Sunday, July 21, 2013

Augustine’s Influences (PhD Edit)

Vancouver  July 21 2013
Augustine’s Influences

Preface

Revised 27072024.

Manichaeism

According to Alan Richardson (1999), as a student Augustine was attracted to Manichaeism,[1] a movement began by the Persian, Manes (ca 215-275).[2]  Vernon J. Bourke (1958) writes that Augustine was in this religion for nine years from 373 A.D.[3]  The Manichees, according to Augustine scholar Henry Chadwick (1992), held that matter itself was evil.[4] Augustine rejected Manichaeism when he converted to Christianity,[5] but this does not mean with certainty the views of Manes have no influence whatsoever on Augustine’s theodicy.[6]  However, Augustine is historically known to have eventually challenged Manichaeism by denying its views as mythology,[7] and in disagreement with what he viewed as orthodox Christianity.[8]  Augustine’s view of the corruption and privation of matter and nature was that they were good things as created originally by God,[9] but had become less than they were originally intended through the rebellion of creatures.[10] This view would therefore contradict Manichaeism[11] which saw matter as always by nature being inherently evil.[12]

Platonic Philosophy

Augustine was also documented to have been influenced by Platonic philosophy.[13]  Scott MacDonald (1989) explains in his article ‘Augustine’s Christian-Platonic Account of Goodness’ that Augustine held views influenced by Platonic thought.[14]  Platonic philosophy was largely created by Plato (427-347 B.C.).[15]  Richard Kraut (1996) notes Plato was a preeminent Greek philosopher who conceived the observable world as an imperfect image of the realm of the unobservable and unchanging forms.[16]  Plato, in Timaeus, written in 360 B.C, viewed these forms as divinely moved objects.[17]  Mark D. Jordan (1996) notes Augustine was primarily affected by Neoplatonism before his conversion to Christianity.[18]  Augustine (398-399)(1992) states in Confessions he examined Platonist writings that supported his Biblical understanding of the nature of God.[19]  Jordan states the Platonic writings helped Augustine to conceive of a cosmic hierarchy in the universe in which God was immaterial and had sovereign control over his material creation.[20]  However, Jordan states Augustine saw philosophy alone as being unable to change his life as only God himself could do.[21]  Augustine’s use of Plato does not in itself invalidate his understanding of Biblical writings where the two may happen to be in agreement.[22]  From my overall research of Augustine and his free will theodicy, he places much emphasis on Biblical theology as primary,[23] and therefore although it is possible he could read Neoplatonism into his understanding of theodicy, it is also very likely he rejects Neoplatonism where it contradicts his Scriptural findings through in depth study.[24]

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.
         
AUGUSTINE (398-399)(1992) Confessions, Translated by Henry Chadwick, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

AUGUSTINE (400-416)(1987)(2004) On the Trinity, Translated by Reverend Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 3, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw,  Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

AUGUSTINE (426)(1958) The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books.

AUGUSTINE (427)(1997) On Christian Doctrine, Translated by D.W. Robertson Jr., Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

AUGUSTINE (427b)(1997) On Christian Teaching, Translated by R.P.H. Green, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

BOURKE, VERNON J. (1958) ‘Introduction’, in The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books.

CHADWICK, HENRY (1992) ‘Introduction’, in Confessions, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

JORDAN, MARK D. (1996) ‘Augustine’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, pp. 52-53. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

KRAUT, RICHARD (1996) ‘Plato’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, pp. 619-629. Cambridge University Press.

MACDONALD, SCOTT (1989) ‘Augustine’s Christian-Platonist Account of Goodness’, in The New Scholasticism, Volume 63, Number 4, pp. 485-509. Baltimore, The New Scholasticism. 

PLATO (360 B.C.)(1982) ‘Timaeus’, in Process Studies, Volume. 12, Number 4, Winter, pp.243-251. Claremont, California, Process Studies.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

RICHARDSON, ALAN (1999) ‘Manichaeism’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd. 



