Right there are deistic conceptions of God, such as Spinoza's, whose god is not concerned with humanity, or anything else, at all.

You may be right about a return to Catholicism. Interest in gods or gods does not seem compatible with Buddhism though. I think the real struggle is with the notion that some kind of intellectual insight has been lost in modernity. I don't find that idea remotely supportable—I think it stems from a yearning for the magical, the magical and otherworldly which science, and critical reasoning has shown to be nothing more than superstition.

The huge market for fantasy literature shows that this yearning is still well and truly alive and kicking. I think we all still may enjoy a good fantasy. For some fantasy has apparently supplanted truth.

Like this

You don’t. My family were from an anglican backround but were not religious.

Sounds like some ancient Hebrews kvetching (bitching in the way only Hebrews do) to their hotel manager about their accomodations — Hanover

They were ‘crying out’ to the Lord, but actually talking to Moses, weren’t they?

You don’t. — Wayfarer

Cheers. I stand corrected.

I think the real struggle is with the notion that some kind of intellectual insight has been lost in modernity. — Janus

Yet what is it that was supposedly lost?

The god botherers have taken to posting en masse; a symptom of something... but what?

Yet what is it that was supposedly lost?

The god botherers have taken to posting en masse; a symptom of something... but what? — Banno

There are so many problems we now face, and solutions seem to be unlikely because of humanity's incapacity for globally coordinated action. Despair leads to searching for answers somewhere other than in this world, which can seem, given certain mindsets, to offer so few, I guess.

I don't think the crisis is one of a loss of meaning, but rather one of too much meaning, much of it trivial and much of it threatening and what there is of value perhaps seems to those who are after easy explanations like a return to tradition, to take too much effort and discipline and critical thought to pursue.

They were ‘crying out’ to the Lord, but actually talking to Moses, weren’t they? — Wayfarer

I suppose they were complaining to the front desk clerk expecting it to get relayed to the manager.

I don't think the crisis is one of a loss of meaning... — Janus

Is there such a crisis? Sure, @Wayfarer says there is, but the crisis seems on analysis to be just that folk disagree with his view.

So, what's the muted spiritual crisis? How do we know there is a crisis?

As I said I think the crisis, if there is one, consists in too much meaning, too much choice and too much trivia, coupled with too many looming real-world crises: environmental, military, economic, political and so on.

So yes, I agree there is no crisis of meaning as such, if that is meant to assert that loss of traditional meanings constitute a crisis. I think that idea is arrant nonsense and is also elitist considering the low levels of literacy in the past, and how the masses were in thrall to supposed religious authorities. That is what religion is really about—control.

I suppose they were complaining to the front desk clerk expecting it to get relayed to the manager. — Hanover

To good effect, considering what happened next.

to short-circuit the Free Will Defense at this point, we can simply limit the suffering in question to the so-called natural evils -- disease, earthquake, accident, etc. What loving parent would do this to their children? "After all, life is supposed to be good, right?" No, this is the wrong point. God is supposed to be good. — J

That’s a fair challenge, and I agree it raises one of the most serious theological tensions in the Abrahamic traditions: the insistence that God is loving and good, and yet the world is filled with devastating suffering — especially natural suffering that doesn’t seem to arise from human choices.

But I would make two clarifying points in response. First, the original claim — that nowhere in the sacred texts is there a promise that life will be free of suffering — is an observation about the narrative structure of those texts. Christianity is not founded on the promise of earthly comfort, but on the fact of the crucifiction — a figure of suffering who shares in, rather than eliminates, the world’s pain. (Again, some gnostic heresies (so-called) dispute that, by saying that in reality Christ did not suffer at all.)

Second, I’d question the modern framing of divine love as analogous to human parental love. That may itself be part of the conceptual difficulty. We naturally imagine a “loving God” as a kind of celestial caregiver who would prevent harm, much as we would do for our own children. But traditional theology has often insisted that God’s love is not sentimental or merely protective — but is also wrathful (especially in the OT.)

