Epicureanism is indeed hedonistic. It seems Stoic because it emphasizes the "avoidance of pain" part of the equation moreso than that "attainment of pleasure," but this does not make it Stoic. Rather, Epicurus thought it made it efficient. For him, a great many sources of pleasure simply caused more trouble than they were worth. He thus concluded that it was easiest to maximize pleasure in most situations not by positively seeking it out, but by avoiding pain.** The result in practice looks Stoic, but it is not.
It is possible that Mr.Andrews raises a number of valid, philosophical contentions with Dr.Zacharias's work; however, he has, at the very least, mishandled Epicureanism. For this reason, I suggest perusing the range of other reviewers before making a judgment upon this volume based on its purported technical merits or flaws.
________* At the time of this review, the volume possessed a mean rating of 3.5; my four star rating is an attempt to reinforce, rather than disturb, this mean (unfortunately, I am stuck rounding to the nearest integer).
**Take a look at Leucippus' _De_Rerum_Natura_ for an interesting application of this doctrine to marriage. The Epicurean suggestion: Sex is just fine, but you had better not get emotionally attached. This is to be taken quite literally; in fact, Leucippus' volume gives the reader a range of suggestions for falling out of love in the "unfortunate" event that one has let his or her guard down and fallen into it!