[1] Richardson (1999: 344).
[2] Richardson (1999: 344).
[3] Bourke (1958: 7).
[4] Chadwick (1992: xiv).
[5] Chadwick (1992: xiv).
[6] Chadwick (1992: xv).
[7] Chadwick (1992: xiv).
[8] Chadwick (1992: xv).
[9] Augustine (388-395)(1964: 116-117).
[10] Augustine (388-395)(1964: 116-117).
[11] Chadwick (1992: xv).
[12] Chadwick (1992: xiv).
[13] MacDonald (1989: 485-486).  Jordan (1996: 52).
[14] MacDonald (1989: 485-486).
[15] Pojman (1996: 6).
[16] Kraut (1996: 619-620).
[17] Plato (360 B.C.)(1982: 35).       
[18] Jordan (1996: 52).
[19] Augustine (398-399)(1992).
[20] Jordan (1996: 53).
[21] Jordan (1996: 53).
[22] Augustine (398-399)(1992).
[23] Augustine (398-399)(1992).
[24] Augustine (398-399)(1992). 

Website work

(My comments)


Cited

'Catholic Encyclopedia: St. Augustine of Hippo' 

'From his birth to his conversion (354-386)' 

'Augustine was born at Tagaste on 13 November, 354. Tagaste, now Souk-Ahras, about 60 miles from Bona (ancient Hippo-Regius), was at that time a small free city of proconsular Numidia which had recently been converted from Donatism.' 

Cited 

'From his conversion to his episcopate (386-395)' 'Augustine gradually became acquainted with Christian doctrine, and in his mind the fusion of Platonic philosophy with revealed dogmas was taking place. The law that governed this change of thought has of late years been frequently misconstrued; it is sufficiently important to be precisely defined. The solitude of Cassisiacum realized a long-cherished dream. In his books "Against the Academics," Augustine has described the ideal serenity of this existence, enlivened only by the passion for truth. He completed the education of his young friends, now by literary readings in common, now by philosophical conferences to which he sometimes invited Monica, and the accounts of which, compiled by a secretary, have supplied the foundation of the "Dialogues." Licentius, in his "Letters," would later on recall these delightful philosophical mornings and evenings, at which Augustine was wont to evolve the most elevating discussions from the most commonplace incidents. The favourite topics at their conferences were truth, certainty (Against the Academics), true happiness in philosophy (On a Happy Life), the Providential order of the world and the problem of evil (On Order) and finally God and the soul (Soliloquies, On the Immortality of the Soul).' 

Cited 

'It is now easy to appreciate at its true value the influence of neo-Platonism upon the mind of the great African Doctor. It would be impossible for anyone who has read the works of St. Augustine to deny the existence of this influence. However, it would be a great exaggeration of this influence to pretend that it at any time sacrificed the Gospel to Plato. The same learned critic thus wisely concludes his study: "So long, therefore, as his philosophy agrees with his religious doctrines, St. Augustine is frankly neo-Platonist; as soon as a contradiction arises, he never hesitates to subordinate his philosophy to religion, reason to faith. 

(This conclusion in agreement with my PhD research and findings, documented above)

He was, first of all, a Christian; the philosophical questions that occupied his mind constantly found themselves more and more relegated to the background" (op. cit., 155). But the method was a dangerous one; in thus seeking harmony between the two doctrines he thought too easily to find Christianity in Plato, or Platonism in the Gospel. More than once, in his "Retractations" and elsewhere, he acknowledges that he has not always shunned this danger. Thus he had imagined that in Platonism he discovered the entire doctrine of the Word and the whole prologue of St. John. He likewise disavowed a good number of neo-Platonic theories which had at first misled him — the cosmological thesis of the universal soul, which makes the world one immense animal — the Platonic doubts upon that grave question: Is there a single soul for all or a distinct soul for each? But on the other hand, he had always reproached the Platonists, as Schaff very properly remarks (Saint Augustine, New York, 1886, p. 51), with being ignorant of, or rejecting, the fundamental points of Christianity: "first, the great mystery, the Word made flesh; and then love, resting on the basis of humility." They also ignore grace, he says, giving sublime precepts of morality without any help towards realizing them.' 