Philosophiclly, I'm drawn to the Thomist view (and it's in the philosophical sense that I'm drawn, not so much the devotional side.) It doesn't attempt to explain suffering away, but accepts calamity an inevitable aspect of a finite, material world. For Aquinas, suffering and death are not evils in themselves, but aspects of a world in which things come to be, change, and pass away. That doesn’t make suffering good in the moral sense, but that the presence of suffering in nature is not evidence of divine malice. As folks like to say nowadays, it is what it is. It’s a view that offers philosophical clarity without diminishing the gravity of suffering itself.

If this life is all there is, I would find the idea of a loving God absurd, and would reject all the theodicies I've ever seen. — J

That, I think, is the consensus view in a secular culture. The nearest thing to eternal life that can be envisaged is interstellar travel, hence the popularity of the genre.

a self-sufficient being doesn't need to design a game of "struggle of lower beings to recognize X, Y, Z", and "learning their lessons through cycles of suffering". This just seems all too human.. — schopenhauer1

@goremand When it comes to omniscience, I'm unwilling to claim that I even understand what that means. I don't think it means that all of the content of what humans believe they know is known by an omniscient mind, in that it's feasible that what we think we know might be illusory and so not a real object of knowledge. Perhaps what we call real includes distorted cognitioins that only exist for us because of our limited perspective. The real object of knowledge is not the falsehoods we believe, but the truth that they veil.

Let us call this the Hotel Manager Theodicy. It holds God to account for the conditions of the world in the same way one might complain about bad service. — Wayfarer

Good OP. I agree. We see this sort of thing constantly.

Besides, nowhere in the sacred texts of East or West is there a promise that the world will be free of suffering. Quite the contrary. Christianity, for example, is founded upon the image of a crucified Saviour, who bore suffering for the benefit of all mankind². Buddhism begins with the recognition that life is inevitably marked by suffering (dukkha). These traditions are not surprised by suffering; they take it as the starting point of spiritual inquiry. — Wayfarer

Exactly right. Such critiques seem to be wholly ignorant of actual religious beliefs and traditions. They strike me as a kind of naive escapism which is not able to deal with or confront the fact of suffering. It is not a surprise that those who do not confront that fact know nothing about religion.

The irony with this OP is that the "Hotel Manager" analogy presented is not a theodicy, but a critique. A theodicy is an apologetic. — Janus

Yes, but like most trolls, Banno doesn't read posts, so it isn't a surprise that his response has nothing to do with the OP. Wayfarer is talking about the sort of critique of theism which presupposes that God is a hotel manager, and such a critique is not a theodicy. A theodicy is supposed to vindicate God in the face of such a critique.

such a critique is not a theodicy. A theodicy is supposed to vindicate God in the face of such a critique. — Leontiskos

Yes, that's right and that is why I pointed out that 'The Hotel Manager Theodicy' is a misnomer.

While the term 'theodicy' usually refers to attempts to justify God’s goodness in the face of evil, my use of the phrase Hotel Manager Theodicy was deliberately ironic: it criticizes a particular framing in which God is seen as a kind of cosmic service provider which I think misrepresents the metaphysical depth of classical theism and the spiritual traditions it emerges from.

When it comes to omniscience, I'm unwilling to claim that I even understand what that means. I don't think it means that all of the content of what humans believe they know is known by an omniscient mind, in that it's feasible that what we think we know might be illusory and so not a real object of knowledge. — Wayfarer

That's an interesting perspective, but it doesn't really address the point. The point is really just that it is impossible to improve upon a perfect and complete being, and therefore God can't possibly derive any benefit from creating the world. He can do if he wants to, it doesn't affect him either way, but it's still completely arbitrary.

He seems more of a Protestant to me. I vote Anglican, which by sheer blandness is a sure path to Sanātana Dharma.

Edit - sorry I just saw the response…

So, what's the muted spiritual crisis? How do we know there is a crisis? — Banno

I think it’s the usual footnotes to Nietzsche’s god is dead and we’ve lost our way… But the solution is different to N’s it tends to be to be a nostalgia project - back to theism or Neoplatonism…

The point is really just that it is impossible to improve upon a perfect and complete being, and therefore God can't possibly derive any benefit from creating the world. He can do if he wants to, it doesn't affect him either way, but it's still completely arbitrary. — goremand

In some senses, it's an adventure. According to the Alan Watts book I mentioned, and without wanting to sound flippant about a serious topic, God plays hide-and-seek with himself.

