Rethinking the Epicurean Paradox
In this write-up of our series on the profound and multifaceted nature of suffering — religious, social, psychological, emotional, and existential — we finally turn our attention to the Epicurean Paradox.
It may seem that what follows repeats much of what I have already argued in previous reflections on suffering. That may be partly true. However, here I am placing those ideas specifically within the framework of the Epicurean Paradox—a formulation that has long challenged the coherence of religious belief in the face of evil. Revisiting those earlier insights in this particular context allows us to see how theological responses offer not only counterarguments but a more coherent and morally rich worldview.
Often presented as a decisive challenge to belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving God, this ancient argument invites serious reflection, particularly through the lens of mature theological insight. In this article, we critically examine the paradox, reveal its conceptual limitations, and present a compelling faith-based response rooted in classical and contemporary scholarship, supported by examples that reflect the depth of religious wisdom.
Rethinking the Epicurean Paradox: A Theological Reorientation
Often attributed to the Greek philosopher Epicurus and preserved by later thinkers like Lactantius, the paradox presents a trilemma that questions the existence of an all-powerful, all-good God in a world riddled with suffering:
- If God is willing to prevent evil but cannot, He is not omnipotent.
- If God can prevent evil but chooses not to, He is not benevolent.
- If He is both willing and able, why does evil exist?
This philosophical challenge has been taken up by theologians across traditions. While it appears logically tight, it rests on certain assumptions about God’s nature, human understanding, the meaning of good and evil, and the finality of this world, which, when questioned, expose significant gaps.
Revisiting Familiar Arguments
Having discussed some key arguments in earlier pieces like the role of free will and divine wisdom to the reality of the Hereafter, this article revisits them not to merely restate, but to demonstrate how they directly address the Epicurean formulation and render its premises inadequate.
Human Limitation and Divine Wisdom (Ḥikmah)
The paradox presupposes that human beings are in a position to judge what an all-knowing God ought to do. Theology firmly counters this assumption. For instance, the Qur’ān teaches that human knowledge is limited, while Allah’s wisdom is all-encompassing:
Perhaps you dislike something good for you, and like something bad for you. Allah knows, and you do not. (Qur’ān 2:216)
As argued by Imām al-Ghazzālī in The Incoherence of the Philosophers, the finite human intellect is not equipped to assess the infinite scope of Divine wisdom. What appears as needless suffering may, in God’s broader plan, serve purposes such as moral growth, spiritual awakening, or the unfolding of justice across time. When the paradox claims contradiction, it overlooks this vital epistemological gap between Creator and creation.
Misunderstanding Goodness and Mercy
Another key flaw lies in how the paradox defines “good.” It assumes that a benevolent God must prevent all suffering immediately and unconditionally. But religious thought understands Raḥmah (Divine mercy) and Khayr (good) as broader and more purposeful. True goodness involves free will, moral responsibility, and the opportunity to grow through challenge.
Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna) noted that much of what we call “evil” is not a created substance, but rather the absence or imperfection of good, something inevitable in a finite, contingent world. God’s mercy, in this view, lies not in shielding us from all discomfort, but in guiding us through it with meaning and toward eternal reward.
The Role of Free Will and Human Agency
The paradox also fails to adequately consider human responsibility. Religion holds that much suffering is the result of human choices, not Divine will:
Whatever good happens to you is from Allah; whatever evil happens to you is from yourself. (Qur’ān 4:79)
By granting free will, God allows human beings to act morally, and, unfortunately, immorally. Eliminating evil entirely would also eliminate the very freedom that gives our actions, choices, and beliefs their value. In removing that freedom, we would also remove the potential for love, virtue, and authentic worship.
Suffering as Trial and Purification
Religion does not deny suffering; rather, it gives it meaning. Suffering acts as a trial, which in Islamic theology, for instance, is referred to as Ibtilā’, meaning that it is not a divine punishment but an opportunity for growth, purification, and elevation. The Prophet ﷺ taught that even the prick of a thorn can be a means for a believer’s sins to be forgiven (Bukhārī). The concept of Ṣabr (patient perseverance) transforms adversity from senseless pain into a form of spiritual excellence.
- The Hereafter
Perhaps the most glaring omission in the Epicurean paradox is the complete absence of the Hereafter. If one assumes this world is all there is, then suffering becomes absurd. But in Islam, this life is but a prelude to an eternal reality where full justice will be established. The Qur’ān assures:
Whoever does an atom’s weight of good will see it, and whoever does an atom’s weight of evil will see it. (Qur’ān 99:7-8)
The lives of the Prophets, especially that of Prophet Yūsuf (as), demonstrate this point vividly. He was betrayed by his own brothers, enslaved, and then imprisoned on purely concocted allegations. His suffering was sheerly unjust. Yet, through each hardship, Allah was orchestrating a greater purpose. In the end, Yūsuf himself acknowledged:
Indeed, my Lord is Subtle in what He wills. (Qur’ān 12:100)
Without an eternal framework, much of this remains inexplicable. But once the Hereafter is considered, the paradox loses its force. Every injustice will be righted, every loss restored, and every moment of suffering rewarded beyond measure.
Beyond the Paradox, Toward Meaning and Trust
When placed in its proper context, the Epicurean Paradox does not expose a contradiction in the idea of a just and merciful God. It exposes the limits of a worldview that cannot see beyond the temporal and the immediate. Islam offers a holistic response grounded in the recognition of divine wisdom, the reality of human agency, the moral and spiritual function of suffering, and the certainty of ultimate justice.
We may not fully understand every instance of pain or injustice, but we are given a framework that reassures us it is not without purpose. Where the Epicurean logic ends in despair or doubt, Islamic theology invites reflection, growth, and trust in a God who is Wise, Just, and infinitely Merciful.
With this, we conclude our series on suffering.
Next: Why Does God Need Our Worship?
Dr. Nazir Ahmad Zargar is a scholar of Islamic Sciences and Philosophy, and Comparative Religion, currently working on a comprehensive book addressing atheism from an Islamic perspective. He is a Faculty at the Department of Religious Studies, Central University of Kashmir.