(Non-Christian worldviews can have overlap of agreement with statements and arguments of truth within biblical, New Testament, Christianity; while still being overall, distinctly different worldviews, in contrast to that Christianity)

Citations 

'The Manichæan controversy and the problem of evil' 

'After Augustine became bishop the zeal which, from the time of his baptism, he had manifested in bringing his former co-religionists into the true Church, took on a more paternal form without losing its pristine ardour — "let those rage against us who know not at what a bitter cost truth is attained. . . . As for me, I should show you the same forbearance that my brethren had for me when I blind, was wandering in your doctrines" (Contra Epistolam Fundamenti 3). Among the most memorable events that occurred during this controversy was the great victory won in 404 over Felix, one of the "elect" of the Manichæans and the great doctor of the sect. He was propagating his errors in Hippo, and Augustine invited him to a public conference the issue of which would necessarily cause a great stir; Felix declared himself vanquished, embraced the Faith, and, together with Augustine, subscribed the acts of the conference. In his writings Augustine successively refuted Mani (397), the famous Faustus (400), Secundinus (405), and (about 415) the fatalistic Priscillianists whom Paulus Orosius had denounced to him. These writings contain the saint's clear, unquestionable views on the eternal problem of evil, views based on an optimism proclaiming, like the Platonists, that every work of God is good and that the only source of moral evil is the liberty of creatures (City of God XIX.13.2). 

(Here we can see why I reviewed Augustine under the umbrella of free will theodicy within my PhD work, and this supports the view that it was/is historically accurate to do so)

Augustine takes up the defence of free will, even in man as he is, with such ardour that his works against the Manichæan are an inexhaustible storehouse of arguments in this still living controversy. In vain have the Jansenists maintained that Augustine was unconsciously a Pelagian and that he afterwards acknowledged the loss of liberty through the sin of Adam. Modern critics, doubtless unfamiliar with Augustine's complicated system and his peculiar terminology, have gone much farther. In the "Revue d'histoire et de littérature religieuses" (1899, p. 447), M. Margival exhibits St. Augustine as the victim of metaphysical pessimism unconsciously imbibed from Manichæan doctrines. "Never," says he, "will the Oriental idea of the necessity and the eternity of evil have a more zealous defender than this bishop." Nothing is more opposed to the facts. Augustine acknowledges that he had not yet understood how the first good inclination of the will is a gift of God (Retractions, I, xxiii, n, 3); but it should be remembered that he never retracted his leading theories on liberty, never modified his opinion upon what constitutes its essential condition, that is to say, the full power of choosing or of deciding. Who will dare to say that in revising his own writings on so important a point he lacked either clearness of perception or sincerity?' 

References from New Advent 

'APA citation. Portalié, E. (1907). Life of St. Augustine of Hippo. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02084a.htm 

MLA citation. Portalié, Eugène. "Life of St. Augustine of Hippo." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. . 

Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Dave Ofstead. Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York. Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight.'

Saturday, July 20, 2013

Dewi Zephaniah Phillips (PhD Edit)

Bac Son Valley, Vietnam-Google+

Although Professor Phillips and I had different perspectives in regard to much of Theology and Philosophy of Religion, what I respected about his writing, and what I enjoyed about his writing was that he refused to accept overly simplistic answers in regard to theodicy and the problem of evil.

I am the same, and that includes from the evangelical church.

I do not include the section on God’s omnipotence with Professor John Frame because that has been covered in the blog archives on this blog on more than one post. There is needed repetition on this blog, but then sometimes I reason it is not needed.

Thank you immensely for reading and supporting me in whatever way you can think of… 

Theodicy

Dewi Zephaniah Phillips[1] admits that ‘philosophizing about the problem of evil has become common place.’[2] There are ‘theories, theodicies and defences abound.’[3] These are all seeking to somehow justify God,[4] or to render the concept of God as untenable.[5]  Phillips rightly reasons that such work should be done with fear,[6] as approaches to the problem of evil in error could ‘betray the evils people have suffered.’[7]  Such explanation should never be overly simplistic, insensitive or ridiculous.[8]  Phillips warns that pro-religious philosophical presentations can often do more damage to the cause of theodicy than can the work of critics.[9]  Practical ‘existential’[10]  evils must be dealt with properly by theodicy.[11]  Philosophical presentations should not sidestep practical sufferings[12] in regard to evil, for it is by these problems it is known that there is a logical problem.[13] 