Well, any philosophical problem can be solved if you're allowed to re-conceptualize the terms involved as you like. But I don't understand why you're entitled to your "God-child" who plays hide-and-seek and goes on adventures, but others can't have their divine hotel manager.

I don't understand why you're entitled to your "God-child" who plays hide-and-seek and goes on adventures, but others can't have their divine hotel manager. — goremand

I recommend a read of The Supreme Identity, Alan Watts. He spells it out in considerably more detail than I am able to reproduce in a forum thread.

One of the formative books in my quest was Alan Watts' The Supreme Identity (although I don't know how well it has aged). But something I took from this book, is that the cause of suffering is a consequence of our mis-identification with who or what we really are. Because of this mis-identification - this is what 'ignorance' means - we fall into states of suffering, which can extend over lifetimes (or 'aeons of kalpas' in Indian mythology). Realising the 'supreme identity' is the seeing through of that illusory sense of identity, and the awakening to our true nature, which is somehow beyond death and decay. Of course, this is a motif that is found in many cultures (think Joseph Campbell and the Hero's Journey). You can find analogies for it in philosophies East and West. And I think seeing it in those terms (rather than just through the prism of inherited religious lore) gives it credibility, at least for me. So again, in analytic terms, the aim of the paths of liberation or enlightenment, is to come to know directly a higher intelligence - not theoretically, not dogmatically, but through insight, always hard won. And that awakening, or 'return to the source', is what is being alluded to through the various religious lores that have been handed down. That on that return, the being realises it's original identity as one with that source and beyond suffering (although each cultural tradition may have very different understandings of what that means.)

Christianity is not founded on the promise of earthly comfort, but on the fact of the crucifiction —a figure of suffering who shares in, rather than eliminates, the world’s pain. — Wayfarer

I agree, but I don't see how this gets God off the hook, so to speak. Why not have us all, God and Christ included, in a lot less pain?

the modern framing of divine love as analogous to human parental love. That may itself be part of the conceptual difficulty. We naturally imagine a “loving God” as a kind of celestial caregiver who would prevent harm, much as we would do for our own children. — Wayfarer

Jeez, I dunno. An impartial reading of the Gospels seems to show Jesus insisting that his Abba (Aramaic for "Daddy" or "Papa") is very much a loving parent as we would understand such a figure today. Sometimes stern, sure, but heartbroken in the face of suffering. And Jesus himself reproaches his father God for abandoning him on the cross.

I don't think the "modern parent" theory flies.

For Aquinas, suffering and death are not evils in themselves, — Wayfarer

So I understand. I'd file this under "the mysterious ways of God," as above. If being slowly tortured to death, or watching your son or daughter suffer the same fate while the guards laugh at you, is somehow to be justified as not "evil in itself," then clearly Aquinas is using a different and highly eccentric vocabulary, one which I can't pretend to understand.

the presence of suffering in nature is not evidence of divine malice. — Wayfarer

We don't need malice in order to defeat the theodicy. Indifference will do, and if you add in the fact that God designed the whole mess as well, I think "criminal negligence" would also be appropriate.

the crisis, if there is one . . . — Janus

This way of thinking, meaning no disrespect to @Wayfarer and others who've given it a lot of attention, seems like a litmus test of one's overall conceptual chemistry. The crisis one sees in "modernity" (another litmus-test word: what's that?) will reveal one's own take on how life and society ought to be organized. All I'm prepared to say with any assurance is that there is no crisis resulting directly from some intellectual moves that occurred in Europe in the 17th century. Not even the butterfly effect could make that plausible.

Again - how could existence be free from suffering? Predation is fundamental to organic life, disease inevitable, even before intelligent life develops, which still relies on predation and is subject to disease and accidents. So you're basically just repeating the same line: an expectation that if a Creator was truly benevolent, then suffering would not exist. And I think it's a false expectation.

