Epicurus (341BC-270BC, the founder of Epicureanism, a philosophy mostly known for its pleasure-based ethical viewpoint, discussed the existence and nature of god[1] extensively. However, his heavy emphasis on the atomic nature of the universe and importance of sense-perception for determining reality and truth conflicts with the very argument he uses for the existence of god. The tenets of Epicureanism create a cosmology, worldview and ethical system that has no need for god, by any definition, and may have created the rational foundation for later Atheistic thought.
Epicurus believes that the everything within the universe – including souls – are created of atoms; and that when something ceases to exist, it breaks down into its component atoms, which eventually rearrange and recombine into a new object or being (Inwood 10:54)[2]. For Epicurus, atoms themselves are never destroyed, just rearranged (10:54). Epicurus argues that only when atoms are combined (in the form of humans) can a soul exist, and that when the human form ceases to exist, so does the soul (13:64-66). There is no afterlife, no rebirth or reincarnation (36:14). In fact, the soul “is mortal and perishes with the body” (93), and all sense-perception ends (13:64).
Truth and reality can only be judged and determined by one’s sense-perceptions, and the “soul is most responsible for sense-perception” (13:63). Epicurus does not claim that the soul is a sense, more that a soul is necessary for sense-perception to occur; the soul is sort of the gatekeeper of our senses. Only through the use of one’s senses, can one know what is real and true, or unreal and false. In essence, if you can’t see, smell, touch, taste or hear something, it is not real. For Epicurus, sense-perception is the only measure of reality and truth. But god’s existence cannot be verified by any of the five senses, so why claim he exists? Epicurus makes an exception to the sense-perception rule for the existence of god, stating that “god is perceived by thought” (55:105), not the senses. This contradicts his otherwise solid argument for the primacy of sense-perception in determining reality and truth. If the only way to judge reality is with the senses, if something cannot be sensed, how can it exist? Granted, this argument can easily be applied to the very existence of atoms: without the use of high-power microscopes, atoms cannot be sensed by ordinary human means. Yet Epicurus (correctly) postulates their existence without any true sense-perception, much less with the technological means for him to verify their existence. So is Epicurus using the existence of atoms that cannot be perceived by the senses as an argument for the existence of a god that cannot be perceived by the senses? Not at all: he is using rationality as the basis of his proof for the existence of god. Images of god appear to man in his thoughts and dreams, therefore, god must exist but just simply outside of our sense-perception (). For Epicurus, images of god in dreams are not necessarily proof, they are simply evidence, one piece of the puzzle that proves god exists, and not particularly strong evidence at that.
Why does Epicureanism bother with the existence of god at all? This philosophy has no rational purpose for the existence of god, and it definitely does not rely upon god’s existence to create a workable ethical system. It does not regard god as necessary for human life, nor does it claim that god created all. God must serve some sort of purpose, but the god of Epicureanism serves no purpose at all, except to enjoy his own pleasure and happiness (94). God does not interfere with daily human life and “is not concerned with human affairs” (94), and very likely never hears prayers. God is somehow outside of our sense-perception – in a reality and/or cosmos outside of our own, and by intention and design is “completely preoccupied with the continuance of his own happiness” (94). With this kind of god – one who does not interact with humans, who doesn’t care about what humans do or don’t do, who cannot be demonstrated with the sense-perceptions, combined with the lack of any form of afterlife or rebirth since we completely cease to exist upon death, why acknowledge a god at all? Perhaps Epicurus is hedging his bets with his god – or simply being politically correct[3]. Regardless, Epicurus does acknowledge that god exists.
These concepts do lay significant foundational, rational arguments for Atheism[4]. Atheism is, in essence, the “absence of belief in the existence of deities” (wikipedia.com). While atheism is not a formal belief system[5], most proclaimed Atheists believe that how one lives their life today is all that matters, because there is no god watching over and judging us. Atheists also generally believe that there is no afterlife, heaven, hell, reincarnation or other form of soul rebirth, that the soul (if they even acknowledge the soul’s existence) ends with our last breath. Much as Epicureanism is most concerned with living life in the here-and-now, not for a future, unknowable afterlife, Atheism depends heavily upon the lack of scientific (read: sense-perception) as evidence for the non-existence of god. Granted, lack of evidence is not a strong argument for lack of existence, but the parallel is obvious between Atheism’s desire for scientific evidence to determine reality and Epicureanism’s reliance upon sense-perception for determining reality. The requirement for empirical evidence is particularly imperative for our modern, Western worldview, yet despite the lack of empirical evidence of god’s existence, billions still believe that god exists.