Restoration

As Phillips notes, ‘Theodicists want happy endings.’[14]  Feinberg admitted a difficulty with his approach because it defends God allowing the problem of evil in his creation for a time period that is unknown to human beings,[15] and at the same time claims that God would eventually restore his creation.[16]  He notes that free will and evolutionary theistic approaches to the problem of evil also assume that God would restore his creation, and so this was a common theistic assumption.[17] The fact that his sovereignty approach accepts restoration of the creation within it in no way makes his presentation internally inconsistent.[18]  Phillips explains that this general type of approach views God as compensating persons for the sufferings in life.[19]  Evil and suffering is therefore redeemed in some way.[20]  Evil and suffering would be worthwhile within a Christian world view where Christ prevails. Phillips warns that at its worst Christianity can push one to back the right supernatural force,[21] as in not backing Satan.[22]  Phillips suggests that no one wants to back a loser and so Christians should logically, within their worldview, back God and not Satan.[23] God becomes a means and not an end within this type of Christian approach.[24]  It should be interjected that Christianity should not be primarily about being on the winning side, rather it should be concerned, for the most part, with doing God’s will obediently in love.[25]  Phillips views it as problematic that Jesus stated his Kingdom was not of this world and yet in the Second Coming establishes his Kingdom on this earth.[26]

Feinberg thought it was not his objective to answer why God allowed the problem of evil and would eventually bring restoration, and I view this as a weakness.[27]  Rather, Feinberg believes he was successful in presenting an approach that showed God was good,[28] as was his creation.[29]  Calvin writes that God would begin anew in humanity by abolishing the fallen will, leaving the human will in its original state.[30]  God would turn evil to good, according to Calvin,[31] thus bringing a new humanity which was a new creation.[32] This human restoration and rebirth, Calvin (1552)(1995) notes,[33] would lead to the culmination of the Kingdom of God, and the ultimate blessing of immortality.[34] 

Providence

Phillips explains that a Reformed view is that God has the freedom to act as he wants.[35] This would be God’s sovereign providence, but Hume is skeptical of this concept.[36]  People throughout the world view certain evils, which may be rectified in other regions of the world or in the future, and understand these good events as being connected to general laws and the existence of a good deity.[37] Hume suggests that these are superstitions,[38] and questions whether in many cases a ‘cause can be known but from its known effects?’[39]  The idea is then presented that if God is benevolent his providence should lead to a world without suffering and wickedness.[40]

Soul-Building & Soul-Making

Phillips writes concerning this general type of approach on soul-building and that John Hick, that without the existence of evil, character development would not place.[41]  For Hick, the development that would take place in humanity was not one of gradual human improvement throughout generations,[42] but was instead an individual process in each and every person.[43] This type of approach allows God to mould human character.[44]  Phillips views a moral development theory as incoherent,[45] as it creates an immoral indulgence of human beings to self,[46] as in their own personal development.[47] Persons should instead be more concerned with other persons reasons Phillips.[48]

D.Z. Phillips (2001) criticizes Hick’s view that evolution will continue within humanity after death, noting this implies that the earthly process obviously failed.[49]  Phillips strongly disagrees with Hick’s position calling it horrendous that human beings should be expected to trust in the idea that death is an actual state and everything will work out for the best.[50]  John K. Roth (2001) provides a similar objection when he states that Hick’s progressive theodicy is just too good to be true.[51]  Although, in general terms, I do accept a concept of divine soul-making, both of the above objections[52] are serious ones. Phillips critique seems correct.[53]  It is apparent in many cases soul-making fails in certain individuals this side of the grave.[54]  This being the case, why should critics necessarily believe that God will redeem all post-mortem souls?[55]  If there was little or no evidence from an individual’s life of a disposition towards God while they were alive,[56] then why should it be accepted that there will be a change in attitude after death?[57] 

The philosophical assumption of universalism appears very speculative on Hick’s part.[58]  Phillips correctly points out that life after death is not scientific fact and Hick is trusting in a hypothetical state for the eventual demise of the problem of evil.[59]  Hick is resting his theodicy on the idea that if this state actually exists, persons that previously had rejected God would eventually change their ways bringing about a Kingdom of God without rebellion.[60]  Phillips, correctly in my view, points out that Hick ‘does not treat human life seriously enough.’61]

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College.

