningless. Hence, the third assumption gives in.
Even if God categorizes Her manifestations (dispassionately); Evil will still be one of Her manifestations playing a role within the Whole. Hence, the second assumption gives in.
With the assumptions’ invalidation, the paradox gets resolved; because existence of Evil is essential to this paradox.
The above presented nature of God is not to say that the nature of God is different and so presented; but only to argue that unbeknownst the God or Her nature, the assumptions about Her is on shaky grounds and any resulting paradox from these assumptions should raise suspicions on the assumption(s) made or method(s) taken.
The strength of any paradox lies in the belief of the reader. For anyone schooled/institutionalized into a belief system (be it the proponent or opponent of the belief) that assumes the above nature of God and Evil; the paradox remains one. For those, whose beliefs are apart from the assumptions, the paradox never exists. This is exactly the reason why for many schooled in other philosophies (ex — one of the Eastern), this paradox seems non-existent.
The argument against the existence of this paradox is not restricted to questioning the nature of assumptions and changing them; but also to do with what a paradox indicates (which I indicated earlier in the method of contradiction in mathematical proofs).
When the pursuit is to study the existence and the nature of God, one should be very careful about the base assumptions on the subject being investigated and the resulting conclusions. Contradictory conclusions are an indicator for you to regress and take a re-look at your assumptions, or the path you are taking for your analysis. As I mentioned earlier, paradox is not an end but an indicator to regress in your pursuit to finding truth.
PS — I am beginner to philosophical rigor and logical rigor. There is bound to be many gaps in the line of reasoning. I will be happy to hear, learn and get more rigorous.