Atheists do not depend solely upon the lack of empirical evidence for the non-existence of god; they also rely upon rational argument, much of which is found in Epicurean thought. Lactantius’ On the Anger of God 13.20-22 (374 U) states most clearly that Epicurus is aiming to force “most” philosophers to admit that “god does not care” and hence since god does not care, god simply must not exist: (Inwood 94 I-109)
“God, he says, either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can. 21. If he wants to and cannot, then he is weak…if he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful… If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful… If he wants to and can, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them?” (94 I-109)
In essence, god does not care therefore god does not exist. This argument – usually now referred to as the “problem of evil” argument - obviously also provides a historic and rational basis behind the modern-day Atheistic “argument from nonbelief” which states that “if God exists … he would have brought about a situation in which everyone believes in him, but there are unbelievers, so God does not exist.” (Wikipedia)[6] The “problem of evil” argument (evil exists, therefore god, specifically a kind and caring god, cannot exist) is one that has perplexed believers and provided rational foundation for Atheists throughout history. Christian theology “solves” this dilemma with the concept of free will, but Atheists use the dilemma as a rational argument for the non-existence of god. Epicureans never come straight out saying that god does not exist, but this argument – amongst others – create their strongest argument and evidence that it is highly likely that privately they believed that god did not exist.
Epicurean thought, with its primary emphasis on the importance of sense-perception, atomism, and the “problem of evil” argument is obviously foundational to modern-day Atheism. The Epicurean argument that we “think” of god therefore god exists cannot be rationally justified: to do so would be to claim that anything imagined or thought of must exist. (We “think” of unicorns and golden geese but they do not exist.) We can never know why Epicurus and other Epicurean philosophers avoided a straight-out claim that god does not exist, although it is likely for the same reasons many modern-day people will make a claim to “being spiritual” or Agnosticism when privately they doubt the existence of god: political correctness and avoidance of negative repercussions in their public lives. The society Epicurus lived in would have provided even stronger incentives to find a way, an argument, for the existence of god than our modern society does. It is also possible, of course, that Epicurus did absolutely believe in the existence of god (hence the argument that god was too busy dealing with his own happiness) but regardless of whether or not Epicurus believed in the actual existence of god, his arguments and philosophy provide much, if not most, of the foundations for modern day Atheism.
Works Cited
Inwood, Brad and L.P. Gerson. Hellenistic Philosophy Introductory Readings. Second Edition. Hackett Publishing Company: Indianapolis/Cambridge. 1997.
Wikipedia.org. Atheism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Wikipedia.org. Problem of Evil. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil
Written for Professor Tanner's History of Hellenistic Philosophy class at the University of Colorado - Colorado Springs, 28th September, 2006.
[1] I have chosen to use the lower-case “god” vs. the traditional mostly-Christian use of upper-case “God” in order to delineate that Epicurus is not referring to any one particular god or God, just the existence (or potential existence or non-existence) of some sort of higher-evolved sentience outside of our immediate sense-perception.
[2] The basic premises behind atomism, especially Epicurus’ understanding of atoms and their properties, are remarkably scientifically accurate.
[3] Socrates was killed in 399 after being charged with impiety. I imagine that most philosophers after that exercised extreme caution when discussing whether or not god exists J.
[4] Also but to a lesser extent for other non-theistic belief systems including but not limited to agnosticism
[5] Atheism is not a formal belief system, however, there are many commonalities amongst Atheists. While virtually all believe that god – or God – does not exist, some do believe that the soul is reborn or reincarnated, or that there is some form of afterlife, a higher plane of existence, so to speak. Other non-theistic belief systems do believe in rebirth and/or afterlife, but do not necessarily believe that god exists.
[6] The article Atheism on Wikipedia.org has the dubious distinction of being one of the most-often vandalized articles out of the thousands on the site!
No comments:
Post a Comment