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

CALVIN, JOHN (1552)(1995) Acts, Translated by Watermark, Nottingham, Crossway Books. 

DAVIS, STEPHEN T. (1981)(ed.), Encountering Evil, Atlanta, John Knox Press.FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

HUME, DAVID (1739-1740)(1973) ‘A Treatise of Human Nature’, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

HUME, DAVID (1779)(2004) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Lawrence, Kansas.PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.),  Atlanta, John Knox Press.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005)  The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.




[1] Unfortunately Phillips died within the time frame of writing this thesis (1934-2006).

[2] Phillips (2005: xi).

[3] Phillips (2005: xi).

[4] Phillips (2005: xi). 

[5] Phillips (2005: xi). Most often atheistic attempts, or those critical of Christian thought.

[6] Phillips (2005: xi). 

[7] Phillips (2005: xi). 

[8] Phillips (2005: xi).  I can agree with this point in general terms, but there will certainly be disagreement between writers on the negative and positive aspects of various theodicy.

[9] Phillips (2005: xi). 

[10] Phillips (2005: xii).

[11] Phillips (2005: xii).

[12] And therefore practical theology should not be overlooked.

[13] Phillips (2005: xii). An insightful point, I agree.

[14] Phillips (2005: 247). 

[15] Feinberg (1994: 141). 

[16] Feinberg (1994: 141). Phillips doubts a notion of life after death makes sense.  He uses as example comparing death to being asleep or unconscious.  Phillips (2005: 85). 

[17] Feinberg (1994: 141).

[18] Feinberg (1994: 141).

[19] Phillips (2005: 81).

[20] Phillips (2005: 81).

[21] Phillips (2005: 247).

[22] Phillips (2005: 247).

[23] Phillips (2005: 247).   decent point is made, however, in light of Reformed views on compatibilism, Christians are not going to primarily choose God, but are chosen by God.

[24] Phillips (2005: 247).

[25] For example, Matthew 22 and Mark 12 has Christ instructing the reader to love God first and foremost, and others as much as self.  Jesus in John 15 tells his disciples to love one another just as he loved them. 

[26] Phillips (2005: 247).  esus’ Kingdom is not of this temporal world, not of this present realm. The world shall be changed and restored.  Mounce (1990: 368-397).

[27] Feinberg (1994: 141). 

[28] Feinberg (1994: 141). 

[29] Feinberg (1994: 141).  

[30] Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 3, 6).

[31] Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 3, 6).

[32] Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 3, 6).

[33] Calvin (1539)(1998: Book II, Chapter 3, 6).

[34] Calvin (1552)(1995: 13).

[35] Phillips (2005: 22).

[36] Hume (1779)(2004: 50).

[37] Hume (1779)(2004: 50).

[38] Hume (1779)(2004: 50).

[39] Hume (1779)(2004: 50).

[40] Hume (1779)(2004: 50).

[41] Phillips (2005: 56).

[42] Hick (1970: 292). 

[43] Hick (1970: 292).

[44] Phillips (2005: 56).

[45] Phillips (2005: 58).

[46] Phillips (2005: 58).

[47] Phillips (2005: 58).

[48] Phillips (2005: 58).  In support of Hick and my own theories of human development, I reason that spiritual building need not be necessarily only self focused. For example, in Matthew 22 and Mark 12 Jesus tells the listener to love others as self.  Within spiritual development one could and should seek to love and assist others.

[49] Phillips in Davis (2001: 56). Phillips (2005: 87).

[50] Phillips in Davis (2001: 58).

[51] Roth in Davis (2001: 62). Hick’s theodicy is too speculative and sentimental.

[52] Phillips in Davis (2001: 58). Roth in Davis (2001: 62).

[53] Phillips in Davis (2001: 58). 

[54] Phillips in Davis (2001: 56).

