Epicureanism and Stoicism
A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?” Others remarked, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. (Acts 17:18)
Although Athens had lost its earlier political eminence by the time of Paul’s visit, it remained the intellectual center of the ancient world. Four major schools of philosophy flourished there. They were the Academy of Plato (287 B.C.), the Lyceum of Aristotle (335 B.C.), the Garden of Epicurus (306 B.C.), and the Porch of Zeno (300 B.C.). Although we may assume that various philosophical viewpoints were represented, Luke explicitly mentions the “Epicurean and Stoic philosophers” (v. 18), who disputed with Paul. I will take time to summarize Epicurean and Stoic philosophies because they are mentioned here in Acts 17. Lamentably, we cannot also devote the space to explain the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle, as well as other philosophical traditions such as Skepticism.
Epicurus (340–270 B.C.) had adopted the atomic theory of the earlier Democritus (460–360 B.C.). The theory asserts that reality consists of indivisible material entities called atoms, moving through infinite empty space. Although the atoms themselves have no inherent properties, they combine in various ways to form objects that have differing properties.
One major motivation for Epicurus’ philosophy is to deliver man from his fear of death and of gods. Although the Epicureans formally affirmed the traditional Greek deities, these were seen as part of the materialistic and atomic universe, and irrelevant to human affairs. Because the gods were not interested in human affairs, belief in divine providence is considered superstitious, and religious rituals are worthless. We may call them deists; the Stoics considered them atheists, and indeed they were such in the practical sense.
Democritus taught that the atoms move in all directions through empty space, and it is easy to imagine how they would collide and cling to one another to form different combinations. On the other hand, Epicurus introduced the property of weight to the atoms, and asserted that they are constantly falling downward through empty space. But this generated the problem of how the atoms would ever collide with one another. Epicurus answered that, while falling, the atoms would at times swerve out of their straight downward path and collide with other atoms. He considered this theory successful in maintaining the metaphysical indeterminism, and thus the human freedom, that he desired in his philosophy.
Since everything consists of atoms, even the mind consists of atoms, and there is no soul that transcends physical reality. The atoms that formed a person are dispersed at death, and this committed Epicurus to a denial of immortality, so that he wrote in his Letter to Menoeceus, “When death is, we are not, and when we are, death is not.” Since there is no immortality, neither can there be a resurrection or judgment; therefore, it is irrational for man to fear death. Although the gods themselves are made up of atoms, because they “live in less turbulent regions,”[11] they are not subject to dissolution.
Since there is no afterlife, man should desire only the things of this life. For the Epicureans, pleasure is the highest good, and thus we may categorize their ethical theory as a form of hedonism. Nevertheless, Epicurus himself opposed the crude sensual hedonism of Aristippus (435–356 B.C.), who led a movement called Cyrenaicism and advocated the pursuit of bodily pleasures, living by the motto, “Let us eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we may die.”
Although Epicurus agreed that pleasure is man’s highest good, he made distinctions between various kinds of pleasures. Pleasurable experiences may be of differing intensity and duration. Although bodily pleasures may carry greater intensity, they often bring a measure of pain. For example, the pleasure that one obtains from gorging food is canceled out by the negative short-term and long-term effects that may result. The same may be said of the pleasure that one may derive from sexual promiscuity.
Therefore, Epicurus promoted the less intense but the safe and long-lived pleasures of the mind, such as having a conversation with a friend or admiring great art and literature. The general aim is to live a tranquil life. However, since the mind is not distinguished from the body, we are merely referring to different types of sensations, and not mental pleasures as distinct from physical ones. In any case, scholars suggest that by the time Paul visited Athens, the followers of Epicurus had adopted the crude sensual hedonism that the founder of their philosophy took great pains to avoid.
Contrary to Democritus, Epicurus affirmed the reliability of sensations. According to him, the bodies of the objects being observed throw off films of atoms that exactly conform to the shapes of the objects and make contact with the atoms of the soul of the observer. Since the films of atoms coming from the observed objects exactly correspond to the objects, sensations never convey false information, although he allowed that one might make false judgments on the basis of such sensations.
To summarize the philosophy of the Epicureans, in epistemology they were empiricists, in metaphysics they were deists, atomists, and indeterminists, in ethics they were hedonists, and they denied immortality, resurrection, and judgment.
Since Epicureanism is not our main topic, I will not offer a detailed refutation of this philosophy, but we may mention several points. In epistemology, there are numerous arguments and examples against empiricism; in metaphysics, the atomic theory and indeterminism are thoroughly arbitrary, and also unsustainable by their epistemology; in ethics, their theory cannot be formulated on the basis of their epistemology, and there is no authoritative reason to think that pleasure is the highest good. And if the Epicureans failed to establish their view of metaphysics, then their rejection of immortality, resurrection, and judgment were also arbitrary and without foundation.