As for the meaning crisis, it's an undeniable fact of modern existence. John Vervaeke expresses it in the foreword to his lecture series, Awakening from the Meaning Crisis, like this:

We are in the midst of a mental health crisis. There are increases in anxiety disorders, depression, despair, suicide rates are going up in North America, parts of Europe, other parts of the world. And that mental health crisis is itself due to and engaged with crises in the environment and the political system. And those in turn are immeshed within a deeper cultural historical crisis I call the meaning crisis. So the meaning crisis expresses itself and many people are giving voice to this in many different ways, is this increasing sense of bullshit. Bullshit is on the increase. It's more and more pervasive throughout our lives and there's this sense of drowning in this old ocean of bullshit. And we have to understand why is this the case and what can we do about it? So today there is an increase of people feeling very disconnected from themselves, from each other, from the world, from a viable and foreseeable future. — John Vervaeke, Awakening from the Meaning Crisis

Which part of that isn't true?

//that said, I can't really fathom Christian teaching about 'God's love', other than to think it must be a pretty tough love.//

So you're basically just repeating the same line: an expectation that if a Creator was truly benevolent, then suffering would not exist. And I think it's a false expectation. — Wayfarer

I agree that some suffering might be unavoidable, of the "my child's necessary operation" variety. What counts against God as a loving parent, I think, is the vast amount of gratuitous suffering, at least as far as we can fathom it. I think it was Kurt Vonnegut who asked, "Can't there just be less of it?" That doesn't strike me as a false or unreasonable expectation . . . if God really does love us.

And yes, the non-human world is full of suffering too, but God isn't supposed to be the loving parent of ants, on the Abrahamic account of things.

Which part of that isn't true? — Wayfarer

I have no idea. :smile: But, with respect, I don't think you do either. Let me turn it around: What would it take to falsify this statement?: "And that mental health crisis is itself due to and engaged with crises in the environment and the political system. And those in turn are immeshed within a deeper cultural historical crisis I call the meaning crisis." What sort of evidence would count decisively for or against this sweeping overview, to the extent that it could be declared simply true or false?

And yes, the non-human world is full of suffering too, but God isn't supposed to be the loving parent of ants, on the Abrahamic account of things. — J

But it's already been said that

Nature isn’t merely amoral; it’s grotesquely cruel and perverse by design — Tom Storm

Which to me suggests the question, does the perversity and cruelty of existence negate its worth altogether. Which again suggest nihilism.

And it also should be acknowledged that the most grotesque and needless forms of suffering to have been suffered by humans in recent history, has also been inflicted by them, in the form of world wars and military and political repression and conflict. Indeed, great suffering has been inflicted in the name of religions, but again whether that constitutes an indictment of a Creator is a different matter.

As to the suffering that is due to natural causes - the 2004 tsunami comes to mind as an example - how is that attributable to divine act? I'm sure there are those who would intepret it as such, and indeed they are sometimes referred to as 'acts of God', but whether they actually signify malign intent is the question at hand. I'm inclined to think not - the Thomist understanding, that they are an inevitable aspect of a contingent and imperfect world, still seems reasonable to me.

What would it take to falsify this statement? — J

The emergence of trends showing less mental illness, decreases in depression and anxiety, and a commitment to veracity in the political sphere.

Don't hold your breath!

Which to me suggests the question, does the perversity and cruelty of existence negate its worth altogether. Which again suggest nihilism. — Wayfarer

Not sure that would necessarily amount to nihilism—perversity and cruelty are value-laden terms, and many people actually find them galvanizing, even a kind of raison d’être.

And it also should be acknowledged that the most grotesque and needless forms of suffering to have been suffered by humans in recent history, has also been inflicted by them, in the form of world wars and military and political repression and conflict. Indeed, great suffering has been inflicted in the name of religions, but again whether that constitutes an indictment of a Creator is a different matter.