[55] Phillips in Davis (2001: 58).

[56] Phillips in Davis (2001: 58).

[57] Phillips in Davis (2001: 58).

[58] Hick in Davis (2001: 51). 

[59] Phillips in Davis (2001: 58).

[60] Hick (1970: 252-253). Phillips is skeptical that the human race will morally improve as Hicks understands it. Phillips (2005: 89). 

[61] Phillips (2005: 89). Hick does not treat the empirical temporal life seriously enough.


Monday, July 15, 2013

Epicurus (341-271-270 B.C.)

Helix Bridge, Singapore-Socialphy.com
Epicurus (341-271-270 B.C.) 

Preface

Revised 20250607. My work on Epicurus within my PhD and on my website is short and non-exhaustive. I am, for the most part, relating Epicurus and Epicureanism to my work on problems of evil and theodicy. This is not a thorough review of the writings of Epicurus.

PhD Edit

Saturday, September 19, 2020 PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD

William Ferraiolo (2005) notes many anti-theists deduce that the all-powerful God would not allow his children[1] to suffer, and therefore the God of theism is an irrational concept.[2] Philosopher Theodore P. Rebard (1996) states that the logical problem of evil exists since God is omnibenevolent[3] and omnipotent,[4] and writes critics can view the logical problem as meaning that if God cannot end evil, he is not omnipotent, and if he can prevent evil and does not, he is not omnibenevolent or all loving.[5]  Rebard concludes that God either does not exist or is misunderstood.[6] Greek philosopher Epicurus was known to have made a similar statement. Epicurus (341-270 B.C.)(1949: 80).
---

Website work

In my MPhil and PhD theses work continually I would see in written form the logical problem of evil within philosophy of religion/philosophy traced back to Epicurus. Blackburn explains Epicurus was born on the island of Samos but moved to Athens 307-306 BC where he established a secluded community known as the ‘Garden’ Blackburn (1996: 122). His work was written up in ‘Diogenes Laertius’ and via Lucretius' poem ‘De Rerun Natura'  his view was shown, 'atomistic metaphysics' which allowed for empty space and an infinite number of atoms and infinite number of worlds. Blackburn (1996: 122). Blackburn reasons that Epicurus had a doctrine of the survival of the fittest in order to account for the evolution of species with an appeal to the causes of Aristotle. Blackburn (1996: 122). 

(This is by no means to be confused with any doctrine of the survival of the fattest)

Gods were philosophically allowed but played no part in the cosmos or in first causes or maintaining existence. Blackburn (1996: 122). Epicurus allowed for free will as atoms can swerve in their course. Blackburn (1996: 122). David N. Sedley states that the Epicurean atomistic system was developed from a fifth century BC system of Democritus where space includes absolute void without which motion would be impossible and with which body is constituted out of indivisible particles known as atoms. Sedley (1996: 230). The gods are not the divine minds behind the evolution of life and society, but rather are viewed as ideal beings and models of an ideal life and detached from humanity. Sedley (1996: 230). The aim of this philosophy would be to practically live well, with cultivated friendships, and the ending of unneeded negative desires and wishes. Blackburn (1996: 122). Epicurean philosophy is hedonistic seeking pleasure and pain is viewed as an evil, pleasure is even valued over virtue. Sedley (1996: 231). Sedley lists Epicurus' years as (341-271 B.C.). Sedley (1996: 230).

In my mind Epicurus is obviously a key historical philosopher. In a sense because of his impact he is a great philosopher. However, although I am not a scientist and I can reason that he made some reasonable and intelligent deductions to even arrive with the term ‘atoms’, obviously his science would now largely be outdated by twenty-first century standards.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Epicurus

David Konstan 2022

Cited 

'First published Mon Jan 10, 2005; substantive revision Fri Jul 8, 2022' 

'The philosophy of Epicurus (341–270 B.C.E.) was a complete and interdependent system, involving a view of the goal of human life (happiness, resulting from absence of physical pain and mental disturbance), an empiricist theory of knowledge (sensations, together with the perception of pleasure and pain, are infallible criteria), a description of nature based on atomistic materialism, and a naturalistic account of evolution, from the formation of the world to the emergence of human societies.'