Other arguments against Epicureanism are more involved, and therefore must be passed over at this time. For our purpose, it is relevant to note that, as with other non-Christian worldviews, Epicureanism is ultimately founded on mere human speculation. It is also relevant to note that many points in Epicureanism are strikingly similar in principle to some of the widely held beliefs of contemporary secularists and scientists, who are still unable to justify these beliefs.
The philosophical tradition of Zeno (340–265 B.C.) was named Stoicism because he had taught in the Porch, or the Stoa. Reading a book about Socrates had ignited Zeno’s passion for philosophy, and this led him to move to Athens. On his first arrival, he came under the tutelage of the Cynic Crates. His own philosophy would evidence the influence of Cynicism through his emphasis on self-sufficiency. Early successors of Zeno included Cleanthes and Chrysippus. Panaetius of Rhodes (180–110 B.C.) and Posidonius (130–50 B.C.; Cicero’s instructor) contributed to the establishment of Stoicism in Rome, and Roman Stoicism were given expression by Seneca (4 B.C. — A.D. 65), Epictetus (50–130), and the emperor Marcus Aurelius (121–180). To adequately summarize Stoic philosophy in several paragraphs is unrealistic, but we must make such an attempt without claiming to be exhaustive.
Probably inspired by Heraclitus (about 530–470 B.C.), the Stoics taught that at first there was nothing but eternal fire, from which emerged the elements that made up the universe. The world would eventually be consumed in an universal conflagration and return to fire, and the cycle of history will repeat over and over again. The Stoic view of history appears to preclude individual immortality, even if there seemed to be slightly different views on this issue: “They denied the universal and perpetual immortality of the soul; some supposing that it was swallowed up in deity; others, that it survived only till the final conflagration; others, that immortality was restricted to the wise and good.”[12]
The divine fire that permeates the whole world is a rational fire, and the logos or Reason that determines the course of the universe. Some people have the misconception that because Stoicism affirms that every event is determined by Fate, it therefore denies that there is purpose in history. However, since its logos is an intelligent fire, Stoicism can indeed affirm a teleological view of the universe. But then people confuse such a view with the biblical teaching on divine sovereignty. This is unnecessary. The Stoics were pantheists, so that their logos is not transcendent but immanent. In fact, “man’s reason [is] seen as being of a piece with the ever-living fire which permeates the world order,”[13] leading Epictetus to assert that there is a “spark of divinity” within every man. The universe, men, and even animals are all parts of God, and thus the Stoics were pantheists. God is the universe, and the universe is God. This is opposed to the biblical position.[14]
Since man is subject to the immanent forces of the world, he ought to live in harmony with nature. Since Reason permeates and governs the world, to live in harmony with nature is to live in conformity to rationality, and rationality is superior to the emotions. Everything outside of reason should be viewed with indifference, be it pleasure, suffering, or even death. Epictetus wrote that although man cannot control events, he can control his attitude toward events:
Since our bodies are not under our control, pleasure is not a good and pain is not an evil. There is the famous story about Epictetus, the slave. As his master was torturing his leg, he said with great composure, “You will certainly break my leg.” When the bone broke, he continued in the same tone of voice, “Did I not tell you that you would break it?” The good life, therefore, does not consist of externalities, but it is an inward state, a strength of will, and self-control.[15]
“Stoicism gave rise to a serious attitude, resignation in suffering, stern individualism, and social self-sufficiency.”[16] We are to demonstrate self-control, self-sufficiency, and emotional indifference amidst life’s situations. But if life gets too rough, Stoicism permits suicide.
Critics sometimes attempt to undermine the uniqueness of Christianity by pointing out its apparent similarities with Stoicism. For example, both worldviews emphasize “indifference” and control over the emotions. The typical reply against this is that Christianity does not share such an emphasis at all, not even on the surface, so it is often denied that Christianity teaches emotional indifference and control. However, these attacks and replies are both misguided, and betray an ignorance of both Stoicism and Christianity.
One example comes from Philippians 4:12, where Paul writes, “I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want.” On the surface, the Stoics may have agreed with this statement, and the word “content” is indeed the Stoic word for indifference. Scripture does not allow the emotionalism encouraged by many contemporary believers, whose opinions on this issue are formed more by modern psychology than by biblical theology, so that they advocate the free expression of one’s emotions without regard to the biblical teaching on self-control and inner transformation.
However, verse 13 makes all the difference: “I can do everything through him who gives me strength.” Christianity indeed teaches spiritual, emotional, and social self-sufficiency, without rejecting the legitimacy of community; however, this self-sufficiency is only relative to other human beings, and not to God, so that we are always in need of him. The verse indicates that the Christian’s inner power is linked to a conscious affirmation of Christianity and dependence on God. This God is not a pantheistic immanent rational fire that is part of the universe, but a transcendent rational mind that is distinct from the universe and that is the creator of the universe. God is not in the universe; God made the universe. He is immanent in the sense that he chooses to exercise his power in human and natural affairs, but he is not part of this creation, nor is he bound to it. And contrary to Stoic philosophy, no matter how difficult our lives get, there is no justification to commit suicide.[17]
This difference is not superficial but fundamental and essential, since it is based on a view of metaphysics that contradicts the Stoic view of metaphysics. Christianity teaches a God who is both transcendent and immanent — metaphysically aloof but makes himself near by what he does — who makes distinctions between individuals, who regenerates some and not others, who makes decisions and effects communications, and who strengthens his people so that they may overcome the world. The Christian’s inner resources come from God, who is distinct from the Christian himself, while the Stoic sought to achieve absolute self- sufficiency, and not the relative self-sufficiency of the Christian. We overcome the world and fulfill our purpose not by our own human strength, but by the power of God, which so powerfully works in us (Colossians 1:29). Therefore, although there may be superficial similarities between Stoicism and Christianity, in reality these similarities have behind them fundamental and irreconcilable differences between the two worldviews.