As to the suffering that is due to natural causes - the 2004 tsunami comes to mind as an example - how is that attributable to divine act? I'm sure there are those who would intepret it as such, and indeed they are sometimes referred to as 'acts of God', but whether they actually signify malign intent is the question at hand. — Wayfarer

Yes, those familiar examples are kind of boring. Far more damning is the design and creation of a world that uses death and pain as the engine of survival. That’s pretty twisted. A god might have engineered creation any way he wanted; creatures could have survived on water or light alone. But instead, he designed hunting, maiming, killing, and predation as the lingua franca of survival. None of this involves human sin or any other spurious theological cop-out.

I'm just exploring narratives here. As someone who doesn't believe in gods or ultimate purpose, these aren't facts I need to explain away.

'The Hotel Manager Theodicy' is a misnomer. — Janus

True enough.

And even on its own terms, the logic quickly becomes untenable. If suffering were to be eliminated, where exactly should the line be drawn? Is it enough that we only suffer head colds, not cancer? That no child is ever harmed, but adults might still endure misfortune? That natural disasters occur, but without casualties? — Wayfarer

The "hotel manager framing" speaks as if God's only purpose is to prevent suffering, and as you say, this sole-purpose-god can be invoked to remove any level of suffering, no matter how small. That's the oddity: the Copernican Revolution led to a cramped, anthropocentric worldview, where the removal of human suffering is the most important thing. The "god" of this worldview has but one job: remove suffering. The whole picture is self-directed rather than transcendent of self—curved in on oneself. Like going to the doctor day after day and demanding more painkillers. A diminished anthropology.

Not sure that would necessarily amount to nihilism—perversity and cruelty are value-laden terms, and many people actually find them galvanizing, even a kind of raison d’être. — Tom Storm

Ah. They like them.

Far more damning is the design and creation of a world that uses death and pain as the engine of survival. That’s pretty twisted. A god might have engineered creation any way he wanted; creatures could have survived on water or light alone. — Tom Storm

The Buddhist creation myth has it that sentient beings were originally composed entirely of light. At the beginning of each kalpa (a cosmic age), beings are reborn as luminous entities, often described as shining or radiant beings. These beings, called Abhassara, are said to be reborn from the Ābhāsvara Brahma-realm and initially lack physical form, moving through the aether like pure energy. They are also said to not require sustenance and possess great longevity. Over long periods of time, they become attracted to a sweet substance on the physical plane, and as they consume it, their bodies become heavier and more physical, eventually losing their luminous qualities and differentiating into two genders.

But instead, he designed hunting, maiming, killing, and predation as the lingua franca of survival. None of this involves human sin or any other spurious theological cop-out. — Tom Storm

I found this essay, in a book of essays by a US Zen teacher, provides quite a compelling account of the source of religious consciousness:

The animal world is a world of pure being, a world of immediacy and immanence. The animal soul is like “water in water,” seamlessly connected to all that surrounds it, so that there is no sense of self or other, of time, of space, of being or not being. This utopian (to human sensibility, which has such alienating notions) Shangri-La or Eden actually isn’t that because it is characterized at all points by what we’d call violence. Animals, that is, eat and are eaten. For them killing and being killed is the norm; and there isn’t any meaning to such a thing, or anything that we would call fear; there’s no concept of killing or being killed. There’s only being, immediacy, “isness.” Animals don’t have any need for religion; they already are that, already transcend life and death, being and nonbeing, self and other, in their very living, which is utterly pure.

(In his book, A Theory of Religion, George) Bataille sees human consciousness beginning with the making of the first tool, the first “thing” that isn’t a pure being, intrinsic in its value and inseparable from all of being. A tool is a separable, useful, intentionally made thing; it can be possessed, and it serves a purpose. It can be altered to suit that purpose. It is instrumental, defined by its use. The tool is the first instance of the “not-I,” and with its advent there is now the beginning of a world of objects, a “thing” world. Little by little out of this comes a way of thinking and acting within thingness (language), and then once this plane of thingness is established, more and more gets placed upon it—other objects , plants, animals, other people, one’s self, a world. Now there is self and other—and then, paradoxically, self becomes other to itself, alienated not only from the rest of the projected world of things, but from itself, which it must perceive as a thing, a possession. This constellation of an alienated self is a double-edged sword: seeing the self as a thing, the self can for the first time know itself and so find a closeness to itself; prior to this, there isn’t any self so there is nothing to be known or not known. But the creation of my me, though it gives me for the first time myself as a friend, also rips me out of the world and puts me out on a limb on my own.