Sources from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Bibliography

Editions, translations, commentaries

  • Annas, Julia (ed.), and Raphael Woolf (trans.), 2001. Cicero: On Moral Ends, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Arrighetti, Graziano, 1973. Epicuro Opere, 2nd edition, Turin: Einaudi. (Best edition available, with Italian translation.)
  • Arrighetti, Graziano and Marcello Gigante, 1977. “Frammenti del libro undidesimo ‘Della natura’ di Epicuro (PHerc. 1042),” Cronache Ercolenesi, 7: 5–8.
  • Bailey, Cyril B., 1926. Epicurus: The Extant Remains, Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Best edition in English.)
  • Bollack, Jean (ed.), 1985. Il pensiero del piacere: Epicuro, testi morali, commentari, Genoa: La Quercia.
  • De Lacy, Phillip Howard and Estelle Allen De Lacy, 1978. Philodemus On Methods of Inference, 2nd edition, Naples: Bibliopolis.
  • Delattre, Daniel and Jackie Pigeaud (eds.), 2010. Les epicuriens, Paris: Gallimard. (Very rich collection of texts in translation.)
  • Dorandi, Tiziano (ed.), 2013. Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Hammerstaedt, Jürgen, Pierre-Marie Morel, Refik Güremen (eds.), 2017. Diogenes of Oinoanda: Epicureanism and Philosophical Debates / Diogène d’Œnoanda: Épicurisme et Controverses, Leuven: Leuven University Press.
  • Hessler, Jan Erik, 2014. Epikur: Brief an Menoikeus, Basil. (Best commentary on this epistle.)
  • Indelli, Giovanni and Voula Tsouna-McKirahan (eds.), 1995. [Philodemus]: [On Choices and Avoidances], Naples: Bibliopolis.
  • Inwood, Brad and L.P. Gerson, 1997. Hellenistic Philosophy: Introductory Readings, 2nd edition, Indianapolis: Hackett. (Translation of principal sources. The Epicurean part is also published separately.)
  • Konstan, David (trans.), 1989. Simplicius on Aristotle’s Physics 6, Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press and Duckworth.
  • Konstan, David, Diskin Clay, Clarence Glad, Johan Thom, and James Ware, 1998. Philodemus On Frank Criticism: Introduction, Translation and Notes, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations (Greco-Roman Religion).
  • Laursen, Simon, 1995. “The Early Parts of Epicurus, On Nature, 25th Book,” Cronache Ercolanesi, 25: 5–109.
  • –––, 1997. “The Later Parts of Epicurus, On Nature, 25th Book,” Cronache Ercolanesi, 27: 5–83.
  • Leone, Giuliana, 1984. “Epicuro, ‘Della natura,’ libro XIV,” Cronache Ercolanesi, 14: 17–107.
  • –––, 2012. Epicuro Sulla natura libro II, Naples: Bibliopolis. (Splendid edition with major introduction on simulacra and related questions.)
  • Long, A.A. and David Sedley, 1987. The Hellenistic Philosophers, 2 volumes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Excellent collection of sources, with Greek text in volume 2, arranged by topic.)
  • Mensch, Pamela (trans.), 2018. Diogenes Laertius: Lives of the Eminent Philosophers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Best and most accessible English version, based on Dorandi’s text.)
  • Millot, C., 1977. “Epicure ‘De la nature’ livre XV,” Cronache Ercolanesi, 7: 9–39.
  • Obbink, Dirk, 1996. Philodemus De pietate, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Sedley, David, 1973. “Epicurus, ‘On Nature’ Book XXVIII,” Cronache Ercolanesi, 3: 5–83.
  • Smith, Martin Ferguson (ed.), 1993. Diogenes of Oenoanda: The Epicurean Inscription, Naples: Bibliopolis.
  • Stern, Jacob (trans.), 1996. Palaephatus: On Unbelievable Tales, Wauconda, IL : Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers.
  • Taylor, C.C.W. (ed.), 1999. The Atomists: Leucippus and Democritus: A Text and Translation with a Commentary (The Phoenix Presocratics 5 = Phoenix Supplementary Volume 36), Toronto: The University of Toronto Press.
  • Usener, Hermann, 1887. Epicurea. Leipzig: Teubner. Italian translation by Ilaria Ramelli, Epicurea: Testi di Epicuro e testimonianze epicuree nell’edizione di Hermann Usener, Milan: Bompiani, 2002. (Most complete collection of fragments.)
  • Verde, Francesco, 2010. Epicuro Epistola a Erodoto. Rome: Carocci. (The best edition of this fundamental work.)
  • Verde, Francesco (ed.), 2022. Epicuro, Epistola a Pitocle, in collaboration with M. Tulli, D. De Sanctis, F. G. Masi, Academia Verlag, Baden-Baden.
---