Besides what has been stated above concerning their metaphysics and ethics, the Stoics had developed detailed theories on epistemology. They held to a form of empiricism, but not the Epicureans’ naïve acceptance of sensation. In any case, both Epicureanism and Stoicism failed to provide a constructive epistemology that makes knowledge possible, although skepticism is not an option because it is self-contradictory.
Despite apparent similarities that may confuse the uninformed, Stoicism and Christianity are opposed to each other concerning every ultimate question. In epistemology, again, the Stoics were empiricists, in metaphysics they were pantheists, in ethics they held to a view of reason and virtue very different from Christianity, and they denied immortality, resurrection, and judgment.
Like the Epicureans, their philosophy is arbitrary, inconsistent, and founded on mere human speculation. One writer thinks that the Stoics have their counterparts in contemporary pantheists and followers of New Age philosophy.[18] Although it may appear to be so, and it may be true in a sense, this assertion must not be pushed too far. Present-day pantheism and New Age philosophy often do not have developed theories of logic and ethics based on which we may make comparisons with Stoicism. Nevertheless, there are philosophers today who claim to have inherited the Stoic tradition.[19]
Bringing our attention back to Acts 17, it is important to keep in mind that Paul’s audience consists not only of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers, although these two groups are referred to by name (v. 18), but the crowd also includes other people, probably of various philosophical persuasions. Verse 17 says that Paul speaks about the gospel “in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there,” and verse 21 indicates that the audience includes “the Athenians and the foreigners.”
Due to the intellectual background of Athens, it would not be surprising to find representatives of Platonism, Aristotelianism, Skepticism, and other perspectives in the audience. We may assume that there are differences of opinion even among the Epicureans and the Stoics. Adherents to the various schools of thought often made major modifications to the philosophies of their founders, so that Frederic Howe is justified in saying that there is a “rather broad spectrum of vantage points on hand.”[20]
Because the audience consists of people representing different philosophical traditions, not every point in Paul’s speech will apply equally to each hearer. For example, although Paul refers to the Athenians’ rampant idolatry and an altar to an unknown god to form a point of departure for his speech, the Epicurean philosophers had wanted to remove what they perceived to be superstitious devotion to the gods. Thus Lucretius rejected the Athenians’ appeal to the “unknown gods.” Nevertheless, Paul’s choice of this point of departure for his speech is appropriate. As Howe writes, “Doubtless the predominant group of hearers included bystanders and those who enjoyed hearing the exchange of ideas often presented there.”[21]
Therefore, we must keep in mind that Paul is addressing a diverse group of people with diverse philosophies and perspectives. It follows that we should not expect every detail of his speech to apply with equal force to every person in the audience. However, a major point of this study, and with it comes a major insight for apologetics, is that by the time he is done, Paul would have offended and contradicted every non-Christian present — not on superficial issues, but on the most fundamental level and on every major philosophical subject.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
¹¹ Anthony Kenny, A Brief History of Western Philosophy; Blackwell Publishers, 2001; p. 85.
¹² Marvin R. Vincent, Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. 1; Hendrickson Publishers; p. 539.
13 Greg L. Bahnsen, Always Ready; Covenant Media Foundation, 2000; p. 242.
[14] Christians should not be disturbed that biblical writers sometimes use terms employed by non-Christian philosophy. In such instances, they never intend to accept the pagan view of things, but rather use the same terms to make apparent a contrast against the non-Christian positions. Examples of such contrasts include John’s use of the logos in John 1 and Paul’s teaching on self-sufficiency in Philippians 4.
[15] Gordon H. Clark, Ancient Philosophy; The Trinity Foundation, 1997; p. 308.
[16] Bahnsen, Always Ready; p. 243.
[17] See Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Philippians, Godliness with Contentment, and “The Secret of Contentment” in Reflections on First Timothy.
18 Life Application Bible Commentary: Acts; Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1999; p. 300.
[19] Lawrence C. Becker, A New Stoicism; Princeton University Press, 1999.
[20] Frederic R. Howe, Challenge and Response; Zondervan Publishing House, 1982; p. 41.
[21] Ibid., p. 41.
— Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations (2010), p. 20–26.
Copyright © 2010 by Vincent Cheung
http://www.vincentcheung.com
Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION. Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved.