Interestingly, and quite logically, this development of human consciousness coincides with a deepening of the human relationship to the animal world, which opens up to the human mind now as a depth, a mystery. Humans are that depth, because humans are animals, know this and feel it to be so, and yet also not so; humans long for union with the animal world of immediacy, yet know they are separate from it. Also they are terrified of it, for to reenter that world would be a loss of the self; it would literally be the end of me as I know me.

In the midst of this essential human loneliness and perplexity, which is almost unbearable, religion appears. It intuits and imagines the ancient world of oneness, of which there is still a powerful primordial memory, and calls it 'the sacred'. This is the invisible world, world of spirit, world of the gods, or of God. It is inexorably opposed to, defined as the opposite of, the world of things, the profane world of the body, of instrumentality, a world of separation, the fallen world. Religion’s purpose then is to bring us back to the lost world of intimacy, and all its rites, rituals, and activities are created to this end. We want this, and need it, as sure as we need food and shelter; and yet it is also terrifying. All religions have known and been based squarely on this sense of terrible necessity. ... — The Violence of Oneness, Norman Fischer (On the Motivation for the 9/11 Terror Attacks

Which to me suggests the question, does the perversity and cruelty of existence negate its worth altogether. — Wayfarer

I hope not. But the point about egregious suffering may well extend to non-human creation too. I was trying to give the Abrahamic God a break by only committing their parental love to humans.

As to the suffering that is due to natural causes - the 2004 tsunami comes to mind as an example - how is that attributable to divine act? — Wayfarer

Not at all, directly. But we have to remember that God is not imagined merely as some actor in the drama, who can be held innocent or guilty of the various plot developments. God set up the whole thing. It seems fantastic to say that it was impossible for God to allow a planet to develop as a home for his beloved children that didn't have tectonic plate shifts. I mean, why not, for goodness' sake? I could've done that! :wink: Must we insist this is the best of all possible worlds?

Don't hold your breath! — Wayfarer

Especially for that last item! (truthful politicians)

I don't have a big stake in any of this modernity stuff. I'm kind of temperamentally allergic to sweeping statements about society, so please forgive me.

God set up the whole thing — J

I'm sorry, I still don't think that is a fair assessment. It's a very Dawkins style depiction, God as a kind of cosmic film director, staging all of the action. I think it betrays a misunderstanding of the God that Dawkins doesn't believe in. A straw God, so to speak.

I could've done that! — J

Which is key to the whole thing.

I could've done that!
— J

Which is key to the whole thing. — Wayfarer

You do know I was kidding, right? I just meant that it doesn't seem like such a big ask, no earthquakes.

I'm sorry, I still don't think that is a fair assessment. It's a very Dawkins style depiction, God as a kind of cosmic film director, staging all of the action. I think it betrays a misunderstanding of the God that Dawkins doesn't believe in. A straw God, so to speak. — Wayfarer

(My own conception of God is not really as a being that "staged all the action.") I'm trying to stay true to the classic framing of a theodicy in the West, which conceives of God as omnipotent, omniscient, and all-benevolent. And I'm adding to that, the standard Abrahamic language of God as loving parent. If all of that is a misunderstanding of God, then the need for theodicy disappears, of course.

(My own conception of God is not really as a being that "staged all the action.") I'm trying to stay true to the classic framing of a theodicy in the West, which conceives of God as omnipotent, omniscient, and all-benevolent. And I'm adding to that, the standard Abrahamic language of God as loving parent. If all of that is a misunderstanding of God, then the need for theodicy disappears, of course. — J

It does disappear if your version of god is less benevolent sky wizard and more ground of being. Mind you, the Bible deosn't help as it depicts a pretty nasty deity who has no issues with slavery and genocide and behaves like a mafia boss, demanding deference and worship to sooth his seemingly fragile ego, so there is that. He is totally consistent with a creation that is redolent with grievous flaws and dangers.