Hedonism was discussed with my MPhil


Hedonism was also discussed by Woods. James A. Montmarquet defined Hedonism in the following way: "the view that pleasure (including the absence of pain) is the sole intrinsic good in life." Montmarquet (1996: 311). Woods provided a similar definition: "Hedonism is a broad term used to encompass all theories that see pleasure as the ultimate goal of life and criterion for conduct. Anything that is fun is good. Anything that is not fun is bad and should be avoided." Woods (1974)(1982: 18). Basically, Hedonism sees pleasure as the most important thing in reality. 

Philosophically, Biblical Christianity is not in agreement with a life of hedonism at the expense of virtue, certainly. Pleasure in fine, but not at the expense of virtue. Epicurean philosophy is hedonistic seeking pleasure and pain is viewed as an evil, pleasure is even valued over virtue. Sedley (1996: 231). 

An aspect of problems of evil is that God can use pain, suffering and evil for the greater good; Christ's sacrifice on the cross, leading to the atoning and resurrection work applied to believers, a classic example.

Theological reflections

As far as the logical problem of evil statement attributed to him, I of course dealt with that and the gratuitous problem of evil with a Reformed based Sovereignty defence/theodicy in my British academic work and with my website work. It could be seen philosophically how one that holds to Epicureanism would not accept an infinite, omnipotent God, that willingly has a problem of evil in existence. 

I therefore am not in general agreement with Epicurus or Epicureanism in regards to problems of evil, theodicy and perhaps, hedonism, at least to some degree, in connection to my own academic work. I will grant that hedonism is multifaceted and was documented as a broad term, rather than a specific philosophical movement. This in no way precludes or excludes other possible areas of philosophical agreement with Epicurus or Epicureanism.

Saturday, September 19, 2020 PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.  

CAUTHEN, KENNETH (1997) ‘Theodicy’, in Frontier.net, Rochester, New York, Kenneth Cauthen, Professor of Theology, Emeritus, Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School.

ENROTH, R.M. (1996) ‘Reincarnation’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

EPICURUS (341-270 B.C.)(1949) in Overcoming Evil from the German translation, Von der Ueberwindung der Furcht, Zurich, Von der Ueberwindung der Furcht.

FERRAIOLO, WILLIAM (2005) ‘Eternal Selves and The Problem of Evil’, in Quodlibet Journal, Volume 7, Number 2, April-June, Evanston, Illinois, Quodlibet Journal.

MONTMARQUET, J.A. (1996) ‘Hedonism’, in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

SEDLEY DAVID N. (1996) ‘Epicureanism’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

REBARD, THEODORE P. (1996) ‘The Problem of Evil Revisited’, in Catholic.net, North Haven, Connecticut, Christian Philosophy, Catholic. net. 

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

WOODS, B.W. (1974) Christians in Pain, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.



[1] In context Farraiolo is describing human beings.
[2] Ferraiolo (2005: 1).
[3] Cauthen describes this as perfect goodness and love. Cauthen (1997: 1). Henry Thiessen in Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology states that the goodness of God includes his benevolence and love. Thiessen (1956: 130).
[4] Rebard (1996: 1).
[5] Rebard (1996: 1). Greek philosopher Epicurus was known to have made a similar statement. Epicurus (341-270 B.C.)(1949: 80).
[6] Rebard (1996: 1).

2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter 

2003 The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives: MPhil thesis, Bangor University